100 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

In the TT if you take 20 points (or more) of damage then there is a chance of your mech being knocked down. I would like to see this implemented in the game. The chance of a knockdown should obviously be greater the lighter the mech. For example you have a 10% chance at 100 tons, but 75% at 20 tons. If a knockdown is not achieved then the mech should judder/spin around depending on how off-centre the hit was.
The only way I can see this being achieved is by RNG, which I know is anathema to many people. So what is your alternative?

[Larry Headrick]

Taking that amount of damage should unbalance a mech. That being said piloting skill could midigate the chances so there should be a skill on the tree to help keep your feet.

[Mchawkeye]

I think knockdown/impact should be included, and, with proper simulation, there is no reason for to have to be RNG; game with reaslistic physical properties/impact physics have been around for a decade, so it shouldn't be beyond the capabilities now.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@McHawkeye - and how do you think they deal with it. Any calculation dealing with probabilities uses an RNG. This is what I find annoying. They are used all the time in computations. It's what "chance" means. Would you prefer it if I called it "refering to the Runes" rather than an RNG? Or do you mean that some desperate joystick movement in the perceived opposite direction should determine it. How do you think the game would ***** this? I think you will find that the means of modelling all use RNG's somewhere in the formulae.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 26 December 2011 - 05:35 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

yes, obviously RNG is a part of simulation.
your OP, suggested to me at least, that you were saying that, a kin to dice rolling, a probability would be caluclated and your mech falls down or not.
I'm suggesting that projectile weighs this much. it impacts the torso (for sake of argument) at this angle. imparts x damage and kinetic energy which may overcome the weight of the mech (or, say the torso twist mechanisms or what ever). so the reaction is different if you hit them high or low, or far on the flank or whatever. I'm talking reasonably accurate simulation.
So while RNG might be a part of it, As much control is given to the pilot as possible, so she or he can decide where to try and hit the target, maybe with the purpose of knocking their torso round or making them fall into a building a certain way.

Unless that's what you were talking about, in which case I didn't find it very clear.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I had intended to put in about placement of shot influencing how displacement would be implemented etc but RL got in way and I forgot.. It was how the pilot dealt with the possible knockdown that I was more concerned about as it would all happen very quickly. The only "feedback" that you have is visual and if you overcontrol it could have you falling the opposite way. Certainly even if you avoid a knockdown it should mess up your targeting temporarily. Something along these lines is IMO necessary for a good immersive experience.It's the sort of thing that avatar skills as well as RL skills may affect. Everything depends on how PGI impliment things in game.

[Dlardrageth]

I voted "Yes", but... a lot will depend on the actual damage modeling in game. I don't frankla expect PGI to adapt the TT system 1:1, because the way too big "hitboxes" that will result in, would lead to just another "Sniper game where you try to core the enemy with one good shot or two" borefest.

Now, guessing there will be a way more detailed damage modeling and hitbox system, it might come down to how much damage is done to predefined hitboxes at once. Keep in mind, we won't have a round-based combat here, so just focusing fire on an enemy Mech to pile up 20+ damage in one round like in the TT won't work. There will have to be some tweak made to this. Either it would be the very simple solution of requiring 20+ damager from one Mech at a time (which is pretty much a nerf to light and medium ones), or a more complicated system.

To a certain degree use of a RNG will be unavoidable at some point, but I'm pretty confident it will play way less of a role than in the TT game (or MegaMek et al.). Knockdown from massive weapon fire (and melee attacks as well?) sustained should defintely be in the game. But how it can be implemented is pure guesswork before we know more about the damage modeling PGI will come up with.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think it should b the damage your taking (from however many mechs) at that time. certainly if the impacts are less than say a second apart I can see them being considered "at the same time". The direction that fire from multiple mechs come from would also need to be considered. If you are being hit from both sides at once then it would tend to keep you upright. Yes the TT rules will need modifying but I think the overal meaning is fine as long as "real time" is considered rather than over 10 seconds.From memory it is just the amount of damage, not how it is applied, ie energy weapons as well.

[GaussDragon]

Tooting my own horn here but it's 100% relevant. I made a knockdown calculator (RNG-free) and it includes a penalty for circle-strafing (just for fun, I don't really have a problem with it). Scroll down near the bottom of my (original) post, I included an explanation of the formula and a download link for the Excel document where you can play around with the calculator:

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Datum]

I'd say every weapon that hits you has its own "knockdown" value, independent of its actual damage.
As damaging as lasers would be, they have basically no kinetic energy, so the vast majority of the damage is thermal. Getting blasted by lasers shouldn't really knock someone down, unless you damage the leg actuators or hit an ammo bay.
The polar opposite in this case would be Autocannons: they have little to no thermal energy as its damage results from explosive shells tearing apart the armor and structure of the mech. These would have considerable knockdown, especially the AC-20 with its VW bug sized ammunition.

Also: don't make it all at once. The TT game was based around 10 or 15 second turns, so that's just 20 damage over so long, the idea I had in mind was to have each shot unbalance you further, and the chassis quickly balances itself in response. In that rebalancing, there is a short window of time to hit again and unbalance further and further, until the dang thing just flips over. Each chassis would, naturally, have its own rates of balance and unbalance, and would be more or less resistant to knockdown based on its tonnage or armor or engine or some odd combination of the three.

[guardiandashi]

actually lasers do have an "indirect" kick on the target, the reason lasers generate a "kick" on the target is due to the armor being reduced to a liquid or even plasma state (miniature rocket motor where the laser is striking) or the change in weight distribution from the armor being "melted" off the chassis

[VYCanis]

laser having kinetic force is pretty much dependent on just how they are affecting the armor.

If they are only strong enough to melt it off in molten wads and gobs, not much if any, and it would mostly be from rapid weightloss on the mech.

If they are strong enough to be flash vaporizing, then its like having your armor suddenly turning into explosives on contact.
BT has described it both ways IIRC, depending on authors.

I like the idea of different weapons and occurrences having different knock factor. High end ACs, gauss rifles, large missiles or groups of them, melee attacks (if implemented) and incidents of limb loss, should lead greatly towards forcing knockdowns.

-beneath that, PPCs, smaller missile groups, smaller ACs should have considerably less knock force.

-lasers should only deliver a token amount (even if using the flash vaporization knock factor) since gameplay wise they are immensely easy to boat.

-machine guns and flamers should have none.

More over though, i don't think it has to be all or nothing. No reason why you have to be only upright or knocked down. There is room for degrees. For example shooting a mech enough to make it stumble and slow down for a bit while it reacquires its balance, or cause it to get knocked backwards a few steps, or drop to a high crouch for a moment, or simply having your mech torqued to one side sharply, can all be relatively minor effects of taking hard impacts, where as more severe effects can be the more extreme falls where you get knocked on your back, or face plant, or end up otherwise ragdolled

Edited by VYCanis, 26 December 2011 - 01:31 PM.

[Egomane]

If you implement a knockdown chance (and I'm all for it) then it shouldn't be dependend on the weight of the mech.

It should simply be:
You took 20 points of damage or more, you will fall down unless you, as the pilot, do something against it.

Example of how it could be handled:
You got hit by an AC/20 and your Mech starts to fall to the left, you have to pull your Mech to the right to stay upright. If your Mech wants to kiss the ground straight up, you have to pull backwards. You dont need to adjust your movement speed, you just have to pull your stick at the right time in the right direction to keep it balanced.

Every chance is taken out of the system and it all comes down to piloting skill. Simple but effective and close to tabletop rules.

[GaussDragon]

Excuse the typos, I had to make it in paint and I didn't wanna retype entire paragraphs. http://www.usaupload.net/d/p54but1vdqe

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I remember from the original post. The only problem I had is that 1point damage is force independant,for real calc's. Whereas it will be built into numrous look up tables in the game already. To be honest it should affect light mech's most as they are most easily knocked over.

[GaussDragon]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 26 December 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

I remember from the original post. The only problem I had is that 1point damage is force independant,for real calc's. Whereas it will be built into numrous look up tables in the game already. To be honest it should affect light mech's most as they are most easily knocked over.

The 'force' number I used was arbitrary, and was independent of actual weapon damage. If that's what you mean? It still does affect light mechs most, but I added the "mass softener" because I felt they were getting knocked down too easily lol.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Thats what you get for driving a light close enough to anything that can do 20+ damage (only applies if you can swat that mosquito ofd course).

[VYCanis]

here's something to consider.

yeah, lights should be the easiest to knock down, i think we are all in agreement on that.

but what about making them some of the fastest to recover and get back up and running? (provided they survive of course)

[Nik Van Rhijn]

No problem, their also the most agile, whereas an assault should be slow and awkward getting up - giving you more chances to kill it, or knock it back down. That's why I love the Hunchback

[Dihm]

It's been covered, so I'll just throw my hat in to the support of, "yes, but dependent on what you get hit with." ACs and Gauss should have the most kinetic impact, and should have a higher likelyhood of knocking over a mech (and should produce more aim wobble). Laser should be pretty nil unless they hit internals and cause a crit that would make sense for a fall check.