75 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Tennex, on 27 June 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

if they are simulating physics what about a speed up for going down a slope.

doesn't make sense to have one without the other

Actually... For any bipedal mechanic there is a fairly abrupt speed limit reached while descending a decline... We have to restrict / brake our stride lest we fall on our pudgy faces.

We don't have linear acceleration on a decline unless we are sporting wheels...

[MaddMaxx]

Tennex, on 27 June 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

if they are simulating physics what about a speed up for going down a slope.

doesn't make sense to have one without the other

Agreed. And if your momentum is such, you crash and burn at the bottom of that slope, when you let your speed get to high.

Doesn't make sense to have one without the other LOL!

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 June 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[One Medic Army]

This looks to drastically improve several of the maps.
Also think about the current sniping positions, a large number of them will now be impassable, or difficult to get to without jumpjets.

Not to mention anything which detracts from the ability of mechs to get up hills is an indirect buff to Jumpjets.

[ManDaisy]

Yes, finally a use for jumpjets other then poptarting.

[FrDrake]

MaddMaxx, on 27 June 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Agreed. And if your momentum is such, you crash and burn at the bottom of that slope, when you let your speed get to high.

Doesn't make sense to have one without the other LOL!

Mechs already accelerate beyond their normal top speed when sliding down slopey cliffs. Have you never seen an atlas slide down the tall mountain in alpine? It's like he's on a slip and slide into a brick wall because he suddenly stops at the end of the slope and takes little to no fall dmg. Makes him impossible to shoot until he's done sliding too because when he's going to stop isn't so apparent.

[DaZur]

Thontor, on 27 June 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

technically, they are slowing things down... when climbing up slopes

Oh you!... Your so puny!

[MaddMaxx]

Bagheera, on 27 June 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Actually, this bit right here is quite telling:

[/font][/color]

So a 70 ton mech and a 45 ton mech are considered mobility equivalents? IMO: This sort of explains quite a bit about why mediums are in the state they are in.

You did note that ALL of them are humanoid walkers right? Where did the Chicken walkers end up?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 June 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[wulfsburg]

FrDrake, on 27 June 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Mechs already accelerate beyond their normal top speed when sliding down slopey cliffs. Have you never seen an atlas slide down the tall mountain in alpine? It's like he's on a slip and slide into a brick wall because he suddenly stops at the end of the slope and takes little to no fall dmg. Makes him impossible to shoot until he's done sliding too because when he's going to stop isn't so apparent.

This is a very important thing to note. It is a mechanic that is used in a way that I find to be exploiting the poor coding of physics.

This is indeed very exciting to allow lights and mediums better survivability and ambush tactics, thus making them less fodder and better strategic pieces.

As mentioned, this gives JJ a viable use.

Bring on the 12v12 soon enough and you will get my 80 bucks PGI.

[mike29tw]

Could it be? PGI fixing lights and mediums in one patch??
lol a man can dream.

The caldera in Caustic Valley is becoming even more dangerous, as entrances and exits are now fixed. Only lights or JJ capable mechs can traverse it with ease now. Interesting.

[Gallowglas]

Olivia Maybach, on 27 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't mind this, but it's gonna be a learning curve for a bit!

Just as long as it's not more than a 45 degree angle of ascent up that curve

P.S. I like the changes. This is the sort of balance tweaking that will help to justify piloting smaller mechs.

[Trauglodyte]

I think that a lot of people missed one VERY huge change with this:

Quote

In addition, I should also note that running into an actual vertical wall reduces the mech's forward movement considerably, so you will no longer have the ability to navigate by perpetually bumping into stuff.

That is a pretty big change to game play in and of itself.

[Acid Phase]

Olivia Maybach, on 27 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't mind this, but it's gonna be a learning curve for a bit!

Dennis de Koning said:

If you have trouble remembering what areas are navigable while in game, make a rhyme.
Alpine for example: "If it has rock on it - you can't walk on it; if it has snow on it - you can go on it"
Now you will never forget!

Edited by Acid Phase, 27 June 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[FrDrake]

Trauglodyte, on 27 June 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

I think that a lot of people missed one VERY huge change with this:



That is a pretty big change to game play in and of itself.

Yep, a light that smacks into a wall is now a much deader light than before, make people actually have to pay attention where they're going is a great addition.

[DragonsFire]

mike29tw, on 27 June 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Could it be? PGI fixing lights and mediums in one patch??
lol a man can dream.

The caldera in Caustic Valley is becoming even more dangerous, as entrances and exits are now fixed. Only lights or JJ capable mechs can traverse it with ease now. Interesting.

I was thinking the same thing. Glad I just finished out my QKD's, might be time to give my Jenners a chance to stretch their legs once again.

[Fuzzbox]

This is a huge improvement to the game!
However I don't really agree with the different 'Mechs agility, I'd suggest PGI takes a second look at Sarna before finalizing this. Also please leave room for quirks.

Yay for this! (Dang, just realized I don't have any JJs)

[DaZur]

FrDrake, on 27 June 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yep, a light that smacks into a wall is now a much deader light than before, make people actually have to pay attention where they're going is a great addition.

Actually "any" mech that walks into a wall ... ala' Wolfenstein3D wall strafing will stop dead in their respective tracks...

[Kevin Meek]

Regarding posts on why 'Mechs with heavier in-game tonnage can find themselves in a smaller archetype:

In addition to the movement for slopes, those archetypes are also consolidating the Mech vs world collision capsules.

Before this system, each 'Mech would have its own pill-shaped collision proxy fitted for its rough shape, making a ton of different 'Mechs get stuck in slightly different locations. Now, with 5 capsules, we can design levels for specific collision capsule sizes, and find/fix stuck bugs much easier.

For that reason, the 'Mech archetypes looked at grouping relative size (height, length, and width) as its main consideration. Because of the extra big shoulders of the missile boxes, and the very long nose, the catapult would need to be in a larger capsule category than the heavier Cataphract. I don't think that you'll find the movement abilities between two neighboring archetypes so substantial that it would be effectively nerfing or giving substantial advantages to any 'Mech that seems out of order due to its assumed weight but smaller frame. Especially with engine speed and momentum of lighter 'Mechs still being factored in (read: a slow moving Cataphract in a smaller movement archetype is going to probably still have a harder longer time than a faster moving Catapult at climbing any substantial hill).

That being said, it's easy enough to switch some 'Mechs into a different archetype or to tune the climb angles for any archetype if needed. I don't forsee any issues with the current grouping but you don't have to worry that things are 100% set in stone as far as grouping or angles are concerned.

Triple clarification: Collision capsules for 'Mechs here are just referring to 'Mech vs. world collision, each 'Mech still has its own unique collision proxys for 'Mech vs. weapon.

edit: fixing super f'd up formatting from c/p'ing.

[Jern]

Kevin Meek, on 27 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Regarding posts on why 'Mechs with heavier in-game tonnage can find themselves in a smaller archetype:

In addition to the movement for slopes, those archetypes are also consolidating the Mech vs world collision capsules.

Before this system, each 'Mech would have its own pill-shaped collision proxy fitted for its rough shape, making a ton of different 'Mechs get stuck in slightly different locations. Now, with 5 capsules, we can design levels for specific collision capsule sizes, and find/fix stuck bugs much easier.

For that reason, the 'Mech archetypes looked at grouping relative size (height, length, and width) as its main consideration. Because of the extra big shoulders of the missile boxes, and the very long nose, the catapult would need to be in a larger capsule category than the heavier Cataphract. I don't think that you'll find the movement abilities between two neighboring archetypes so substantial that it would be effectively nerfing or giving substantial advantages to any 'Mech that seems out of order due to its assumed weight but smaller frame. Especially with engine speed and momentum of lighter 'Mechs still being factored in (read: a slow moving Cataphract in a smaller movement archetype is going to probably still have a harder longer time than a faster moving Catapult at climbing any substantial hill).

That being said, it's easy enough to switch some 'Mechs into a different archetype or to tune the climb angles for any archetype if needed. I don't forsee any issues with the current grouping but you don't have to worry that things are 100% set in stone as far as grouping or angles are concerned.

Triple clarification: Collision capsules for 'Mechs here are just referring to 'Mech vs. world collision, each 'Mech still has its own unique collision proxys for 'Mech vs. weapon.

edit: fixing super f'd up formatting from c/p'ing.

Kevin ... everyone appreciates all of the work being done, and for that I can not thank you guys enough (well I keep buying stuff so I guess that is thanks enough). But, you have to realize the collision categories places extra emphasis on issues that people area already not happy about .. such as the retaliative size of the Quickdraw. It will be viewed as a balance issue when it comes to slope speed advantages to certain mechs. It is like tossing gasoline on a fire. Good luck explaining it to the satisfaction of the masses!

[Rat of the Legion Vega]

Kevin Meek, on 27 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

For that reason, the 'Mech archetypes looked at grouping relative size (height, length, and width) as its main consideration.

Yet more evidence the Stalker is undersized compared to all the other assaults. Why take a catapult as a missile platform when the Stalker has the exact same slope mobility but way more armor, way more missiles, no vulnerable head hitbox etc. etc.

Fix the Stalker after you're done fixing slopes and formatting, pls.

[MeatForBrains]

Kevin Meek, on 27 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Regarding posts on why 'Mechs with heavier in-game tonnage can find themselves in a smaller archetype:

In addition to the movement for slopes, those archetypes are also consolidating the Mech vs world collision capsules.

Before this system, each 'Mech would have its own pill-shaped collision proxy fitted for its rough shape, making a ton of different 'Mechs get stuck in slightly different locations. Now, with 5 capsules, we can design levels for specific collision capsule sizes, and find/fix stuck bugs much easier.

For that reason, the 'Mech archetypes looked at grouping relative size (height, length, and width) as its main consideration. Because of the extra big shoulders of the missile boxes, and the very long nose, the catapult would need to be in a larger capsule category than the heavier Cataphract. I don't think that you'll find the movement abilities between two neighboring archetypes so substantial that it would be effectively nerfing or giving substantial advantages to any 'Mech that seems out of order due to its assumed weight but smaller frame. Especially with engine speed and momentum of lighter 'Mechs still being factored in (read: a slow moving Cataphract in a smaller movement archetype is going to probably still have a harder longer time than a faster moving Catapult at climbing any substantial hill).

That being said, it's easy enough to switch some 'Mechs into a different archetype or to tune the climb angles for any archetype if needed. I don't forsee any issues with the current grouping but you don't have to worry that things are 100% set in stone as far as grouping or angles are concerned.

Triple clarification: Collision capsules for 'Mechs here are just referring to 'Mech vs. world collision, each 'Mech still has its own unique collision proxys for 'Mech vs. weapon.

edit: fixing super f'd up formatting from c/p'ing.

Ask the Devs #39
Prosperity Park: Are there any longer-term plans to add a Deep Water penalty to the movement speed of Mechs traveling through significantly-deep water?
A: We’re adding some new movement code that will make mechs behave more realistically when traversing rolling terrain. Once in, we can examine adding water friction if we feel it will add a benefit to gameplay.