31 replies to this topic

[Greyboots]

bad arcade kitty, on 06 May 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

with a more realistic physics heavies should take more serious damage.. and it should be the internal damage, not damage to the armor

That's kind of not how physics works and we should also remember that Mechs are machines so there's a step in the middle where Engineering gets a chance to play it's part too.

Acceleration is a constant based on mass. So if a 20 ton mech and a 50 ton mech both stepped off a cliff at the same time both would hit the ground at the same velocity. The damage taken would be proportional to the mass of the object x deceleration as is represented by the percentile damage generation based on the weight of a mech.

So although the heavy would take "more damage" overall, that damage is proportional so relatively speaking the damage is no more "serious" for the heavy than the light.

While not 100% "true and correct", engineering would account for the variances so we should assume that the mechs are built in such a way that allows this relatively even effect as a design principle.

Because horizontal velocity SHOULD play a part in this, introducing a physics engine to this calculation would actually see lights taking proportionally more damage than heavies on average, not less, simply because they are generically faster as a weight class.
On the "Internal Structure" thing I kind of agree with you if reality were the only consideration but it would end up being a nerf to lights that they don't need.

[Y E O N N E]

Before adding in shock absorbing mechanisms, you've forgotten that materials have finite stress limits. So the fall may be lower than the yield of the materials for the Light, but way over for an Assault, causing the Assault to take more damage than the Light at a given impact velocity.

So, when you do start adding in shock absorption mechanisms, it's a lot easier to overbuild the system on the Light to take more of an impact because the lower mass allows you to hit the ground at higher speeds and still be under the yield stress.

As for internal structure taking the damage, it should, because armor isn't load-bearing. If it is, then it's part of the structure. I do agree that it would sort of be a nerf to Lights, but only if the fall-damage isn't adjusted to account for the above.

[bad arcade kitty]

>So although the heavy would take "more damage" overall, that damage is proportional

drop a cat and an elephant from the same height of say... 3 meters
it will kill the elephant and won't even damage the cat

[Troutmonkey]

Ph30nix, on 06 May 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

i had a video i did and some screen caps showing my mech at a complete standstill yet it the falling indicator was going nuts. as soon as i took a step my legs pretty much vaporized.

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.

Mining Collective used to do this to me all the time when landing between the round dome things. Now I just avoid them instead.

[Joseph Mallan]

Darian DelFord, on 06 May 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

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.

This has happened to lights since the 80s. You are small and fragile and are supposed to fold when hit with heavy damage.

[Bishop Steiner]

Darian DelFord, on 06 May 2015 - 04:09 AM, said:

Using my Oxide without JJ and with the Shock Absorber Mod I am still losing 2 to 5% of my leg armor for little falls at speed. This needs to be adjusted ESPECIALLY for lights with no damn JJ's. And why is it anytime a mech bumps into you you automatically take LEG damage? This also needs to be addressed.

Now that I think about it. Has anyone confirmed that the mod is actually working?

stop running off cliffs?

bad arcade kitty, on 06 May 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

with a more realistic physics heavies should take more serious damage.. and it should be the internal damage, not damage to the armor

actually, it would be both.

[Bishop Steiner]

bad arcade kitty, on 06 May 2015 - 05:18 PM, said:

>So although the heavy would take "more damage" overall, that damage is proportional

drop a cat and an elephant from the same height of say... 3 meters
it will kill the elephant and won't even damage the cat

yet it will kill a chick or a hamster. (or a chihuahua, or a dachshund) See how that doesn't really work as an illustration?

Because the cat is designed specifically for impact and twists and absorbs it. Running your non jompy mechs off cliffs is running a mech not designed for the impact.

Fact is, Jump capable mechs would take less because they would be engineered for it. But then the balance weenies would cry that JJs are mandatory. Perhaps to make them happy, make Shock Absorber a permanent module on jumpers?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 07 May 2015 - 06:54 AM.

[Romeo Deluxe]

There is something weird going on with fall damage in this game. Some times I don't take any damage at all but at other times I take massive amounts. Just a few days ago I was in my Jenner and dropped off into one of those deep gully's in Frozen City. My jj's were firing as I landed yet both legs that had barely been touched vaporized and I died. They were speced max armor even.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 May 2015 - 06:53 AM, said:

yet it will kill a chick or a hamster. (or a chihuahua, or a dachshund) See how that doesn't really work as an illustration?

Because the cat is designed specifically for impact and twists and absorbs it. Running your non jompy mechs off cliffs is running a mech not designed for the impact.

Fact is, Jump capable mechs would take less because they would be engineered for it. But then the balance weenies would cry that JJs are mandatory. Perhaps to make them happy, make Shock Absorber a permanent module on jumpers?

Just a friendly head's up, you are biting off more than you can chew, Bishop. The cat was probably a bad example, but bad arcade kitty was actually on the right track.

A less massive object falling has less kinetic energy in the system than a more massive object. That is math and physics. If you take three solid spheres made of the same material and drop them from the same height, they will not necessarily show proportional damage to their mass. Spheres one and two might deform with a yield of 1 and 2 mm while sphere three will deform 6 mm, even though they are each 10, 20, and 30 g worth of mass. This is because there are also these things for materials called stress-strain curves, and they are only linear up until a certain point, after which they start going funky. There are actually several inflection points, but the big one is called the elastic limit and it is the point after which deformities become permanent (it's elastic until that point). The mass of an Assault 'Mech might put the stresses past this point, while the mass of a Light 'Mech could put the stresses below it. As such, the Assault takes damage, and the Light does not. This means the Light can hit greater velocities before taking damage, which translates into higher altitude drops.



You can deal with the impact energy with properly designed shock-absorbing mechanisms, but a ligher object benefits from not requiring the heftier equipment that a more massive object will.

And no, the armor may not take damage. It might sheer off...might...but armor is not bearing the weight of the 'Mech. If damage does occur to the armor, it will very likely be a much, much smaller amount than what happens to the structure.

Note, I don't really think the fall damage needs adjusting, just that the sticky terrain needs to get fixed. You are, however, starting to try and talk physics and engineering, and it is obvious that you don't have the background to do it credibly.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 May 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

Just a friendly head's up, you are biting off more than you can chew, Bishop. The cat was probably a bad example, but bad arcade kitty was actually on the right track.

A less massive object falling has less kinetic energy in the system than a more massive object. That is math and physics. If you take three solid spheres made of the same material and drop them from the same height, they will not necessarily show proportional damage to their mass. Spheres one and two might deform with a yield of 1 and 2 mm while sphere three will deform 6 mm, even though they are each 10, 20, and 30 g worth of mass. This is because there are also these things for materials called stress-strain curves, and they are only linear up until a certain point, after which they start going funky. There are actually several inflection points, but the big one is called the elastic limit and it is the point after which deformities become permanent (it's elastic until that point). The mass of an Assault 'Mech might put the stresses past this point, while the mass of a Light 'Mech could put the stresses below it. As such, the Assault takes damage, and the Light does not. This means the Light can hit greater velocities before taking damage, which translates into higher altitude drops.



You can deal with the impact energy with properly designed shock-absorbing mechanisms, but a ligher object benefits from not requiring the heftier equipment that a more massive object will.

And no, the armor may not take damage. It might sheer off...might...but armor is not bearing the weight of the 'Mech. If damage does occur to the armor, it will very likely be a much, much smaller amount than what happens to the structure.

Note, I don't really think the fall damage needs adjusting, just that the sticky terrain needs to get fixed. You are, however, starting to try and talk physics and engineering, and it is obvious that you don't have the background to do it credibly.

I'm aware of how it works. (Though don't claim to know all the verbage, or exact maths) As for the basic premise, I never said it was wrong, just that his illustration was poor.

And armor sheering off from it's welds, joins and other connections flexing or breaking, still translates to armor damage. Technically, armor being warped so that it has gaps would also, which are all things that are likely to occur when 20-100 tons has a sudden stop from height. So, not sure where your beef is.

For being overly precise, you gotta look at the details of not what is said, but at what isn't!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 07 May 2015 - 04:55 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Well, you seemed to be implying that damage is going to be proportional to mass, and that's what my beef was. And Darian does have a point, though I think it ought to go the other way. I think Lights taking the amount of damage they do now is fine (shoot, they were fine with the first iteration of fall damage, even), but that the heavier 'Mechs should be taking much more damage than they do. I also think the damage should scale with individual chassis mass rather than just the weight class because the latter makes no sense at all.

If I really had my way, this game would be IL-2: Sturmovik 1946 levels of simulator.