133 replies to this topic

[tenderloving]

Zyllos, on 27 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

This is entirely false.

PGI even specifically said that they have been producing maps in reference to knowing that certain inclines should not be traversable or easily navigatable.

I am sure someone can take the time to find the quote for it.

I won't look for the quote but I'll say I remember reading the same thing.

I wonder if they will tweak this per chassis in the future. I seem to remember reading something in the Mechwarrior2 encyclopedia thing that chicken legs had more trouble with hills than man legs, but were more stable gunnery platforms.

Edited by tenderloving, 27 June 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[Jaguar Prime]

tenderloving, on 27 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

PGI has done a lot of boneheaded stuff, but you can't fault them for adding logic and realism to the gameplay.

It's funny how that only applies to certain things and not others.

It will not stop hill humping. 40 degrees is more than enough to do it. Instead of going straight up then back on the hill, use a 45 degree angle to go up and come back, across the hill. It will indirectly buff mechs with weapons placed high on the mech (Stalker, Jagermech).

[Jman5]

Zyllos, on 27 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

This is entirely false.

PGI even specifically said that they have been producing maps in reference to knowing that certain inclines should not be traversable or easily navigatable.

I am sure someone can take the time to find the quote for it.

I'll see if I can find the quote, but you are absolutely correct. They did give us advance notice this was coming eventually.

BillyM, on 27 June 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

New users are going to have a TERRIBLE time figuring out what you can and cannot traverse.

--billyM

I think it will actually be easier on new users. Now cliffs that look inaccessible will actually be inaccessible. You wont have to learn where all the random little divets are on canyon and alpine. If it looks like a scalable ramp, you can climb it. For better or worse, say goodbye to many of the goat-trails.

[JokerVictor]

Hey, look at that... a positive change.

I'm not going to hold my breath that implementing it won't completely destroy the game's stability. They've got a bad track record there. But really, it's about time this happened.

Zyllos, I remember that quote, and I also remember something about this feature going in with collisions being in that same quote. Wonder what the hell the status is on that?

[Thundercles]

Anything to end the steady flow of THIS.

[MeatForBrains]

Kevin Meek, on 27 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Regarding posts on why 'Mechs with heavier in-game tonnage can find themselves in a smaller archetype:

In addition to the movement for slopes, those archetypes are also consolidating the Mech vs world collision capsules.

Before this system, each 'Mech would have its own pill-shaped collision proxy fitted for its rough shape, making a ton of different 'Mechs get stuck in slightly different locations. Now, with 5 capsules, we can design levels for specific collision capsule sizes, and find/fix stuck bugs much easier.

For that reason, the 'Mech archetypes looked at grouping relative size (height, length, and width) as its main consideration. Because of the extra big shoulders of the missile boxes, and the very long nose, the catapult would need to be in a larger capsule category than the heavier Cataphract. I don't think that you'll find the movement abilities between two neighboring archetypes so substantial that it would be effectively nerfing or giving substantial advantages to any 'Mech that seems out of order due to its assumed weight but smaller frame. Especially with engine speed and momentum of lighter 'Mechs still being factored in (read: a slow moving Cataphract in a smaller movement archetype is going to probably still have a harder longer time than a faster moving Catapult at climbing any substantial hill).

That being said, it's easy enough to switch some 'Mechs into a different archetype or to tune the climb angles for any archetype if needed. I don't forsee any issues with the current grouping but you don't have to worry that things are 100% set in stone as far as grouping or angles are concerned.

Triple clarification: Collision capsules for 'Mechs here are just referring to 'Mech vs. world collision, each 'Mech still has its own unique collision proxys for 'Mech vs. weapon.

edit: fixing super f'd up formatting from c/p'ing.

[tenderloving]

JokerVictor, on 27 June 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Hey, look at that... a positive change.

I'm not going to hold my breath that implementing it won't completely destroy the game's stability. They've got a bad track record there. But really, it's about time this happened.

Zyllos, I remember that quote, and I also remember something about this feature going in with collisions being in that same quote. Wonder what the hell the status is on that?

I remember collisions being part of it too. They said it was linked somehow; that the way mechs interacted with the environment and each other had to be addressed. I really wish I wasn't too lazy to look for that quote.

[MeatForBrains]

Ask the Devs #39

Prosperity Park: Are there any longer-term plans to add a Deep Water penalty to the movement speed of Mechs traveling through significantly-deep water?
A: We’re adding some new movement code that will make mechs behave more realistically when traversing rolling terrain. Once in, we can examine adding water friction if we feel it will add a benefit to gameplay.

Edited by MeatForBrains, 27 June 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Jasen]

Zyllos, on 27 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

This is entirely false.

PGI even specifically said that they have been producing maps in reference to knowing that certain inclines should not be traversable or easily navigatable.

I am sure someone can take the time to find the quote for it.

One of the NGNG podcasts had one of the map guys on talking about this very thing... he was like "Yea I think its stupid that a mech can walk up an 80 degree incline..."

And kinda hinted to something like this...

[Gasman 1220]

Jaguar Prime, on 27 June 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

It's funny how that only applies to certain things and not others.

It will not stop hill humping. 40 degrees is more than enough to do it. Instead of going straight up then back on the hill, use a 45 degree angle to go up and come back, across the hill. It will indirectly buff mechs with weapons placed high on the mech (Stalker, Jagermech).

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post right, but if you're suggesting that the 45* can be mitigated by running up it at an angle, that won't work. The slope of the hills is static. Slopes that are 45* will never be climbable.

[Jaguar Prime]

Thundercles, on 27 June 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Anything to end the steady flow of THIS.

Ummm NO!! it will not end it. The stalker will just be replaced by another optimal Mech/build. . I would think, you guys would realize this by now.

[Screech]

Just when I think there is no hope they go and do something like this.

Best news I have heard about this game in months. The more terrain matters the more this games leans towards a simulation rather then an arcade shooter. Hopefully the days of the assault sherpas is over.

[Jman5]

Ok I found the most recent quote.

Ask the devs 39 about a month ago:
http://mwomercs.com/...evs-39-answers/

Quote

Adridos: During an NGNG interview with your main map designer T. Jantzi, he mentioned that all maps he creates must work with our current movement abilities, but also once the restrictions on movement will be applied (like non-scalable hills). Since it's been a while and there never was an official response on the fact before or after the interview, when could we expect to see this implemented?
A: This feature is being worked on and will debut very soon (June/July).

[DeadlyNerd]

Huh, who knew my list of things that'll make this game into a sim would actually yield some reason from PGI.

[Corvus Antaka]

imho the only thing needed is that some maps may need a few more pathways to help out non-jumpjet mechs and keep it from becoming jumpjet warrior online since even 1 jumpjet lets you climb pretty much anything right now.

[Jaguar Prime]

Gasman 1220, on 27 June 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post right, but if you're suggesting that the 45* can be mitigated by running up it at an angle, that won't work. The slope of the hills is static. Slopes that are 45* will never be climbable.

uh no, travel at a 45 degree angle across the hill to pop up on a 40 degree hill. Should mitigate the slowdown that you would get from going straight up at a 90.

I Was taught to hill hump at an angle instead of doing it with a straight 90 to the hill. (way back in early MW4)

Edited by Jaguar Prime, 27 June 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[ryoma]

Also a super buff to the Highlander and Jumping heavies.

[SMDMadCow]

Why do mechs of the same weight have different slowdown angles? And how do heavier mechs like the jagermech have a greater slowdown angle than lighter me hs like the Quickdraw?

[Thundercles]

Jaguar Prime, on 27 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Ummm NO!! it will not end it. The stalker will just be replaced by another optimal Mech/build. . I would think, you guys would realize this by now.

I meant assaults in general, though I admit Stalkers are pretty irksome. It always bites getting killed by something that ties the Jenner for being the most ridiculous looking contraption shambling across the battlefield.

[Shakespeare]

Thundercles, on 27 June 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Anything to end the steady flow of THIS.

That actually makes me nauseous.