109 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

It seems... inconsistent. I don't know whether it is from where my 'mech puts its feet or something else, but going 171 kph down the slight slope in front of me here, I get hangtime and leg damage about every second or third time:

[John80sk]

I have noticed a lot of the time in live matches I take damage when I really shouldn't be. Probably having to do with server/client desync.

[Bishop Steiner]

MonkeyCheese, on 03 July 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

Bah I am 100% for things like knockdowns to bring back the skill in driving lights but tiny hills is a joke..

Or is this just more hate speech propaganda against the under 30ton mechs that might I add were already walking death traps when mistakes are made given the 70% queues of heavies and assaults in our population that boat high alphas all day long while the light mechs get small percentages in players??

It is quite clear where the majority of the playerbase sits, why do light mechs always get the sharp end of the stick?



well keep up the testing then, but the small drop problem is already there.

I drive the ultimate persecuted red headed stepchild mech, they are called "Mediums". None of the speed, size or HSR advantages of Lights, none of the Armor and Weapon advantages of Heavies and Assaults. Live by "mech agility" and wits alone.

Don't you even be starting up with yo persecution complex with me, honey, un uhh!!!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 03 July 2014 - 03:15 PM.

[MonkeyCheese]

stjobe, on 03 July 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

It seems... inconsistent. I don't know whether it is from where my 'mech puts its feet or something else, but going 171 kph down the slight slope in front of me here, I get hangtime and leg damage about every second or third time:

I think we can all agree that its the small things like slopes/ramps and steps. it is not like any of us are suggesting that running off that bridge in front of you in that screenshot should be fine or anything.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 03 July 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

It seems... inconsistent. I don't know whether it is from where my 'mech puts its feet or something else, but going 171 kph down the slight slope in front of me here, I get hangtime and leg damage about every second or third time:

that wouldn't really shock me, tbh, as we have enough clipping dead zones and other geography issues in the live servers to cause a host of issues the training grounds might not replicate.

I just don't think my teammates would appreciate me testing hills in my locust in a live drop.....

MonkeyCheese, on 03 July 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

I think we can all agree that its the small things like slopes/ramps and steps. it is not like any of us are suggesting that running off that bridge in front of you in that screenshot should be fine or anything.

well, actually, some folks sort of are.... *cough* npo names given, since I agree with some of them on a whole host of other things...... (not you this time Livewyr!)

[MonkeyCheese]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

Don't you even be starting up wit yo persecution complex with me, honey, un uhh!!!

Well not really you so I apologize but the always fatty mech nerf everything small just because I am not skilled to fight them crowd are clearly out there. Like I said we already know 70% of the player base is the larger mechs

Oh and my testing and that video were all on the testing grounds but it was just the same in the live matches.

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 03 July 2014 - 03:17 PM.

[stjobe]

Here's a screengrab with the descent meter visible from that same location so nobody can claim it isn't happening. To reiterate, that's 171 kph down a slope that really shouldn't give me hangtime or leg damage:

[MonkeyCheese]

stjobe, on 03 July 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

Here's a screengrab with the descent meter visible from that same location so nobody can claim it isn't happening. To reiterate, that's 171 kph down a slope that really shouldn't give me hangtime or leg damage:

Simple suggestion would be to change the number to like 40-50f/s thats kinda like over 12m in jump height right. Most jumpjetting mechs surely do over 12m? for lights atleast, that way big falls and max jumpjet burns still hurt you

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 03 July 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Dropping off the parking garage deck, be it at 10 kph I took 2% damage. Running off at 150 kph , I hit 57 ft/s (I should have checked that more frequently, will when the video processes) and took 3% damage.

Now, this doesn't seem right...it's the same height, and gravity accelerates you at the same rate in the vertical direction whether you are going from a dead fall or have some horizontal velocity. Is this where PGI's "air time" becomes part of the equation, rather than just vertical velocity upon impact?

[MonkeyCheese]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 03 July 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

Now, this doesn't seem right...it's the same height, and gravity accelerates you at the same rate in the vertical direction whether you are going from a dead fall or have some horizontal velocity. Is this where PGI's "air time" becomes part of the equation, rather than just vertical velocity upon impact?

well that doesn't make sense at all.... needs to be reworked.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

MonkeyCheese, on 03 July 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

well that doesn't make sense at all.... needs to be reworked.

Looks like it might be a rounding issue...I went and tried it myself. The first time I lost 3%, just as Bishop did, but then the second time I only lost 2%, going off the upper dock at 132kph, and then 3%, then 2%, etc.

[Kiiyor]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 03 July 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

Now, this doesn't seem right...it's the same height, and gravity accelerates you at the same rate in the vertical direction whether you are going from a dead fall or have some horizontal velocity. Is this where PGI's "air time" becomes part of the equation, rather than just vertical velocity upon impact?

In alternate universe Battletech, Lorde Issac Newton popped acid moments before floating into an apple tree and striking his head on some delicious fruit.

BATTLETECH PHYSICS TO THE RESCUE!

We know that in Battletech, the bigger the bullet and the more power behind it, the LOWER THE RANGE.

So, continuing a theme, my proposal regarding gravity and it's affect on our mechs is this*;

F=ma

F=ma/(100-t)

* where t = tonnage of mech

[Bishop Steiner]

Kiiyor, on 03 July 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

In alternate universe Battletech, Lorde Issac Newton popped acid moments before floating into an apple tree and striking his head on some delicious fruit.

BATTLETECH PHYSICS TO THE RESCUE!

We know that in Battletech, the bigger the bullet and the more power behind it, the LOWER THE RANGE.

So, continuing a theme, my proposal regarding gravity and it's affect on our mechs is this*;

F=ma

F=ma/(100-t)

* where t = tonnage of mech

Range has more to do with velocity in a Projectile.

My 45-70 fires a MUCH bigger bullet than my .223. Care to guess which has the longer effective range, and less rainbow-like trajectory.


Yet guess which one causes WAY more penetration at close range?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 03 July 2014 - 07:46 PM.

[Kiiyor]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Range has more to do with velocity in a Projectile.

My 45-70 fires a MUCH bigger bullet than my .223. Care to guess which has the longer effective range, and less rainbow-like trajectory.


Yet guess which one causes WAY more penetration at close range?

That's also due to the physical characteristics of the round, but... well, this is true, but generally, the bigger the projectile and the more power behind it, the further it goes - especially if those larger rounds are designed by the military. Unless BT rounds are chambered like .50 cal handgun rounds as opposed to NATO.

The point is, that BT weapons were designed with balance and diversity of weapon choice in mind, not realism. If you had an AC20 round that could fire at MBT ranges of 4km+, why would you mount any other weapon?

[Violent Nick]

I think they've over-done it for the fall damage. I can understand the reasoning given all the bullsh*t whining about poptarts, which is a perfectly valid playing style (which I rarely employ by the way).

To be fair I've not played that much post patch but using a medium JJ mech is now a nightmare (anyone notice the low population there, currently mediums on 11% at time of writing, lights are at 24%). I think it's a bit of a shame and seems a half-job application. Kinda kills my close range brawling and generally makes mechs much less manoeuvrable over pretty much any map when you are forced to use ramps etc. I understand why this is the case, but... too far PGI. Mech's legs do bend after all, in several places. Wouldn't even mind spending a ton on extra shock absorbers (not going near the F***ing module, that's ridiculous.) I'm sure I'll adapt eventually, but I'm pretty annoyed that PGI has caved in to the morons whining about a particular style of play and then implementing a mechanic which impacts wider gameplay negatively.

We can all say, 'it's more realistic etc' and I agree, but it's a videogame. I wouldn't wanna have to do driving lessons to play a racing game on Xbox or whatever, so on the same terms I don't wanna have to be factoring fall mechanics as an absolute priority when trying to track a target at 800m, focus on a component, break cover, charge my rifle for .75 secs, factor in his change in speed and direction to fire in front of him accounting for my bullet speed, operate my jumpjet throttle with a choke in the middle...only to fracture my ankles on the way down. I mean... it's hard enough right? And PGI wants to penalise me for being able to pull that off?

Really?

And listens to the vocal minority who can't take being the target of that? I'd like to get the opinion of the guy in the shadowhawk who killed me after I made that shot on Tourmaline, see what he thinks. (Flanked me, got higher and took my back.)

Just my opinion...
Gonna vote with my wallet on this one..

[Lyoto Machida]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

regularly, yes. And you note they tend to do those mups into sifter media, standing broad/long jump into sand pits, high jumps onto airbags, etc.

And ACL/MCL injuries are pretty common, actually. Just how do you think an acl injury to a mech would be represented.......?

Reduced acceleration, agility (turn radius) and top speed. But considering our mechs don't have ligaments or actuators that do anything in game...

[YueFei]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 July 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

I just ran off the top of the tallest peaks in Alpine, over 100 meters, and recorded descents speeds of 119 ft/s and 127 ft/s.
The first did 6% damage and reduced my LCT to orange armor. The second reduced me another 6% leaving my legs at Cherry red armor, and my total health at 89% (though a secondary bounce on the second just brought me to intervals and 86% health).

2 Jumps, over 100 meters each, uncontrolled, and I still had leg armor, on the most lightly armored mech in the game.

Different maps have different gravity, don't they?

If you fell 100+ meters, your descent meter should've hit 145+ feet/sec on impact. Assuming gravity on Alpine is the same as Earth's.

It would appear that Alpine has a lower gravity than Earth, since you didn't hit as high a top speed.

On a planet with Earth's gravity, you'll reach the 10 meters/sec threshold for fall damage after falling 5.09 meters.

On a planet with less gravity, you'll have to fall a farther distance to reach the 10 meter/sec threshold.

BTW, how did you measure the height of the fall you did on Alpine?

Here's a crazy theory for why people are having inconsistent results:
The *graphics* of the game are just a visual representation, the actual geometry for collision detection between objects is simplified, and often is a superposition of the graphical representation. That's why you have invisible walls. There may be places on some maps that *appear* to be a 10 meter drop, but because of terrain clipping boundaries being larger than the visual representation, and mech collision clipping boundaries being larger than the mech's visual model, the game may halt your fall after only 5 or 6 meters or so, and depending on that map's gravity, you may end up just short of hitting the threshold for fall damage.

And then sometimes you hit a patch of ground where the terrain clipping boundaries are very "skin tight" against the visual representation of the terrain, and falling a seemingly-short distance causes leg damage.

Edited by YueFei, 04 July 2014 - 12:04 AM.

[Karmen Baric]

Fall damage seems perfectly fine to me. Don't have any issues with it exactly as it stands.
If I fall or jump without JJ on landing I expect damage to occur to my legs.
GOOD WORK PGI ...... finally.

[Kmieciu]

How much damage is determined by it's fall velocity and the weight class of the falling 'Mech:

Light 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.04
Medium 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.03
Heavy 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.035
Assault 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.04

How about giving light mech some slack with a 0.025 modifier instead of 0.04?

Paul - normalize this!

Edited by Kmieciu, 04 July 2014 - 12:44 AM.

[MonkeyCheese]

Kmieciu, on 04 July 2014 - 12:44 AM, said:

How much damage is determined by it's fall velocity and the weight class of the falling 'Mech:

Light 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.04
Medium 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.03
Heavy 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.035
Assault 'Mechs = (Internal Structure Health * 1.9) * 0.04

How about giving light mech some slack with a 0.025 modifier instead of 0.04?

Paul - normalize this!

You know that or possibly even 0.03 or 0.035 would prob fix all the small hill and ramp complaints while STILL correctly punishing light mech pilots who go full thrust airborne or suicide of cliffs.

This would be the simple fix to please both sides of the fence without actually reworking the mechanics of the new system.