522 replies to this topic

[Solis Obscuri]

And the Victor is going to be less mobile than a Stalker? FFS! You're making the agile/brawly assaults that comes stock with a scant 11.5 tons of armor less mobile than a PPC-vomiting phallic monstrosity that appears to be fabricated from a decommissioned boomer?

[tuffy963]

This is a good addition to game mechanics. Overall, I think it will add to MWO tactics and intrigue. Having said that...

My initial criticism (based on the information provided) is the same as it has been for Sensors/ECM, hardpoints, and virtually every other feature implemented to date... The new mechanic has been overly abstracted. The use of "tiny, small, large, and huge" as a categorization system for determining mech performance on an angled slope is terribly simplistic for a game that claims to be a simulator. These broad "rules" are more inline with the game mechanics used in the original table top game. In that game, simple systems like these are a boon as it allows players to remember "rules of thumb" and conduct manageable calculations to so the game can move forward and players do not require a calculator to play.

In a 21st century video game, these oversimplified systems seems kludgy and generic. Can someone at PGI with a math degree, and a passing interest in physics come up with something a bit more robust than this?

As one simple example... How about designing a "climb rating" for each mech chassis that is based on a power-to-weight ratio? This "climb rating" could also take into consideration overall tonnage, engine rating, and the individual chassis suspension characteristics of each mech chassis. This "climb rating" (Today's tanks have a similar rating for angle of slopes they can climb) could define maximum climb angle, maximum speed at any given angle. This rating could be assigned to each mech chassis/variant in the store and dynamically calculated in the mech lab as customizations are made to a mech by each player.

A more nuanced system would allow for some interesting additional game play choices like....

• Mech chassis with unique characteristics could have quirks that increase or decrease their "climb rating" (reversed joints, low center of gravity, clawed feet, etc)
  
• Add another interesting variable into mech design calculus. As an example, players choosing to install larger in engines in mech (and sacrifice weapons weight) to allow mechs to increase their "climb rating"
  
• Mechs chassis that allow larger than average engine ratings have additional value as "map climbers"

I can only assume that PGI adheres to some core value about adhering to the original TT mechanics (and it's simplicity). This would explain why we keep seeing these overly simplified systems being installed in MWO. I understand that this "traditionalism" has some value to endearing the loyal Battletech/Mechwarrior community to MWO, but taken too far and we get watered-down video game experience that lacks the complexity befitting a simulator. Worse, MWO cannot retain the interest of a sophisticated player base that is looking for some really unique mechanics in their game play.






I look forward to this implementation to provide a more informed opinion....

Edited by tuffy963, 27 June 2013 - 03:58 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I am posting this here, as it's relevant information:

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.

[Takony]

Heh, less hill humping for you!
Also JUMP JETS LALALALALALALALA
Poor Atlas, Awesome, Stalker ... hmm, now the Victor, albeit fugly, looks more interesting!

[WhiteRabbit]

hmm..well i did a few test-runs in my brawler-atlas
and actually it seems like most places that are off limits now because i'd get fried by snipers will then be simply inaccessible..so no big change there

[Scout80913]

Overall, I am very excited about the new mech movement behavior; hoping it will bring some much needed value to lights/mediums in terms of usefulness/flexibility on the battlefield.

I do share some of the concerns posted here about how mechs were placed into the various categories. I am hoping that, as this moves forward, Devs will look at this closely and use it as an opportunity to mitigate some of the advantages certain chassis have and open some doors to other chassis which have previously been maligned, so long as players are intelligent enough to take advantage of those opportunities.

Edited by Scout80913, 27 June 2013 - 02:13 PM.

[Victor Morson]

A change I like is refreshing. This is cool by me.

I hope this is something the map design team looks at playing with, I'd like an area of "rough terrain" that lights can pass over, but heavy 'mechs cannot.

ED: I do dislike, a little, how this is based on size and not tonnage. I'd prefer a raw tonnage system by far.

Edited by Victor Morson, 27 June 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[Vasces Diablo]

Prosperity Park, on 27 June 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

I am posting this here, as it's relevant information:

I don't know what communication channels you have available to you as an volunteer moderator. But if you do have any kind if a direct line to the powers that be, could you ask them to paste that explanation in the command chair post.

Thanks

[TheCaptainJZ]

Are you going to adjust maps to improve mech movement? It looks like with all the impassible locations that jump jets will be mandatory to move on almost any map. You will need to add ramps and adjust slopes in several areas or people are going to be so frustrated because they simply can't figure their way around or get pinned in by enemies. Navigation will be a lot harder if you make no slope changes whatsoever.

[Lefteye Falconeer]

I welcome these changes. Good job!

But.

But Jagermech in "medium" group and Catapult in "Large" group? No. No. And more no.

[FuzzyLog1c]

This is a great feature, but the speed penalty shouldn't ramp linearly--it should ramp exponentially. Right now, the speed penalty is far too harsh at small-to-moderate angles above the critical "slow-down" angle.



The way that Mechwarrior implemented speed penalties due to climbing was a nod to the fact that more engine power is required to climb hills (read: counteract the downward force of gravity). At the "you shall not pass" angle, the game suggested that the mech had lost traction, or doesn't have enough leg actuator mobility to pick up its feet high enough. There was no implication that the engine had conked out.

[Bagheera]

Prosperity Park, on 27 June 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

I am posting this here, as it's relevant information:

Moving my response to the official thread. (also, thx for that)

Bagheera, on 27 June 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Thank you!

So is it safe to say that the "World Collision Capsules" and their categories don't have an impact on Accel/Decel/Turn Rate/Twist and other attributes not dependent on (but perhaps later influenced by) terrain?

In your example, it's possible for a Cataphract and a Catapult to have identical (or at least near as makes no difference) speeds - has any internal testing played out similar scenarios?

Again, love the change, going to do wonders for a couple of the maps. Just interested in the mechanics behind it - mostly the scope of these size categories.

[Digs]

TheCaptainJZ, on 27 June 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

Are you going to adjust maps to improve mech movement? It looks like with all the impassible locations that jump jets will be mandatory to move on almost any map. You will need to add ramps and adjust slopes in several areas or people are going to be so frustrated because they simply can't figure their way around or get pinned in by enemies. Navigation will be a lot harder if you make no slope changes whatsoever.

I totally agree with this statement, I'm worried people are going to have to walk miles before any combat happens on maps like Canyon as most of it is inaccessible. Alpine Peaks is going to be a nightmare without the ability to walk over the ridgelines and mountains so it will increase the chance that Mech blobs will miss each other and end up in bland capping wins. I'll see what the actual affect is but I do have my doubts that this will make the game better.

[Jabilo]

tuffy963, on 27 June 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

This is a good addition to game mechanics. Overall, I think it will add to MWO tactics and intrigue. Having said that...

<snip>

I hear you.

First of I am really positive about the changes, so well done! Should add depth and tactical choice to the game and I am all for that...

However I like Tuffy's post. Having 5 arbitrary classes seems simple, but will actually be harder to grasp by new players because it is non logical.

Tuffy's idea where climb rates are based upon chassis tonnage and installed engines and calculated dynamically in Mechlab may seem more complicated - but is actually easier to grasp because it is based upon good internal logic.

If you have a slow *** assault mech that can not climb for toffee - you should be able to improve that metric by installing a bigger engine. This gives you a tactical choice, because bigger engines weigh more and restrict other equipment.

The size of the mech will still make a difference, because it is a dynamic calculation based upon weight and engine.

Lighter mechs will still be inherently better in this regard than larger ones, but you will be able to have some influence to a certain degree. Influence equals meaningful choice, which equals depth, which equals long term fun.

This is how it should be done.

But yeah, I am looking forward to giving it a try.

Also, jump jets need to be buffed in terms of mobility - much higher and longer jumps and the ability to manoeuvre in mid air.

This can be balanced by greater heat generation.

What I mean is you can do a huge jump leap out of a canyon and tactically reposition yourself.

However greater heat generation will mean you can not immediately fire your weapons without first dissipating this heat.

It will make jump jets crazy fun and tactical but not overpowered.

Edited by Jabilo, 27 June 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

You know whats great?

PPC Stalkers get a double nerf, one for PPC heat alpha's AND one for not being able to hill up anymore.

And yet the Cataphract and Highlander get off scott-free. Todays been a good day.

[Tennex]

FuzzyLog1c, on 27 June 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

This is a great feature, but the speed penalty shouldn't ramp linearly--it should ramp exponentially. Right now, the speed penalty is far too harsh at small-to-moderate angles above the critical "slow-down" angle.



The way that Mechwarrior implemented speed penalties due to climbing was a nod to the fact that more engine power is required to climb hills (read: counteract the downward force of gravity). At the "you shall not pass" angle, the game suggested that the mech had lost traction, or doesn't have enough leg actuator mobility to pick up its feet high enough. There was no implication that the engine had conked out.

I thought it was weird they made it linear. I guess forced/unatural would be the word?

gonna take this guy's word for it. though i'm sure theres plenty of graphs on the internet with function of angle to climbing speed/effort

maybe PGI wants to do some research and find out how things actually move when going uphill. seems very easy to plug a more realistic function into their currently linear formula. i'm sure these functions can be found on the internet somewhere from peopl ewho have done these studies.

Edited by Tennex, 27 June 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Digs, on 27 June 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I totally agree with this statement, I'm worried people are going to have to walk miles before any combat happens on maps like Canyon as most of it is inaccessible. Alpine Peaks is going to be a nightmare without the ability to walk over the ridgelines and mountains so it will increase the chance that Mech blobs will miss each other and end up in bland capping wins. I'll see what the actual affect is but I do have my doubts that this will make the game better.

The whole point is forcing a shift in tactics. Slow assaults and heavies will have their place, but swifter, more mobile 'Mechs become more prominent. Certain major terrain features that gave many snipers their edge are suddenly difficult or even impossible to access changing their ability to deal damage at range. You want to get to the fight you have to bring more engine and jump jets and fewer weapons. Simple as that.

[Bloody Moon]

I want to express my concern about the balance between the mechs. Using the size as a baseline of these modification is problematic.
For example the Stalkers do not need another advantage and the Quickdraws and Catapults need no more disadvantages either, they already have plenty.

[Jetfire]

TheCaptainJZ, on 27 June 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

Are you going to adjust maps to improve mech movement? It looks like with all the impassible locations that jump jets will be mandatory to move on almost any map. You will need to add ramps and adjust slopes in several areas or people are going to be so frustrated because they simply can't figure their way around or get pinned in by enemies. Navigation will be a lot harder if you make no slope changes whatsoever.

The day of the scout has arrived. They will be able to find the enemy and pathfind for you and you will actually care that you have a scout on your team.

[Tennex]

malibu43, on 27 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Imagine running as fast as you can on flat ground. Now imagine putting that same "effort" (ie - run as fast as you can) down a 45 degree slope. Will you run faster? Hmmm... you might get to the bottom of the hill faster, but you'll probably have screwed up a knee, ankle, broken a bone, and probably rolled a good part of way down. You'll probably have to move down that hill slower than you would on flat ground to maintain the same stability.

IMHO, the same slow down should apply to going down that applies to going up. Anything greater than 45 degrees should result in a slip and fall damage.

I think in real life people walking down a hill do slow down, to maintain control and balance.

But i think its a little strange to be considering that in this game. I mean i have never seen an atlas fall down a hill and not land on its feet.