New Battlemech Movement Behaviour - Feedback
#421
Posted 04 July 2013 - 06:39 PM
#422
Posted 04 July 2013 - 07:30 PM
#423
Posted 05 July 2013 - 01:45 AM
Viktor Drake, on 04 July 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:
well I think that's the point a good pilot would know to jump before they hit the incline for max flight, and it makes seance that if you don't have any forward momentum you aren't going to get far. it would help a bit if you got lift faster, and didnt louse so much forward moshion once you lifted off, and the speedometer was acret to how fast you were moving threw the air.
Edited by Frost Lord, 05 July 2013 - 01:49 AM.
#424
Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:01 AM
John MatriX82, on 03 July 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:
In all that was necessary to keep the game going to a better direction like:
-working fix for boating (PPCs/LRMs in particular), nope heat penalty won't do it, you must prevent using hardpoint restrictions or tube restrictions for missiles and srms
-weight matchmaking (or dropship limiter whatever)
-Worthless SRMs (I find amusing how it's good to think about a nerf like this and bumping 0.5 of damage on these requires so much hard thinking)
-CT-only hitting SSRMS (happening by months)
-Worthless pulse lasers
-Worthless LBX 10
-HSR that forces you to aim in a silly way in order to actually place shots (because your position for the server isn't sync'd with what you see in your client)
-DX 11 lack
-Absurd mech scaling (QD as big as an Highlander, TBT nearly taller than assaults, without thinking about the worthlessness of the Awesome, Catapult bigger than a Stalker, Dragon should be looked onto as well)
-worthless artillery/air strikes
-HBK still with the aiming shifted south or north whatever (since closed beta!!!!), its engine rating is too low now
-no true arm lock toggle (give us a REAL toggle key -> toggle means i press it once it forces off, i press it twice it stays on forever)
-DHSs not working as they should (or in general heat issues/balance)
-Seismic being a death sentence to brawling and too effective/high in its resolution
-Lack of collision system by months and months
-Capwarrior on very large maps (introducing a primary objective to be achieved in order to unlock the base cap after it, is such a bad idea?)
-Third person view incoming
-And many other things that now don't come out of my mind
So.. You chose to destroy movement. I do seriously hope some tweaks for this system will be put in place asap, because it's plain stupid not to be able to steep on things that are tall as your feet in an assault or in a heavy that has fallen into the "big ones" category just because you scaled it plainly wrong.
Having some jumpjets doesn't even help, since if you lose forward momentum you can get stuck in no time 10 centimeters below a little ridge or curb and JJ's only lift you upwards without allowing a minimum forward trust in order to actually employ them for the purpose they could help with this behaviour.. Oh dear mechs do have a knee joint or what?!
Probably the speed momentum gets lost too easily, but reaching a complete halt in no time makes me wonder if mechs are using crutches instead of articulated ankles and legs.. Tweak this system to a better degree. I hope you'll do. With this implementation, most of the actual maps aren't absolutely working or they weren't created to be compatible with the latest patch movement behaviour AT ALL.
In these months you focused on giving MGuns a way to live, ECM got back to a more balanced iteration, fixed jumpsniping (latest patch allows it a little but it's not as useful as it was before, since you need to expose more), and did other good things (alternated with tremendous breakouts like with LRMs), but this is by far the worst idea you had. I keep wondering if you devs actually even bother playing your own game and today I read you're readying up for launch in September for real.
If so I wish you good luck. And I wish to bear this patch, adapt to it as I did with HSR back in April and keep playing to see this game succeding, because the will to say hello it's rather high now even though I like mechwarrior, I like many things I saw in this game and I've been playing it basically without any interruption since my join time back in the CB times.
I'm SO glad I found the Phoenix packs totally unattractive because you can't pick up your fav mechs like you could with the Elite Founder..
Pretty much. sums it up. *maybe* issue a quick hotfix?
I do think that the ppc/ac2's/lrm's/new sounds are way too loud in comparison to everything else
#425
Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:29 PM
Credit where credit is due it is a VAST improvement. It makes for a much more immersive environment and goes a small way to helping the smaller weight classes. It also makes Canyons a really interesting game, but also Caustic - it is way harder to ridge camp and I'm seeing a lot more 'pushes'.
So good job PGI, also good job on coming up with something genuinely unexpected and well designed that makes the game feel more like a SIM. Now all you need to do is get rid of cool-shot, put PPC heat back to where it should be and un-nerf SRMs. Then lower your MC price so it isn't stupidly expensive and I might think about actually playing some more...
#426
Posted 05 July 2013 - 07:24 PM
Gaden Phoenix, on 04 July 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:
Yes. Yes it was. Do you not know that PGI is out to get us. They troll this forum, feeding off our pain and suffering. Our rage and torment. Our lost hopes and destroyed dreams.
On the other hand, if you do not know, we are their testers. Congratulation on finding a bug. Now! report it and wait many many weeks for them to fix it.
Yes. Yes you are trolling the forum. Quit being a condescending jerk.
No one here is saying PGI is out to get them. We're simply pointing out the flawed application of their movement mechanics. This is a "NEW BATTLEMECH MOVEMENT BEHAVIOUR FEEDBACK" forum..... that means we are going to give positive and negative feedback in various forms.
Get over yourself.
Jungle Rhino, on 05 July 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:
Credit where credit is due it is a VAST improvement. It makes for a much more immersive environment and goes a small way to helping the smaller weight classes. It also makes Canyons a really interesting game, but also Caustic - it is way harder to ridge camp and I'm seeing a lot more 'pushes'.
So good job PGI, also good job on coming up with something genuinely unexpected and well designed that makes the game feel more like a SIM. Now all you need to do is get rid of cool-shot, put PPC heat back to where it should be and un-nerf SRMs. Then lower your MC price so it isn't stupidly expensive and I might think about actually playing some more...
Vast improvement if you're piloting lights strictly. Particularly with jump jets. I'm regularly getting 500-600 damage matches with my Spider since the change as I have even MORE of an advantage than before in the maneuverability aspect. Sure! It's great for me as I like playing my Spider. I'll tell you this much though.... a LOT of people are not happy with it.
I made some suggestions in an earlier post and am not going to rehash them. I like what PGI is attempting to do, improving the movement and trying to make it more realistic (no more Atlases climb up the 70-80 degree slopes in Alpine). At the same time, they botched it with an overly aggressive application. So, one step forward, one or two back. They're managed to fix other issues from the past, and I have faith they'll improve this one as time goes one.
#427
Posted 05 July 2013 - 07:31 PM
#428
Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:23 AM
However the way the Mech's move now i am not a fan of. The way they get stopped by running into a small rock to me is kinda annoying. The ability to climb up a ridge to engage enemies below you was awesome, now you have to walk a mile to get into the battle, which sucks if you have a assault class mech. Will i get use to this, in the long run yes. But i really think this might scare away new people from playing this game.
#429
Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:00 AM
Viktor Drake, on 04 July 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:
The jump jet system I proposed in December of last year (back when a single jump jet was giving everyone full jump capacity) would have worked great for this type of situation.
Edited by DirePhoenix, 06 July 2013 - 09:05 AM.
#430
Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:48 AM
In principle I totally agree with what you did. Mechs skating up and down hills was fairly ridiculous, and we all knew that there would have to be some responsiveness to terrain added before launch. But this is taking things overboard in the other direction. Not only is the gradient sensitivity too high (you tend to go from full speed to dead stop with very, very little wiggle room in between), but as I mentioned above, you frequently get hung up on terrain that a machine with articulated legs should be able to navigate easily. That's the reason mechs have legs in the first place, and not wheels or tracks. Hell, whatever is stopping you may not even be VISIBLE in many cases. I have already lost track of how many times I've jumpjetted up a cliff and gotten stuck on the edge of it when I land.
Even worse is that there is no consistency to what terrain will cause problems and what won't. Some steep inclines are still navigable, while many gentle hills are proving completely impassable.
So yes, this addition was badly needed, but for god's sake dial it back so movement isn't crippled.
Edited by Sable Phoenix, 06 July 2013 - 10:49 AM.
#431
Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:30 PM
Draecos, on 05 July 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:
Its a vast improvement when piloting mediums and heavies as well.
#433
Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:05 PM
#434
Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:29 PM
Now about alpha strikes and HSR failing...
Edited by Sudden Reversal, 06 July 2013 - 10:40 PM.
#435
Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:31 PM
After spending some time playing post patch, and running into the issue at hand (getting stuck on small objects and terrain) a thought occurred to me. In order to fix this problem we don't need to change anything regarding the angle or speed, but rather introduce a new system to run alongside it. Basically what I propose is that each chassis be given a maximum 'step' height where angle doesn't matter if the object is small enough. Meaning those pesky little bumps on the road are no match for taller mechs with bigger strides. Essentially if the object is below the 'knee' (or maybe a bit lower) the mech should clear it with ease.
Thanks to those who bothered to read. Very sorry for the state of this post, it's being written from a mobile device.
#436
Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:33 AM
If we take the example of failed speed of the awesome 8 series, I would expect to be able to climb hill much easier with a 300 then a with 250.
Maybe a add a multiplier to increase the time before full stop. (base on max engine size for chassis)
For example on AWESOME 8 series:
250 engine should have a multiplier of 1*(sec before full stop)
300 should be at 1.5 * (sec before full stop)
225 should have a multiplier of 0.75*(sec before full stop )
200 should have a multiplier of 0.50*(sec before full stop )
#437
Posted 07 July 2013 - 05:49 PM
Larger Mechs have lower speeds, there is not need to further penalize mechs which are already slow. If lights are dropping too easily, put the actual speed in game back up like it should be. 150km/h feel like a crawl now, and it by no means should.
#438
Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:05 PM
All those awesome drop-down ganks... gone forever...
Thanks PGI.
#439
Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:43 AM
Viktor Drake, on 04 July 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:
This would be great and about the only change I would like to see, a mild push in the throttle direction while boosting, with perhaps a little less velocity bleed. Directional JJ would be awesome, but impossible with the current control scheme.
#440
Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:23 AM
However, there are definitely a couple of places where seeming very small bumps in the terrain would cause my or other mechs to "stick" and be unable to move. It would be nice if the height as well as the slope could be factored into movement restriction.
Still, the change is a good one and if it stayed the way it is I'd be fine with it.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users