208 replies to this topic

[cmslick3]

OK thanks for the feedback, I guess...

Just doesn't seem right that the game should have potential damage which you cannot measure/mitigate. That would be like having heat damage but no heat meter...

[Cimarb]

Gorgo7, on 09 June 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

Nice thinking but impractical and over engineered.

Cheers!

Not at all. The actual functionality is very simple, as it takes the m/s that is already measured and uses it to move a bar. The only "difficult" part would be the design time it would take to add the bar to the HUD, which wouldn't really need anything custom to the mech - it could be the same bar as acceleration and JJ boost, or even be added directly to the JJ boost bar.

[Gorgo7]

Cimarb, on 09 June 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Not at all. The actual functionality is very simple, as it takes the m/s that is already measured and uses it to move a bar. The only "difficult" part would be the design time it would take to add the bar to the HUD, which wouldn't really need anything custom to the mech - it could be the same bar as acceleration and JJ boost, or even be added directly to the JJ boost bar.

Pardon me,
I meant that an additional bar designed to be looked at while piloting may be a useful tool in training but time spent in combat will train you just as thoroughly and not have you looking down at your cockpit during some sharp exchanges.

Do you look at your Jump bar when using it to avoid an opponent or during a phase involving shooting, what about just to get up that hill in front of you? I don't, I've got it figured out after a few practice runs and/or fights. 5 or 50 combats to master doesn't matter.
It just becomes extraneous distraction.
No offense intended!

[Cimarb]

Gorgo7, on 09 June 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

Pardon me,
I meant that an additional bar designed to be looked at while piloting may be a useful tool in training but time spent in combat will train you just as thoroughly and not have you looking down at your cockpit during some sharp exchanges.

Do you look at your Jump bar when using it to avoid an opponent or during a phase involving shooting, what about just to get up that hill in front of you? I don't, I've got it figured out after a few practice runs and/or fights. 5 or 50 combats to master doesn't matter.
It just becomes extraneous distraction.
No offense intended!

I also rarely look down at my weapons loadout in game, even to the point of ammo, as I have played with my loadouts enough to know how long before I will run out. That doesn't mean the weapons loadout screen doesn't matter, though!

Oh, and no offense taken at all. Debate is fun.

[YueFei]

Alexander Schmidt, on 09 June 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

As there seem to be confusion about when fall damage applies, I would like to take the chance to clarify.

In order to take fall damage two conditions need to be true:

1. A Mech is only eligible of taking damage if the time in the air before touching the ground is longer than a certain value (in the example this was 1 second).

2. Once the first condition (air time) is met, the fall speed (y-axis) must reach a certain minimum (in the example 30 ft/s). Even if the condition of time in the air is met but the fall speed was under the minimum, there will be no fall damage taken.

Both of these conditions also prevent from taking fall damage while moving over uneven terrain with high speeds.

I hope this could help clearing up the confusion.

NOTE: All numbers above are for example purposes only.

Using your example value of 1 second and 30 ft/sec, a mech falling 5 meters will take leg damage. A Centurion is 14 meters tall.

I really hope those numbers get a major overhaul before going live.

Do you know why fast mechs without JJs take damage from running on uneven ground? It's because they get a lot farther when they run over a hill and get air time. So they'll make contact with the ground again farther down the slope. An Atlas running on the same ground might become airborne and drop, but he'll only go forward about 15 meters before hitting the ground again, where the slope is maybe only like 5 meters lower in elevation. A Commando running along the same slope will travel forward 45+ meters in the same time frame, and where he hits the ground the slope might be 15 meters lower. The Commando falls 3 times the distance that the Atlas does because his forward momentum carries him forward farther, where he'll hit the slope where the slope is at a lower elevation.

Edited by YueFei, 09 June 2014 - 03:44 PM.

[Wintersdark]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 08 June 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

Mechs without jump jets will basically be screwed on maps such as canyon. Jump snipers will reserve jump jets to make sure they can cushion their landing. I think this will just create more problems. It will also create a greater skill gap and learning curve since jump sniping will be harder. Those who do it as second nature will likely be unaffected.

I love the concept of the changes, but this is a major concern for me too.

As it stands, the movement changes really screwed non-jumping mechs in a big way. Maps like Canyons for a non-jumper are horrible. In order for these changes to work, they _really_ need to be set in such a way as a mech slipping down the canyon walls is not taking damage.

Otherwise, while the changes have minimal impact on jumpers (who can simply save a bit of fuel to soften their landings, or use their jets to cushion falls in normal movement) it absolutely wrecks non-jumping mechs.

By all means, go along with the concept, but keep in mind how it impacts non-jumping mechs, who are already at a severe disadvantage in many maps but gain no advantage in others. No jump jets is a substantial disadvantage, even if poptarting is not a consideration.

[Karl Streiger]

So at first its i think its a stupid solution at best.
So for example - me and my son jump from 2m height.
He is 2 1/2 years old ~ 1m height - 16kg - me 186 100kg
so i may guess that his legs get damaged while i can adsorb the shock of falling....

thats about humans - and mechs have structure and joints like humans the bigger the Mech the more weight its structure can adsorb - so from a BattleTech view this system is worse really worse

But now from the GamePlay.... my CTF-3D is hardly a second in air to get clear with my PPCs.... so this system does effect poptaring ZERO. But on the other hand my HGN-733C or VTR-9B both with SRMs and AC 20 need every burst of those castrated JumpJets to climb a ridge or to get clear of ankle hight boulders or pipes - and if i try to jump in to the back of an enemy - i don't have fuel remaing - so I will get damage?

Great after killing the Brawler VTR and HGN another modification that makes jump jets more and more a tool to "neuter" the short commings of bad collision detection on those maps - nothing more.

[Wildflame]

I would prefer that the following be implemented:
- damage is based on tonnage, not class (classes are too coarse, favouring using heavier 'Mechs within a class)
- damage is based on a % of maximum, not actual, armour (to reward using higher leg armour values)
- aggressive scaling (to disproportionately affect heavier 'Mechs who are less likely to be legged in the first place, have far more capacity to bring maximum armour, tend to fall off fewer cliffs, and carry significantly more firepower than lighter 'Mechs)
- a relatively generous fall 'no-damage' period, to account for modest falls without damage (at least sufficient for a 'Mech up to say 50 tons to fall its own height without damage)
- a reasonable minimum fall-speed threshold for taking damage (to allow for soft landings via feathering jump jets)

and most importantly,

- start with a relatively conservative effect and balance upwards each patch until satisfied with the final result.

I believe there is a significant risk of underestimating the impact of this change on the game judging by past history of large buff/nerf cycles. I do not want to drop MWO for a fortnight because someone decided it would be more effective to put in a punishing fall damage system and balance back to reasonableness - causing every 'Mechwarrior to spontaneously turn into lucky actors.

Otherwise, I look forward to this change with anticipation!

[Lily from animove]

I did some calculations and think the numbers are not good.

lights can still jump like crazy beeing hardly penalised, while assaults gets too much damage at all.

The numbers should be tweaked by making any make having 2% regardless of its class. They already get increased dmg by the classes hitpoints they have.

@Wildflame:

damage is already kinda tonnage dependend. Since mostlikely the emchs with more tonnage have more armor/HP. Those will suffer more damage then. But the % for each class is too heavily penalising the high weight mechs.

Also revert the recent Assault JJ nerf, their JJ's will be comepletely useless with both penalties.

Edited by Lily from animove, 10 June 2014 - 05:50 AM.

[Cimarb]

So, it my tally skills are up to par, based upon the last seven pages...

Assaults will be hurt by this
Lights will be hurt by this
Jump snipers will be hurt by this
Jump brawlers will be hurt by this
Non-jump mechs will be hurt by this

Good job PGI, I think you actually have a balanced system here!

[Gorgo7]

The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

Whoa! be cool! Lets let them implement it first then we can show off our Newtonian physics skills to one another.

This is excellent news all around. But there is NO information except for generalizations on how they are approaching it.

There are NO hard numbers. There is no reason to whip each other into a state of angry confusion.

You guys are freaking me out.

[Solis Obscuri]

Seems pretty reasonable.

On a related note, when are we getting collisions back?

[Facetious]

I have to say, I was excited when I saw the title. As a Locust driver, flying accross the landscape at 170kph while fighting, I still physically wince whenever I Wile E Coyote over a locust-high ledge, knowing I'm about to take a leg hit.

But those numbers are actually increasing the damage to lights, which is frustrating. You're saying its currently 0.3-0.5 per leg (or 0.6-1 total), and with this patch it will be 0.67 - 0.938? That doesn't seem to be helping...

I really do wish they could make it a bit easier for the mechs that are already the easiest in the game to kill, to not just accidentally kill themselves...

[Cimarb]

Facetious, on 10 June 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I have to say, I was excited when I saw the title. As a Locust driver, flying accross the landscape at 170kph while fighting, I still physically wince whenever I Wile E Coyote over a locust-high ledge, knowing I'm about to take a leg hit.

But those numbers are actually increasing the damage to lights, which is frustrating. You're saying its currently 0.3-0.5 per leg (or 0.6-1 total), and with this patch it will be 0.67 - 0.938? That doesn't seem to be helping...

I really do wish they could make it a bit easier for the mechs that are already the easiest in the game to kill, to not just accidentally kill themselves...

Alex(?) has already stated that it is meant to prevent damage while running in fast mechs. They are well aware of that problem, so let's just see how it works in practice before getting too worried.

[Xarian]

Facetious, on 10 June 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I have to say, I was excited when I saw the title. As a Locust driver, flying accross the landscape at 170kph while fighting, I still physically wince whenever I Wile E Coyote over a locust-high ledge, knowing I'm about to take a leg hit.

But those numbers are actually increasing the damage to lights, which is frustrating. You're saying its currently 0.3-0.5 per leg (or 0.6-1 total), and with this patch it will be 0.67 - 0.938? That doesn't seem to be helping...

I really do wish they could make it a bit easier for the mechs that are already the easiest in the game to kill, to not just accidentally kill themselves...

If it's correct, it's only when you've been in the air > 1 second. Lights won't typically be in the air that long if they are hopping around and jumping over things.

[YueFei]

Xarian, on 10 June 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

If it's correct, it's only when you've been in the air > 1 second. Lights won't typically be in the air that long if they are hopping around and jumping over things.

If you fall 5 meters, you're in the air for 1 second.

So basically he's right about being worried for his legs when he falls over a Locust-high ledge.

The example numbers they gave better not be the real ones. =/

[Tiamat of the Sea]

I don't understand why this number is being tied to armor value. This should be tied to the total weight of the 'mech (and not the weight class, but the actual 'mech weight) directly- no more, no less. People who underarmor their legs are making the choice to lose their legs more easily, and that should always apply evenly. The consequence that is fall damage should not be lessened for having less armor any more than weapon damage should be lessened for having less armor. Rather than having a fancy highly-variable damage value, it should be a simple

T * D * V = F

Tonnage
times
Distance
times
Velocity
equals
Fall damage.

Why you are making this more complex to math/program I don't understand.

[Lily from animove]

Alexander Schmidt, on 09 June 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

As there seem to be confusion about when fall damage applies, I would like to take the chance to clarify.

In order to take fall damage two conditions need to be true:

1. A Mech is only eligible of taking damage if the time in the air before touching the ground is longer than a certain value (in the example this was 1 second).

2. Once the first condition (air time) is met, the fall speed (y-axis) must reach a certain minimum (in the example 30 ft/s). Even if the condition of time in the air is met but the fall speed was under the minimum, there will be no fall damage taken.

Both of these conditions also prevent from taking fall damage while moving over uneven terrain with high speeds.

I hope this could help clearing up the confusion.

NOTE: All numbers above are for example purposes only.

yes thx a lot.

[Facetious]

YueFei, on 11 June 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

If you fall 5 meters, you're in the air for 1 second.

So basically he's right about being worried for his legs when he falls over a Locust-high ledge.

The example numbers they gave better not be the real ones. =/

Yep, and that's if you just step off the ledge. Usually, if you're running at 170kph, you end up with a much straighter trajectory. I get some good hang time sometimes when I run straight off a short drop. That's why I do like the Y-axis velocity being included in these damage numbers, but I'd still like a bit less damage.

[Willothius]

Wintersdark, on 09 June 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Otherwise, while the changes have minimal impact on jumpers (who can simply save a bit of fuel to soften their landings, or use their jets to cushion falls in normal movement) it absolutely wrecks non-jumping mechs.

If they pick the numbers right, it won't wreck non-jumpers, it'll only make things more REALISTIC, and that's good!
-If you have JJ's, you NEED to save fuel for landing; takes skill, adds risk to using 'em, and sounds much more real to me.
-If you don't have JJ's, you need to pilot your mech accordingly; don't just run off high cliffs if you can't absorb the shock, you shouldn't be immune to falling great heights! Again, with proper numbers, you won't get dmg for just 'sliding downhill', but you WON'T be immune to falling damage..

"Gravity, man, it's not just a good idea, it's THE LAW!"

Furthermore, speaking of realistic, damage should scale by weight, not weight-class, and the next step should DEFINITELY be to add screen shake while falling! How it works now is completely unrealistic; Lift is shaky, because rockets! but descent is floating down on an invisible elevator floor?

Edited by Willothius, 13 June 2014 - 07:45 AM.