47 replies to this topic

[Rippthrough]

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

No not at all look at the footage of the moon landings the men looked like they were in slow-mo but actually moved faster than they were use too.  Some of the earlier Apollo Missions had potentaily fatal accidents as the men didn't have their moon legs yet, and noone to tell them who to move on the Moon. They would hop and land wrong, fall down ran the chance of ripping open the suit or cracking the helmet.

That was simply because they were kicking off the surface. Incidentally, if you are kicking off the surface, you no longer have any grip, so no acceleration or anything.....what helps is the lack of atmosphere for a human's top speed, the efficiency of the stride is reduced to levels below around 20% or so.
I can link you research if you like, I studied that a long time ago.

Edited by Rippthrough, 09 February 2013 - 05:59 AM.

[HiplyRustic]

No. Really, no. Fun idea from a geeky perspective, but think about it:

Too insanely complex to do right enough without science geeks on one side saying it was done wrong and suddenly new complainers about balance on the other side if they did.

Simplistically put, picture it being done "right" on a .2 relative gravity world; jump jets kicking people 5X as far and high, LRMs hitting from 5k (I know...wind resistance plays a part too, so assume vacuum or make it even more complicated by adjusting for atmospheric density, humidity, etc) , Gausscats popping people from 4k, SRMboats dropping 90-alpha bursts from 1k out...etc. Then use your imagination as to what the forums would look like. Now picture it again on a 5.0 relative gravity world and wait for the screams as ballistic and missile ranges nosedive and jumpjets barely hop you across the street.

Oh and just for fun...what's the velocity of a gauss round? What's escape velocity on a .2 relative planet?

No, no really, no. Cool to think about, but...

Edited by HiplyRustic, 09 February 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[Livewyr]

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Good points in a sci-fi universe these drawback could/would have solutions. I guess my point is that low/high G worlds would be less desirable for colonization, unless there was something to make them so. Kitting out every colonist with a power suit would be a cost that would best be avoided unless the benfit of being on the world out weighted it.

Precisely- something of value (Like a Rare material Mine or deposit)
Would require fighting over if another faction wanted to Annex the site.

[Anony Mouse]

Yes, yes really, yes. It is cool to think about. All of the range issues mentioned above can be dealt with in map balancing. On a .2 relative G map, reduce LOS and visibility to make redonkulous ranges a moot point, tunnels or a nice city grid where the new speeds can be fun. High gravity worlds would be less fun, as they only hamper everyone, but I'm sure something interesting can be feathered out.

Also airless husks and non M-Class (moons and asteroids) are canonical for SLDF caches, bandit camps, ship yards, gas mines and so on.

Edited by Anony Mouse, 09 February 2013 - 06:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Good points in a sci-fi universe these drawback could/would have solutions. I guess my point is that low/high G worlds would be less desirable for colonization, unless there was something to make them so. Kitting out every colonist with a power suit would be a cost that would best be avoided unless the benfit of being on the world out weighted it.

Furillo 1.1 Gravity there are others with up to 1.3 IIRC.

[Mao of DC]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 February 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

I'm not 20+ tons either.
.5 Gravity is extreme in my eyes. And I will say it again, there are TT rules for this. If the mech isn't prepared for gravity shifts the Mech takes damage easier from working above acceptable stress levels. We can have the perks you want but you will have to pay the price for it too.

I know there are TT rules for this, I started playing Battletech WAY back in 1987. It is one of the reasons I would like to see it in this game. I have unsucessfully searched the web of the specific rules to quote from. If anyone can find them a link to them would be great.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

I know there are TT rules for this, I started playing Battletech WAY back in 1987. It is one of the reasons I would like to see it in this game. I have unsucessfully searched the web of the specific rules to quote from. If anyone can find them a link to them would be great.

You a Pup... One year after my intro to CBT!
Pg 55 TO under High/Low Gravity.

Whether that tome has been quoted on the net I do not know.

[J4ckInthebox]

I always welcome more complexity in a gameplay but I always thought that general environement features was a bad idea. All maps should be equal at the beginning, but with small local features that make them unique (hot spots in caustic valley, colder spots in frozen city, water)

So i voted no for overall gravity effects.

Edited by J4ckInthebox, 09 February 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[Mao of DC]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

You a Pup... One year after my intro to CBT!
Pg 55 TO under High/Low Gravity.

Whether that tome has been quoted on the net I do not know.

Maybe I am a pup I was just 11 when I was introduced to the game at a Sci-Fi convention. I remember it to this day the board was 8 feet by 4 feet with a whole mess of loveingly crafted hills and trees. No hexes we had to use tape measures for movement and finding ranges. The figures were all metal and hand painted. My frist mech was a Warhammer my buddy ran a Grasshopper and I knocked him out with a double PPC shot to the CT. I never looked back and have been playing since then, although ALOT less often now that adult life went and got in the way.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Maybe I am a pup I was just 11 when I was introduced to the game at a Sci-Fi convention. I remember it to this day the board was 8 feet by 4 feet with a whole mess of loveingly crafted hills and trees. No hexes we had to use tape measures for movement and finding ranges. The figures were all metal and hand painted. My frist mech was a Warhammer my buddy ran a Grasshopper and I knocked him out with a double PPC shot to the CT. I never looked back and have been playing since then, although ALOT less often now that adult life went and got in the way.

The best way to play TT! Good times!

[Unclecid]

i do not have a link online but i do have the Battetech Master Rules (Revised) from FASA (dont care much for the Total Warfare ruleset.


on page 84 of the BMR there is a section on high/low gravity.

Quote

HIGH/LOW GRAVITY
Combat on worlds whose gravity is significantly greater or
less than normal Earth gravity (1 G) affects a unit’s movement.
As shown in the following rules, while low gravity generally
allows units to move faster, it does not reduce their mass and
momentum, and so offers a chance that the unit will suffer dam-age through normal movement. For example, a BattleMech trav-eling 200 kph on a .5 G world is likely to snap off its legs.
Gravity affects all units’ movement in the same way. To
determine a unit’s movement rates as affected by gravity, divide
its Walking (or Cruising) and Jumping MP by the G-rating of the
world and round to the nearest whole number (round down at .5).
Calculate the new Running (or Flank) MP based on the revised
Walking (or Cruising) MP. Thus, a unit with a normal Walking MP
of 4 would have Walking MP of 5 on a .75G world (4 ÷ .75 = 5.3,
rounded to 5). On a 1.25-G world, that same unit would have a
Walking rate of 3 (4 ÷ 1.25 = 3.2, rounded to 3). Units whose MP
is reduced to 0 by the effects of gravity are incapable of moving.
BattleMech legs and vehicle suspensions are designed to
operate at maximum efficiency on
worlds with close to 1 G gravity. If
the gravity of a world allows the unit
to move faster than normal, the
strain on the unit’s systems may
damage its internal structure. If a
unit spends more MP than its nor-mal Running (or Flank) MP during a
turn (as in the example above of the
unit moving on a world with .75 G),
the player must make a Piloting
Skill Roll at the end of the phase in
which the Running MP was exceed-ed, appropriately modified for rele-vant conditions, to determine if the
unit takes any damage from moving
at an unusual rate. If the Piloting
Skill Roll fails, the unit takes the fol-lowing damage: a BattleMech takes
1 point of internal structure damage
to each of its legs for every point of
movement by which the unit exceed-ed its normal Running MP (the
BattleMech does not fall if this roll
fails). Thus, a BattleMech with a
normal Running MP of 8 that
spends 10 MP running during a turn
and then fails a Piloting Skill Roll
would take 2 points of internal
structure damage to each of its legs. A vehicle takes 1 point of
damage to its Front side internal structure for each Movement
Point spent that exceeds its normal Flank Speed MP.
Roll on the Determining Critical Hits Table to resolve
whether internal structure damage resulted in a critical hit. Apply
critical hit results before the Weapon Attack Phase of the turn.
Jumping: Make a Piloting Skill Roll, adding the appropriate
modifiers for low gravity; a standard PSR is made in high gravity,
with no modifiers. If the roll fails for low gravity, the BattleMech
takes 1 point of internal structure damage to each leg for each
Movement Point spent jumping that exceeds its normal Jumping
MP. If the roll fails for high gravity, the BattleMech takes 1 point
of internal structure damage to each leg for every 1 Walking MP
lost from its normal Walking MP.
Falling:Calculate damage from falls taken in unusual gravi-ty normally, then multiply the result by the G-rating of the world
and apply the total damage to the unit.

[Joseph Mallan]

Slightly out of date but mostly intact sir. Thank you.

[Dustein]

I voted Yes, However I would also like to state that if this was implemented correctly it would only make obvious differences in extreme variations (and in these cases BT 'Mechs can be outfitted to compensate to limit the effects anyway).

SO I hope it is implemented, but IMO add it to the list of: "Cool stuff (EG Melee Combat) I'd like to see one day but appreciate that the Devs have more important work right now (EG NetCode)".

Kyle Reece, on 09 February 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

Fix the issue where light 'mechs take damage from walking over twigs and I'd vote yes...

+1 Definatly

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

So I was thinking since the maps now have a stated gravity that value should affect movement. Assumeing that those values are not just some fluff filler to round out the map descriptions, they should affect movement.

On higher than 1G worlds;
Mechs should have a lower top speed and acceleration.
Maximun jump height would be reduced.
The speed of falling and damage from the fall would increase.
Stopping distance would be shortened.

Conversely on lower G worlds;
The top speed and acceleration would be greater.
Jump height would increase.
Falling speed and damage reduced.
Stopping distance would be increased.

+1 I like this idea.
However it needs some tweaking IE Higher Gravity Environment = more contact with the ground thus acceleration is easier (but more resistance creates an offset so does not appear so) and a Lower Gravity Environment = less contact with ground thus acceleration is harder (but less resistance so it's effect SEEMS greater). Gravity is actually a complicated subject

Mao of DC, on 09 February 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

For example...

Caustic Valley has a gravity of 1.2G. So mechs would be 20% slower, jump 20% shorter, take 20% more damage from a fall, fall 20% faster, and stop 20% sooner.

Forest Colony has a gravity of 0.8G So mechs would be 20% faster, jump 20% higher, take 20% less damage from a fall, fall 20% slower, and would need 20% more distance to stop.

This example is all kinds of wrong.
However I see what you were trying to say (IE a SLIGHT increase / decrease in movement speed, acceleration, deceleration, turning arcs, ballistic trajectory, Missile trajectory, jump hight, jump distance, fall speed), and I think it is cool idea, just get a physicist to do the Math cuz gravity is a Heartless B****!

[Mao of DC]

Unclecid, on 09 February 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

i do not have a link online but i do have the Battetech Master Rules (Revised) from FASA (dont care much for the Total Warfare ruleset.


on page 84 of the BMR there is a section on high/low gravity.

Thank you very much sir.

[John Norad]

Yes, but not in a game-breaking or fun-inhibiting way.

Actually I think before gravity affects mech movement, terrain should properly affect it. Like slowing down or skidding on rough ground, when going uphill, on certain surfaces, etc.

[Joseph Mallan]

John Norad, on 09 February 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Yes, but not in a game-breaking or fun-inhibiting way.

Actually I think before gravity affects mech movement, terrain should properly affect it. Like slowing down or skidding on rough ground, when going uphill, on certain surfaces, etc.

Q4T

[Mao of DC]

John Norad, on 09 February 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Yes, but not in a game-breaking or fun-inhibiting way.

Actually I think before gravity affects mech movement, terrain should properly affect it. Like slowing down or skidding on rough ground, when going uphill, on certain surfaces, etc.

I thought I saw a Dev post about terrain affecting movement and that it will soon be happening. BUT since I cannot find the thread where I read it I can't prove that they said it. I swear I'm not that crazy.

Here is a Dev blog from some time ago saying that mech movement should be affected by hills water and so on. Its about halfway down.
http://mwomercs.com/...-warfare-part-i

Edited by Mao of DC, 09 February 2013 - 07:59 AM.

[Bluescuba]

Just on a side note gravity of up to 4G is manage by humans on a regular basis, this is the pressure you are subject to at 50 metres underwater. The issue is mobility at such high levels of gravity, divers can manage it because they are supported by the surrounding water. Accordingly, to enable the use of mechs on high G worlds would require the pilot to be immersed in a liquid.

Humans can of course tolerate much higher Gs but this is only for short periods of time and also where the effect of the G is has one vector (up to about 25G) or tangent (up to about 9G)

[Tarman]

Jay Kerensky, on 09 February 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Should gravity AFFECT mech movement....

WHAT???!!! What do you mean 'not the grammar forum'??

Damn it, I don't pay you people to get me involved in discussions where I'm talking about irrelevant crap...

Gravity?? Who the frak cares about gravity, it just sticks things to the ground yes? Well, good - get on with it then.

If you're cutting up his grammar, please note that he used the correct verb, "affect", as in "to alter the state of". "Effect"-ing as a verb means to implement, as in "effecting change". If you're going to be a grammar SS officer you have to EARN your skull and bolts, buddy.

On topic, yes to gravity-based effects affecting our performance, if it can be implemented in a fashion that is interesting without being tedious or ridiculous.

[Mao of DC]

Tarman, on 09 February 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

If you're cutting up his grammar, please note that he used the correct verb, "affect", as in "to alter the state of". "Effect"-ing as a verb means to implement, as in "effecting change". If you're going to be a grammar SS officer you have to EARN your skull and bolts, buddy.

On topic, yes to gravity-based effects affecting our performance, if it can be implemented in a fashion that is interesting without being tedious or ridiculous.

I thought I was using the correct word. Thank you for your input.