59 replies to this topic

[kuangmk11]

CocoaJin, on 19 August 2014 - 11:00 PM, said:

How you get that?

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3637821

[FDJustin]

Might indicate they plan to re-incorporate it. Might indicate they're just leaving the option open, and including it as a standard part of making mechs to save from having to go back through them all on the off chance someday.

[CocoaJin]

Sorcery!!!!

[El Bandito]

kuangmk11, on 19 August 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

They are still putting the stand up animations in.

Did no one notice the Double AMS on the Timbie?

[kuangmk11]

El Bandito, on 19 August 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

Did no one notice the Double AMS on the Timbie?

I didn't. When you first load the models up they get populated with every component possible and you have to go through an hide the one you dont want. I just finished a new profile gauge and it is there too...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

El Bandito, on 19 August 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

Did no one notice the Double AMS on the Timbie?

They included equipment for ALL omni variants in the models for the Clan mechs, not just the ones we have ingame. The Nova has 3 AMS, one for torso section, not to mention a missile port in the game files. The best one is the Timby which has 3 energy ports where the highest missile ports would be, people think the Timby is an issue now, just imagine if it had Shadow Hawk-esque ports.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 19 August 2014 - 11:28 PM.

[El Bandito]

kuangmk11, on 19 August 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:

I didn't. When you first load the models up they get populated with every component possible and you have to go through an hide the one you dont want. I just finished a new profile gauge and it is there too...

Double AMS Hero T-Wolf confirmed. That, or Half-Life 3.

[Alistair Winter]

oneproduct, on 19 August 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Some parts of it are on/off, in particular being completely unable to prevent someone from getting into position to knock you down again while you're getting up from a previously knockdown. Unless you want to add something arbitrary like knockdown immunity for X seconds after having been knocked down. But arbitrary things like this are bad in the same way as ghost heat. The guy might have 2 seconds of knockdown invulnerability and you hit him full force at 1.9 seconds into that invulnerability and nothing happens.

You could make collision damage high enough on both sides where it's a very costly way of incapacitating enemies.
You could make knockdown impossible to achieve at low speed, so heavy and assault mechs would have a hard time getting themselves into position to constantly knock someone down.
You could make light mechs stand up much faster than assault mechs, while not having the same ability to knock down bigger mechs. This would prevent big mechs from trolling small mechs (as the light mechs would never stick around for a second knockdown) and small mechs from trolling big mechs (as they wouldn't be able to knock them down in the first place, except if both were going at full speed, or something like that)

Many variables that can be adjusted.

oneproduct, on 19 August 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Frustration at loss of control is also pretty on/off. If you get knocked down you have to be knocked down for at least a certain amount of time during which an animation would play. You can't do less than some minimum unless you speed up the animation and make it look pretty garbage.

I personally find it extremely frustrating to collide with other mechs right now, because both guys are just stuck for a while before they teleport through each other, and then there's a moment of rubberbanding as the server tries to find out just exactly where both guys are supposed to be. Not to mention that this happens all the time, because no one's worried about where they're going. The cost of running into a teammate or enemy is virtually zero.

[PANZERKAT]

Closed Beta made better light pilots when you have to dodge and weave or fall down and die.

[waterfowl]

nehebkau, on 19 August 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Getting tired of the lag introduced when you run into someone.

Ramming speed! *teleports 30 meters away*

Oh no we seemed to have stumbled into an Einstein-Rosen bridge inside of that Fatlas! Who could have known?!

We need freaking collisions back ... it adds another dimension to the game

Edited by waterfowl, 20 August 2014 - 03:12 AM.

[Livewyr]

Goons heart paul was bad, and at the time I felt sorry for him.

However: rather than fix the desync issue and add mutual damage to collisions.. they just removed it altogether.

Paul being in charge of balance and such...is not healthy.

[VanillaG]

I can see collision damage coming back in some form but not knockdowns. The reason is that all of the rules from TT related to knockdowns were tied to making a roll check against pilot skill, in other words RNG. This community has an extreme hatred toward anything reduces their perceived "skill" in the game and adding piloting checks to stay upright falls into that realm.

As for collision damage, I can see that coming back in some form. You could add quirks to arms with lower arm actuators for increase in collision damage given and reduction in collision damage taken. This type of damage will require some work to spawn points and maybe the maps so that each team doesn't show up to the battle with 80% armor because of all of the bumping and grinding at the spawn or choke points on the map.

[PapajIGC]

oneproduct, on 19 August 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

Okay, here's your math for a 35 tonne firestarter running at 150 km/h trying to move a 100 tonne atlas standing still on concrete on Earth.
*trimmed*

I think you should leave math out of this since you clearly don't understand m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ = m₁v₁^' + m₂v₂^' which is the driving equation for the kinetics behind collisions. Just watch this and don't even try to do the math - just do as the instructor says and think "intuitively." http://ocw.mit.edu/c...ures/lecture-16 You'll see everything you need by minute 6 formula wise, minute 12 demonstration wise.

Edited by PapajIGC, 20 August 2014 - 05:05 PM.

[Kassatsu]

VanillaG, on 20 August 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

I can see collision damage coming back in some form but not knockdowns. The reason is that all of the rules from TT related to knockdowns were tied to making a roll check against pilot skill, in other words RNG. This community has an extreme hatred toward anything reduces their perceived "skill" in the game and adding piloting checks to stay upright falls into that realm.

As for collision damage, I can see that coming back in some form. You could add quirks to arms with lower arm actuators for increase in collision damage given and reduction in collision damage taken. This type of damage will require some work to spawn points and maybe the maps so that each team doesn't show up to the battle with 80% armor because of all of the bumping and grinding at the spawn or choke points on the map.

They could easily make a mini-QTE on top of the random chance, turn your mech left and cut the throttle to avoid falling over and such. I can honestly say I would not mind this. Have the inputs based on the speed and direction of you and your enemy. Got slammed from the right? Better turn towards it and decrease your throttle. Or the other way around. MW3 had some rather nice cockpit movement and recoil effects from knockdowns, near-knockdowns and even just things like ER PPCs. No way to avoid them however, and they were definitely RNG-based to some extent.

Some knockdowns would be unavoidable of course.

Edited by Kassatsu, 20 August 2014 - 06:41 PM.

[Noesis]

When the netcode is forgiving enough to include transferance of momentum physics including angles of attack for a number of different and oddly shaped hitboxes that could result in a number of different outcomes other than being knocked down 100% of the time.

[HlynkaCG]

oneproduct, on 19 August 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

Okay, here's your math for a 35 tonne firestarter running at 150 km/h trying to move a 100 tonne atlas standing still on concrete on Earth.

Resistance from friction
n = coefficient of friction * mass * gravity
n = 1 * 100 tonnes * 1000 kg/tonne * 9.81 m/s^2
n = 981,000 kg*m/s^2 (aka Newtons)

Kinetic energy
e = 1/2 * 35 tonnes * 1000 kg/tonne * (41.66 m/s)^2 <-- 150 km/h = 41.66 m/s
e = 30,372,223 kg*m^2/s^2 (aka Joules)

Joules / Newtons = Meters
30, 372, 223 kg*m^2/s^2 / 981,000 kg*m/s^2 = 30.96 m

So that firestarter is going to make that Atlas move 31m when it hits it. An Atlas is about 16m tall? In relative terms, imagine being hit so hard you get tossed 12 feet back. It's quite a fair distance.

Edit: added some details

You're missing the part where the part where the Firestarter having instantaneously absorbed over 30 million joules, subsequently turns white hot, crumples, or explodes.

But really what this is, is a momentum problem

An object's momentum is a function of it's mass * it's velocity vector, the equation for calculating the instantaneous transfer of momentum (collision) of two objects of unequal mass is.

So lets say you have an Atlas (AS7) it weighs 100 tonnes and has a velocity of 18 meters per second (64.8 kph)
You also have a Firestarter (FS9) that weighs 35 tonnes and has a velocity of 27 meters per second (97.2 kph)

I'm not sure how to do proper mathematical notation in BBcode but i'm going to plug the FS9 into the above equation as "particle 1" and the AS7 in as "particle 2"...

Assuming they collide head on, the Atlas' velocity post collision would be 5.33 (5 + 1/3) meters per second or approx 19 kph. The Firestarter's velocity post collision would be 39.667 (39 + 2/3) meters per second or approx 143 kph backwards.

TL/DR
If an Atlas is a bat, Light mech are balls.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 21 August 2014 - 12:21 AM.

[CocoaJin]

But wouldn't the bat to ball analogy assume a pure inelastic collision(if I'm understanding the terms correctly)...as if mechs were billard balls and composed of a single part. But mechs have all kind of dangly parts that absorbs energy of the collision and/or would impart a rotational moment with certain collisions, mainly glancing/off-center collisions.

I'm more inclined to expect lights mechs slamming into Assaults to take significant damage(like crumple zones), resulting in little bounce back, sort of like a car running into a tree or wall. And let's not forget, Assault takes a little damage too...so all in all,am good chunk of the total momentums are released as crumbling metal, dangly part flailing, rotation, heat and sound.

That's not to say a light mech running into an Assault that's moving at a descent clip won't have that bat to ball event on occasion. Especially if you consider the collision to be two collisions, the one that stops the light dead in it tracks and then the other collision as the Atlas kicks the light with its legs as it continues forward

Of course, an Assault running into a stationary light would likely be very bat to ball...but not such a hone run, but more of a hard bunt or chopper, more than likely sending the light skidding than flying.

Edited by CocoaJin, 21 August 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Mawai]

Just one more opinion ...

A lot of the posts on collision and knock down quote "realism"

What is "realism" in a science fiction game based more or less on fantasy science?

The previous knockdown and collision implementation was ridiculously open to exploit and griefing. I never want that back ... despite the fact that I mostly pilot lights much of the time and made really good use of it ... and fairly rarely got knocked over except by another light trying to knock me over for team mates. A common tactic was to knock over an opposing mech so that nearby team-mates could obliterate it as it took its time standing up again.

So ... back to "realism".

Every mech is equipped with armor that is designed to absorb or ablate damage from high velocity penetrating rounds. Every mech is equipped with a gyro capable of keep the mech upright and stable moving at 40kph even with a leg completely destroyed.

Battletech included rules for falls ... "Charge attacks: Both players make a Piloting skill roll +2 plus any other modifiers ... a failed piloting roll results in a fall" ... however, these are mostly part of the physical attack combat system which isn't yet implemented in MWO (including melee weapons, charge, push, death from above etc).

Given the current state of affairs and previous implementations ... I think they would be best off tuning the amount and distribution of damage due to collisions between mechs and leave it at that until they implement a more comprehensive melee combat system that could include knockdowns, prone firing, and other gameplay aspects.

The main reason I think folks complain at the moment is because they drive assaults and don't like the light mechs running circles around them at minimum range ... well, knockdowns don't stop that if the light mech pilot is decent in the first place.

[ManDaisy]

Without choosing one side or the other, I think knockdown and collision damage would be better in the game (WHEN) all the warping and desync is fixed.

[CocoaJin]

I think their should be some small chance to "trip" an Assault with a light. If the Assault is going at least 66-75% it's max speed, a light running into to it should have a descent chance of getting caught up between its legs. Approaching from the side and perhaps the rear should have the best odds of pulling it off, the assumption being you'd get kicked before you could get caught between the legs if you approach from the front.

This tripping would come at a significant cost. The light mech should take a horrendous mangling...the damage should be nothing short of severe.