1911 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Nobody]

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

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

I think we are probably good.

[Cimarb]

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 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.

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...

That is probably the case, true. Since the colors are based upon a percentage of armor, it probably takes a lot more damage to "activate" the colored flashing we associate with being damaged.

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.

Whether it is the correct implementation or not, it seems to definitely be the case. I used to joke about how my Locust would take damage tripping over rocks on the ground, until it got so annoying that it no longer became a joke...

[Dimento Graven]

Cimarb, on 22 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

That is probably the case, true. Since the colors are based upon a percentage of armor, it probably takes a lot more damage to "activate" the colored flashing we associate with being damaged.

My thoughts as well since the damage appears to be a lot less than 1 full armor point per 'fall' (at least in my testing).

On a 'mech with 82 points of armor, .25(?) points of armor, ain't that much at all. In fact, that's probably less than the additive armor value of the PAINT on the armor...

Quote

Whether it is the correct implementation or not, it seems to definitely be the case. I used to joke about how my Locust would take damage tripping over rocks on the ground, until it got so annoying that it no longer became a joke...

Probably very true, it's probably an overly simplistic implementation of collision damage.

The programmers need to think of it more this way: Unless there's something absolutely in the way to block the momentums, both vertical AND horizontal, only ONE of the velocities should be applied to the damage calc.

I'll have to test this to make sure I'm remembering correctly, but I find it weird we can smack full on into a building at 170kph, get no damage, but fall at 3mph vertical speed, from a 3 meter cliff while moving horizontally at 170kph, and suddenly we become fragile.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 22 April 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[J0anna]

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

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

Ah but you didn't say that, you specifically said the velocity would be different and lo and behold it isn't. I normally wouldn't waste my time correcting people like you, but then a few people agreed with you - so I figured there were a few people who have no concept of how physics works. Had you said the Atlas has greater Kinetic Energy or Greater Momentum, you would have been correct, but alas you didn't.....

Cimarb, on 22 April 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

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

Falling damage only applies to a battlemech that falls, why would you be rolling for location damage if a battlemech jumps off a hill/building but doesn't fall?

I'm all for removing damage to a running light when the following rules from BT get added:

1) Punch Damage

2) Kick Damage

3) Possibility of falling while running

4) Sliding and Falling Damage

Until that time, lights have so many advantages, that this minor disadvantage isn't game breaking. As it is now, there are other FAR more important things that MWO needs (like community warfare and correct hit registry) before wasting time on trivial stuff like this.

[Modo44]

Hey, guys, this physics lecture is all very interesting, except we are talking fusion powered (!) 100t walking (!) robots with particle cannons (!) in space (!). Tone it down, you are spamming the thread.

Edited by Modo44, 22 April 2014 - 12:17 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Moenrg, on 22 April 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Ah but you didn't say that, you specifically said the velocity would be different and lo and behold it isn't.

First off, THIS, is what said:

Dimento Graven 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.

I didn't say what you said, your comprehension was flawed. I note that it appears that the damage to the light 'mech appears to be proportionately MORE than it should be, and 'imply' that it might because the game engine is applying more velocity to the light than it should be.

Quote

I normally wouldn't waste my time correcting people like you,

Woah... "people like me"... Would you care to elaborate?

Quote

but then a few people agreed with you - so I figured there were a few people who have no concept of how physics works.

They agreed with me because their reading comprehension was complete.

Quote

Had you said the Atlas has greater Kinetic Energy or Greater Momentum, you would have been correct, but alas you didn't.....

Except that I very specifically did, when I elaborated in my first response to you.

Quote

Falling damage only applies to a battlemech that falls, why would you be rolling for location damage if a battlemech jumps off a hill/building but doesn't fall?

That would depend on the definition of 'fall'... A 'mech that 'jumps off a hill/building', how high up was that hill/building? Were jump jets used to feather the landing?

In the cases we're talking about here it's the legs due to the current engine's mechanism of BattleMechs = cats, "they always land on their feet".

Quote

I'm all for removing damage to a running light when the following rules from BT get added:

1) Punch Damage

2) Kick Damage

3) Possibility of falling while running

4) Sliding and Falling Damage

Until that time, lights have so many advantages, that this minor disadvantage isn't game breaking. As it is now, there are other FAR more important things that MWO needs (like community warfare and correct hit registry) before wasting time on trivial stuff like this.

We're not talking about removing the damage, we're actually talking about is the 'falling' collision damage actually working right or not. From what little we can tell, it appears that 'falling' damage to light 'mechs might be getting incorrectly applied. While the falling damage is apparently a fractional amount, in a game of 7 or 8 minutes, the cumulative affect of incorrectly applied damage could be quite significant.

[Roadbeer]

With the physics already.

[Dimento Graven]

Modo44, on 22 April 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Hey, guys, this physics lecture is all very interesting, except we are talking fusion powered ! 100t walking ! robots with particle cannons ! in space !. Tone it down, you are spamming the thread.

You're probably right.

I wonder what it would take to get a moderator to pull all these posts into a separate thread for us?

[Alaskan Nobody]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

I wonder what it would take to get a moderator to pull all these posts into a separate thread for us?

Or take it into a private conversation and then report the result to us.
Alternate thread would probably be more fun though.

[Rebas Kradd]

Dimento Graven, on 22 April 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

You're probably right.

I wonder what it would take to get a moderator to pull all these posts into a separate thread for us?

Give me a few minutes and I'll update the OP.

EDIT: Done.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 22 April 2014 - 02:32 PM.

[Cade Windstalker]

Hey Karl, any chance you could quiz the design team on the recent Autocannon 5 and 2 changes? There wasn't a ton of telegraphing on that ahead of time and no detailed explanation of the decision has been forthcoming. I think a lot of people would like to see the logic behind those tweaks, especially the AC/2.

Alternatively who do we have to bribe to get Paul to do one of these threads?

[Cimarb]

Moenrg, on 22 April 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Falling damage only applies to a battlemech that falls, why would you be rolling for location damage if a battlemech jumps off a hill/building but doesn't fall?

You must have an odd definition of "falling".... in what manner would you jump off of a hill/building and NOT be falling?... Did they implement LAMs without me noticing, maybe?

In TT, you roll for location damage no matter what is going on. Shooting weapons, falling, collisions, etc. DFA (Death From Above) uses the kick location table on the attacker and the punch location table for the victim, for instance.

Cade Windstalker, on 22 April 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

Alternatively who do we have to bribe to get Paul to do one of these threads?

I would be happy to just have some meaningful posts occasionally... for instance, the ONLY post we have had since the April 14th CC is... this....

Paul Inouye, on 21 April 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Jman5... quit hacking my work account.

I mean, really?... I like to joke around too, but please contribute to the conversation a little while you are at it

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate knowing that he is reading the thread, but I'm not even sure that is the case based upon that response - it has NOTHING to do with the topic...

That being said, it is extremely hard to keep any thread on topic around here. If we had feedback and direction from staff other than Karl, it would have eliminated 99% of the off topic questions in this thread here - I know I personally wouldn't be posting here, as all of my questions are design-related, by the looks of things.

[Klappspaten]

Cade Windstalker, on 22 April 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

Hey Karl, any chance you could quiz the design team on the recent Autocannon 5 and 2 changes? There wasn't a ton of telegraphing on that ahead of time and no detailed explanation of the decision has been forthcoming. I think a lot of people would like to see the logic behind those tweaks, especially the AC/2.

Alternatively who do we have to bribe to get Paul to do one of these threads?

My guess is that it was in preparation for the Clan UAcs. Or do you want a UAc2 that can shoot over 2000 meters? And that all 260 milliseconds?

[Heffay]

Cimarb, on 22 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

I mean, really?... I like to joke around too, but please contribute to the conversation a little while you are at it

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate knowing that he is reading the thread, but I'm not even sure that is the case based upon that response - it has NOTHING to do with the topic...

He basically said jman5's analysis of the AC2/(U)AC5 nerfs were spot on, and exactly the reasons they did it.

[Cade Windstalker]

Klappspaten, on 22 April 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

My guess is that it was in preparation for the Clan UAcs. Or do you want a UAc2 that can shoot over 2000 meters? And that all 260 milliseconds?

Oh I've got a few guesses too but I'd like to hear whatever it was that actually precipitated the change, if only because it will molify a vocal chunk of the community and sets a good precident for open communication from the design department.

[Kamikaze Viking]

ArmyOfWon, on 11 April 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

Karl, I must say that this thread is, bar none, the absolute best communication from anyone at PGI I've ever seen. Period. (And I've been around for almost 2 years!)

I'm not sure I can really add any more to the conversation that hasn't been said. After thoroughly reading the whole thing it has boosted my confidence that this game will still be around for quite a while yet.

And as a Tech support guy with some programming background it's amazing to get some details of how it all works.

Thanks Karl - Keep it coming! (as long as it doesn't take you away from you main job)


Edit: props to MischiefSC - thats some amazing thought process you have there on Stats and Elo. I particularly like your ideas on using weapon loadouts as modifiers on Elo instead of weight class.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 23 April 2014 - 03:53 AM.

[Tekadept]

I really wish there was a way "Somehow" to incorporate a battle value like system into matchmaking. Yes I know it would be hard and extremly unlikely, but if ppl insist on bringing high meta gear this is a penalty. I guy can dream cant he.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

Oh flashbacks to the good ole days...

Anybody in GMT+8 wanna play megamek btw???

Edited by Tekadept, 23 April 2014 - 03:57 AM.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Tekadept, on 23 April 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

Oh flashbacks to the good ole days...

Anybody in GMT+8 wanna play megamek btw???

Ahh that brings me back to working weekend shifts at an ISP playing megamek against a friend, & getting my ass whooped.

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 22 April 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

He basically said jman5's analysis of the AC2/(U)AC5 nerfs were spot on, and exactly the reasons they did it.

I'll have to take your word for that, as it wasn't how I interpreted it, but more importantly, it still leaves a huge amount of room for interpretation and "debate" that has only been negative for the community so far. A proper response from Paul, like we have received from Karl and David on similar issues, would have been a huge benefit to the conversation and clarified the direction they are going instead of leaving us all to HOPE that is what he meant.

For the record, I'm only saying this because I still HAVE hope for the company and Paul specifically. I really think they are trying, but communication is still a big issue for him and PGI in general, so he needs to take a queue from Karl and put that little bit extra into it to overcome that hurdle. It would help the company immensely - like I tell my kids: there is a time for joking, but when the person is pissed off at you for not doing what they expected, it probably isn't that time.

[Cimarb]

It looks like I will have to eat some of my words: Thank you, Paul!

http://soundcloud.co...nogalaxy/mdb-15