522 replies to this topic

[Disapirro]

Haitchpeasauce, on 27 June 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I like these changes. Will bring a new dynamic to maps that will be good.

But, is a light mech is impeded by a slope in the land, but not impeded by being partially or fully submerged in water?

PGI, I challenge you to run through a river and tell me you can manage the same speed as on dry land.

Its WIP

[Damon Howe]

Xenroth, on 28 June 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

I would do it like that,

Tiny: 20-25 Tons, so any Mech below 30 tons
SlowdownAngle: 40°

Small: Any Mech between 30-45 tons
SlowdownAngle: 35°

Medium: Any Mech between 50-60 tons
SlowdownAngle: 30°

Large: Any Mech between 65-80 tons
SlowdownAngle: 25°

Huge: Any Mech with 85+ tons (85-100)
SlowdownAngle: 20°

Here's how I figured it worked.

Jenner (35 tons) vs Raven (35 tons)

Why is the Jenner Tiny and the Raven (and cicada) small? Both have the same size and profile, but...

Chicken legs.

Think about it. When moving forward, a Jenner with regular legs is bringing its foot behind the mech then moving it up and forward. The chicken legged Cicada and Raven, however, are moving their legs simply up and forward (without moving it behind them first) which, theoretically, would give the Jenner more leg clearance on steeper slopes.

Catapract v 'Pult v Jager v Quickdraw

This ones pretty difficult, but it includes 2 factos:

1) Chicken Legs
2) Mech profile

The 'Phract and 'Pult both have chicken legs. However, the 'Phract is a hunchy profile, arms hanging low to the ground, which would place its center-of-gravity lower as well. By contrast, a 'Pult has two hulking weapons pods above its cockpit, throwing its center higher. Though 10 tons more, the 'Phract would likely have an easier time climbing a slightly higher slope then the higher center-of-gravity 'Pult, who's a bit more top-heavy and likely to slip or fall backwards.

Jager v Quickdraw

Again, all about profile and balance. Look at the Quickdraw's large upper torso. Even though its 5 tons less then the Jager, it's upper body is proportionately larger then its legs when comparing it to the Jager. The Jager's boxy design is actually fairly balanced, and would make for a slightly easier time going up hills by comparison (the quickdraw also has JJ's, remember that!)

Finally, the Stalker.

Why not huge? Chicken legs, check. High center of gravity, check.

Again, take a look at its profile. That nose is freaking HUGE.

And a Huge weight at the front of the mech will make for an easier time climbing hills, as it'll have a smaller chance of falling backwards vs the upright Atlas. Think about it, the bulk of the weight leaning forward on the mech....yea I think you can understand that.

This has been an episode of Howe's Help Corner. Thank you for reading.

[Disapirro]

xengk, on 27 June 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Looks like a good update and will change the way many of the map are played.

However, does the Dev have some kinda tools to track frequent path traveled by players?
This way if the new update cause undue bottleneck or long routes, then the Dev can see for themselves without having to sort through tonnes of qq thread about map.

The point of this is to alter the current routes, create bottlenecs and longer routes if you don't take the time to scout. Kinda sorta makes it a strategic decision to commit your troops.

[Disapirro]

I think I speak for all spider pilots in saying this change is F - ING AWESOME!

Kmieciu, on 27 June 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Movement penalties should be tied to mech weight, not mech size.

Really, do you think a person of small stature, and say a chimpanzee, should have the same climbing ability?

[Xenroth]

Damon Howe, on 28 June 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Here's how I figured it worked.

Jenner (35 tons) vs Raven (35 tons)

Why is the Jenner Tiny and the Raven (and cicada) small? Both have the same size and profile, but...

Chicken legs.

Think about it. When moving forward, a Jenner with regular legs is bringing its foot behind the mech then moving it up and forward. The chicken legged Cicada and Raven, however, are moving their legs simply up and forward (without moving it behind them first) which, theoretically, would give the Jenner more leg clearance on steeper slopes.

Catapract v 'Pult v Jager v Quickdraw

This ones pretty difficult, but it includes 2 factos:

1) Chicken Legs
2) Mech profile

The 'Phract and 'Pult both have chicken legs. However, the 'Phract is a hunchy profile, arms hanging low to the ground, which would place its center-of-gravity lower as well. By contrast, a 'Pult has two hulking weapons pods above its cockpit, throwing its center higher. Though 10 tons more, the 'Phract would likely have an easier time climbing a slightly higher slope then the higher center-of-gravity 'Pult, who's a bit more top-heavy and likely to slip or fall backwards.

Jager v Quickdraw

Again, all about profile and balance. Look at the Quickdraw's large upper torso. Even though its 5 tons less then the Jager, it's upper body is proportionately larger then its legs when comparing it to the Jager. The Jager's boxy design is actually fairly balanced, and would make for a slightly easier time going up hills by comparison (the quickdraw also has JJ's, remember that!)

Finally, the Stalker.

Why not huge? Chicken legs, check. High center of gravity, check.

Again, take a look at its profile. That nose is freaking HUGE.

And a Huge weight at the front of the mech will make for an easier time climbing hills, as it'll have a smaller chance of falling backwards vs the upright Atlas. Think about it, the bulk of the weight leaning forward on the mech....yea I think you can understand that.

This has been an episode of Howe's Help Corner. Thank you for reading.

Yeah maybe, but its logic vs game balance ... and I have to say I prefer game balance

[Little Details]

I'm in shock. I sorta knew this was coming, but looking at the red on the maps, it COMPLETELY changes how to play the game. I don't know if that's good or bad.

Jenner wolfpacks will be unstoppable on canyon. Even on caustic, there will be no more peeking over the crater.

I foresee lrm-armageddon again. Nothing but putls and stks with light spotters for a few weeks.

[DYSEQTA]

Niko Snow, on 27 June 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Tell us what you think of the Upcoming Movement Changes

AWESOME!

[AdamBaines]

As expected....they are making the product better step by step in releases :-) Amazing how the SDLC works :-) Thanks for the continued hard work PGI.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

When this goes live, they're going to need to put a notice in the front end ... this change is so big, that it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Buso Senshi Zelazny]

I really like these upcoming changes and hope they really change the game play dynamics.

But one thing is bothering me...

Has anyone else noticed that the ramp to the Upper Base in River City appears to have an impassable slope for a significant portion of its length?




The upper base is already hard enough to access, and the ramp that should make for the easiest access (in terms of movement) will actually be an impediment. From the map it looks passable along the left edge, however, if the entire ramp looks to have a consistent slope that is climbable to the user, but instead has an invisible wall on half of it then this is going to be incredibly frustrating. Maybe its an error in the coloring on the map. Have to wait to see the maps in action.

I know there is going to be a lot of "Why the %*&@ can't I climb this! I could before!" once this is implemented, which in most cases I am okay with because it deals climbing natural terrain that should impede movement. A paved road that is supposed to be one of the main access points to an important location of a map should not be an impediment.

One more thing. Once collisions and mechs falling over are back in the game, I think it would be neat to have a chance of your mech falling down if you attempt to go to fast down the slopes that are more than 45 degrees. Or maybe add maximum descent angles to each of the existing classes for slow down angle.

[Vasces Diablo]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 28 June 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

When this goes live, they're going to need to put a notice in the front end ... this change is so big, that it shouldn't be a surprise.

Agree, it really is amazing how many players never come to the forums. I was in a match in Canyons last night and started talking about how much this change would affect play on the map. Over half the players had no idea what I was talking about.

[Ragnar Darkmane]

Seems good. The change will help Catapults regain the spot of flexible Missile Support and sniping (except for the K2) that was completly taken away by superior Stalkers and Atlases. It'll enable them to do harassing on maps like Alpine and snipe from unexpected positions while Assaults (with exception of the Highlander) will be forced to do the meat-grinding they are supposed to do. It'll at least lessen the supreme dominance of Assaults. It also forces more brawls and less sniping and that goes a long way when it comes to reduce the PPC-spam setting we have right now. It'll also make LRMs more viable because on many maps with huge terrain differences like Canyon or Alpines it will be difficult for Assaults to provide long range support with direct fire weapons.

Edited by Ragnar Darkmane, 28 June 2013 - 07:41 AM.

[Xigunder Blue]

Ah yes. More realism in a sci-fi game. Everything you can think of getting nerfed so why not spend time and resources in nerfing the maps. Why not add pilot injury to nerf the skills from pilot lab? I must admit I wonder if they have a few programmers and designers working as a designated Nerf Squad. "We don't need no stinking fiction', lets do just science reality (more or less). Mech sim for the few not mech fun for the many. Sorry for the sarcasm but frustrating to see the effort of the company toward 'reality based?' game instead of fun based. Look at the posts, you will find a few who love this. Primarily, I do not care about the map angles, there is so much else the game needs. For example, just bought the Overlord package and now unable to access my account with the company to find out if the purchase was credited. Not even a button to click for 'My Account". Nice, disappeared just like the online count. Whats up PGI?

[Kharim]

Finally a change that rewards good piloting skills. Can't wait.

Xigunder Blue, on 28 June 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Primarily, I do not care about the map angles, there is so much else the game needs. For example, just bought the Overlord package and now unable to access my account with the company to find out if the purchase was credited. Not even a button to click for 'My Account". Nice, disappeared just like the online count. Whats up PGI?

So go and cry about it in other topic

Edited by Kharim, 28 June 2013 - 07:56 AM.

[Nunspa]

how is the STALKER not huge again?

also you should add a modifier for hands (as a mech can use them to clime better)

[hammerreborn]

Buso Senshi Zelazny, on 28 June 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I really like these upcoming changes and hope they really change the game play dynamics.

But one thing is bothering me...

Has anyone else noticed that the ramp to the Upper Base in River City appears to have an impassable slope for a significant portion of its length?




The upper base is already hard enough to access, and the ramp that should make for the easiest access (in terms of movement) will actually be an impediment. From the map it looks passable along the left edge, however, if the entire ramp looks to have a consistent slope that is climbable to the user, but instead has an invisible wall on half of it then this is going to be incredibly frustrating. Maybe its an error in the coloring on the map. Have to wait to see the maps in action.

I know there is going to be a lot of "Why the %*&@ can't I climb this! I could before!" once this is implemented, which in most cases I am okay with because it deals climbing natural terrain that should impede movement. A paved road that is supposed to be one of the main access points to an important location of a map should not be an impediment.

One more thing. Once collisions and mechs falling over are back in the game, I think it would be neat to have a chance of your mech falling down if you attempt to go to fast down the slopes that are more than 45 degrees. Or maybe add maximum descent angles to each of the existing classes for slow down angle.

I don't think thats the paved ramp, I think it's all the dirt around it, that kinda builds up like a giant wall. Similarly to the dirt surrounding the rest of the upper city base that is red. I'm more worried about the side access near the tunnel.

Edited by hammerreborn, 28 June 2013 - 07:59 AM.

[Disapirro]

Butane9000, on 28 June 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

Honestly reviewing it this is what they are. Tiny: Jenner, Commando, Spider SlowdownAngle: 40° Small: Raven, Cicada SlowdownAngle: 35° Medium: Blackjack, Centurion, Dragon, JagerMech, Trebuchet, Cataphract, Hunchback SlowdownAngle: 30° Large: Quickdraw, Stalker, Awesome, Catapult SlowdownAngle: 25° Huge: Atlas, Highlander, Victor SlowdownAngle: 20° And this is what they should be (changes in bold) Tiny: Jenner, Commando, Spider, Raven SlowdownAngle: 40° Small: Cicada, Blackjack SlowdownAngle: 35° Medium: Centurion, Dragon, Trebuchet, Quickdraw, Hunchback SlowdownAngle: 30° Large: Cataphract, Awesome, Catapult, JagerMech SlowdownAngle: 25° Huge: Atlas, Highlander, Victor, Stalker SlowdownAngle: 20°

Raven, really!?

[Disapirro]

Buso Senshi Zelazny, on 28 June 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I really like these upcoming changes and hope they really change the game play dynamics.

But one thing is bothering me...

Has anyone else noticed that the ramp to the Upper Base in River City appears to have an impassable slope for a significant portion of its length?




The upper base is already hard enough to access, and the ramp that should make for the easiest access (in terms of movement) will actually be an impediment. From the map it looks passable along the left edge, however, if the entire ramp looks to have a consistent slope that is climbable to the user, but instead has an invisible wall on half of it then this is going to be incredibly frustrating. Maybe its an error in the coloring on the map. Have to wait to see the maps in action.

I know there is going to be a lot of "Why the %*&@ can't I climb this! I could before!" once this is implemented, which in most cases I am okay with because it deals climbing natural terrain that should impede movement. A paved road that is supposed to be one of the main access points to an important location of a map should not be an impediment.

One more thing. Once collisions and mechs falling over are back in the game, I think it would be neat to have a chance of your mech falling down if you attempt to go to fast down the slopes that are more than 45 degrees. Or maybe add maximum descent angles to each of the existing classes for slow down angle.

Your actually circling the terrain and the ramp. Look just ever so slightly south in your circle and you will see the ramp is green.

[StonedDead]

I like this. Good call. This will go nicely with collision when it returns. I also think mechs should pick up speed when going downhill in a walk or run.

[MrMadguy]

Overall I like the idea, cuz I understand, that current state of moving physics in game is very poor.

1) But I also don't want balance to be futher shifted towards light mechs. They are invulnerable enough even now. I've got good hardware and relatively good ping, but it's still very hard to hit them. Sometimes one spider is running among whole of your team and lives longer, then my 100 ton Atlas, while being able to kill some mechs 1vs1. Futher increase of difference in speed/manoeuvrability may cause even more problems.

2) Also I don't like, when movement is not smooth enought. It's very frustrasing, when you constantly stumbling about something. And I think, that heavy mechs have enough problems with moving now. For example after playing Jager for some time, when I tryed Atlas my first time, it was so crappy experience. It has taken some time to use to constant stumbling about something.

So. here is my suggestion. Physics model should be even more realistical - climbing speed penalties should depend on your engine power. Something like real phyisics:

<Traction force> = <Engine power> / <Speed> - <Friction force> - <Gravity force>
<Acceleration> = <Traction force> / <Mass>

Where:

<Friction force> = <Friction coefficient> * <Mass> * 9,81
<Gravity force> = <Mass> * 9,81 * Sin(<Climb angle>)

So max speed will be achieved, when <Traction force> = 0, i.e.

<Engine power> / <Speed> = <Friction force> + <Gravity force>

And finnaly:

<Max speed> = <Engine power> / (<Friction force> - <Gravity force>)

What does it mean?
1) More weight you have - slower you moving. That's what we have now.
2) More angle you climbing at - lesser speed you have. That's what we want to achive.
3) But!!! More power your engine have - at bigger angles you may climb with the same speed!
What will it give us?
1) You won't stuck in situation, where you have assault mech and can't fix it's mobility some way, even if you really want.
2) Heavier engines will be more valuable, cuz they'll allow you not to just travel faster, but even to overcome more difficult obstacles.

Edited by MrMadguy, 28 June 2013 - 08:31 AM.