522 replies to this topic

[INSEkT L0GIC]

It is nice to see the movement cost of elevation change rules from TT translated into some sort of MWO mechanic like this.

BOTA49, on 27 June 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Personally I wish it was tied more to the engine and not the mech itself. A Centurion capable of going 97kph should have less of a problem going uphill than a Centurion that goes 64kph. Bigger engine, more power to push itself upward. Still, this is better than having all mechs have the same restrictions, and definitely better than no change at all.

I think many people skipped over the part about when approaching the incline at higher speeds increasing a mech's ability to push past the limitations before the slowdown kicks in so they can make it over the hump faster. That should make it so that the 97kph Cent is going to be able to clear more areas blocked to the 64 kph Cent, too.

A mech in a higher slope bracket moving at higher speed should be able to get over that extra 5 degree limitation of the next higher bracket, too, making them effectively even with the slower mech in a lower slope bracket, so I'm not too worried about the placement of lighter mechs in higher slope brackets. They'll make up the slope bracket difference with speed.

At least, that's what I get out of it. We'll see once it is actually in game.

Edited by INSEkT L0GIC, 27 June 2013 - 09:26 PM.

[xengk]

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.

[Sharp Spikes]

Hmm... I don't understand why "slowdown angle" isn't a function of 'mech weight and instead of that we have some strange and absolutely counter-intuitive "archetypes", but even this is better than nothing.

Edited by Sharp Spikes, 27 June 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Max Liao]

As much of a TT 'nerd' as I am, I think the 45% boundary in MWO is right. In TT a 'Mech can climb 2 elevations levels ~12m per hex. A hex is 30m wide. However, a hex with a terrain feature is considered to be of the terrain that takes up the majority of the hex. For the ease of math and argument, we'll say that's 50%, or 15m.

In this case, PGI is letting you climb 15 vertical per 15 meters horizontal, while in table top it would be 12 meters vertical per 15 meters horizontal.

Yes, I know that in table top 'Mechs can climb sheer cliff faces of ~12m. Believe it or not, this is one of those extremely rare times when I feel the video game trumps tabletop and that PGI has - (in theory, we'll have to see how it pans out in game) - implemented this correctly.

'Mechs should go slower when moving downhill, unless they are going to incorporate skidding/falling damage. This is inline with both tabletop and the nature of bipeds to need to focus more on balance (hence the use of the neurohelmet to transfer balance data to the gyro). A 'Mech going faster should be considered as falling and take appropriate damage - which can be considerable depending on the height of the fall.

[thatrobotguy]

ShadowVFX, on 27 June 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

I feel that the Canyon Map will need more "ramps" to allow mechs to ascend to the higher plateaus more regularly. It would kind of suck being stuck in the valley with no where to go for 200+ meters in either direction. I just feel like this reduces the tactical options available to the pilot. Also, consider that most of the mechs with the least speed and agility are also going to be the same mechs that will likely struggle to hop over these barriers.

You do realize that's exactly what the map in designed to do right? if it's that big of a disadvantage for you to be in the canyons then you should just go to the upper level at the beginning of the match and stay up there

[Nutlink]

INSEkT L0GIC, on 27 June 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

It is nice to see the movement cost of elevation change rules from TT translated into some sort of MWO mechanic like this.



I think many people skipped over the part about when approaching the incline at higher speeds increasing a mech's ability to push past the limitations before the slowdown kicks in so they can make it over the hump faster. That should make it so that the 97kph Cent is going to be able to clear more areas blocked to the 64 kph Cent, too.

A mech in a higher slope bracket moving at higher speed should be able to get over that extra 5 degree limitation of the next higher bracket, too, making them effectively even with the slower mech in a lower slope bracket, so I'm not too worried about the placement of lighter mechs in higher slope brackets. They'll make up the slope bracket difference with speed.

At least, that's what I get out of it. We'll see once it is actually in game.

I didn't glance over it. That's exactly what I got out of it, but on very long inclines both mechs will end up at a stop, just at difference locations. I'm glad they took speed into account though.

[Kmieciu]

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

[Sean von Steinike]

Sounds good!

[DirePhoenix]

Shumabot, on 27 June 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Gyros couldn't be used to stabilize a mech, that's nonsense a dude with no knowledge of mechanical systems came up with three decades ago.

Of course Gyros don't stabilize 'mechs. Legs do. What Gyros do, however, is tell the computer how to orient each leg to keep the 'mech upright, in the same way our inner ears tell our brain which way is up so we don't fall over every time we take a step.

[Ningyo]

I do kind of wonder like some others about where some mechs are in the list (stalker being the most obvious to me) That said I think this looks like a really really good change in mechanics and hope it will add a lot to gameplay.

Now we get to run all over maps and heckle you to modify slopes in places

Devs +1 for this congratulate yourselves.


Oh just thought of something might be interesting to add as a perk for mechs with both arms having hand actuators an ability to climb slopes up to 50% at 5-10% speed instead of the regular 45% max. (not sure which slopes this would affect, but right now hand actuators are useless, and this might add an interesting though minor advantage to them. (try climbing a slope over 50% yourself, you will find yourself using your hands most likely)

Edited by Ningyo, 27 June 2013 - 11:17 PM.

[Deathlike]

The idea overall sounds good.

My concern is simply the classifications... at this point it would make more sense to dump the 3L and go for a Jenner just based on the classifications...

[Adridos]

I think it would be better if Stalker got put into the Huge category.

The rest seems fine.

[Razor1611]

Two words: YES! SIR!

Excellent.

[Slanski]

Two oberservations:
1. Way to go! We want a complex mech simulator and this is definitly moving the game in the right direction. Jump Jets will be more viable and valuable after this change, especially substantial numbers of them.
2. Not basing it on weight class is unfortunate. Weight class implies punch and implies armor and as such is a balancing base line. Crassly oversized mechs relative to their frame, which is already a dreadful disadvantage in hit boxes will suffer even more, especially the Catapult relative to the Stalker (placing them both in the same group really adds insult to injury).

Observation: No more PPC stalkers at the antenna on Forest Colony (tripple cheer). An Atlas falling off the ledge in Frozen City has exactly no path of return to the battlefield. A bit harsh maybe?

[Gamgee]

Slanski, on 27 June 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Two oberservations:
1. Way to go! We want a complex mech simulator and this is definitly moving the game in the right direction. Jump Jets will be more viable and valuable after this change, especially substantial numbers of them.
2. Not basing it on weight class is unfortunate. Weight class implies punch and implies armor and as such is a balancing base line. Crassly oversized mechs relative to their frame, which is already a dreadful disadvantage in hit boxes will suffer even more, especially the Catapult relative to the Stalker (placing them both in the same group really adds insult to injury).

Observation: No more PPC stalkers at the antenna on Forest Colony (tripple cheer). An Atlas falling off the ledge in Frozen City has exactly no path of return to the battlefield. A bit harsh maybe?

On Conquest lure down fat slow assaults as a light. Run out and cap other points, laugh.

[Furball42]

Yeah, approved! I like this change. It's gonna make certain maps really interesting. Canyon for example. Though it might cause some sniper-nest behaviour... but hey, if they improve on airstrikes/artillery that's one way to flush 'em out.

No, I feel this is a good change. Changes JJ's from being poptart tools to actual useful tools. Might just refit my Cata with JJs again.

I think they should take a closer look at the categories - some of the 'mechs / category there just feels..off.. the whole Stalker debacle for example. Should be bumped up.

All in all, I welcome this.. Now bring back knockdowns pwees?! Faith a bit restored here.

[Reggimus]

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Very cool, for an initial implementation ... at first glance, I agree that the stalker should be in the "huge" category, but it will be interesting to see this in action. When will this start working in game?

[White Bear 84]

thatrobotguy, on 27 June 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

You do realize that's exactly what the map in designed to do right? if it's that big of a disadvantage for you to be in the canyons then you should just go to the upper level at the beginning of the match and stay up there

Ho ho ho, just wait for the easy pickin's when atlai and stalkers get trapped down there

[Matta]

Well, this news just got my


Good job PGI, I really hope this gives some edge to light Mechs and return them back in game.