Jump to content

- - - - -

New Battlemech Movement Behaviour - Feedback


522 replies to this topic

#141 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,746 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:05 PM

I think the Cataphract and Catapult should be the same, swap the Quickdraw and the Cataphract. Also swap the Stalker and Victor. Just guessing there, but it seems to make more sense.

#142 Nidhoggr

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 44 posts
  • LocationSTL, USA

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:08 PM

A definite improvement. Hats off on this one. This should have huge tactical repercussions and I'm liking it. I think people are going a little overboard with worrying about the slowdown classes here. Most of the mechs that seem out of place (i.e. the Quickdraw) are jump jet capable mechs, hence the penalty incurred by moving the QD up a class is effectively neutralized by the fact that it can jump over such inclines to begin with in many settings, while the Dragon would be out of luck if they were in the same slowdown class on the same terrain. As it stands, the Dragon's slowdown class advantage puts it on better footing (you can laugh here) with the Quickdraw. So to me, when you factor in JJs, I think the divisions seem fair.

#143 BlueSanta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 373 posts
  • LocationUS

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:12 PM

Please fix the freaking scale of the Quickdraw so that it falls into the Medium category like it should.

I hope that next you are able to implement a movement penalty for water/high water.

#144 Zwd

    Rookie

  • 4 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:13 PM

People seem to be making mountains out of molehills. The overall change is a good one. It makes terrain a factor as no mech (even a light) will be able to run up a vertical wall. You will have to use jumpjets and/or paths. The added terrain factor will make strategy more important because you can have choke points and ambushes. It also makes scouting a bit more important.

To the people angry about Quickdraw being in the category it in... You are silly. The Quickdraw has jumpjets, use them. It is also very tall and will be able to shoot over a lesser incline.

To those worried about Stalkers it seems they have explained that they did a height, width, length assessment and came out with a reasoned method. At either 20%, or 25% capable, it still is severely limited. The taller mechs will be able to see over their inclines better than squat mechs, which is probably why some of the short mechs are in a category with a higher incline capability. Regardless, I am sure it will be tweaked as time goes along.

The thing I am worried about is that the time limit on the larger maps may make for more stalemates. Nothing more boring than repeated stalemates.

Edited by Zwd, 27 June 2013 - 03:14 PM.


#145 SJ Osiris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:18 PM

The terrain climbing in this game seemed off to me. My only MechWarrior experience was in MW:LL and how the terrain was handled there felt more realistic or better handled from a game standpoint, in that mountain climbing was neigh impossible. I also liked the forceful JJs from that mod much more. The terrain restrictions are a move in the right direction, but it seems this will only make a legitimate brawler atlas(my favorite) all the more useless. I can now get into range of enemy ppc platforms in any match without taking damage, though this is by using methods that will now be restricted. Nonetheless, a brawler atlas was already rendered null by seismic sensors and erppc meta. I feel that after this I will have to adopt the Highlander as my new assault platform if I wish to continue tipping the scales of victory in my teams favor.

#146 Gamgee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • LocationCanadia's Royal Reservation

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:24 PM

Keep it up, and I might get Project Phoenix yet. This is a step in the right direction. Earn my money.

#147 scJazz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationNew London, CT

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:24 PM

Great and welcome change! Thanks!

#148 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:32 PM

I approve of this change.

Thanks for putting it in, it will in all likelihood make the game better (and lights will get back some of the maneuverability advantage they by all rights should have).

#149 Mokou

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 417 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:41 PM

Gooooood~ would only add inverse kinematics and it will be hyper good.

#150 Kiiyor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 5,565 posts
  • LocationSCIENCE.

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:52 PM

Awesome.

I will be very, very interested to see the strategic ramifications of this - mayhap larger mechs will have to really work to get their fat, PPC toting bodies into commanding positions over the battlefield, unless they are jump-jetted.

Lights and mediums may be able to rely more on finesse than luck in surviving. Interesting.

#151 tuffy963

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 208 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:52 PM

Riddle me this, Batman...

Why does a 60T mech have the same movement characteristic on angled surface as an 80T mech (read Quickdraw and Awesome)? What law of physics is this tenant simulating? Seriously, when did volume start to dominate an object's ability overcome gravity and get traction on a slope. 80T mech should have a harder time getting up the hill than the 60T mech. PERIOD.

Am I crazy here? It seems much more logical that engine power and weight should be the defining characteristics, not physical size. Read my earlier post for more on this...

Further, I am a bit disappointed to see the Quick Draw in the "Large" mech category as it implies that the PGI team intentionally made the Quick Draw larger than other 60, 70, and 80 Ton mechs. This is disappointing to me because there dozens of threads and comments since the last patch (at PGI request) providing feedback about how the QD is too large... and not a single post from PGI saying "We did that on purpose." As one of the people who provided some of that earnest feedback that the QD was visually too big, it is kind of a bummer for me to have reverse engineer the truth from another thread, than just get some good ole' fashioned feedback from PGI on their logic for sizing their mechs and when they decide to "jumbo" one over another.

Edited by tuffy963, 27 June 2013 - 03:54 PM.


#152 Zanathan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:57 PM

Am I the only one who isn't fussed about this? I hope they didn't have to spend a significant amount of time and resources to getting this implemented.

#153 Kreisel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 466 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:00 PM

This makes for kind of a round about buff to jump jets as well. With the nerf to poptarting and this I think JJ are coming more into line where they should be. An improvement in tactical maneuverability around the map. A big advantage as to the paths you can take, vantage points you can reach and how quickly you can get from one place to another when terrain is in the way. Highlander JJ are going to be a notable edge over the Atlas in more the way it should have been and not just 'can poptart'

#154 ilikain

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 67 posts
  • LocationSacramento, Ca.

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:02 PM

I am happy with these changes, it will definitely add to the tactical choices before a during a match.

As other have said, Stalker should be Huge, maybe that category should just be changed to "ungainly." Seriously, look at that blimp!

I am fine with the Quickdraw being large, every variant available has JJs available to it. If you are not installing at least one, you are seriously doing it wrong.

The one thing I am sadden about is that my Cent is limited in movement due to no JJs. :( But, maybe in 20 years they will introduce the CN9-D9 variant! :)

A module I can see would be for mechs with clearly articulated hands (Cents left hand! :rolleyes:) that grants another 10% (15% with G exp upgrade) vertical movement. I would pay for that.

#155 DoktorVivi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 239 posts
  • LocationWyoming

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:02 PM

Oh man, this could be so huge for making more interesting combat.

#156 Bunko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • LocationJapan

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:03 PM

Look forward to this.

#157 Lord Psycho

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • 177 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:09 PM

so the Frozen City Ridge will have less of that "watch as I peek over with my ECM atlas" ..or that ECM atlas charge.....gives it more time to die on that ridge....

but in Forest colony...is the rest of caves even traversable with this? or all of it for that matter.....

#158 LackofCertainty

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:09 PM

Sounds like a good change. Hope that this also removes (or at least mitigates) the slippery slopes, where your mech will slide around on steep slopes.

#159 carl kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 395 posts
  • LocationMoon Base Alpha

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:11 PM

This is very encouraging and stepping...no pun...in the right direction of realism. Now please Dial the realistic graphics back up where they were before in the closed beta and I will plunk down more cash in the future.
Ck

#160 pesco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,008 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:14 PM

Great stuff.

This is the kind of thing to implement on day one.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users