104 replies to this topic

[Windsaw]

kamiko kross, on 16 July 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

OP, just let that image sink in. Heavies and assaults already have enough advantages-don't you think?

Why do you thing only lights should have the disadvantage.
When Jenners tackle Atlai full speed they will also go down.
A right tackle at the right time is a powerful tool for every mech of every type.
But lights may avoid that while assaults can't.
Sounds right to me.

[pwnface]

If a light slams into an atlas with a combined speed of 200kph+ the Atlas should be instantly legged and the light should explode on impact. If mechs are taking leg damage at 30kph falls, a 200kph+ collision should do a ridiculous amount of damage to both mechs. Maybe pilots should need to earn a drivers license so they don't run into each other on accident so much.

[Quxudica]

Windsaw, on 17 July 2014 - 02:03 AM, said:

Why do you thing only lights should have the disadvantage.
When Jenners tackle Atlai full speed they will also go down.
A right tackle at the right time is a powerful tool for every mech of every type.
But lights may avoid that while assaults can't.
Sounds right to me.

The problem is any knockdown system will be extremely exploitable. It diminishes the game more than it adds to it.

[Zerberus]

Knockdowns the way they were were horribly broken and derserved to be killed with fire.

Some form of collision code and damage is still present, I have personally killed mechs by charging them. But the damage is miniscule.

I think collisions as such will eventually be reintroduced, possibly in preparation for Solaris after CW is done, and the devs have stated that they do intend to put them back in when they`ve had the time to figure out the details. But it`s just not a prority at this time.

I think it was after DeVlog 3 or 4 that we polled the forum community "for Russ" with what we wanted first, polish, collisions, CW, Solaris and a few other things were up for vote. And CW took it by a pretty fair margin IIRC.

NOW, that doesn`t necessarily mean that they listened to us and weren`t going to do it anyway, but during the Vlog I got the impression that Russ would have actually preferreed to do the collision rework first from his tone of voice and body language. So who knows...

Seeing as the license runs another 6 years, I think it`s fairly safe to assume that if we do in fact get (most of) CW this year (and their talent for hitting deadlines they set for themselves has massively improved over the last year or so), having both Collisions and Solaris by the end of 2015 doesn`t sound entirely unrealistic at this time.

But I wouldn`t start holding my breath at this time, either.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 July 2014 - 03:29 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

I don't know if the skepticism in this thread is an expression of the narrowmindedness of fans or just their lack of faith in PGI. One is as unfortunate as the other.

Knock down, as it used to be, was not just broken, but poorly balanced and in contradiction of lore. You see, Battlemechs are supposed to be rather advanced machines, capable of a certain degree of autonomy. I'm not a sage of Battletech lore, but I gather the idea is that the pilot directs the Battlemech, and then the machine decides how it needs to move to get there. The pilot doesn't control every footstep, and the Battlemech doesn't blindly put its feet forward either. In other words, a Battlemech is not just moving like a mechanical toy soldier with springs and levers. It reacts to its environment, much like robots being worked on today. If you try to push it over, it's going to resist and push back, to stay upright. For this reason, it's going to be fairly hard to knock it over, and you can't just do a physics calculation based on inanimate objects.

Secondly, all the imagined scenarios about whole teams knocking each over in a domino effect like the Twelve Stooges are all based on the idea that knock down would always be horribly balanced and broken, to the point where backing into each other at 40 kph is going to send both mechs sprawling. That's absurd. Knock down should be there for the extreme situations, where it would be extremely unrealistic for one or both mechs to remain standing. Two light mechs running into each other at 170 kph, for example.

And if you're worried about Locusts running down Atlai like it's the Superbowl, keep in mind that it should be possible to adjust collision damage, to the point where a light mech running directly into an assault mech at full speed is essentially suicide. That should easily prevent any trolls from messing up the game.

Of all the stuff that fans want to see, collisions and knockdowns are one of the easiest to implement, in theory. Now, as for the coding and making the animations look good without glitching and teleporting, I have no idea. I'm sure that's tricky.

TL;DR - Oh ye of little faith.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 17 July 2014 - 04:09 AM.

[Zerberus]

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

And if you're worried about Locusts running down Atlai like it's the Superbowl, keep in mind that it should be possible to adjust collision damage, to the point where a light mech running directly into an assault mech at full speed is essentially suicide. That should easily prevent any trolls from messing up the game.

Onn the other hand, something that weighs 1/5 of an atlas but moves at 3xmax engine top speed (more like 4x for most builds) SHOULD cause massive damage if it slams into it, the leg and torso on that side should more or less be obliterated if not the entire mech. 20 tons moving at 170kph is just a horriffic amount of kinetic energy.

If you get a Humvee and a pinto both moving at 30, of course the pinto loses... but if the pinto is moving 150 instead, then everybody loses. Why should it be any different here?

Edited by Zerberus, 17 July 2014 - 04:21 AM.

[stjobe]

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

And if you're worried about Locusts running down Atlai like it's the Superbowl, keep in mind that it should be possible to adjust collision damage, to the point where a light mech running directly into an assault mech at full speed is essentially suicide.

It shouldn't be suicide; a charge is a form of controlled attack, not just a collision.

For the record, in TT a Locust that does a 12 hex charge at an Atlas deals 24 damage to the atlas, taking 10 itself. The Locust takes a piloting roll to avoid falling (and taking another 2 damage), while the Atlas takes two piloting rolls (one for being charged, one for taking over 20 damage in a turn) to avoid falling and taking another 10 damage.

On the other hand, an Atlas that kicks a Locust does 20 (pin-point) damage to the Locust's legs, and a punch does 10 damage to the upper part of the Locust - it was usually a very bad idea to end up next to heavier opponents in TT.

I so want physical attacks in MWO, and yes, I do want proper collisions and knockdowns - just not the fantastically bad and exploitable mechanic we had before.

[Alistair Winter]

Zerberus, on 17 July 2014 - 04:18 AM, said:

Onn the other hand, something that weighs 1/5 of an atlas but moves at 3xmax engine top speed (more like 4x for most builds) SHOULD cause massive damage if it slams into it, the leg and torso on that side should more or less be obliterated if not the entire mech. 20 tons moving at 170kph is just a horriffic amount of kinetic energy.
If you get a Humvee and a pinto both moving at 30, of course the pinto loses... but if the pinto is moving 150 instead, then everybody loses. Why should it be any different here?

Two reasons.

First of all, the materials involved is different. This is why all analogies of trucks and tractors, adults and children, or cats and elephants, fail. It's not really applicable. Battlemechs aren't simply designed to absorb ridiculous amounts of punishment in terms of ranged weapons, but they're also designed to survive a crash, or a jump from high altitudes. From this, we can surmise that both their external materials and their internal framework must be extremely durable.

Steel is not particularly durable, compared to the materials that will be available a thousand years from now. Compared to bone, steel is rather fragile for its weight. And even in 2014, we're on the cusp of replacing steel in a huge variety of machines, both internally and externally.

Second of all, this is a bloody computer game. And people seem to think that we have the choice between hyper realism and complete Gundam arcade mode. At the present, mechs can run into a mountain at 170 kph and barely stub their toe. I don't think a compromise between reality and fantasy is a bad thing, and I think a lot of people are presenting a false dichotomy here.

@St Jobe: Interesting, although the TT rules surely didn't reflect the fluidity and complexity that one would expect, even when imagining melee between huge stompy robots in the future. Here is one example of what can happen when an attacker comes in with full speed against someone with enough awareness to counter. I imagine this was not a possibility in TT.

[stjobe]

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

@St Jobe: Interesting, although the TT rules surely didn't reflect the fluidity and complexity that one would expect, even when imagining melee between huge stompy robots in the future. Here is one example of what can happen when an attacker comes in with full speed against someone with enough awareness to counter. I imagine this was not a possibility in TT.

No, not really. Charging (and other physical attacks) could only be done against opponents that had finished their movement, so there was really no way for the target to respond or counter (other than firing at the attacking 'mech, which of course could make it fall if it took 20+ points of damage, rendering the charge impossible to complete).

Usually the charge examples are of a small 'mech charging a large, but imagine an Atlas charging another Atlas; a 5-hex charge would mean it does 50 points of damage to its target and takes only 10 in return - charging is NOT symmetrical damage.

[Alistair Winter]

stjobe, on 17 July 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:

No, not really. Charging (and other physical attacks) could only be done against opponents that had finished their movement, so there was really no way for the target to respond or counter (other than firing at the attacking 'mech, which of course could make it fall if it took 20+ points of damage, rendering the charge impossible to complete).
Usually the charge examples are of a small 'mech charging a large, but imagine an Atlas charging another Atlas; a 5-hex charge would mean it does 50 points of damage to its target and takes only 10 in return - charging is NOT symmetrical damage.

I see. Well, before we get into a huge discussion about Stalkers doing spinning heel kicks and flying armbars, I guess I'll just refer back to my second point above. At some point, a compromise between reality and fantasy is beneficial to the game. The fact that Locusts would potentially ruin the game by kamikaze-attacks is a sufficient argument to just create an arbitrary mechanism preventing it. There's plenty of arbitrary mechanisms in this game already, that people take for granted. Like the fact that your mech explodes if you walk outside an invisible border for more than 10 seconds.

[Zerberus]

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Two reasons.

First of all, the materials involved is different. This is why all analogies of trucks and tractors, adults and children, or cats and elephants, fail. It's not really applicable. Battlemechs aren't simply designed to absorb ridiculous amounts of punishment in terms of ranged weapons, but they're also designed to survive a crash, or a jump from high altitudes. From this, we can surmise that both their external materials and their internal framework must be extremely durable.

Steel is not particularly durable, compared to the materials that will be available a thousand years from now. Compared to bone, steel is rather fragile for its weight. And even in 2014, we're on the cusp of replacing steel in a huge variety of machines, both internally and externally.

I isagree entirely, The analogiies stand just fine because the isuue is not with the material, as it is to be assumed that that is comparable on both sides (nobody is talking about driving a pinto into an atlas). The issue is simply that to work at all, the system has to be at least somewhat realistic, and also not specifically nerf an entire class of mech simply because assualt pilots feel that they should be able to thow the equivalent of a 5-7 year old child around like a paper plane. This discussion has been around in exactly this biased form since knockdowns were removed, and is consistently touted as a "nerf to lights" which is exactly the type of unrealistic BS it shoud not be.

Lights do not have paper mache armor and balsa wood structure, theirs is actually generally lighter and stronger point for point than the standard armor and structure of most assaults. So why shoud an assault be able to just kick them out of way like a roll of toilet paper while they can charge like a top fuel funny car and simply splat themselves on the assault`s leg? It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even a bicycle moving at 20-30 kmh causes a very significant dent if you pull your car out in front of it, and the bike usually takes less damage than the rider. Why should a large motorscooter (not one of those little italian ones, the BIG italian ones) cause what appears to be infinitely less?

Quote

Second of all, this is a bloody computer game. And people seem to think that we have the choice between hyper realism and complete Gundam arcade mode. At the present, mechs can run into a mountain at 170 kph and barely stub their toe. I don't think a compromise between reality and fantasy is a bad thing, and I think a lot of people are presenting a false dichotomy here.

That false dichotomy is the exact reason that people like myself do not want to see collisions and knockdown implemented the way the assault communiy is screaming for them, which is the "Lights are made of cotton candy, assaults are titanium".

Quote

@St Jobe: Interesting, although the TT rules surely didn't reflect the fluidity and complexity that one would expect, even when imagining melee between huge stompy robots in the future. Here is one example of what can happen when an attacker comes in with full speed against someone with enough awareness to counter. I imagine this was not a possibility in TT.

IMO you really can`t compare slose quarters hand to hand combat between fully articulated organisms to clunky überheavy battlemechs lumbering around the battlefield with the reflexes of a hibernating sloth. Te complete teachnical infeasibility is teh entire reason we put guns on these things. If a mech were capable of a thousandth of what I can do IRL I`d never mount another gun again and would just beat down everything on the battlefield. Sweep out a leg, smack the cockpit into a rock, keep pummeling head with the same rock, cross armbreaker, neckbreaker, done, next victim.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 July 2014 - 05:15 AM.

[stjobe]

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

I see. Well, before we get into a huge discussion about Stalkers doing spinning heel kicks and flying armbars

Stalkers have neither jump jets nor any arms to speak of, so bad choice of example.

You'd get a kick out of this though (pardon the pun):

Technical Readout 3025, p. 10 said:

A major design flaw of the 'Mech was discovered during the Reunification War (2575-2597). During the Battle of Imbros III in March 2580, the tactic of jump-kicking gained popularity. With this maneuver, jump-capable light and medium 'Mechs could jump and smash their leg components into the head and upper torso of opposing units, hoping to cause more damage than they inflicted upon themselves.

This tactic was very popular among Wasp warriors, as it improved their offensive potential somewhat. Practitioners of the tactic soon learned that most Wasps were only able to use the jump-kick once, even if the leg damage was repaired before another close combat. After performing the first or second jump-kick, the lower leg assemblies on the Wasp would actually rip away from the body at the instant of impact, leaving the 'Mech totally immobile in the field.

The problem was finally traced to the stress bars along the actuator paths in the lower leg components. The designer had never dreamed that a tactic such as jump-kicking would be developed for lighter 'Mechs, and so had not given them the monomolecular stress-resistant material used on newer and heavier'Mech types. By 2160, nearly all Wasps and other light 'Mechs were rebuilt with MMSR actuator bars, alleviating the amputation problem.

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

I guess I'll just refer back to my second point above. At some point, a compromise between reality and fantasy is beneficial to the game.

All games are always compromising reality; they wouldn't be games if they weren't (they'd be reality). The question is how much of BattleTech you are willing to compromise.

Alistair Winter, on 17 July 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

The fact that Locusts would potentially ruin the game by kamikaze-attacks is a sufficient argument to just create an arbitrary mechanism preventing it. There's plenty of arbitrary mechanisms in this game already, that people take for granted. Like the fact that your mech explodes if you walk outside an invisible border for more than 10 seconds.

The point I was trying to make is exactly that charges are NOT "kamikaze-attacks"; they are a legal and valid mode of attack in the BattleTech universe. Perhaps not the first choice, since you do take damage from executing them, but nevertheless there's no reason to disallow them on principle.

What has to be done is to make the mechanics underlying collisions, charges, DFAs and physical attacks as non-griefable as possible (anything can be used to grief; we'd had to disallow weapons-fire in matches if griefability was the only factor for inclusion).

[Alistair Winter]

Zerberus, on 17 July 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

I isagree entirely, The analogiies stand just fine because the isuue is not with the material, as it is to be assumed that that is comparable on both sides (nobody is talking about driving a pinto into an atlas). The issue is simply that to work at all, the system has to be at least somewhat realistic, and also not specifically nerf an entire class of mech simply because assualt pilots feel that they should be able to thow the equivalent of a 5-7 year old child around like a paper plane. This discussion has been around in exactly this biased form since knockdowns were removed, and is consistently touted as a "nerf to lights" which is exactly the type of unrealistic BS it shoud not be.

Well, I think we're in agreement about the end results, even if we disagree about the scientific accuracy of those anologies. So while I am tempted to continue the discussion about the analogies, I guess it's not ultimately important here.

Zerberus, on 17 July 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

Lights do not have paper mache armor and balsa wood structure, theirs is actually generally lighter and stronger point for point than the standard armor and structure of most assaults. So why shoud an assault be able to just kick them out of way like a roll of toilet paper while they can charge like a top fuel funny car and simply splat themselves on the assault`s leg? It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even a bicycle moving at 20-30 kmh causes a very significant dent if you pull your car out in front of it, and the bike usually takes less damage than the rider. Why should a large motorscooter (not one of those little italian ones, the BIG italian ones) cause what appears to be infinitely less?

Indeed, cars are very fragile compared to their weight, which is why I don't like when they're used as examples. But again, since we agree on the important stuff, we can just drop that topic of conversation, I suppose

Zerberus, on 17 July 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

That false dichotomy is the exact reason that people like myself do not want to see collisions and knockdown implemented the way the assault communiy is screaming for them, which is the "Lights are made of cotton candy, assaults are titanium".
IMO you really can`t compare slose quarters hand to hand combat between fully articulated organisms to clunky überheavy battlemechs lumbering around the battlefield with the reflexes of a hibernating sloth. Te complete teachnical infeasibility is teh entire reason we put guns on these things. If a mech were capable of a thousandth of what I can do IRL I`d never mount another gun again and would just beat down everything on the battlefield. Sweep out a leg, smack the cockpit into a rock, keep pummeling head with the same rock, cross armbreaker, neckbreaker, done, next victim.

I agree. I was merely offering the "knee to the face" as a counter argument to people who think it would be ridiculous if Locust pilots couldn't kamikaze into assault mechs and consequently destroy both mechs. But I also think it's sufficient to say that it wouldn't be good for the game if Locust kamikaze became a real strategy anyway.

stjobe, on 17 July 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

Stalkers have neither jump jets nor any arms to speak of, so bad choice of example.

It was a joke, of course.

stjobe, on 17 July 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

You'd get a kick out of this though (pardon the pun):

God, this reminds me of Warhammer 40,000 fluff. And not in a good way

stjobe, on 17 July 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

All games are always compromising reality; they wouldn't be games if they weren't (they'd be reality). The question is how much of BattleTech you are willing to compromise.

Yes, but they're not always a compromise between reality and fantasy. A simulation game is a compromise between reality and the resources available to the developers. For example, they may not be able to realistically simulate weather, so they're forced to use some level of abstraction or simplistic mechanisms. But a flight simulator or train simulator rarely incorporates some elements purely for the sake of fantasy, unlike MWO and most other games.

stjobe, on 17 July 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

The point I was trying to make is exactly that charges are NOT "kamikaze-attacks"; they are a legal and valid mode of attack in the BattleTech universe. Perhaps not the first choice, since you do take damage from executing them, but nevertheless there's no reason to disallow them on principle.

Certainly not disallowing them, but limiting their viability to prevent them to ruin the game. But perhaps we're actually in agreement here, and arguing past each other or even both guilty of accidental strawman arguments.

stjobe, on 17 July 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

What has to be done is to make the mechanics underlying collisions, charges, DFAs and physical attacks as non-griefable as possible (anything can be used to grief; we'd had to disallow weapons-fire in matches if griefability was the only factor for inclusion).

Agreed.

[carl kerensky]

Sandpit, on 15 July 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

not if collisions worked properly. You're referring to a bugged system.

Yep...do collisions properly. It can be done. Always refering back to PGI's buggy collision system as a frame of refrence is silly.
I want to see it put in and done properly. Certainly better colllison with ground and objects. The current method is very frustrating especially when you hang up on a pebble. Dam those pebbles...

[PappySmurf]

I say hell no!!! don't bring back mech collisions period.
Now I would like to see weapon fire knockdown and DFA's like past MechWarrior games had.

JUST HELL NO TO MECH COLLISIONS.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=LBPeKADIrIc

Edited by PappySmurf, 17 July 2014 - 06:07 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

To the previous poster's point, if gyros are as advanced as they are today I expect they would be better in the future. Had the good fortune to see a demonstration of the DEKA wheel chair (iBOT). With it standing on two small wheels the engineer sitting in it had me push against his palms. After the first attempt, where my skepticism caused me to hold back, he urged me to really push. So this former bench press champ really pushed, the chair slightly wobbled but quickly stabilized. At a minimum advanced gyros equipped on a mech should help it avoid knockdown, but all gyros should be advanced when compared to today's standards.

Mechs also have collision sensors. If someone is trying to run you down you would be warned. So if collisions are brought back this should be added.

Would like DFA and hth combat working first though.

[Ansgar Odinson]

The problem is in the basic math here. When two mechs run at each other each going 50kph it is not a 100 kph collision. So long as both mechs are the same mass it is as each of them has struck a wall at...... 50 kph not 100. Each mech absorbs half of the energy. Now if one mech is considerably larger than the other then it would transfer a great deal more energy to the smaller mech causing it to take the brunt of the force/damage. According to physics a medium mech running at an atlas and colliding with it at 150 kph should do very little to the atlas while in turn doing a great deal of damage to itself. Think about a sports car ramming a semi truck head on. Semi will be slightly slowed (maybe some cockpit shake) but the sports car is devastated and pushed way back. They need to give collisions realistic physics then this could be cool. Mass should be king in a collision.

Edited by Ansgar Odinson, 17 July 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[The Dreaded Baron B Killer]

Ansgar Odinson, on 17 July 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

The problem is in the basic math here. When two mechs run at each other each going 50kph it is not a 100 kph collision. So long as both mechs are the same mass it is as each of them has struck a wall at...... 50 kph not 100. Each mech absorbs half of the energy. Now if one mech is considerably larger than the other then it would transfer a great deal more energy to the smaller mech causing it to take the brunt of the force/damage. According to physics a medium mech running at an atlas and colliding with it at 150 kph should do very little to the atlas while in turn doing a great deal of damage to itself. Think about a sports car ramming a semi truck head on. Semi will be slightly slowed (maybe some cockpit shake) but the sports car is devastated and pushed way back. They need to give collisions realistic physics then this could be cool. Mass should be king in a collision.

finally someone who gets it... Just wait for the guys to come back and argue their point about a 30 ton running into a 100 ton object at 150+ doing substantial damage because bla bla bla....

especially that dude saying people running the light builds are all wrong, because ya know... everyone is wrong and he is right...lol

As you stated, collisions with proper physics would make the game far more interesting, and force people to actually PILOT their mech instead of running around like a FPS all over the place.

Fierostetz, on 16 July 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

You still ignored the concept of closing speed, and anyone running an IS light at less than maybe 140 is doing it wrong.

no, I pretty much ignored everything because it was wrong... read what the guy above said about mass and transferred energy that happens from two objects of varying mass and speed colliding... like I said before in my original posts... the points being made were childish at best and don't add up, and I've chosen to ignore those kinds of points people make.

[Zervziel]

Bring back mech collisions in a specific mode: Dragon bowling. This will allow people to actually use dragons again as well as actually be useful. A line of twelve dragons would actually be scary for once.

[Jon Gotham]

BaronBastardKiller, on 17 July 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

As you stated, collisions with proper physics would make the game far more interesting, and force people to actually PILOT their mech instead of running around like a FPS all over the place.

I'm more interested in game balance than physics to be honest. Right now the only role is damage dealer. Lights need to fight to get any rewards. Right now, lights fight successfully ( if sufficiently skilled) using their speed and agility. That right there are their only two forms of attack and defence.
If Assaults and heavies could just lolrush them and swat them-that then gives them yet another tool they don't need to be even more dominant. Those collisions people are screaming for would also affect mediums adversely.
Assault pilot meets medium in close combat, and can't keep him in gun trail-what to do? I know! he could just mash into him and use his superior mass to negate the other guy's skills and speed ( I win because I'm BIGGER).....not keen on that. Those two heavier classes need to have SOME form of drawbacks and currently these are somewhat lower speed and agility-even saying that, many heavies and quite a few assaults can STILL keep gun trail on a 98kph medium with ease....

In short, a light shouldn't be able to jam an assault to a stop by leg humping-but those same assaults and heavies should not be given yet another way to dominate, don't you think those two mech classes already do enough?
Another solution needs to be proposed really....