Jump to content

A More Detailed Damage System Please!


58 replies to this topic

Poll: Should the damage system have more detail (58 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you like to see more depth in the MWO damage model (eg. more varied damage effects, better decals, cockpit damage, physics based damage)?

  1. Yes please, asap! (31 votes [50.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.82%

  2. No (8 votes [13.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.11%

  3. Yes - one for the longer term (22 votes [36.07%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.07%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Twilight Fenrir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:39 PM

I would love to see something ultra-realistic come in :P More than just 'reduce a components HP to zero' but, I'd like to see if you took an ac/20 round, there'd be a hole there which you could fire into. Y'know, like would really happen... But, I don't know if this is something that's possible or not ^^;

Mechwarrior 3 had the best looking (ignoring resolution) mech damage imo. There'd be spots where the armor plating came off, and you could see little colored wires behind it. If you got hit in the head with machine gun fire, etc, it would make little dings, and crack the ferroglass. This last thing I'd especially like to see come back. Headshots = cracked windshield is a must! (Or, melted, depending on weapon type)

#22 Leetskeet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,101 posts

Posted 21 March 2015 - 08:13 PM

View PostPraetor Knight, on 20 March 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

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

This was already in the game in closed beta, they just couldn't keep up that level of quality. There is no long haul. This game was beautiful back when they first let us into the closed beta.

Posted Image

#23 Juodas Varnas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,534 posts
  • LocationGrand Duchy of Lithuania

Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:00 PM

View PostLeetskeet, on 21 March 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

This was already in the game in closed beta, they just couldn't keep up that level of quality. There is no long haul. This game was beautiful back when they first let us into the closed beta.

Posted Image

They removed it, so people with toasters could run the game better.
But as a person with a toaster, i can say that it didn't do ****, apart from making the game look worse with no performance change.

#24 Leetskeet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,101 posts

Posted 22 March 2015 - 12:26 AM

View PostJuodas Varnas, on 21 March 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

They removed it, so people with toasters could run the game better.
But as a person with a toaster, i can say that it didn't do ****, apart from making the game look worse with no performance change.

There was no performance change, in fact, it might have made performance even worse. The game looks like trash in comparison. I mean, it's REALLY REALLY REALLY bad.

Seems like a fake excuse, and more like they got a bunch of premade assets/had actual Cryengineers working on the game early on, and then had to try to try to mimic that level of quality with their in-house people but couldn't, OR simply decided that they only wanted to do the bare minimum but couldn't simply leave the old mechs with real quality textures while they put Moon Surface Barnacle textures on all of the new mechs, so everything had to look like a minimum viable product.

It baffles me that a game with an "active" development team actually goes backwards. Not even in something like balance, but actual quality. How? Closed Beta felt like a finished game that just needed more mechs, "Live" feels like a beta with tons of placeholders. That is an incredible accomplishment.

#25 Twilight Fenrir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 22 March 2015 - 06:26 AM

View PostLeetskeet, on 21 March 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

This was already in the game in closed beta, they just couldn't keep up that level of quality. There is no long haul. This game was beautiful back when they first let us into the closed beta.

Posted Image

I miss those eyes...

#26 FerrolupisXIII

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 502 posts
  • LocationCatapult Cockpit

Posted 23 March 2015 - 01:40 AM

they should add more obvious damage to the side torso and legs. a lot of mechs its hard to tell they're even missing the torso, its just the arm missing.

right now damaged legs can be used to entirely shield the good one if you know what you are doing, which is total bull. it's not an exploit, exactly but it's definitely not intended if you ask me. the legs should be gone, or mangled and dragging such that it cant be kept in the way of your good leg to soak damage. not just walking around still in slow motion.

but yeah, more interesting overall damage would be wonderful.

#27 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 01:36 PM

^ Agree with the above. I don't understand the concept of downgrading the damage model they had earlier to accommodate toasters...it's a punishment for all those who dare to have decent gaming rigs. Surely the better machine you have, the better the damage effects should be??

#28 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,525 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 24 March 2015 - 02:23 PM

I seem to remember being able to look THROUGH the damaged torso of the Cataphract when it first dropped. Now the pock mark decals that you get no matter what hit you is blech. Autocannons and LRMs yeah. But lasers should have beam scoring.

#29 Bloodweaver

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 890 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 04:37 PM

View PostNik Kerensky, on 24 March 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

^ Agree with the above. I don't understand the concept of downgrading the damage model they had earlier to accommodate toasters...it's a punishment for all those who dare to have decent gaming rigs. Surely the better machine you have, the better the damage effects should be??

I understand the concept. But the thing is - the changes? They haven't done anything to make the game easier to run on low-end machines. It's really just that the art team couldn't keep the level of quality up for each 'mech that was getting released, so they downgraded damage effects to something only slightly better than the MW4 "just make it all black" approach.

#30 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 06:46 AM

View PostBloodweaver, on 24 March 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

I understand the concept. But the thing is - the changes? They haven't done anything to make the game easier to run on low-end machines. It's really just that the art team couldn't keep the level of quality up for each 'mech that was getting released, so they downgraded damage effects to something only slightly better than the MW4 "just make it all black" approach.


Yep agree with your assessment, definitely a cutting corners approach taken. Which is sad to see as they are missing a huge trick here by not actually building on what was a decent level of damage fidelity, at least in terms of decals. They really do need to revisit the actual limb destruction variety and eventually look to keep adding to the number of ways a mech can be damaged. I mean, isn't that the very core of this game??

Edited by Nik Kerensky, 25 March 2015 - 06:46 AM.


#31 AkoolPopTart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • LocationApartment

Posted 25 March 2015 - 01:09 PM

While I would love to see this:

Posted Image

I doubt it will happen. Thing about Star Citizen is that the guy wanted to push the PC to the limit. He wanted to make the experience he had always wanted to make but couldn't because that level of technology didn't exist. PGI just wants to make money I think. I haven't been hear long, but I don't get that dedicated vibe from PGI based on their reputation.

Edited by AkoolPopTart, 25 March 2015 - 01:10 PM.


#32 9erRed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • 1,566 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 25 March 2015 - 07:20 PM

Greetings all,

Reference the level of detail and Pc requirements.

For Star Citizen, they are handing off quite a bit of the code to the GPU that the CPU was crunching.
- Yes, PGI could also do this as it's the same engine, but they don't have the crytek engineers 'on staff'.
- Even adding in a Tesla GPU to the server(s) could speed up operations, 1000's of cores to crunch instead of 4 to 8.

It's quite a bit of code work initially, effects everything, but once complete everyone's jobs get easer. Even the artists and animators will see the improvement. Dx11 can be used to it's full potential, tessellation, bump mapping, physix all pushed to bring us visual quality 2015 should be using. Even lower quality machines will see the improvement, everyone wins.

As a note here:
Some time ago, Karl mentioned that PGI does have 4k versions of all the 'Mechs that were tested. But running these on old or lower grade machines basically crawled the game to an unplayable state. (should be a download 'DLC' for high end clients)
- In fact, there is probably much higher detail content avail from PGI, terrain, objects and structures. But too much of a load on lower end systems. (again, DLC for those that can run it.)
- PGI is working on destructible terrain and converting simple art elements to rigid bodies. (trees, poles, you get the idea.) But at what point will it effect gameplay and LOS for so many players? A balancing act indeed.

Just some thoughts,
9erRed

#33 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 01:21 PM

View PostAkoolPopTart, on 25 March 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

While I would love to see this:

Posted Image

I doubt it will happen. Thing about Star Citizen is that the guy wanted to push the PC to the limit. He wanted to make the experience he had always wanted to make but couldn't because that level of technology didn't exist. PGI just wants to make money I think. I haven't been hear long, but I don't get that dedicated vibe from PGI based on their reputation.


I really do hope that last bit about PGI not really giving a **** about giving us the best possible mech game and just wanting to make money is not true. If that is, I don't see them making money for too much longer. Surely Chris Roberts has proved if you put your heart and soul into the DETAILS, the fans will follow with their wallets.

#34 AkoolPopTart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • LocationApartment

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:59 PM

View PostNik Kerensky, on 26 March 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:


I really do hope that last bit about PGI not really giving a **** about giving us the best possible mech game and just wanting to make money is not true. If that is, I don't see them making money for too much longer. Surely Chris Roberts has proved if you put your heart and soul into the DETAILS, the fans will follow with their wallets.


You mean like hoe pgi over prices popular franchise mechs? 55 for a timber wolf is ridiculous.

#35 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 28 March 2015 - 08:39 AM

View PostAkoolPopTart, on 27 March 2015 - 08:59 PM, said:

You mean like hoe pgi over prices popular franchise mechs? 55 for a timber wolf is ridiculous.


Now this I can somewhat agree with. My point is, for the money they are charging they really ought to be adding a more detailed damage system. Their main product (mechs) I feel, is just too simplistic/arcadey at the moment to have any real depth/fun in the long term.

#36 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 01:06 PM

I would actually love to hear PGIs take on this!

Mods, any chance we can get someone from the dev team to opine on whether there are any plans to improve the damage model??

#37 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 10:58 PM

The simplest thing to do would be to link top speed to leg actuators, as follows:

Each leg has four actuators (Hip, Upper Leg, Lower Leg, Foot).

- A Hip critical hit reduces your top speed by 40%.
- An Upper Leg critical hit reduces your top speed by 15%.
- A Lower Leg critical hit reduces your top speed by 10%.
- A Foot critical hit reduces your top speed by 5%.

These are cumulative, so an Upper Leg, two Lower Leg, and one Foot critical hits would reduce your speed to (0.85 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.95) = 65% of normal.

The Center Torso has six Engine slots, and XL-equipped Mechs have 2 to 3 Engine slots per side torso.
- Each Engine critical hit reduces your cooling per second by 0.5.

These are also cumulative, so one Engine hit is equivalent to losing 5 SHS, and two Engine hits is equivalent to losing 10SHS.

Each Arm has three actuators, Shoulder, Upper Arm, and Lower Arm.

- Each Shoulder hit reduces arm tracking speed by 50%.
- Each Upper Arm hit reduces arm tracking speed by 25%.
- Each Lower Arm hit reduces arm tracking speed by 20%.

These are also cumulative, so losing both Shoulders and one Upper Arm will reduce arm tracking speed to (0.5 * 0.5 * 0.75) = 19% of normal.

Note that all of these numbers already exist and are adjustable, so you just have to do some really simple math on the client and server side to make all of this work.

To make Gyro hits mean something, we'd need to bring back knockdown - which would, of course, be awesome.

#38 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 07 April 2015 - 01:09 PM

^ this would at least be a start!

#39 Nik Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts

Posted 22 August 2015 - 04:27 AM

I think Heavy Gears has a much better/more detailed damage system. Devs please take notes!! This would make a HUGE difference to MWO in terms of long term appeal...

#40 Bloodweaver

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 890 posts

Posted 22 August 2015 - 07:53 PM

View PostFerrolupisXIII, on 23 March 2015 - 01:40 AM, said:

they should add more obvious damage to the side torso and legs. a lot of all mechs its hard to tell they're even missing the torso, its just the arm missing.

Fixed this for you - no 'Mech in MWO shows ST destruction in any way whatsoever. In fact, NO Mechwarrior game, ever, has done this. The closest we've ever gotten is the loss of the "S1" and "S2" sections on some specific 'Mechs in MW4, such as the Timber Wolf - the missile boxes were not considered part of the side torso hitbox, each one had its own hitbox with its own separate health value. But ST loss has never been shown in any MW games, which is a real shame.

I agree with you on the legs, as well - having the destroyed leg at least drag lifelessly would be a significant improvement over what we have now. It would be cool if a component's destruction didn't necessarily mean it was knocked off the model, too - it could simply become a blackened husk, devoid of internal elements, limply hanging in the wind, full of holes letting you see through to the other side. That's not gonna be possible here of course - it'd just be cool to see...


View PostHammerMaster, on 24 March 2015 - 02:23 PM, said:

I seem to remember being able to look THROUGH the damaged torso of the Cataphract when it first dropped. Now the pock mark decals that you get no matter what hit you is blech. Autocannons and LRMs yeah. But lasers should have beam scoring.

Not sure why you remember that about the 'Phract, it never happened... although it'd be awesome if it did. Different weapons should defo create different damage effects too.


View Post9erRed, on 25 March 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

As a note here:
Some time ago, Karl mentioned that PGI does have 4k versions of all the 'Mechs that were tested. But running these on old or lower grade machines basically crawled the game to an unplayable state. (should be a download 'DLC' for high end clients)
- In fact, there is probably much higher detail content avail from PGI, terrain, objects and structures. But too much of a load on lower end systems. (again, DLC for those that can run it.)
- PGI is working on destructible terrain and converting simple art elements to rigid bodies. (trees, poles, you get the idea.) But at what point will it effect gameplay and LOS for so many players? A balancing act indeed.

A note to your note: the 4k textures Karl mentioned, have nothing to do with damage decals. If you look at the picture of the damaged Atlas from Closed Beta that Leetskeet posted here, you will see that the underlying damaged "skin" has various unique details that only coincide with specific parts of the Atlas' body. I've seen this on Catapults and Commandos as well, so its likely that all of the first eight 'Mechs in MWO had specific underlying "unpainted/damaged" skins.

The reason they stopped doing this was not a lack of ability, but pure workload. To keep up that pattern, each 'Mech they put into the game would have to have its own unique "skeleton" skin. That adds a lot of work, as its basically creating an additional, unique camo pattern for each 'Mech.

BTW, I'd love for destructible terrain to affect gameplay. That's, like, 90% of the fun in having destructible terrain. Maybe you don't notice an enemy because he's hiding behind a tree - but what if he shoots the tree, exposing him to sensor readings? What if YOU shoot the tree? Should your weapons still hit him, or should they be blocked until after the tree is destroyed? Shouldn't you be able to use trees, light posts, etc. to your advantage - even if only momentarily? What about buildings?

One of the biggest reasons MW3 is still my favorite MW game, even to this day, is how destructible the terrain was. Non-destructible buildings were rare, and usually justified in their durability. Normal buildings, upon being destroyed, fell apart in a realistic way. Trees would light on fire. Birds and pedestrians would explode in a bloody mess. Telephone wires would snap and fall towards the ground. The earth itself was moldable, if you hit it with missiles the explosion would create a small crater - and you could even use this for cover or to slow down an enemy's movement if you were quick enough.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 22 August 2015 - 07:56 PM.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users