6
Despawning of dead Mechs: Will it really be that fast?
Started by Felicitatem Parco, May 07 2012 01:25 PM
69 replies to this topic
#61
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:32 AM
Expectations confirmed and reasserted... the Miracle is Work In progress.
Keep your eyes on the target, not on the horizon.
Keep your eyes on the target, not on the horizon.
#63
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:46 AM
DaZur, on 08 May 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:
Okay... Am I the only voice of reason?
While I would love nothing more than piles of Mech hulls (I am resisting the urge to capitulate the term "corpses"... but it's just wrong when addressing a mechanical war machine) but has anyone seriously given thought to the amount of bandwidth and processing power necessary to maintain the battlefield persistence of dead Mechs? Realistically, I think the best we can hope for would be a non-interactive destroyed Mech placeholder, to which I ask why even bother?
One needs to keep in mind the game needs to keep track of all assets in the game... Mechs, detached Mech parts, missiles, ballistics, and environmental effects... A pile of Mech hulls seems to me to be the lowest assets to worry about IMHO.
While I would love nothing more than piles of Mech hulls (I am resisting the urge to capitulate the term "corpses"... but it's just wrong when addressing a mechanical war machine) but has anyone seriously given thought to the amount of bandwidth and processing power necessary to maintain the battlefield persistence of dead Mechs? Realistically, I think the best we can hope for would be a non-interactive destroyed Mech placeholder, to which I ask why even bother?
One needs to keep in mind the game needs to keep track of all assets in the game... Mechs, detached Mech parts, missiles, ballistics, and environmental effects... A pile of Mech hulls seems to me to be the lowest assets to worry about IMHO.
If cryengine or frostbyte 2 can make downed trees persitent, I don't see why downed mechs would be that difficult. In battlefield you're talking thousands of bodies, which would get pretty morbid. High ticket maps already get defoliated which is both cool and depressing at the same time. With four spawns and 24 players thats 96 hulls if the last two surviving mechs on the map kill each other in what would have to be the most brutal match ever played. Thats a lot, but it doesn't seem undoable.
I'd love to be in situations where an ammo explosion from an already downed mech changed the dynamic of the fight. If that's not possible, then just having them there as a reminder of how well or poorly the fight is going would be good.
Edited by canned wolf, 08 May 2012 - 08:47 AM.
#64
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:50 AM
I wish the mechs would look like a massive tonned object actually falling. The Catapult summersault will not be that fun to watch time and time again. I know it was alpha footage, but this thread does tend to show how devoted and detail oriented this audience is.
#66
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:56 AM
Dead mechs do not despawn during gameplay. Reason you saw them despawning is we had respawn on for presentation reasons(people who die to fast could get back into the battle).
#67
Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:03 AM
This will be one of MANY features of this game that will be balanced by the devs as they tune the game. Be patient.
My personal opinion is, yes, lets have burning wreckage. Ideall, have ALL destroyed mechs laying and burning where they fell (to add to the scene of battle). Assuming that most matches will be no-respawn, there will be a maximum of 23 and no more than orginally joined so its not "adding" mechs to the game's load.
I would like to keep away from anything resembling MA or any arcadiness and stay SIM. Downed mechs should add to the scene of battle carnage, imo.
Edit: What Brian Windover said...
My personal opinion is, yes, lets have burning wreckage. Ideall, have ALL destroyed mechs laying and burning where they fell (to add to the scene of battle). Assuming that most matches will be no-respawn, there will be a maximum of 23 and no more than orginally joined so its not "adding" mechs to the game's load.
I would like to keep away from anything resembling MA or any arcadiness and stay SIM. Downed mechs should add to the scene of battle carnage, imo.
Edit: What Brian Windover said...
Edited by LakeDaemon, 08 May 2012 - 09:06 AM.
#68
Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:56 PM
Thanks Brian!
Now, how about some flying dirt, and components flying off of those tumbling mechs?
And some serious bass when they hit the ground. Grinding steel noises would be good too.
Now, how about some flying dirt, and components flying off of those tumbling mechs?
And some serious bass when they hit the ground. Grinding steel noises would be good too.
Edited by canned wolf, 08 May 2012 - 02:00 PM.
#69
Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:08 AM
Dennis de Koning, on 08 May 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:
I second Garth's eye twitch.
We appreciate all comments, good or bad, as long as they're based on the understanding of a WiP.
We could just as easily not show anything except edited, flawless footage; but we prefer to show the process because we want you all to be in the loop and on the cutting edge.
Hold our feet to the fire; but keep in mind the process.
Isn't the fact its in an ever evolving Alpha/Beta stage that you could never show "Edited, Flawless footage".
Because with these jokers, they will find flaws in something.. so you could never do it..
That said, I appreciate you keeping us in the loop and getting to stay on the cutting edge and feel involved in the process.
So remember to take some of the stuff said here with a grain of salt..
That is unless of course its truly constructive critism coming from community veterans that know what they are talking about..
(Not naming names but you know who we are )
#70
Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:28 AM
That catapult standing on it's head with legs up was a horrible sight, I can only hope I will heal all this mental damage now)
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users