208 replies to this topic

[Flapdrol]

Why is it based on weight class, and not weight? Now a locust will be in bigger trouble than a jenner for the same jump down.

[Cimarb]

Flapdrol, on 24 June 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

Why is it based on weight class, and not weight? Now a locust will be in bigger trouble than a jenner for the same jump down.

I agree. It should be based upon tonnage, not weight category.

[Karl Streiger]

Just another logic flaw in this system... oh i really start to like it.

[Minoxen]

I was curious if it had been discussed to use the movement profiles as a basis for the damage calculations, or even the tonnage? That way Commandos and Locusts might be a little less prone to leg damage as well as other mobile mechs for their weight.

[Gorgo7]

Minoxen, on 30 June 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

I was curious if it had been discussed to use the movement profiles as a basis for the damage calculations, or even the tonnage? That way Commandos and Locusts might be a little less prone to leg damage as well as other mobile mechs for their weight.

Yes, movement profiles would indeed make the most sense to me. It would allow a sense of differentiation that strict tonnage of weight classes lack.
ie. Cataphract movement profile has it climbing like a Med weight, Awesome like a Heavy etc. perhaps the same could be done for fall damage?
Much more interesting than weight classes or tonnage comparisons. Different chassis different performances.

[YueFei]

PGI, the threshold is too low. We take damage from falling 5 meters. That's how long it takes to fall for 1 second and reach 10 meters/sec. A Centurion is 14 meters tall.

Please increase threshold for fall damage to a fall height of ~15 meters. That would correspond with a downward vertical velocity of approximately 18 meters/sec. A mech would fall for roughly 1.7 seconds to fall 15 meters and reach 18 meters/sec.

[Karl Streiger]

The fall height is to low....5-(5.7-6.7m) thats nothing - the maps were not designed to have Mechs that have problems to climbe walls, and by far they are even less designed for fall damage.

A standard scenario - if you don't want to camp - if you want to move and attack:

- you want to climb a wall in canyon network - that looks like a ramp...you go full speed with your Stalker - and you are almost at the top when you get stucked....maybe 10-15m in height.... you are almost clear....you see the enemy you can fire at the enemy....and the enemy can hit you - and say thx because you are not moving...because the hill has 20cm more - as your Stalker may have climbed.
The only way to live is backwards.... and take the fall damage for a free fall of 10-15m > 50fts

wow - so there is a fall damage ramp that modify the fall damage..... and no where i can find figures about them.
They exist - now shut up or what?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 July 2014 - 03:16 AM.

[Tetra One]

I fail to understand why light mechs now take more fall damage than before....

[Cimarb]

Tetra One, on 03 July 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

I fail to understand why light mechs now take more fall damage than before....

Because they fail to use their jump jets appropriately. Use them correctly and you will never damage your legs.

[Karl Streiger]

Cimarb, on 03 July 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Because they fail to use their jump jets appropriately. Use them correctly and you will never damage your legs.

You are right - those Ravens, Commandos and Locust pilots should really start to learn to use there jump jets.....
Welcome to MWO - the world of GrannyMechs

and maybe the map designer should talk with those that make game important decissions like fall damage or hill climbing

Edited by Karl Streiger, 04 July 2014 - 03:00 AM.

[Cimarb]

Karl Streiger, on 03 July 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

You are right - those Ravens, Commandos and Locust pilots should really start to learn to use there jump jets.....
Welcome to MWO - the world of GrannyMechs

and maybe the map designer should talk with those that make game important decissions like fall damage or hill climbing

Hill climbing should definitely be addressed and given a good revision pass as a whole, but any mech that jumps off a cliff, ESPECIALLY if they don't have jump jets, should pay for that decision.

You can't expect the map to be designed like a padded room, where you can do whatever you want without repercussions, but it shouldn't be an iron maiden due to the movement system either.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why is it based on weight class, and not weight? Now a locust will be in bigger trouble than a jenner for the same jump down.

Actually it is based on tonnage. Because it's based on how much leg internal structure the mech has.

Fall damage is as follows:
20 ton mech = 0.64 damage
25 ton mech = 0.96 damage
30 ton mech = 1.12 damage
35 ton mech = 1.28 damage

So the Locust takes half the fall damage the Jenner does.

Quote

The fall height is to low.

Agreed. 5m seems way too low. You should have to fall at least 10m before you take damage.

Quote

Hill climbing should definitely be addressed and given a good revision pass as a whole, but any mech that jumps off a cliff, ESPECIALLY if they don't have jump jets, should pay for that decision.

Hill climbing penalties are currently way too punitive, especially for assaults. Base hill climbing penalties feel like they need to be reduced by about 25%. Additionally the hill climbing module needs to be made more worthwhile for heavier mechs. Instead of just -10% deceleration, it should be -10% + tonnage bonus, and the tonnage bonus should be (tonnage/10%). So a 100 ton mech would get -20% deceleration when hill climbing.

And I agree that any mech that jumps off a cliff should have to pay for that decision. However mechs that have jumpjets should also have to pay for having jumpjets. No more getting jumpjets for little or no cost. A Victor with jumpjets should be worse than an Awesome in a straight fight; That extra mobility should come with a cost in the form of negative quirks, less module slots, less weapon hardpoints, etc.... A Victor should not get the best of both categories.

Edited by Khobai, 04 July 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[NRP]

Yeah, the game's whole "movement penalty" system just sucks, for lack of a better term.

All the crying about "Whaaa! Mechs shouldn't be able to climb hills! Whaaa!" by the usual suspects ultimately resulted in an overall worse game play experience than what they were initially crying about. Now mechs can't climb anything unless they have JJs, mechs get stuck on pebbles and random map geometry, and everything takes far too much leg damage from incidental contact.

It just sucks. It seems like the people who design these hair-brained schemes don't even play the game.

[MonkeyCheese]

Here is my feedback PGI



And I have tested the fall damage in that same location going 145.5kph in a spider not using jumpjets.

That is way too low of a drop/airtime for light mechs and especially light mechs without jumpjets that cant cushion their fall to be taking damage. You take damage moving along rolling hills, small steps and ramps and this is just terrible for light mechs that do not have jumpjets.

Light mechs are already penalized in so many other ways especially the locusts and commandos and lights in general are clearly underused by the community http://mwomercs.com/...ng-light-mechs/ why must the most fragile be hindered over small drops?

The lower end of the scale for light mechs needs to be changed to like 40-50f/s while still keeping the damage from really big drops off cliffs and mountains and also the damage taken when light mechs burn all their jumpjet fuel and go rocketing into the sky and then drop to the ground like a boulder.

The system is fine just the numbers need to be tweaked for the lights. Plenty of people predicted this during the test server.

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 04 July 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[Cimarb]

Khobai, on 04 July 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

And I agree that any mech that jumps off a cliff should have to pay for that decision. However mechs that have jumpjets should also have to pay for having jumpjets. No more getting jumpjets for little or no cost. A Victor with jumpjets should be worse than an Awesome in a straight fight; That extra mobility should come with a cost in the form of negative quirks, less module slots, less weapon hardpoints, etc.... A Victor should not get the best of both categories.

I cannot wait until they start doing quirks on IS chassis! For instance, a Victor can get a turning speed penalty for every JJ equipped (-5% for each JJ slot), a Highlander can get a quirk to take less fall damage, and an Awesome can get a -10% reduction in heat for all torso-mounted energy weapons.

MonkeyCheese, on 04 July 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

And I have tested the fall damage in that same location going 145.5kph in a spider not using jumpjets.

That is way too low of a drop/airtime for light mechs and especially light mechs without jumpjets that cant cushion their fall to be taking damage. You take damage moving along rolling hills, small steps and ramps and this is just terrible for light mechs that do not have jumpjets.

Light mechs are already penalized in so many other ways especially the locusts and commandos and lights in general are clearly underused by the community http://mwomercs.com/...ng-light-mechs/ why must the most fragile be hindered over small drops?

The lower end of the scale for light mechs needs to be changed to like 40-50f/s while still keeping the damage from really big drops off cliffs and mountains and also the damage taken when light mechs burn all their jumpjet fuel and go rocketing into the sky and then drop to the ground like a boulder.

The system is fine just the numbers need to be tweaked for the lights. Plenty of people predicted this during the test server.

What do you guys think of an adjustment to falling damage where the speed of the mech offsets the distance/speed before they take damage? In other words, a faster mech can "fall" farther/faster before taking damage, while a slow mech takes damage at lesser distances. (hope I am describing that correctly). Think of a police officer clocking your car. The faster they are going, the less it seems you are going, so you would only be penalized for the distance/speed you are going OVER the police officers speed.

[Bigbacon]

thank you thank you thank you! lets hope this tweaking works!

Very glad you guys are on top of this issue because it really needs attention!

[Gorgo7]

Cimarb, on 04 July 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

What do you guys think of an adjustment to falling damage where the speed of the mech offsets the distance/speed before they take damage? In other words, a faster mech can "fall" farther/faster before taking damage, while a slow mech takes damage at lesser distances. (hope I am describing that correctly). Think of a police officer clocking your car. The faster they are going, the less it seems you are going, so you would only be penalized for the distance/speed you are going OVER the police officers speed.

Interesting...I prefer the "my machine can run at 120 km/h (33.3 m/s - 100ft/s) therefore I can fall at the same rate and not take damage."
A 50 ton machine moving at 120 km/h and capable of executing a button hook turn on ONE leg can certainly fall at the same or similar rate and recover with two legs.
Why not? It's not a car with wheels. It has legs. It has muscles.

We should be able to fall farther or take less damage. Conversely only when we exceed walking speed while falling.

Hmm...

[Cimarb]

Gorgo7, on 04 July 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

Interesting...I prefer the "my machine can run at 120 km/h (33.3 m/s - 100ft/s) therefore I can fall at the same rate and not take damage."
A 50 ton machine moving at 120 km/h and capable of executing a button hook turn on ONE leg can certainly fall at the same or similar rate and recover with two legs.
Why not? It's not a car with wheels. It has legs. It has muscles.

We should be able to fall farther or take less damage. Conversely only when we exceed walking speed while falling.

Hmm...

Well, horizontal and vertical movement isn't exactly the same, but it a faster mech should definitely be more adept at handling that speed. I am not saying a car that can go 200mph should not take damage from falling straight down at 200mph, but if you are going 200mph horizontally, your momentum from that should lower the damage from a small elevation change, since the angle is far less, compared to one taking that drop slowly.

Think of your car going off a five foot drop at 10mph. Because it is going so slow, it is going to take a lot of damage due to the steep angle it makes the height change at. Now take that same car going 75, and it will take the drop at a far more horizontal angle, and therefore the shocks will work and absorb the drop much better.

Maybe not the same situation, as they are humanoid machines, but since the speeds are so great, it is closer to compare them to cars then people.

[Bigbacon]

Cimarb, on 04 July 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:

Hill climbing should definitely be addressed and given a good revision pass as a whole, but any mech that jumps off a cliff, ESPECIALLY if they don't have jump jets, should pay for that decision.

You can't expect the map to be designed like a padded room, where you can do whatever you want without repercussions, but it shouldn't be an iron maiden due to the movement system either.

light folk aren't complaining about jumping off a high cliff, even we understand that, it is the tiny little deviation in anything that cause you to lose leg armor even in spots on a map that are supposed to be well and easy to travel on.

point of whole issue is that light mechs as is, already don't have enough players. the falling damage is absolutely unavoidable and ridiculous even during basic piloting that there is even less incentive for lights to be used. Rarely see more than 1 or 2 on the team now.

The game has 4 classes of mech and really only 2 are used.

fall damage has its place, it makes sense, but from a balance and fun standpoint, it needs to be tweaked badly, especially for the fast movers.

glad they are going to look at it.

[Vassago Rain]

Currently it's hilariously excessive, and doesn't do anything to jumpmechs, period.

Just running around on alpine in my TDK, once we reached the enemy, I had lost 11% of my life total. Meanwhile, all of my shadowhawks, typically outfitted with 2 or 3 jets, never have to worry about fall damage or bump damage.

I feel this may not have been the intended effect.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 05 July 2014 - 07:31 AM.