Time To Tweak Fall Damage For Lights Again
#1
Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:09 AM
Now that I think about it. Has anyone confirmed that the mod is actually working?
#2
Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:20 AM
(tonnage/10)* distance falling
or
Ramming damage
(tonnage/10)* distance running
Light mechs don't have much armor.
#3
Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:28 AM
And the Oxide simply needs JJs like the other Jenners. At least three JJs max would be nice, and it has the fewest hardpoints anyway.
#4
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:14 PM
Praetor Knight, on 06 May 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:
And the Oxide simply needs JJs like the other Jenners. At least three JJs max would be nice, and it has the fewest hardpoints anyway.
Dunno about JJ's I am still a Quirk internal structure and Armor of the CT for all Jenhers. However adding JJ's to the oxide would help but the problem is its already almost impossible to get more than 5 tons of ammo for anything in that mech.
#5
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:17 PM
Edited by Geist Null, 06 May 2015 - 12:18 PM.
#6
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:19 PM
#7
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:19 PM
#8
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:22 PM
Rhent, on 06 May 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:
Wasn't the objective of falling damage to be a soft nerf to toaster pastries?
#9
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:24 PM
Praetor Knight, on 06 May 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:
And the Oxide simply needs JJs like the other Jenners. At least three JJs max would be nice, and it has the fewest hardpoints anyway.
Also PGI fall systems takes a whole 1-2 secs minimun to reset the fall speed thus quick sucession of small falls counts as a huge one and the damage increases exponentially when the mech should take 0 damage at all from each of those falls.
#10
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:24 PM
But then coupled with your call to nerf heavy agility, you just want lights, which are already very powerful, ton for ton, to be the gods on the battle field
#11
Posted 06 May 2015 - 12:41 PM
Cathy, on 06 May 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:
But then coupled with your call to nerf heavy agility, you just want lights, which are already very powerful, ton for ton, to be the gods on the battle field
yeah we are gods alright , gods who get taken out of the match with 1 alpha from just about any heavy or assault. Go back to your cave Steiner ;pp
Fall damage does need to be decreased and damage to the legs needs to be reworked just because some idiot runs into you right out of the gate. How many lights pilots have had their legs damaged at the spawn point simply because of the cramped quarters of some of the spawns. Forest Colony comes to mind.
Edited by Darian DelFord, 06 May 2015 - 12:44 PM.
#12
Posted 06 May 2015 - 01:03 PM
Or for that matter, mechs don't take damage for ramming something head on at any reasonable combat speed. A Jenner(especially) or any other mech(especially light) that runs into a wall/outcrop/tree at even half their max speed and face hugs it up, would incur a massive amount of front end damage. Especially the mechs who's cockpits are forward like the timberwolf, catapult, jenner, etc.
Legs are kind of a weird thing to damage if they aren't the areas that impact another mechs. But that is done, probably, for simplicity sake.
I think collisions in this game are extremely liberal in the leeway given in terms of damage. While it still gives me a gut wrenching feeling when my King Crab or the like takes a fall off of something like the platform on Therma, into the hot lava, I am just glad it doesn't slag both legs.
Edited by jlawsl, 06 May 2015 - 01:07 PM.
#13
Posted 06 May 2015 - 01:03 PM
FupDup, on 06 May 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:
It was, but then all the "sim" players complained that this needs to be in effect for all mechs because mechs falling 10 stories with no damage was silly. Then again, giant stompy robots with melee weapons is pretty silly itself.
Regardless, between the thrust nerfs, the heat nerfs, and the PPC nerfs, the famous toaster pastries suffered defeat. The fall damage was almost negligible as a nerf to the poptarts and certainly hasn't stopped them but has definitely made having that one JJ essential to avoiding fall damage effectively nerfing ground pounders more. So I'm going to say that fall damage ought to be removed since it failed to do what it set out to do and seems to be in the game for reality's sake and nothing else since it doesn't add any depth gameplay wise.
#14
Posted 06 May 2015 - 01:06 PM
You are better off asking for a buff in that area instead.
#15
Posted 06 May 2015 - 01:09 PM
#16
Posted 06 May 2015 - 01:26 PM
Deathlike, on 06 May 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:
You are better off asking for a buff in that area instead.
I agree with this. The Shock Absorbance module isn't something that many people go to a lot when picking modules.
As for "sim" playing, if we don't keep to some sense of balance or even the tt, then what's the point? Might as well make a generic mech, with a mutable size, generic hardpoints, infinite ammo and no heat. Those are all things that annoy a lot of players, but they are put in the game for balance. Jump jets, on a lot of mechs, can be put on as an afterthought, especially if you are only mounting a few. They may not work the best in all situations, but they give a third degree of movement and maneuverability that non-equipped mechs don't have.
I feel stupid when I jump too high and don't time it right, then take damage on the landing. But I never thought that jump jets were weak or a liability.
#17
Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:36 PM
That said, fall damage is fine. Was fine even before quirks happened and gave my Locusts Spider armor on the legs, and it's even more fine now. In fact, it's so fine that I don't even think twice about leaping over small cliffs that I know will do some damage.
#18
Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:45 PM
jlawsl, on 06 May 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:
This is a slippery slope argument with a little bit of strawman mixed in. There is a BIG difference between Mechwarrior without fall damage and NH/UA generic warrior.
#19
Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:53 PM
#20
Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:00 PM
This has happened on multiple maps in multiple locations. I know i submitted the screenshots before but not the video, i might have to hunt it down if for nothing other then a laugh.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users