1911 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Klappspaten, on 22 April 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

I know this is probably a design question. But I think it could be an issue with MASC too.
So maybe you could just forward the question to the design guys.

Do you guys know that the Locust sometimes damages its own legs just by running at top speeds around 170kp/h?
I even died of that once when I had both legs cherry red. I was running along without an enemy anywhere near me and BAM I died from falling damage without actually falling off of anything.
Its not a lot of damage, but it is damage. And when the speeds go even higher than that due to MASC it could become a serious issue.

If neccessary I would try to get some footage of it, but I can't do it today since I'm not at home.

Actually this has been a long standing issue, with this game and light 'mechs... The inadequate, incorrect, and inconsistent treatment of falling damage between 'mech classes.

An Atlas can drop off the helicopter pad (or maybe it's the wall of the Citadel) in RC and not receive any damage. Any light 'mech can make the same drop off at the same horizontal velocity in RC and be damaged.

100 tons falling the same distance as 25 tons somehow has less vertical velocity when impacting the ground than a 25 ton 'mech.

In short, this is the exact opposite of what should happen. The heavier the 'mech the more damage should result.

Somewhere the 32feets/second/second's are getting mashed up badly.

Edit: I should state that I know this isn't a 'major' issue, and may be left in as a means of 'balancing' light 'mechs... But as, HOPEFULLY, HSR and hit detection improve, as well as hit boxes and the like, this little issue continuing to exist is going to start to prove to be an over burdensome relic of... I want to say 'bad programming' but I'm not quite sure it should be lumped in there... I dunno... 'Expeditious kludging', maybe?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 22 April 2014 - 06:24 AM.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Somewhere the 32feets/second/second's are getting mashed up badly.

Remember, we're not on earth. Maybe that explains it.

Gravity would be different for these other planets we're on.

Edited by Jody Von Jedi, 22 April 2014 - 06:47 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Jody Von Jedi, on 22 April 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

Remember, we're not on earth. Maybe that explains it.

Heh, I get you.

But just to say it (I can see that you're joking and already know this) so that it's said: That's the beauty of Newton's work.

It's consistent whether it be 32ft/sec/sec, or 15ft/sec/sec, or 1000ft/sec/sec.

As later scientists noted (and Einstein partially resolved for us) it only breaks down at the extreme bottom and top end of the scales, and since we're not playing at the quantum level, nor running around neutron stars, it should be consistent regardless of the gravities involved.

[Cimarb]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Actually this has been a long standing issue, with this game and light 'mechs... The inadequate, incorrect, and inconsistent treatment of falling damage between 'mech classes.

An Atlas can drop off the helicopter pad (or maybe it's the wall of the Citadel) in RC and not receive any damage. Any light 'mech can make the same drop off at the same horizontal velocity in RC and be damaged.

100 tons falling the same distance as 25 tons somehow has less vertical velocity when impacting the ground than a 25 ton 'mech.

In short, this is the exact opposite of what should happen. The heavier the 'mech the more damage should result.

Somewhere the 32feets/second/second's are getting mashed up badly.

Edit: I should state that I know this isn't a 'major' issue, and may be left in as a means of 'balancing' light 'mechs... But as, HOPEFULLY, HSR and hit detection improve, as well as hit boxes and the like, this little issue continuing to exist is going to start to prove to be an over burdensome relic of... I want to say 'bad programming' but I'm not quite sure it should be lumped in there... I dunno... 'Expeditious kludging', maybe?

This is very true, and I agree with you.

It is actually one of the problems causing the predominance of heavy/assault jump sniping, with the other being FLD. For example, when you jump brawl with a spider, you are often doing as much damage to your own legs as the enemy is. True, hit reg is part of that, but when you do large jumps in a light, you damage your own legs quite often. The Locust can't jump, but it is notorious for how easily the legs get hurt even when just running.

Now, take the Victor, Highlander, etc. These mechs can use 100% of their jump boost to get maximum vertical! then fall to the ground unassisted and not receive a single point of falling damage. This is part of the reason they are even able to jump snipe so effectively. Make them have to use 25-50% of their boost to absorb the fall, and you have now significantly lowered their vertical capabilities and jump sniping effectiveness indirectly.

If you take the TT rules, damage goes up (both giving and receiving) by the tonnage of the mech for all collisions, including melee combat, falling, DFA, walking through a building, etc. I'm perplexed why PGI reversed this, but it probably had to do with the collision issues that eventually caused them to remove it from the game (almost) completely. An odd side effect that I have noticed, though, is that you currently only take collision damage if you weigh less. For instance, a Spider/Locust takes collision damage from just touching up against a heavier mech, but an Atlas will only take it from another Atlas, and even then it is less likely.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Cimarb, on 22 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Now, take the Victor, Highlander, etc. These mechs can use 100% of their jump boost to get maximum vertical! then fall to the ground unassisted and not receive a single point of falling damage. This is part of the reason they are even able to jump snipe so effectively. Make them have to use 25-50% of their boost to absorb the fall, and you have now significantly lowered their vertical capabilities and jump sniping effectiveness indirectly.

If you take the TT rules, damage goes up (both giving and receiving) by the tonnage of the mech for all collisions, including melee combat, falling, DFA, walking through a building, etc.

I've never really considered this before. Maybe because I mainly play medium mechs. I know I have to feather my JJ's on my Quickdraws, but, as we all know, it has fragile legs to begin with. Seems as though MW:O has it reverse of the TT rules. From your observation, the lighter the mech, the greater the damage. Interesting......

This definitely needs to be on Karl's To-investigate-list.

Jody

[J0anna]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

An Atlas can drop off the helicopter pad (or maybe it's the wall of the Citadel) in RC and not receive any damage. Any light 'mech can make the same drop off at the same horizontal velocity in RC and be damaged.

100 tons falling the same distance as 25 tons somehow has less vertical velocity when impacting the ground than a 25 ton 'mech.

In short, this is the exact opposite of what should happen. The heavier the 'mech the more damage should result.

Somewhere the 32feets/second/second's are getting mashed up badly.

Well someone didn't pay attention during physics class. If you look up "Newtons Second Law" you'll quickly find out that the velocity of a falling object is independent of it's mass (excluding air resistance). Therefore the 100 ton Atlas and the 20 ton Locust will have identical velocities when they impact the ground, however the Atlas's legs, being larger, appear to be better able to absorb the impact.

Actually if you slow down the Locust just before you jump you shouldn't take any damage, it's been this way since beta and I did it all the time in my Jenner.

Edited by Moenrg, 22 April 2014 - 07:31 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Moenrg, on 22 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Well someone didn't pay attention during physics class. If you look up "Newtons Second Law" you'll quickly find out that the velocity of a falling object is independent of it's mass (excluding air resistance). Therefore the 100 ton Atlas and the 20 ton Locust will have identical velocities when they impact the ground, however the Atlas's legs, being larger, appear to be better able to absorb the impact.

Actually if you slow down the Locust just before you jump you shouldn't take any damage, it's been this way since beta and I did it all the time in my Jenner.

Actually, I'm taking into account ALL of Newton's laws.

Don't forget momentum or force:

p = mv

or

F = ma

Because the Atlas has 5 times the mass of a 20 ton light 'mech it will impact with 5 times the inertia, or force of the light 'mech.

So if the 20 ton light 'mech loses 1 point of damage to each leg for falling off the helipad in RC, the Atlas should be losing up to 5 points per leg.

They only accelerate at the same rate, and end up with the same velocity, but their MASSES is what determines how much energy each has accumulated while falling...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 22 April 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Cimarb]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

So if the 20 ton light 'mech loses 1 point of damage to each leg for falling off the helipad in RC, the Atlas should be losing up to 5 points per leg.

They only accelerate at the same rate, and end up with the same velocity, but their MASSES is what determines how much energy each has accumulated while falling...

Exactly, and great physics lesson to boot!

From Battletech 1707 - Master Rules (revised), it states on page 25:

"A Battlemech always takes damage from a fall equal to 1 point for every 10 tons that the Battlemech weighs (rounding up) times the number of levels plus 1 that the Battlemech fell. If it fell into a water hex, treat the water hex as a level 0 hex and apply only half the resulting damage (rounding up).

"Divide the damage into clusters of 5 points each: in other words, form as many 5-point groups as possible, assigning any remaining points to on esmaller group, and determine a hit location for each cluster. For example, a Battlemech that suffers 33 points of falling damage takes six clusters of 5-point hits and one 3-point hit. To determine the location of the damage, use the appropriate column of the Battlemech Hit Location Table, p. 34 in Combat, as specified by the Facing After a Fall Table."

While I fully realize this is not TT, when possible any decisions should be made based upon existing content/rules unless it "breaks" something in a FPS. In this case, the TT rules are highly valid and should be followed.

On page 11, it clarifies the size conversions, where level 0 elevation is less than 6 meters, 6+ meters is level 1 elevation ("waist-high to a Battlemech", though it doesn't state WHICH Battlemech...), 12+ is level 2 elevation (full height of said Battlemech), 18+ is level 3 elevation, etc. So, every six meters is a 1x multiplier to the damage. You can then determine the amount of distance fallen in game and get a modifier from that. I will assume that a Locust is roughly 6 meters tall and an Atlas being 12 meters, but I'm horrible with guessing heights...so...

For example, if a Locust jumps down its full height (6 meters), it takes 2 points of damage: 20 tons, divided by 10, times level 1 elevation (20/10*1=2). An Atlas that jumps down the same distance would take 10 points of damage: 100 tons, divided by 10, times level 1 elevation (100/10*1=10). Jumping down off the cliff in Tourmaline is probably about twice the height of an Atlas, so it would be 24 meters, or level 5 elevation, so you would multiply the damage by 5 (for 10 points to the Locust and 50 to the Atlas, respectively).

That seems a whole lot more reasonable, if you ask me. And yes, I pilot an Atlas and DO jump off the cliff on Tourmaline, so this WOULD affect me, lol.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 22 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

but an Atlas will only take it from another Atlas, and even then it is less likely.

I can say this is not true (or at least not always true)
Many are the times I have been the only Atlas on the field (on either side) and taken damage from being bumped by teammates.

[TheCaptainJZ]

The fact remains that lights take propotionally more damage from collisions and falling than heavier mechs. I think it's a deliberate nerf to lights, but i think heavier mechs should take just as much damage when falling. They have the armor for it.

[Dimento Graven]

Shar Wolf, on 22 April 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

I can say this is not true (or at least not always true)
Many are the times I have been the only Atlas on the field (on either side) and taken damage from being bumped by teammates.

This "might" be a problem with 'perception' more than the actual mechanics of the game.

I did a test in Training Grounds, RC, and had an Atlas (Founders) and a Locust (Phoenix) drop off almost the exact same point (off the edge of cliff, near the drop ship), and BOTH took damage. Both ended up at 99% at the end of the fall, although on the Atlas, no armor was colored, while on the Locust, both legs were yellow.

The next test, out of curiosity, was to see how long it would take me, dropping from the same spot to kill my Locust. It took 22 minutes of dropping off that same point before I'd destroyed the Locust.

Considering that the Locust has, what? 48 total armor on the legs(exterior and interior) I figure I was getting less than a full point of damage for each drop (I stopped counting after the 40th drop where, if it was a FULL point of damage, each 'fall' I should have been near legging myself).

The Atlas on the other hand has, what around 252 total armor for legs, that's what... 5.25 times the armor, so it "should" take around two hours to destroy an Atlas that way...

I dunno.

Ultimately I need to do the experiment a little differently. I need to find those heights where the Locust takes damage, but the Atlas does not. THAT's what we're really talking about here...

I'll have to dig around and see if I can find the appropriately sized cliff...

[Alaskan Nobody]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

This "might" be a problem with 'perception' more than the actual mechanics of the game.

I wasn't talking about drop damage (which does appear to happen less with bigger mechs)
But bumping into team-mates - check the quote from Cimarb.

[TheCaptainJZ]

do the drop test from the hanger on river city down to lower city. i think even meds dont take dmg (or was it heavies?) but lights do.

[Alaskan Nobody]

TheCaptainJZ, on 22 April 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

do the drop test from the hanger on river city down to lower city. i think even meds dont take dmg (or was it heavies?) but lights do.

Sometimes my Centurion do (visibly at that), sometimes they (at least appear to) don't.

[Shlkt]

My guess: falling damage is proportional to your total velocity, not just your vertical velocity. Light mechs jump while running around at 150kph, so all that horizontal velocity contributes to their falling damage. Highlanders, on the other hand, jump at a more leisurely 60 kph (or even while standing still).

[Dimento Graven]

TheCaptainJZ, on 22 April 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

do the drop test from the hanger on river city down to lower city. i think even meds dont take dmg (or was it heavies?) but lights do.

I believe that's what I was doing.

Here, take a look for yourself -
Locust:


Atlas:


FYI: I went back and tried to accurately count how many times it took to do significant damage to the Locust. It was 77 'falls' before I crit'd both legs. It was 108 'falls' before I killed it.

I could whip that up into a video if anyone is at all interested in seeing a Locust 'fall' nearly 110 times...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 22 April 2014 - 10:36 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Shlkt, on 22 April 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

My guess: falling damage is proportional to your total velocity, not just your vertical velocity. Light mechs jump while running around at 150kph, so all that horizontal velocity contributes to their falling damage. Highlanders, on the other hand, jump at a more leisurely 60 kph (or even while standing still).

And that would be wrong. The horizontal frame has NOTHING to do with the VERTICAL frame.

The VERTICAL velocity is the same 32ft/sec/sec map equivalent. The horizontal velocity has no bearing on your 'smacking' into the ground.

That's why, when a car get's a little air and gets six inches off the ground after coming off a hill while driving at 150 miles an hour, it doesn't explode when landing.

[TheDevilsIncarnate]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

And that would be wrong. The horizontal frame has NOTHING to do with the VERTICAL frame.

The VERTICAL velocity is the same 32ft/sec/sec map equivalent. The horizontal velocity has no bearing on your 'smacking' into the ground.

That's why, when a car get's a little air and gets six inches off the ground after coming off a hill while driving at 150 miles an hour, it doesn't explode when landing.

But what about angle? Angle (I think) is only counted in the terms of Y speed when in the case of an object, while the X speed remains the same, and does not include the angle (I have a rudimentary understanding of two dimensional kinematics so please correct me Dimento and let me know what I have wrong) If the drop ANGLE is to be taken into account, then that means the server is taking into account two different calculations, and then using them together in order to produce the necessary fall damage. This would make sense in the case of a locust falling at a small angle and still taking damage, as the speed would be very high, putting large amounts of stress on the small actuators and armor plating. And it might take the same amount of damage at a very large angle (say, 80 degrees or so) and a smaller speed.

Someone would have to figure out how to test this, or have Karl explain it if he can, but I feel like that makes some sort of sense.

Or does it…?

[Dimento Graven]

TheDevilsIncarnate, on 22 April 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

But what about angle? Angle (I think) is only counted in the terms of Y speed when in the case of an object, while the X speed remains the same, and does not include the angle (I have a rudimentary understanding of two dimensional kinematics so please correct me Dimento and let me know what I have wrong) If the drop ANGLE is to be taken into account, then that means the server is taking into account two different calculations, and then using them together in order to produce the necessary fall damage. This would make sense in the case of a locust falling at a small angle and still taking damage, as the speed would be very high, putting large amounts of stress on the small actuators and armor plating. And it might take the same amount of damage at a very large angle (say, 80 degrees or so) and a smaller speed.

Someone would have to figure out how to test this, or have Karl explain it if he can, but I feel like that makes some sort of sense.

Or does it...?

A simple thought experiment shows why attempting to add vertical and horizontal velocities together to figure collision damage, in any situation is probably wrong.

First, everyone agrees that as far as we know, no object with mass can move faster than speed of light, correct?

So, someone in a train moving at the speed of light throws a ball at a 45 degree angle towards the floor. Imparting a horizontal and vertical velocity...

Is that ball now moving faster than the speed of light? c (speed of light)+h velocity+v velocity?

Of course not.

It's part of the reason why planes 'scatter' themselves into a debris field when crashing. There's the vertical velocity at the moment of impact, then the resulting debris continues to move in the direction of any horizontal velocity it had at time of impact. The horizontal velocity doesn't really add much if anything to the vertical impact.

Some of this is what I remember from my grandfather tried teaching me. He was a crash investigator for the Airforce SAC, and was attempting to explain how they figured certain things out... That was around 30 years ago, so I "could" be misremembering a lot of it...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 22 April 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

I believe that's what I was doing.

Yep, that's what I was talking about.