140 replies to this topic

[Erhardt]

Grax, on 02 November 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

It's going to be a 3D lobby based shooter similar to World of Tanks or Huxley. So the developers CAN actually get this done since they won't have to manage 1000s of players shooting each other on ONE server.

Check out a few of my following posts. I totally agree it can be done. I'm just saying it won't be.

[MookieRah]

Quote

With the damage model we'll doubtlessly be getting for this, it would be easy. Run attack animation. Check for melee range. Check for hit. Punch does so many points per ton. Kick does so many points per ton. Apply damage to location on target that was hit. Done. They aren't planning on making that much happen, so I seriously doubt they're going to make an effort to model the physics of ballistics and sloped armor and angles and velocity vectors and who knows what else Einstein would figure we'd need for maximum reality. You're way over-thinking this.

You forget that this requires animation, balancing (damage, reach, etc), and tweaking without anything but the tabletop game to draw from. Meanwhile, the physics of a ballistic weapon would simply be a more complex equation involving more variables and beta testing for glitches.

[Morr]

The way that i would see them deal with Modeling damage would be akin to ways they've done it in the past. Their most likely won't be Angle deflection or stuff like that. But what i would like to see is armor stripped. Basically hitting a some thing in the same exact place twice doing more damage, then hitting the same limb but a different spot.

They might use Slanted armor, but guys you have to remember. Battletech has never been about being super realist, it's not trying to be some thing like RO 2 or ARMA II. It has Giant Robots! What is ever going to be "Super" realistic about that?

[Erhardt]

MookieRah, on 02 November 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

You forget that this requires animation, balancing (damage, reach, etc), and tweaking without anything but the tabletop game to draw from. Meanwhile, the physics of a ballistic weapon would simply be a more complex equation involving more variables and beta testing for glitches.

Huh-whaaa...? I didn't forget... you just quoted me specifically mentioning these things and how simply it could be done within the hyper-realistic-physics-free game engine we're likely to be playing with LOL!

As far as the game's own logic would be concerned, all a physical attack would be is a really super-short-ranged attack. To US, we'd see a punch being thrown (for example). For the game's engine, it'd work out if we were close enough for that arm to reach/contact something and then apply the damage. Easy-peasy.

[Lori Black Widow Carlyle]

Certainly hit detection and damage distribution system will somehow base on TT sheets in the first place. Anyhow previous MW games show a more elaborated implementation of the basic idea already. MWO just needs "little" tweaks.

[Bash]

Client side damage calculations is NOT something you want. It opens the doors to hacking and cheating. I'm sure these guys know what they are doing. You'd be amazed how much math happens server side in world of Warcraft. Realistic damage computations adds realism to the mech SIM idea. This isn't mech assault arcade. It should take talent to master piloting a mech!

[mekabuser]

I know I said it in OP , but I was more illustrating a point with the deflected gauss shot. THOUGH>... it would be nice to have guass modelled so completely. ENergy weapons wouldnt have to be done so maybe it wouldnt be such a PITA to implement. THe real point of my OP was a real premium should be placed upon accurate hit detection. Its one of the things thats a drawback for MWLL, the hit detection is really kinda poor.
I did though like the idea of small hit boxes someone suggested.ONe of the beauties of this being a 2012 release is that its the future.
THere really is no reason that the damage cant be modeled in an advanced way. iF you look at the age poll, we are an older lot, perhaps a bit jaded, but we should have the optimism of the springtime of youth.

[Liam]

MW need smaller hitboxes or call it splitted sections of current hitboxes. 6 sections for centre torso for example etc.
Implementation of penetration damage (as additional critical damage) for LASERs/ Gauss / AC (pierce rounds) and implementation of splash damage for LBX /PPC / LRM would fix lot of problems in MW universe. It would allow better balancing of the weapons, less mass boating etc.
(Additional damage by combination of 2 different weapon types first splashe based damage then penetration based damage for total damage boost would be really nice)

[MaddMaxx]

The more Hit boxes the better as long as each box has an armor and critical damage rating. You have to eat through the armor plates before you can get at the softer internal structure. Hitting the same place on the same Mech enough to get to the interior should be the result of either a long extended fight or a Mech has become disabled due either to over-heating issues, Pilot error, and lasts long enough to snipe a given region with relative ease (range dependent then even).

One way it is Skill based, while the other, as noted above, is most likely due to Pilot carelessness, negligence or lack of said Skill.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 November 2011 - 05:43 PM.

[Erhardt]

Liam, on 02 November 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

MW need smaller hitboxes or call it splitted sections of current hitboxes. 6 sections for centre torso for example etc.

I don't follow... why would we need 6 sections for the Center Torso?

[Lori Black Widow Carlyle]

If computing power does not matter, I'd rather apply that urban-building-destruction-animation-and-physics-thingy demonstrated in the debut trailer to mechs, too.

However pixel measured damage distribuiton is bogus. Pixel size do not decrease while distance to displayed object is increasing, but pixel numbers. How much network bandwidth do you need to exchange highly variable object displayed distances/sizes between client and server? Too much probably.

Actually in terms of arguable "realism" considering total armor points for a Locust leg, its upper leg should have less armor points than the lower part, but it has to be harder to hit then.

[Tsen Shang]

I want realistic bullet physics.

When I fire my realistic Magnetic Nickel-Plated shell gun powered by my realistic miniature fusion reactor at the center of my realistic myomer muscled steel framed walking realistic robot-tank I want it to drop over the realistic 660 meters it travels so it can glance off the realistic ferro-fibrous armor of another realistic walking robot-tank and deal enough damage that I can then shoot my realistic colored lasers into the dent in the aforementioned realistic armor and have a chance to critically damage the realistic fusion engine of another realistic walking robot tank.

Yes.

Please.

[warner2]

Basic game play elements like hit detection is absolutely vital (I agree with the OP). The second reason I stopped playing Mechwarrior 4 was the ropey server side only hit detection/lag problem requiring you to guess where your opponent was according to the server and lead your shots . The first was that everyone else stopped playing

The reason I stopped playing world of tanks was because of their absolutely brainless "spotting" system. That just ruined game play and is easy to fix - let players use their eyes to see their opponent.

Things like graphics really are a secondary concern to the way the game fundamentally plays out.

Edited by warner__, 03 November 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[UncleKulikov]

warner__, on 03 November 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

Basic game play elements like hit detection is absolutely vital (I agree with the OP). The second reason I stopped playing Mechwarrior 4 was the ropey server side only hit detection/lag problem requiring you to guess where your opponent was according to the server and lead your shots . The first was that everyone else stopped playing

The reason I stopped playing world of tanks was because of their absolutely brainless "spotting" system. That just ruined game play and is easy to fix - let players use their eyes to see their opponent.

Things like graphics really are a secondary concern to the way the game fundamentally plays out.

Client Side hit detection would ensure that whatever you hit on your screen, hits them. It can be a little weird because if someone is lagging a bit and they hit you on their screen, that damage can "pop" in suddenly on your screen. However, it is more fair based on what the players actually input rather than connections to the host/server.

I don't want the armor deflection from World of Tanks, and I definitely don't want that weird spotting system. However, it could be adapted so that within your sight range, the computer would highlight targets, and beyond that range, if you can see an enemy, you can shoot at it unguided.

[warner2]

UncleKulikov, on 03 November 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

Client Side hit detection would ensure that whatever you hit on your screen, hits them. It can be a little weird because if someone is lagging a bit and they hit you on their screen, that damage can "pop" in suddenly on your screen. However, it is more fair based on what the players actually input rather than connections to the host/server.

I don't want the armor deflection from World of Tanks, and I definitely don't want that weird spotting system. However, it could be adapted so that within your sight range, the computer would highlight targets, and beyond that range, if you can see an enemy, you can shoot at it unguided.

Yes, agreed on that client side issue, I think that's far preferable though, and more in line with what modern games do.

[wanderer]

tigerwolf753, on 01 November 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

World of Tanks, the ARMA series, and Theatre of War all feature realistic ballistic models accounting for armor thickness, angle of impact, ammo type, velocity, etc. so I don't believe that it is unfeasible to implement in Mechwarrior from the perspective of CPU constraints. Modern computers are more than powerful enough to calculate at least basic ballistics.

...except that Battletech doesn't even remotely use realistic -armor-. It's made from handwavium and protects well at thicknesses that would best be described as "minute". Besides, WoT and the like don't have to take silly things like someone dumping a charged particle beam into their armor, which basically makes a mockery of anything we used today. Or a laser, for that matter.

"Realistic" armor simulations are LOLWUT when it comes to Battletech.

[Fury]

Tsen Shang, on 03 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

I want realistic bullet physics.

When I fire my realistic Magnetic Nickel-Plated shell gun powered by my realistic miniature fusion reactor at the center of my realistic myomer muscled steel framed walking realistic robot-tank I want it to drop over the realistic 660 meters it travels so it can glance off the realistic ferro-fibrous armor of another realistic walking robot-tank and deal enough damage that I can then shoot my realistic colored lasers into the dent in the aforementioned realistic armor and have a chance to critically damage the realistic fusion engine of another realistic walking robot tank.

Yes.

Please.

Congratulations on winning the entire thread.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Tsen Shang, on 03 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

I want realistic bullet physics. When I fire my realistic Magnetic Nickel-Plated shell gun powered by my realistic miniature fusion reactor at the center of my realistic myomer muscled steel framed walking realistic robot-tank I want it to drop over the realistic 660 meters it travels so it can glance off the realistic ferro-fibrous armor of another realistic walking robot-tank and deal enough damage that I can then shoot my realistic colored lasers into the dent in the aforementioned realistic armor and have a chance to critically damage the realistic fusion engine of another realistic walking robot tank. Yes. Please.

Because following thirty year old board game rules makes so much more sense, amirite?

[ice trey]

I'm more concerned with the shape and size of hit boxes.

For example, if you took some designs, say - a Bushwhacker, it was very tough to kill, because unless you were hitting it right on the nose, you'd be hitting the side torsos.

On the other hand, if you decided to use a Sunder, the left and right torsos were too small an area, meaning that almost every shot saturated your center torso, shortening your in-game lifespan quite significantly.

Attention must be paid to torso location hitboxes - to make sure they're all equally balanced. Nothing seems more stupid than having a 'mech completely pristine in every location but the center torso, which after a volley or two is three damage points from total destruction.

Edited by ice trey, 03 November 2011 - 05:18 PM.

[Strill]

UncleKulikov, on 03 November 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

Client Side hit detection would ensure that whatever you hit on your screen, hits them. It can be a little weird because if someone is lagging a bit and they hit you on their screen, that damage can "pop" in suddenly on your screen. However, it is more fair based on what the players actually input rather than connections to the host/server.

And it also requires extensive security systems to make sure someone's not just telling the server that every single one of their hits strikes their opponent's cockpit.