522 replies to this topic

[Master Q]

Did they even bother the slightest bit of playtesting of this change? Did even ONE of the developers ever fire it up and play a single round????????

[AndyHill]

Yes.

[Master Q]

I find that hard to believe when actual, obviously designed-in-place ramps and pathways in all the maps are now impassable due to this buggy, incredibly ill-thought-out change in movement mechanics.

[Hurnn]

great in concept, as usual asstastic in implementation and practice

[Victor Morson]

Master Q, on 13 July 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I find that hard to believe when actual, obviously designed-in-place ramps and pathways in all the maps are now impassable due to this buggy, incredibly ill-thought-out change in movement mechanics.

It really would be fine if they just dumped the dead stop stuff, and made the minimum reduction be 1-5 kp/h (or even, say, 10% max speed). I don't mind some terrain being rough to climb, but the old maximum angle was more than enough.

I have a feeling they've looked at the feedback and just went "lol it's great." It's what they always do with their ill thought out systems.

The only reason they push everything into these Comstar threads is to shut up the forum riot at Gameplay Balance, to not scare new people. There's no reason to have seperate Comstar Feedback & Gameplay Balance subforums at this point.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 July 2013 - 01:38 AM.

[Obelus]

When I first read what they were planning to do with changes to movement with different elevations my initial reaction was "why?" It stuck me as a prime example of fixing what wasn't broken....

And then breaking it.

Doesn't add anything to the game except heartache.

[Chronojam]

Sick of getting caught on minor bumps that I should either be stepping over or kicking through. Also dumbfounded that this gameplay/mobility change has been decided based on the art assets (e.g. the badly scaled model sizes for things like the Catapult, Jaegermech, Quickdraw, Stalker) instead of a mech's role or weight and, I dunno, balance considerations.

[MavRCK]

I think the max slope angle is too much.. try 60 degree or 75 degrees for awhile...

I feel like heavy and assault mechs are really struggling even with jumpjets

Obelus, on 15 July 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

When I first read what they were planning to do with changes to movement with different elevations my initial reaction was "why?" It stuck me as a prime example of fixing what wasn't broken....

And then breaking it.

Doesn't add anything to the game except heartache.

100% totally agree.

The momentum physics was more than enough as it was...

The game was really fun and had interesting escapes - ambush possibilities...

now all of that is GONE.

[Trev Firestorm]

Nope, the old system was pitiful, the new makes much more sense: the small rock/object problem is supposed to be fixed in the next patch (hopefully) which is the only broken part about the new system... I think people just don't appreciate how steep 45degrees/100%grade is. The new system allows for better ambush opportunities as your targets can't necessarily just run up the nearest cliff to get away. The fun has been mostly gone since the removal of collisions: no consequences for bad maneuvering choices. This should have been in the game from the start, it makes your navigation and positioning choices matter.

[Kalam Mehkar]

Trev Firestorm, on 15 July 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Nope, the old system was pitiful, the new makes much more sense: the small rock/object problem is supposed to be fixed in the next patch (hopefully) which is the only broken part about the new system... I think people just don't appreciate how steep 45degrees/100%grade is. The new system allows for better ambush opportunities as your targets can't necessarily just run up the nearest cliff to get away. The fun has been mostly gone since the removal of collisions: no consequences for bad maneuvering choices. This should have been in the game from the start, it makes your navigation and positioning choices matter.

This.

EVERYTHING should be a tactical decision in this game with consequences good and bad for making each decision. It's a 'mech SIMULATOR. I like the terrain changes they've made overall, just looking for smoothing out, tweaking, whatever you want to call it. I mean, we are playing as Beta players are we not? They implemented it and are now getting large volumes of metrics (and feedback!) that will allow them to make further changes. This is the direction they want to go, testing and the resultant feedback from testers (us) will help them make it better.

That's just my view of things. You're welcome to yours of course. But, remember, are you still playing the game after writing your post? I know I am.

-km

[Obelus]

Trev Firestorm, on 15 July 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Nope, the old system was pitiful, the new makes much more sense: the small rock/object problem is supposed to be fixed in the next patch (hopefully) which is the only broken part about the new system... I think people just don't appreciate how steep 45degrees/100%grade is. The new system allows for better ambush opportunities as your targets can't necessarily just run up the nearest cliff to get away. The fun has been mostly gone since the removal of collisions: no consequences for bad maneuvering choices. This should have been in the game from the start, it makes your navigation and positioning choices matter.

Except it doesnt allow for better ambush positions because I know where every mech is (thank you seismic) long before I ever get trapped. Even without seismic I never get surprised thanks to intel from team mates.

And collisions were always garbage and should never be reintroduced. You rub someone you should take damage...how much you take I'm willing to debate, but knockdowns will not work in this game.

Edited by Obelus, 15 July 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[RedwoodCoast]

This makes for a pitiful gaming experience. Have to spend hours figuring out where I can go in each map just to not be bothered with map navigation issues during battle. Not a fun game design at all. I an live with some things not being climbable, but really 45 degrees. Where's this number derived from for player fun????? Yeah. Your *** feature designer. Game design is about making the player make decisions constantly. Not trying to recognize terrain effects on **** the player has nothing bug visuals on or maybe not even that. Its stompy robots not impunged by the environment except for heat. Get back to that as a design premise.

[Trev Firestorm]

Obelus, on 15 July 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Except it doesnt allow for better ambush positions because I know where every mech is (thank you seismic) long before I ever get trapped. Even without seismic I never get surprised thanks to intel from team mates.

And collisions were always garbage and should never be reintroduced. You rub someone you should take damage...how much you take I'm willing to debate, but knockdowns will not work in this game.

seismic is a totally different issue, without it my point stands.

[MavRCK]

The more and more I play with this movement change, the more I feel that it is too restrictive on movement.

When I first played MWO I was so impressed by the movement and terrain interaction - I enjoyed the sense of momentum and the difference in feel between all mech classes and specific mech chassis. A Raven feels distinctly different from a Cicada and reacted differently to terrain and obstacles... More so, an Atlas was very different from a Hunchback. All and all, these differences gave each mech a unique feel.

When encountering terrain, each mech had to plan accordingly as to where and when to engage terrain. This was especially important for the heavier mech as momentum would not always be sufficient to crest. Lighter mechs also had to pay attention for it was easy for larger obstacles to cause a light mech to come to a full stop.

Yet, never at any time did the terrain take extreme precedent over the pilot's intent to move to a specific location...

With the current changes, it feels like it's a random guess if and when a mech can get to a location --- even if it's in the open...

The thrill of engaging a fight then backing up and through a line over a small hill is gone because.. you can't go over small hills and the extreme momentum loss makes you an easy target...

The movement used to be good - not perfect, but very good and allowed for some interesting and unique --- innovative --- ways to battle... Ways that myself and many players felt was in the spirit of Mechwarrior...

These current changes kill that spirit and introduce RNG into movement.



If I had to make changes I would focus on the momentum feel of the game -- let mechs crest and get over small hills as they did before... slow them down 10% - 15% ... and let extreme angles like 75% be the limit to climbing...

As it stands, the movement behaviour is random and frustrating.. it was good -- almost great before ... now it's just mediocre and a step in the wrong direction.

PGI keep the skill level up - reduce RNG - and keep the spirit of MWO alive.

Thanks!

Edited by MavRCK, 16 July 2013 - 06:33 AM.

[Maxx Blue]

After playing with the changes for a while, I'm pretty confident that the movement changes in general are great, but the maximum slope you can climb is not steep enough. There are just too many places that, visually, look like you could make it up, but stop you dead. I am OK with climbing up steep hills very slowly, but there is just too much terrain that is impassable that visually looks like it should be managable. I don't want the maps altered to make obvious paths, just extend out the max-slope to 65-70 degrees. Coming to a dead stop is just annoying and frustrating when the terrain in front of you is not obviously a cliff. I'm OK with atlases climbing steep hills, as long as they do it slooowly.

[Trev Firestorm]

MavRCK, on 16 July 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

snip

You are completely wrong on every count, the new movement has no RNG in it and the old had no sense of momentum or terrain, it didn't slow you down at all unless you were trying to actually run up a vertical wall, and even then it tried to keep you going full tilt

[MavRCK]

Trev Firestorm, on 16 July 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

You are completely wrong on every count, the new movement has no RNG in it and the old had no sense of momentum or terrain, it didn't slow you down at all unless you were trying to actually run up a vertical wall, and even then it tried to keep you going full tilt

No, you're wrong.

Nah nah nah

[Kattspya]

I must eat crow and say that I'm fairly happy with the movement system as long as bugs are stomped in the future.

The system is frustrating at first and some more thought should probably be put into textures or other ways to visually inform the player what is traversible and what isn't. A tooltip that says to take elevations diagonally for some additional climbing power would be helpful either that and/or tweaking mech inertia to make it less fiddly.

There is no sense in which objects you get stuck on and which you don't and I don't think all of them are bugs. If a tallish mech is stepping over some objects that feel like knee height it should step over all such objects. It should be visually apparent which objects can be stepped over and which can't be stepped over. One possibility is to shorten traversible objects and embiggen non-transversible objects so that their height differs significantly. Even if that has a negative aesthetic consequence.

[FREDtheDEAD]

Either I'm getting used to it or they eased deceleration rates when encountering small bumps - it seems better after the last patch.

[Joseph Mallan]

The movement mods seem to be a bit to steep.

Yes, the pun is intentional.