362 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

DaZur, on 17 December 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

In short, the easiest way would be to code separate axial rotation speeds for each weight class...

As it stands right now: All mech rotate around their axis @ 41.8 degrees-per-second, which translates roughly to 8.6 seconds to pivot 360 degrees on axis. A clean solution would adjust the axial rotation of each recursive class to rotate faster on axis which would then extend to tighter turn radius'.

And that's easy right?

[stjobe]

Almond Brown, on 17 December 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

I need plead my own ignorance on the coding side, but if anyone who might know, could inform us, even at the most basic level, as to what might be involved in doing this "un-linking" as far as it pertains to the actual ground movement mechanics in a game like MWO.

One can not simply assume that having separate turning radii is a 2-hour re-code in the CE3 engine perhaps?

Or are we just "assuming" it was done as it was simply for ease and convenience for the Dev? I heard that doing "real" physics can be difficult to code in games. Isn't that why we also don't have varied gravity on the Maps?

It *should* be as easy as altering a few numbers in an XML file. It probably isn't though - it may be hard-coded in some common movement code, or tucked away somewhere else where it's hard to change. It also may have unforeseen consequences like the one you mention with zero-gee mucking up all kinds of things, from jump-jets to actually being able to move and not fly away into space.

[DaZur]

Almond Brown, on 17 December 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

And that's easy right?

Anything that I personally am not involved in, is always perceived as being "easy to do"...

As Stjobe eluded to... I'm not sure if it's hard-coded or an .xml and each carries a varied level of difficulty.

[Almond Brown]

DaZur, on 17 December 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Anything that I personally am not involved in, is always perceived as being "easy to do"...

As Stjobe eluded to... I'm not sure if it's hard-coded or an .xml and each carries a varied level of difficulty.

Sounds fair. So many times folks around here, not yourself per say, say "do this" and "do that" is it just a number, and never think to wonder what else may be affected by said changes.

[Death Mallet]

If you nerf mech agility you need to make heavies and assaults a lot tougher to compensate for the amount of time they'll be getting blasted from the rear.

Maybe make heavies x3 armor. . . and assaults x4 armor or something.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Death Mallet, on 17 December 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

If you nerf mech agility you need to make heavies and assaults a lot tougher to compensate for the amount of time they'll be getting blasted from the rear.

Maybe make heavies x3 armor. . . and assaults x4 armor or something.

Not necessarily.

Although it would be nice to give armor values a tweak; heavies and assaults should still have enough agility to defend themselves, if the basic Mech Tree efficiencies are removed and even if specific values get standardized (could even help a few if any are under-engined too).

[DaZur]

Death Mallet, on 17 December 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

If you nerf mech agility you need to make heavies and assaults a lot tougher to compensate for the amount of time they'll be getting blasted from the rear.

Maybe make heavies x3 armor. . . and assaults x4 armor or something.

In fairness... It should be the job of the heavies and mediums to keep similar mechs from blasting the rear of their vanguard Assaults.

Every mech has a job and and every job a mech...

[Captain Stiffy]

If you slow as you turn you can turn almost anything on a dime. Good players know this.

[Trauglodyte]

Captain Stiffy, on 17 December 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

If you slow as you turn you can turn almost anything on a dime. Good players know this.

Of course we (good players and/or players with half of a brain) know this. The point is that if you're running a circle, the radius of the cirlce around the center is the same whether you're going 1 kph or 171 kph and that isn't how physics works. Furthermore, while slowing down lets you cut quicker, our mechs aren't exactly NFL running backs that can stop on a dime and make the crucial cut that you need. THAT is the point.

[stjobe]

Almond Brown, on 17 December 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Sounds fair. So many times folks around here, not yourself per say, say "do this" and "do that" is it just a number, and never think to wonder what else may be affected by said changes.

While there actually *are* changes that are so simple as just changing a number in an XML file (e.g. weapon stats), it's not the change itself that's the hard part, it's how that change relates to everything else.

It would be but a moments work to change e.g. the AC/20 to do 200 damage per shot, but just because that's easy to do doesn't mean it won't affect anything else.

And then there's the other kind of code I was referring to, the one where you thought you made a clever decision or nice simplification a year and a half back and now it comes back to bite you in the [lower rear center torso] - any programmer that's been around the block a few times have stories about that piece of code. It's a simple request usually - e.g. individual turn rates for the 'mech chassis - but since you made that looked-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time implementation where every 'mech shares a piece of code for turn rate, you're going to have to devote the better part of a few weeks just refactoring the turn radius code out, and then test it so it doesn't spin the Locust like a top or makes the SRMs gyrate or something else you didn't think of at the time.

Programming... It's a love/hate relationship; you love it when you come up with clever ideas, and you hate it when you have to go back and fix them later

[Trauglodyte]

stjobe, on 17 December 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Programming... It's a love/hate relationship; you love it when you come up with clever ideas, and you hate it when you have to go back and fix them later

Let me tell you about some C++ programming about sheets upon sheets of code only to be undone because out of 100,000+ lines of code, I left out ONE freaking semi-colon. Oye!!!

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 17 December 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Let me tell you about some C++ programming about sheets upon sheets of code only to be undone because out of 100,000+ lines of code, I left out ONE freaking semi-colon. Oye!!!

I feel you brother; been there, done that...

[DaZur]

Trauglodyte, on 17 December 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Let me tell you about some C++ programming about sheets upon sheets of code only to be undone because out of 100,000+ lines of code, I left out ONE freaking semi-colon. Oye!!!

stjobe, on 17 December 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

I feel you brother; been there, done that...

Ever assemble a Chevy small block to realize after the fact you left a part out?! *cough (Oil uptake screen) *cough

[stjobe]

DaZur, on 17 December 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Ever assemble a Chevy small block to realize after the fact you left a part out?! *cough (Oil uptake screen) *cough

Hahaha. Not my kind of programming, but I imagine the pain's about the same

[Sandpit]

Captain Stiffy, on 17 December 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

If you slow as you turn you can turn almost anything on a dime. Good players know this.

not to mention hitting the reverse to make a tighter turn when I'm trying to track those pesky squirrels

[Mr 144]

Ok...the goal is to improve the viability of lights and mediums compared to heavies and assaults (outliers aside) via agiltiy.

Turning Speed: Not viable to accomplish this goal. It simply isn't no matter how simple it sounds. Physics dictates that turning speed would have to be nerfed much farther than people realize to have any desired effect.

Turning Radius: Mass vs. Inertia, etc...make this a difficult balancing act to have any semblance of realism....plus, PGI codeing...as it's currently a fixed value, not a variable.

Torso Twist/Arm Articulation: Already nerfed to oblivion to the point having arms is actually a downside to a chassis...really? we want less than 10 degree arm'd assaults?

Torso Twist/ Arm Reflex Speed: Currently tied to engine size. I would guess any re-work of this metric would require coding on PGI's part...my god, we don't want that. Plus, given the ability to simply turn-track coupled with gimpy arms anyhow, this would do nothing in the grand scheme of things other than to reduce enjoyabilty of "good" assault/heavy piloting. (my opinion is they've already killed this as now, only positioning matters)

That leaves my original go-to metric....Acceleration/Decceleration:

#1: PGI already has the coding in place to tweak this via "quirks" for not only chassis', but variants within.
#2: It is an "agility" based, pilot appreciable skill.
#3: The ability to quickly deccelerate while in a blind spot, change attack angle, and re-accelerate to top speed makes any torso-twist, arm reflex, turn-radius, or turn-speed, completely irrelevant. THIS is what gives agility....the ability to outmaneuver the fatty's.

Notice this does not make any targeting "uncontrollabe" like buffing any other metric. This promotes skill. This rightly keeps circling stupid for lights.

Like I originally said...I don't disagree with the math, I disagree with the entire premise the math shows. You all are focusing on the wrong thing.

Edited by Mr 144, 18 December 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

I was thinking the same exact thing last night and a few times before, 144. I brought it up in this topic earlier but there is nothing worse than accidentally stumbling upon a scrum where you're out gunned and out numbered only to either get exploded or extremely damaged because you can't get out of the area fast enough. That isn't based on speed but rather reactionary "oh ****" reflex response from the mech you're in. As I understand it, acceleration and deceleration are all standard with some slight adjustments for hero mechs. What needs to be done is an overview of these stats and adjust them based on the intent of the chassis and the weight of the chassis. Then, they need to look at JJs and get that mess handled because JJ mechs are just WAY too nimble.

[Captain Stiffy]

I think mechs in MWO should be able to actually fly under their own power for minutes at a time and also sidestep and rocket jet around.

[Almond Brown]

DaZur, on 17 December 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Ever assemble a Chevy small block to realize after the fact you left a part out?! *cough (Oil uptake screen) *cough

Or had a gasket left over... when there absolutely should not be.

[Sandpit]

Captain Stiffy, on 18 December 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I think mechs in MWO should be able to actually fly under their own power for minutes at a time and also sidestep and rocket jet around.

Let's not forget the double rocket jump reverse back-axle with a 180 twist, ending in a cartwheel, while alpha striking