26 replies to this topic

[Hauser]

oldradagast, on 03 July 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I don't buy that for a moment. Mechs are meant to get stuck at the top of hills and snagged on rocks the size of their feet?

Dude. Read the post he replied too.

He's not talking about pot holes but rather the general limitations this imposes.

[oldradagast]

Hauser, on 03 July 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Dude. Read the post he replied too.

He's not talking about pot holes but rather the general limitations this imposes.

No, he basically said, "suck it up," and "it's working as intended." Sorry, but it's not. Not climbing the 80-degree slopes in Alpine = working as intended. Getting stopped by a pebble, not so much.

I don't believe for one moment the maps were designed with this type of movement limitation in mind. General movement limitations, yes - anyone can figure out they weren't going to release the game with mountain-climbing still in Alpine - but this lunacy, where mechs get stuck on pebbles, bumble around looking for the 44-degree slope vs. the 45-degree one, and lose half their speed in an instant because they cross a tiny-segment with a steep angle in otherwise flat terrain? I don't buy it. This system feels like a terribly thought out kludge tossed on top of maps that were never meant for it.

I've played through several LRM's "steel rain" patches, sniper-patches, and all that, and this is the first time I've ever been disgusted with the game's state simply because I cannot be sure my mech will go where it should in the way it should. It's appalling.

Edited by oldradagast, 03 July 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[aniviron]

Viper69, on 03 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

How would a mech physically climb a surface greater than 45deg? Unless it had hands to lean forward and pull itself along it is physically impossible. Now the degree is an arbitrary number but they had to cut it off somewhere I imagine. However in TT any slop coluld be climbed at a drastic movement penalty but I cant remember a slope that was impassable unless it had more slope up than the mech had movement forward.

Someone draw me a diagram how you imagine a mech using only legs would climb steep terrain, plain terrain without rocks or anything. Show me this without the joints being hyper extended or clipping and or the mechs knees in its chest.

I give the devs **** often but damn these arent tracked vehicles, they are bipedal and do rely on traction on a relatively low surface area.

I will explain to you how mechs can go up slopes that are more than 45 degrees when you explain to me how the 31 century, which is capable of faster than light travel, put fusion engines into giant walking war machines that are light enough they would float (yes, an atlas would float) and are powered by fusion engines yet have weapon ranges shorter than conventional handheld infantry rifles in the 20th century. Also when you explain why walking robots are more efficient than tanks or helicopters or just using orbital bombardment. Oh and while you're at it, can you explain to me why LRMs do so much damage (or any damage at all) when the missiles weigh 11.1 pounds each? And...

I guess what I am saying is that if you REALLY want to go for the realism angle, please consider some of the more glaring problems first, and we can tackle the rest later. Until you can give me good answers for all of the above, please stick to gameplay reasons for why this change should be implemented; things like "I find it fun getting stuck on tiny boulders" or "arbitrarily losing speed because the ground has a tiny rise in it is enjoyable to me" or even "it makes sense to me that my atlas is unable to walk past these 1m high snowballs that are on the ground outside the crashed dropship."

[Viper69]

Sorry asked you first.

[hammerreborn]

aniviron, on 03 July 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

I will explain to you how mechs can go up slopes that are more than 45 degrees when you explain to me how the 31 century, which is capable of faster than light travel, put fusion engines into giant walking war machines that are light enough they would float (yes, an atlas would float) and are powered by fusion engines yet have weapon ranges shorter than conventional handheld infantry rifles in the 20th century. Also when you explain why walking robots are more efficient than tanks or helicopters or just using orbital bombardment. Oh and while you're at it, can you explain to me why LRMs do so much damage (or any damage at all) when the missiles weigh 11.1 pounds each? And...

I guess what I am saying is that if you REALLY want to go for the realism angle, please consider some of the more glaring problems first, and we can tackle the rest later. Until you can give me good answers for all of the above, please stick to gameplay reasons for why this change should be implemented; things like "I find it fun getting stuck on tiny boulders" or "arbitrarily losing speed because the ground has a tiny rise in it is enjoyable to me" or even "it makes sense to me that my atlas is unable to walk past these 1m high snowballs that are on the ground outside the crashed dropship."

Well, for the orbital bombardment part...that tends to generate lots of bad press and aggro. Look at the smoke jaguars...or where they used to be >.>

[Steel Claws]

aniviron, on 03 July 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

I will explain to you how mechs can go up slopes that are more than 45 degrees when you explain to me how the 31 century, which is capable of faster than light travel, put fusion engines into giant walking war machines that are light enough they would float (yes, an atlas would float) and are powered by fusion engines yet have weapon ranges shorter than conventional handheld infantry rifles in the 20th century. Also when you explain why walking robots are more efficient than tanks or helicopters or just using orbital bombardment. Oh and while you're at it, can you explain to me why LRMs do so much damage (or any damage at all) when the missiles weigh 11.1 pounds each? And...

I guess what I am saying is that if you REALLY want to go for the realism angle, please consider some of the more glaring problems first, and we can tackle the rest later. Until you can give me good answers for all of the above, please stick to gameplay reasons for why this change should be implemented; things like "I find it fun getting stuck on tiny boulders" or "arbitrarily losing speed because the ground has a tiny rise in it is enjoyable to me" or even "it makes sense to me that my atlas is unable to walk past these 1m high snowballs that are on the ground outside the crashed dropship."

You forgot to add that mechs can move faster than a missile in the 30 century because mysteriously missiles now fly slower than cars can drive.

[Splitpin]

Thontor, on 03 July 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

The maps were all designed with these limitations in mind. They are now being played as intended, get used to it.

I find it hard to believe Alpine is being played as intended. The lack of balance / advantage between the upper and lower DZ is ummm crazy. Starting on the lower DZ is quite literally pushing sh*t uphill. In general though I think the change is for the good, but getting stuck on rocks I could step over, not being able to go up a clearly defined path (River City out of the river up to upper city) or not being able to crest the top of a slope you've just climbed isn't working as intended.