65 replies to this topic

[CaveMan]

Thank God, no stupid nuclear explosions when 'Mechs die.

You want gratuitous mushroom clouds, go play Fallout.

Edited by CaveMan, 09 July 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[light487]

Quote

Q: Most rocks and such in the screenshots and intros (not reboot) all appear to be big enough to hide completely behind. Will there also be ridgelines and boulders that will also allow partial cover (protect lower half and allow firing above)? [Nairdowell]
A: There are instances of this, yes. It often depends on the 'Mech, as those with higher weapons can fire over more obstacles, but those with higher 'heads' can see above them sooner. So, yes there are places you can hide your bottom half when firing. [GARTH]

So this brings up a question I had while reading this:

Will there be some kind of HUD implemented to show how much of the mech is being concealed/covered by whatever is in front of it? When you're in first person, all you can see is: all rock, partial rock, no rock.. and then depending on the angle you are looking, you can see more or less. Or think of it this way, I could be standing next to a brick wall with my head peeking over the top. As far as my eyes are concerned, since my eyes are above the wall, there is no wall at all but of course I am consciously aware that there is a wall in between the rest of my body and what I am seeing in front of me.

So without some way (without using a 3rd person camera) to know how much of you is "sticking up" above the wall (or rock.. or hill).. it will prove to be a frustration in terms of not knowing if you are in partial cover, whether a part of you is showing or not (and how much is showing) and whether you are in fact behind cover. If you thought you were behind cover and you get hit by something you would immediately think someone is cheating (or the game is broken) by shooting through the wall/rock because you believe you can't be hit. However if there was some way of indicating to the player that they are not fully covered, then at least they could either expect to be hit or they can do something about it like move...

[Redshift2k5]

Thanks guys keep em coming!

[Egomane]

light487, on 09 July 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

So this brings up a question I had while reading this:

Will there be some kind of HUD implemented to show how much of the mech is being concealed/covered by whatever is in front of it? When you're in first person, all you can see is: all rock, partial rock, no rock.. and then depending on the angle you are looking, you can see more or less. Or think of it this way, I could be standing next to a brick wall with my head peeking over the top. As far as my eyes are concerned, since my eyes are above the wall, there is no wall at all but of course I am consciously aware that there is a wall in between the rest of my body and what I am seeing in front of me.

So without some way (without using a 3rd person camera) to know how much of you is "sticking up" above the wall (or rock.. or hill).. it will prove to be a frustration in terms of not knowing if you are in partial cover, whether a part of you is showing or not (and how much is showing) and whether you are in fact behind cover. If you thought you were behind cover and you get hit by something you would immediately think someone is cheating (or the game is broken) by shooting through the wall/rock because you believe you can't be hit. However if there was some way of indicating to the player that they are not fully covered, then at least they could either expect to be hit or they can do something about it like move...

I don't believe that we will get something like that. My guess is, that we have to learn it, just like we did while we grew up, by observation and experimentation, how much of us will be visible behind one cover or the other.

I believe it to be so, because a slight change of angle from an observer can completly screw your cover up. The battlefield will not be a leveled one with obstacles in the way, but one with different elevations and different observation angles of the battlefield. So there will never truly be a full cover. Only exception for that might be the still unknown urban maps. You can't even implement a system that will show how much cover you have against a single opponent, because if you can't see him anymore your targeting system will lose track of him as well.

Shooting through rocks and walls shouldn't be possible. I don't know where I read it and I am to lazy to search for it, but somewhere in the past months a dev said, that your weapons need a clear line to their target from the point were they are mounted on your mech. So it is possible that you can look over a rock or building and see your enemy, but your weapons can never hit your opponent because said rock or building is in their way.

I will make it a rule for myself, that I will never assume to be completly invisible to the opponent. There is always the chance that a scout, that I didn't notice sneaking up on me, is standing in my back and providing a targeting lock for some of his friends.

[Tibs]

always loved a pulse laser mech build )

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

dankone, on 09 July 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Will there be splash damage from mechs blowing up?

I am going to answer this by quoting Garth;

InnerSphereNews, on 09 July 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Q: Are you going to handle the destruction of the mech like in TT (simply fall down, or random explosion of all ammo inside), or the Stackpole way (random nuke)? [Adridos]
A: The former, not the latter. We have no plans for nuclear-explosion deaths at this time. [GARTH]

There are no explosive deaths. How are you expecting splash damage?

[bakon]

Being a developer my self and having Deuteranopia color blindness, Where red and greener colors give me problems, I am glad that game developers are finally taking these things into consideration.

Thanks

Edited by bakon, 09 July 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[ORIGINAL SteelWolf]

Will there be a way to record and play back video from game play. I forget the mech game, [Mechcommander??] That had this feature.
A eature that shows enemy mechs and not just a video like FRAPS or a screen capture.

Edited by ORIGINAL SteelWolf, 09 July 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[ORIGINAL SteelWolf]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 09 July 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

I am going to answer this by quoting Garth;


There are no explosive deaths. How are you expecting splash damage?

Easy. When a mech dies it creates certain damage. However you can label damage in the code to cause splash damage. Or accept it. I think its a valid question that you can not just wave off with a "no nukes" explanation. But if you fire and miss and hit the ground next to your buddy -Should- he take spash damage rather then the round/shot just gets buried in the beach sand? I for one would like to see the game physics include spash damage. Be carefully of who your shooting!

[Bruticus]

Nuts! Guess I can't just move up to an enemy mech and self destruct my core for a last ditch attmept to take the enemy mech with me. (Traditionlist DCMS used to pull this move alot in the novels )

[Arteste]

ORIGINAL SteelWolf, on 09 July 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

Easy. When a mech dies it creates certain damage. However you can label damage in the code to cause splash damage. Or accept it. I think its a valid question that you can not just wave off with a "no nukes" explanation. But if you fire and miss and hit the ground next to your buddy -Should- he take spash damage rather then the round/shot just gets buried in the beach sand? I for one would like to see the game physics include spash damage. Be carefully of who your shooting!

Been a while since I played Battletech but, from my vague cobweb ridden memories, I don't recall there ever being splash damage in the TT rules or any Mechwarrior game since. You hit then you hit. You miss, well, you get the idea. That being said, it's just my humble opinion.

Respectfully,
Arteste
DWAR Mechwarrior

[Rioter]

In MegaMek destruction by ammo explosion can cause damage by flying arms and/or legs to another mech next hex.

[Regina Redshift]

I've enjoyed this answer set very much. I'm also relieved that there won't be any Stackpoling.

That said, I don't want to be standing beind a a 'mech's when it vents its ammo explosion through CASE. Nor do I want to be anywhere near my buddy's Jagermech when it suffers an ammo cook-off.

[Name140704]

Mota Prefect, on 09 July 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Not blown away with this Q&A this time around. I am glad to see that UI colors will customized, the current yellow all over is just kinda... meh.

It's better than the one with french fies and gravy.

[PhearFactor]

Thanks for the answers!

[MilitantMonk]

Yay! 20% more awesome and insignias!

[JabberJon]

Haha Garth, you're my hero. Honestly.

[Tribesmen]

Good! Hated the always critical nuke death in MW4...Maybe once in a wile but rare would be alright later on..

[Diaku]

My first post
Ok I been playing battletech since it start by FASA Corp in 1984, it was then the only game the lured me away from D&D. Splash Damage and nuking was always decided by the GM running the session. the previous pc gaming titles was only loosely based on the table top BT, This game seems a lot closer to those rules but not quite as far, which is quite understandable with the dev being the one all mighty GM of the game. Thus saying it’s their Session we playing we have to follow their guide lines; we don’t have to play if we don’t like the rules. The Devs as GM can change the rules as it is their universe.
Now the question I like to ask about night warfare.
I will assume the mechs will have lights to navigate the terrain, will we be able to shut down a mechs power to ambush patrols as we will be in the dark the patrols will be walking lights. Which leads to 2^nd & 3^rd part, will scanners be able to pick up power down mechs, and since a large part of target lock is line of sight if you cannot see a power down mech at night will you be able to get a lock?

[Mad Hamish]

All Hail Garth! "The Seer of Grey"