58 replies to this topic

[Nik Kerensky]

I think given we are using CryEngine 3 here, the damage system could really use an overhaul.

Firstly, there needs to be more variety in terms of mech parts being blown off, not just the standard arms gone and that's it.

Also the damage decals could be vastly improved.

Lastly, as a longer term initiative, how about some physics based damage modelling (not saying PGI need to go to the lengths Chris Roberts and co have gone to for SC, but a little more depth in the damage system, given blowing up mechs is the core of the experience....will go a long way!!).

Thoughts/comments?

Edit: Most popular consensus seems to be, we really want the following additions to damage system-


[color=#959595]- better damage decals[/color]
[color=#959595]- more destructible parts (need more blown off than just arms)[/color]
[color=#959595]- damage should affect mech performance in a variety of ways - read my earlier posts (eg.engine damage can result in lack of movement but can still fire and turn torso, torso damage affects torso twist, etc) [/color]

Edited by Nik Kerensky, 25 August 2015 - 11:54 AM.

[Darth Futuza]

I can barely even get headshots.

[Burktross]

The classic Battletech, and classic Mechwarrior handling of hitboxes is fine-- besides, a complete hitbox redesign would literally break the game.

Balance? $#^&'d up
Stock Mechs? %#^&!'d up
Meta? Watch it flock to the mech with the most hitboxes
TTK? Much larger.
Custom configurations? Have to be redone from the ground up.

[50 50]

It might be interesting with critical hits to components and having some more effects.
I don't believe changing the hit boxes or knocking the mechs around more is necessary, though an ammo explosion could be more dramatic.
Seeing more destruction of components when they are hit would be nice but just as a few extra graphical effects.


Where it could really be improved is with the maps themselves.
Terrain destruction.
Imagine with enough missile or autocannon fire you could bring down a building?
Or lasers and flamers setting fire to trees.... and then there is smoke and heat to contend with?
Artillery and airstrikes leaving craters?
Probably a large task but it would be worth it.

[destroika]

I can see all this in my mind's eye and it looks amazing. If the terrain itself and object collision were corrected plus all this in a stable game... the image makes me drool! The reality of this being accomplished... loooong time if at all =/

[Eldamar]

50 50, on 16 March 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

It might be interesting with critical hits to components and having some more effects.
I don't believe changing the hit boxes or knocking the mechs around more is necessary, though an ammo explosion could be more dramatic.
Seeing more destruction of components when they are hit would be nice but just as a few extra graphical effects.


Where it could really be improved is with the maps themselves.
Terrain destruction.
Imagine with enough missile or autocannon fire you could bring down a building?
Or lasers and flamers setting fire to trees.... and then there is smoke and heat to contend with?
Artillery and airstrikes leaving craters?
Probably a large task but it would be worth it.

I would give almost anything in game to be able to take down a building and watch it drop onto a mech in River City, or even better start an avalanche and watch a lance get swept down the mountains in Alpine Peaks

[Koniving]

Burktross, on 16 March 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

The classic Battletech, and classic Mechwarrior handling of hitboxes is fine-- besides, a complete hitbox redesign would literally break the game.

Balance? $#^&'d up
Stock Mechs? %#^&!'d up
Meta? Watch it flock to the mech with the most hitboxes
TTK? Much larger.
Custom configurations? Have to be redone from the ground up.

Darth Futuza, on 16 March 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

I can barely even get headshots.

I believe the original poster is talking in regards to things like:

• damaged hand actuator? Blow it off.
  
• Damaged arm blown off at the elbow instead of just the shoulder.
  
• Side torso destroyed? WHY THE HECK IS IT STILL THERE!?
  
• Broken leg -- why is it intact?
  
• Engine damage? Why no see-em?
  
• Is your cockpit armor destroyed; why is it intact?
  
• Why no chunks or holes?
  
• Why bullet hole puke when I burn you with fire?

The list goes on.

Like this.

A chunk is missing from that hip actuator! Armor plates are removed from its torso.

Torso destruction.


Cockpit destruction.


Damage.


Damage received affecting the mech physically.


What do we have?
Detachable arms...

Bullethole puke.

[Nik Kerensky]

^ Spot on. We definitely need more of this in the game!! Damage model feels like an arcade game at the moment!

[Karl Streiger]

Would be nice - but it doesn't make much sense actually - gameplay is to fast.
for a slow motion mech warrior - where you move your whole Mech to line up that perfect shot for the next 20seconds it would be indeed interesting.
But for a effect that is only visible between 1 or 2 seconds its not necessary

ok i admit to have more hitboxes would be a nice addition and critical components linked to this boxes would be awesome - and the real solution for a FPS.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 17 March 2015 - 12:30 AM.

[ShinVector]

Hmmmm....

I rather PGI fix basic gameplay (HSR bugs, scrappy movement code.. all those scrappy stuck bugs, invisible walls.. etc.. ) before trying to do stuff like before which obviously took thousands of engineer man hours.

PGI probably doesn't have the manpower or budget at this moment I believe.
Sure it would have been ridiculously cool melt mechs right through their armour, internal structure all the way to myomer.

[Lily from animove]

in a single player game yes, but obviously the game does not run good on above average pc's. just making everything more complex and wanting to transfer this online to X players as well, is probably not a good idea at this point.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 March 2015 - 03:30 AM.

[Nik Kerensky]

Lily from animove, on 17 March 2015 - 02:57 AM, said:

in a single player game yes, but obviously the game does not run good on above average pc's. just making everything more complex and wanting to transfer this online to X players as well, is probably not a good idea at this point.

I think just enhanced damage decals for the short term is worth doing. The other stuff, adding substantial enhanced detail to the damage model to make this a truly quality game (I would gladly shell out more for mech models that are highly detailed)...is something PGI should at least acknowledge is worth noting on the long term agenda.

[Juodas Varnas]

We USED to have very detailed damage decals back in early beta. Different ones for different damage, like laser marks, flamethrower scorching, bulletholes, everything. But they removed it.
I think it was to make it run better on toasters (didn't really help though)

[Nik Kerensky]

Juodas Varnas, on 17 March 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

We USED to have very detailed damage decals back in early beta. Different ones for different damage, like laser marks, flamethrower scorching, bulletholes, everything. But they removed it.
I think it was to make it run better on toasters (didn't really help though)

Well it's a travesty actually making the game worse while other games like SC are breaking barriers. Fully understand time and resource constraints but come on, mech damage is the very core of this game and should be waaay better (and deeper) than it is now.

[Nik Kerensky]

Bump! C'mon guys I'm sure more people want to see this in the long term...

[Astarot]

I just want to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. Those draws that you show, are based on a table top game, a table top game mind you allowed for things to be left up to the imagination, thus how you get these amazing drawings like this.... The imagination doesn't always translate very well into code, programming, and hard data.

For example, the arm movement, how do we translate that? Do we put them at fixed positions, or do we find a way for players to take control of the arms and give them the ability to move the arm around?

Damage, how do we translate certain damage models? Damaged legs, broke foot actuators. Limping, or maybe even no foot at all? How do we make that a reality without breaking something or making it look cheesy?

Damaged arms, do we make arms droop? This goes back to arm movement and how to give players control of it. How do you make something that complex on the mouse and keyboard? Use the number pad as a way to control arms? And if they droop due to damage, does that become good game play mechanics that are actually fun, or will it become just frustrating every time an AC20 shell gets lodged into your arm and you are unable to gain full control over it, and everytime you shoot, you shoot the ground?

And then you have the code itself. Some of the things you guys ask for are crazy when it comes to the programming side of things. Lets say they do put this in, but at the cost, 1/3 of the game community that currently play, suddenly can't play, because the code processing for this is to great for their machine.

Then you have to look at PGI's side of things, they will have to upgrade their servers to better keep track of all these small little details, and if they give it the the client side to process all this, then they open themselves to more exploiting. Congratz, that mech never limps, because on his client, a script is telling the server that his leg never broke. The critical chance of that item was always zero.


These are just a few things you need to think about when you ask for some of the crap you guys ask for.

[Nik Kerensky]

I suppose the question is, other server based games like SC are planning on having a much more detailed damage model and can manage the coding bits just fine.

So why can't PGI add even 50% of that level of detail?

Mech damage is such a core part of the game (we are shooting at mechs as the primary premise here, surely attention to detail on that front is very important!?).

In terms of immersion, a high quality damage model is probably the number 1 thing for me (and to many friends I have talked to who play/used to play the game).

Edited by Nik Kerensky, 20 March 2015 - 06:31 AM.

[Banditman]

Because PGI doesn't have the budget / staff that Star Citizen does. I'm sure if you were to hand PGI $50 million they'd be able to produce something amazing. They tried going the route of having a publisher to pump money into the project, and that got us IGP. No thanks! Let's just leave the game in the hands of people who love it, even if it means that some of the really detailed and intricate pieces have to remain off limits.

[Nik Kerensky]

Why don't they just open up a crowd funding campaign?? I would gladly shell out at least as much as I have for Star Citizen, if not more..to play a true next gen mechwarrior title.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Over the long haul, I'd love to see this sort of detail.