63 replies to this topic

[Lukoi Banacek]

Carrioncrows, on 03 July 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

But your right i would be fine with take damage to different locations when you fall over. But in this current system where getting double legged = death. You simply can't take damage to the legs, there has to be another way.

Therein lies the problem. You are blaming the PGI attempt to maintain some semblence of physics with your lack of piloting acumen at this point. Earlier incarnations of the game spoiled you in your situational awareness (ie understanding and piloting according near terrain with drop off) and/or JJ management (ie in that you've been "getting over" by not having to feather JJ's up until now).

It's not a game problem. It's a very simple piloting error that you can easily overcome with much less practice than say, learning to Gauss effectively.

That's not a slight against you, just pointing out that fallacy of your complaint really. I actually take noticeably LESS leg damage in my lights than I did previously, simply because I can control when it occurs...when I take "dumb" leg damage now, it's almost always my fault for leaping or failing to feather JJ's. The other tiny percentage belongs to those in big mechs who cannot be bothered to veer ever so slightly to avoid rubbing armor off of me (or they cannot see me).

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 03 July 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Interesting, I'll have to do a few more test runs then. It was pretty consistent in my 171 kph TDK.


What?! Base jumping in a Commando is a way of life, man! Stop trying to repress me, man! Not cool!

itis also possible I didn't hit all the same cliffs, clipping hazards, or the same angles as you. Or they just hate Commandos. I definitely need to give them many more runs before I make any definitive "conclusion", just not seeing it so far, though I can see with all the sheer drops (most of which are enough to conceal an Atlas, and hence, more than 2 levels high) in HPG can be an issue, and where Alpine, Trampoline and Mordor have their definite danger spots.

YueFei, on 03 July 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

I have no issue with fall damage being in the game. I'm even totally in support of having major leg damage from big drops.

The problem I have is that the current threshold is set too low.

An F-18 can drop 6 meters onto much flimsier landing gear, and that thing can mass 20+ tons. An F-14 probably passes the same test, since both are carrier aircraft, and that thing masses 30+ tons. They'd hit the ground at 10+ meters/sec from that height.

Right now our fall damage threshold is set to 10 meters/sec of vertical speed. I'd recommend bumping it up to 18 meters/sec before fall damage even kicks in.

airframes also are designed with significantly more "give" or ability to bend and contort (the SR71 and Concorde being two noted for actually becoming longer at max speed) than armored combat vehicles. The joints do give more flex than a tank, obviously, but it's still not terribly elastic.

Lukoi, on 03 July 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

It's not a game problem. It's a very simple piloting error that you can easily overcome with much less practice than say, learning to Gauss effectively.
I actually take noticeably LESS leg damage in my lights than I did previously, simply because I can control when it occurs...when I take "dumb" leg damage now, it's almost always my fault for leaping or failing to feather JJ's. The other tiny percentage belongs to those in big mechs who cannot be bothered to veer ever so slightly to avoid rubbing armor off of me (or they cannot see me).

sans the possibly ego-flaring criticisms, I largely agree with your salient points.

[Kitty Bacon]

POOTYTANGASAUR, on 03 July 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Ghost heat is the only thing in game other than gauss charge that needs removed.

When that happens can I run my 9 PPC Dire Wolf with a Gauss and not worry about killing myself?

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...948c08c75a92425

Could you imagine without ghost heat? Who needs armor when you can oneshot anything from 800m away and be hidden to cooldown

Edited by Blue doqyn, 03 July 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[Iqfish]

I love how this topic summoned Carrioncrows

[Livewyr]

Should it go away? Absolutely not. (Falling from height, at 20-100 tons should do some damage.)

Should it be adjusted a little? Yes. Not quite such short falls. (You are not falling straight legged like a javelin. You have knees, they absorb some shock.)

[Prezimonto]

Can I have fall damage AND a chance to get knocked down if I make an uncontrolled landing?

[Carrioncrows]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Yes, because knockdown worked SOOOOOOOOO well in CB.

Only because the developers didn't remotely come close to thinking it through.

They implemented knockdown without understanding what should cause it.

They just did X+X = knockdown

Instead of making it skill based as I've suggested many many times.

There are some cases where x+x will equal knockdown for sure, like geting DFA'd by a 90 ton highlander



But in general it should be because the pilot put himself at risk of being knocked down.

You push your mech too faster over uneven terrain which will give you a gyro destabaized.

Gyro destablized means you are at risk of being knocked down.

Same should apply to essentially pilot checks.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 03 July 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Should it go away? Absolutely not. (Falling from height, at 20-100 tons should do some damage.)

Should it be adjusted a little? Yes. Not quite such short falls. (You are not falling straight legged like a javelin. You have knees, they absorb some shock.)

While I agree, to some degree, i am still trying to define how bad the problem REALLY is.

I haven't taken leg damage from running falls, in general movement yet in my tests, though I need to go focus on billy goat runs more later tonight.

But in most cases, my lil Locust "fall guy" has taken minimal damage, even when hurling it over 100 meters to the ground. Just imagine the QQ if they went for a little realism on that one.

check out some of the movement damage in this little video I clipped together out of boredom.....

which totally captures the feel I hope Heavy Gear will capture.

[YueFei]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

airframes also are designed with significantly more "give" or ability to bend and contort (the SR71 and Concorde being two noted for actually becoming longer at max speed) than armored combat vehicles. The joints do give more flex than a tank, obviously, but it's still not terribly elastic.

That landing gear flexes maybe 1 meter or so to absorb that landing. A mech like the Centurion is 14 meters tall in MWO. It can use 4 meters or so of its height to cushion the landing. Despite massing 2.5 times more than an F-18, it actually would experience less force on the landing than the F-18 would. Assuming that the Mechwarrior landed properly. Plus, these are Battlemechs a thousand years in the future, built with materials that put modern ones to shame.

This comes back to those piloting checks stjobe talks about. If you are a clumsy mechwarrior and land stiff-legged and stiff-backed, yeah you are gonna hurt yourself and hurt your mech. But a properly cushioned landing at 10 meters/sec shouldn't damage your mech at all.

That's why I'm in favor of increasing the threshold where fall damage begins. Even if the scaling for fall damage were to increase steeply. To me, an uncontrolled fall from a 100 meter height should be near fatal. You'd reach a speed of 44 meters/sec (158 kph). Trying to cushion that even over 4 meters of a mech's height would result in over 24 g's. The Mechwarrior would probably black out from the impact. It would essentially be like being in a high speed car crash.

[Prezimonto]

I've waxed rhapsodic on using a physics based gyro model with some simple vector math. Big mechs = big gyros = harder to knock over, but if you get a big enough impulse it can happen. A mech known for a DFA might have an unusually large vertical correct on it's gyro.

As for pilot checks:

They've said they're re-working the skill trees. I'm seriously hoping they'll have a nice wide selection of areas to help out. Mech landing could easily be part of a tree that gives you a much greater height to fall from with no damage.

Edited by Prezimonto, 03 July 2014 - 02:25 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Carrioncrows, on 03 July 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Only because the developers didn't remotely come close to thinking it through.

They implemented knockdown without understanding what should cause it.

Not even remotely the part I refer to. Remember the clipping, warping and teleporting when standing back up? That they could never figure out? THAT was why it was removed, not the knockdown itself. (Though Paul did get a nice lesson in bad programming over it)

[Carrioncrows]

Lukoi, on 03 July 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Therein lies the problem. You are blaming the PGI attempt to maintain some semblence of physics with your lack of piloting acumen at this point. Earlier incarnations of the game spoiled you in your situational awareness (ie understanding and piloting according near terrain with drop off) and/or JJ management (ie in that you've been "getting over" by not having to feather JJ's up until now).

It's not a game problem. It's a very simple piloting error that you can easily overcome with much less practice than say, learning to Gauss effectively.

That's not a slight against you, just pointing out that fallacy of your complaint really. I actually take noticeably LESS leg damage in my lights than I did previously, simply because I can control when it occurs...when I take "dumb" leg damage now, it's almost always my fault for leaping or failing to feather JJ's. The other tiny percentage belongs to those in big mechs who cannot be bothered to veer ever so slightly to avoid rubbing armor off of me (or they cannot see me).

Ofc i am blaming PGI.

Who else is to blame.

Now call me crazy but when it comes to balancing a game there are two options:
1. Balance the game on what the game needs (This is what we should have and what I am suggesting in OP and thread)
2. Use full on phsycis for EVERYTHING.

You can't have it both ways, you can't say you can kill yourself by tripping over a spoon but driving into a wall at 150 kph doesn't even scratch you.

So yeah. I am suggesting a 'Fix' that is more in line with battletech and addresses the issue.

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Not even remotely the part I refer to. Remember the clipping, warping and teleporting when standing back up? That they could never figure out? THAT was why it was removed, not the knockdown itself. (Though Paul did get a nice lesson in bad programming over it)

That's net code and HSR which was resolved a year+ ago.

the reason knockdown was taken out was because of this:



no because of any clipping issues.

[Bishop Steiner]

YueFei, on 03 July 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

That landing gear flexes maybe 1 meter or so to absorb that landing. A mech like the Centurion is 14 meters tall in MWO. It can use 4 meters or so of its height to cushion the landing. Despite massing 2.5 times more than an F-18, it actually would experience less force on the landing than the F-18 would. Assuming that the Mechwarrior landed properly. Plus, these are Battlemechs a thousand years in the future, built with materials that put modern ones to shame.

This comes back to those piloting checks stjobe talks about. If you are a clumsy mechwarrior and land stiff-legged and stiff-backed, yeah you are gonna hurt yourself and hurt your mech. But a properly cushioned landing at 10 meters/sec shouldn't damage your mech at all.

That's why I'm in favor of increasing the threshold where fall damage begins. Even if the scaling for fall damage were to increase steeply. To me, an uncontrolled fall from a 100 meter height should be near fatal. You'd reach a speed of 44 meters/sec (158 kph). Trying to cushion that even over 4 meters of a mech's height would result in over 24 g's. The Mechwarrior would probably black out from the impact. It would essentially be like being in a high speed car crash.

I'm referring to the elasticity of the airframe itself. Yes the Mech has legs, those joints though, beyond mechanical levers, don't have any inherent elasticity.

If the airframe did not have flex, then even the flex ot the landing gear would not be sufficient.

Carrioncrows, on 03 July 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Ofc i am blaming PGI.

Who else is to blame.

Now call me crazy but when it comes to balancing a game there are two options:
1. Balance the game on what the game needs (This is what we should have and what I am suggesting in OP and thread)
2. Use full on phsycis for EVERYTHING.

You can't have it both ways, you can't say you can kill yourself by tripping over a spoon but driving into a wall at 150 kph doesn't even scratch you.

So yeah. I am suggesting a 'Fix' that is more in line with battletech and addresses the issue.




That's net code and HSR which was resolved a year+ ago.

the reason knockdown was taken out was because of this:



no because of any clipping issues.

really, got something showing the clipping was fixed? Because that is not HSR. And as of the time they pulled it, the actual warping had not been fixed. Since it was no longer an in game issue, I can't imagine they spent time fixing the netcode after. But hey , I could be wrong.

Not wrong so far about people way over exaggerating the issue of fall damage.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

While I agree, to some degree, i am still trying to define how bad the problem REALLY is.

I haven't taken leg damage from running falls, in general movement yet in my tests, though I need to go focus on billy goat runs more later tonight.

But in most cases, my lil Locust "fall guy" has taken minimal damage, even when hurling it over 100 meters to the ground. Just imagine the QQ if they went for a little realism on that one.

check out some of the movement damage in this little video I clipped together out of boredom.....

which totally captures the feel I hope Heavy Gear will capture.

I am definitely feeling some issues in my SCR, especially in Frozen City, Caustic, and HPG Relay. I find myself taking leg damage from uneven terrain drops of about 2/3 of my mech's height (sometimes less) . There is no way to mitigate it, and in the case of Frozen City, no way to avoid it aside from using only 10% of the map.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 03 July 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

I am definitely feeling some issues in my SCR, especially in Frozen City, Caustic, and HPG Relay. I find myself taking leg damage from uneven terrain drops of about 2/3 of my mech's height (sometimes less) . There is no way to mitigate it, and in the case of Frozen City, no way to avoid it aside from using only 10% of the map.

not sure that isn't a slight exaggeration on Frozen City. I was running my SC all over it last night, without noticing any issues.

[YueFei]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

I'm referring to the elasticity of the airframe itself. Yes the Mech has legs, those joints though, beyond mechanical levers, don't have any inherent elasticity.

If the airframe did not have flex, then even the flex ot the landing gear would not be sufficient.

I'm not quite following you with the elasticity angle. Why would a mech's joints need to be elastic? They just have to be at a slightly bent angle on impact, and apply a force against the landing, but a force in which the joint is still being compressed as the mech drops in.

I mean, a human's achilles tendon is elastic once you reach a certain joint angle for landing, but the knee joint isn't. That's the quad muscles applying power as a person lands from a jump in order to gradually stop the fall. That's what a mech should be doing, and because of its immense height, it can spread out the landing over a longer distance and time.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

(the SR71 and Concorde being two noted for actually becoming longer at max speed)

Short off-topic nit-pick; this is actually wholly due to the friction of them going at Mach 2+ through air heats them up enough that thermal expansion takes place in the airframe (SR-71 cockpit air entered the cockpit at -40 degrees, but the pilots heated their meals by just pressing them against the 300-degrees hot windshield...).

[Reno Blade]

The fall damage seems in a very good place. It kicks in at around your mechs size (for fall height) and ramps up in a decent way (range brackets for speed).

I ran around with my stormcrow, had teammates in spiders and jenners and none of us had worse than orange leg-armor after crazy un-controlled movement.
If you manage to leg yourself by just running around, your drill sergeant will have you run another year in the academy.

Fast mechs can slow down very fast and there is no reason at all to "fly" off a ramp because you ran 170kp/h and lost contact with the sourface of the ramp instead of running down with 130kph in a controlled way.

Use your "piloting skills" to slow down 20 kph, or take the risk and avoid a tactical bad situation (like getting away from someone, where you don't want to slow down).
This is part of situational awareness, teamwork (scouting, diversions and positioning) and a good pilot will know when to take the risk and when to be where to not get into the situation where you need to take such risks.

It's a good system, adds realism and some level for movement and positioning that increases the depht of the whole gameplay.

I don't understand why everything needs always to be black or white. You don't need to always run full speed off a cliff. Take the route that is best for your role and your mech and get your JJ teammates to distract, hold, rush (whatever) and do some TEAMWORK.

Rolewarfare and teamwork. Some people asked for a very long time for it and this whole system improves it.

[Bishop Steiner]

YueFei, on 03 July 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

I'm not quite following you with the elasticity angle. Why would a mech's joints need to be elastic? They just have to be at a slightly bent angle on impact, and apply a force against the landing, but a force in which the joint is still being compressed as the mech drops in.

I mean, a human's achilles tendon is elastic once you reach a certain joint angle for landing, but the knee joint isn't. That's the quad muscles applying power as a person lands from a jump in order to gradually stop the fall. That's what a mech should be doing, and because of its immense height, it can spread out the landing over a longer distance and time.

actually bone is elastic, just not very (pretty much All things have some degree of elasticity, or they would be totally inflexible until broken). Elasticity is exactly the thing that allows for flex without breaks. All airframes considerably more "flexible" than most ground based vehicles and forces they can bear, more rigid objects tend to have things start breaking.

The point is you're comparing what an aircraft can absorb in a static drop vs what a more rigid frame can, is a fallible basis for an argument.

stjobe, on 03 July 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Short off-topic nit-pick; this is actually wholly due to the friction of them going at Mach 2+ through air heats them up enough that thermal expansion takes place in the airframe (SR-71 cockpit air entered the cockpit at -40 degrees, but the pilots heated their meals by just pressing them against the 300-degrees hot windshield...).

and without elasticity that thermal expansion would damage them.

[YueFei]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

actually bone is elastic, just not very (pretty much All things have some degree of elasticity, or they would be totally inflexible until broken). Elasticity is exactly the thing that allows for flex without breaks. All airframes considerably more "flexible" than most ground based vehicles and forces they can bear, more rigid objects tend to have things start breaking.

The point is you're comparing what an aircraft can absorb in a static drop vs what a more rigid frame can, is a fallible basis for an argument.

No it's not, because a Mech isn't a rigid frame, either, unless the pilot is a derp. That aircraft's landing gear can't flex more than about 1 meter or so, whereas a Mech's frame could probably easily flex along 4 meters or so, from bending at the feet, knees, and waist. Heck, even proper control of the arms can help spread out the impact of landing.

It's just that it has to be done manually by the Mechwarrior, which is where the piloting checks come in when you're playing TT.