Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Pseudogenesis
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 05:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Self-explanatory. We're whispy little things, we need every bit of health we can get. Besides, we're light and supposed to be mobile. Jumping around/off of things should be encouraged. I can't see it messing with balancing, and it would only improve users' experience.
Of course, I'd be in favor of toning down the fall damage on all classes, but scouts feel it the most. |
Aeon Amadi
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
1363
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pseudogenesis wrote:Self-explanatory. We're whispy little things, we need every bit of health we can get. Besides, we're light and supposed to be mobile. Jumping around/off of things should be encouraged. I can't see it messing with balancing, and it would only improve users' experience.
Of course, I'd be in favor of toning down the fall damage on all classes, but scouts feel it the most.
Been wanting this for ages but we all know it will never happen.
No-one gives a **** about Scouts, dude. Learned that in Chromosome. |
|
CCP Blam!
C C P C C P Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
It's a good point. Currently, fall damage is taken the same way as any other kind of collision damage. One item that I have been waiting for is to set it up in such a way that fall damage is tuned separately from regular collision damage. This would also allow us to re-adjust the height at which the inertia canceller can be activated.
Another thing on the to-do list is to be able to tune how collision damage is handled when hitting infantry with a vehicle. Currently, collision damage is based on scaling physics impulses to hp damage values (while using a minimum threshold). When a vehicle runs into a wall or another vehicle, this works well enough, but hitting a infantry in terms of physics really isn't a big impact. However, because there's very little impact, the vehicle will take next to no damage and the result is this LAV roadkill epidemic we're having where running over people seems to be a very popular offensive tactic. Running over people is just fine, but we may want to adjust the risk/reward for doing so. |
|
I-Shayz-I
ZionTCD Unclaimed.
243
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Blam! wrote:However, because there's very little impact, the vehicle will take next to no damage and the result is this LAV roadkill epidemic we're having where running over people seems to be a very popular offensive tactic. Running over people is just fine, but we may want to adjust the risk/reward for doing so.
You say there is very little impact, yet we have sentinels that run half as much armor/shields as a standard LAV. Hitting that much armor should have some sort of impact, unless the dropsuits are compared to ragdolls or soemthing?
So...wouldn't it be fair to say that if you hit a sentinel with an LAV, you should be dealt about half the amount that you would if you were to hit another standard LAV?
Edit: Another option would be to ditch the collision factor altogether with dropsuits vs. vehicles and just make vehicles take a percentage of the damage dealt in order to kill the enemy and apply it to the vehicle. |
Eggress
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Blam! wrote:It's a good point. Currently, fall damage is taken the same way as any other kind of collision damage. One item that I have been waiting for is to set it up in such a way that fall damage is tuned separately from regular collision damage. This would also allow us to re-adjust the height at which the inertia canceller can be activated.
Another thing on the to-do list is to be able to tune how collision damage is handled when hitting infantry with a vehicle. Currently, collision damage is based on scaling physics impulses to hp damage values (while using a minimum threshold). When a vehicle runs into a wall or another vehicle, this works well enough, but hitting a infantry in terms of physics really isn't a big impact. However, because there's very little impact, the vehicle will take next to no damage and the result is this LAV roadkill epidemic we're having where running over people seems to be a very popular offensive tactic. Running over people is just fine, but we may want to adjust the risk/reward for doing so.
The inertia canceller activation height is perfect. Ain't broke, don't fix. |
|
CCP Blam!
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shayz - Thanks for the feedback. To respond to your concern: This is in-game physics, not perceived physics. A mesh that looks like it is armor, and has a lot of hitpoints on it has no bearing on how the physics system of a game works. The values that matter in this sort of a case is the volume of both meshes colliding, the density values of the physics materials on each mesh, the stiffness and material damage multipliers of each object colliding, and the damage threshold of the object whose HP you are looking at. |
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 07:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Blam! wrote:Another thing on the to-do list is to be able to tune how collision damage is handled when hitting infantry with a vehicle. Currently, collision damage is based on scaling physics impulses to hp damage values (while using a minimum threshold). When a vehicle runs into a wall or another vehicle, this works well enough, but hitting a infantry in terms of physics really isn't a big impact. However, because there's very little impact, the vehicle will take next to no damage and the result is this LAV roadkill epidemic we're having where running over people seems to be a very popular offensive tactic. Running over people is just fine, but we may want to adjust the risk/reward for doing so.
As someone who is having a lot of fun running people over in a LAV, I have to agree, the risk/reward ratio is off. I've able to get 12+kills with only on death in a couple of match's just by running people over in a LAV as there was no risk.
|
crazy space 1
Unkn0wn Killers
1229
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 08:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hitting a heavy should hurt, and heavies should have huge fall damage. Scouts should get swatted by LAVs and have no fall damage *to a point obviously* |
Reiki Jubo
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 09:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Blam! wrote:Shayz - Thanks for the feedback. To respond to your concern: This is in-game physics, not perceived physics. A mesh that looks like it is armor, and has a lot of hitpoints on it has no bearing on how the physics system of a game works. The values that matter in this sort of a case is the volume of both meshes colliding, the density values of the physics materials on each mesh, the stiffness and material damage multipliers of each object colliding, and the damage threshold of the object whose HP you are looking at.
its nice to know someone is lookng at it and as concerned as we are. this game has made a conscious effort to reduce 'cheap' kills down to a minimum in most all areas.
the lav roadkill epidemic is the exception and cheapens gameplay. its nice to know its being tuned. |
shaman oga
Nexus Balusa Horizon DARKSTAR ARMY
107
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 12:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
What about the physics on tanks, they seem really light, when you hit something they tend to rise from the ground when they should be attached on the ground, can you add mass on them without affecting their speed? |
|
TBdaBoss
A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. ROFL BROS
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 04:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pseudogenesis wrote:Self-explanatory. We're whispy little things, we need every bit of health we can get. Besides, we're light and supposed to be mobile. Jumping around/off of things should be encouraged. I can't see it messing with balancing, and it would only improve users' experience.
Of course, I'd be in favor of toning down the fall damage on all classes, but scouts feel it the most. Acceptable. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |