Extremity Frustrations (With planned fixes)

[xKamikazex]

Extremity is a special case. Unfortunately the map was rushed and didn't receive the attention it deserved (I admit, this was my fault), but we hope to clean up the issues with Extremity that make it unpopular with half our audience.

Planned Fixes:

#1 Smoother terrain layouts and more Landmarks - More attention is needed for the map, period. Attention to detail is key as both too much gray surrounds the map making it both confusing and frustrating to navigate. On top of which there are too many "pot holes" that gets both Tanks and Mechs stuck. These two things are paramount for helping Extremity.

#2 Bases are almost too far apart - I hope improve the positioning of the bases to bring them a bit closer together to allow for a better paced gameplay much like Sandblasted or Clearcut.

#3 Slight increase of Gravity - Majority of the annoyance is due to the fact that BA have nearly infinite Jump capability on this map, making a frustrating enemy even worse. BA are not supposed to fly and this map should not be an exception since there are ground units to consider. Also, Jump capable mechs take far too long to land and can remain afloat for nearly 3 gauss shots. Last but not least is now with the Low gravity, Landing or Bombing with aerospace is really difficult. Don't get me wrong, I love the Low-G, but as it sits its too low to cater to all categories of the core gameplay. Thus the Gravity will be increased.

#4 No Out of Bounds - Out of Bounds locations will be set to help people not fly off into space

#5 No collision on the boundary Asteroid - Collision Mesh will be applied to the Asteroid to stop players from falling through.

#6 There seems to be a texture problem related to the boundary asteroid if you are on settings higher than Medium Spec. This will cause the the asteroid to appear black to players. There will be a fix for this in the next content update.

[Automaticman]

I might also suggest that you remove the ability to use hovercraft, if possible.

They are impossible to maneuver in low gravity. Now if increasing the gravity a bit helps with hovercrafts, then you may disregard this suggestion.


I did not understand how aerospace vehicles work in low gravity due to the lack of atmosphere, but I can understand that from a balance and game play point of view you may want to keep them.

Great map though overall. Some minor tweaks and it'll be a classic and favorite.

[Stahlseele]

I might also suggest that you remove the ability to use hovercraft, if possible.

They are impossible to maneuver in low gravity. Now if increasing the gravity a bit helps with hovercrafts, then you may disregard this suggestion.


I did not understand how aerospace vehicles work in low gravity due to the lack of atmosphere, but I can understand that from a balance and game play point of view you may want to keep them.

Great map though overall. Some minor tweaks and it'll be a classic and favorite.

[Madend]

i've also run into it being night time outside and my window being iced over yet my external temp read 150c and i overheated quickly accordingly
this while flying a sulla b if that's pertinent

great map concept though, glad to see it will get some more love down the line

[Draks]

That is great news! I love Extremity but it has serious design flaws so I can't wait to see them fixed.  The low gravity is to be kept but to be toned down to a much more marginal amount? That sounds good to me it makes BAs superior on the map and makes it harder on the land vehicles who already have it rough with the terrain alone.  Hopefully when all is done the map will be a better place for combined arms I definitely look forward to these changes.

[Felix]

I did not understand how aerospace vehicles work in low gravity due to the lack of atmosphere, but I can understand that from a balance and game play point of view you may want to keep them.

Well as they are designed to operate in space and on planet(oid)s i dont imagine low gravity or lack of atmo would really bother them all that much

[Gibbage]

I did not understand how aerospace vehicles work in low gravity due to the lack of atmosphere, but I can understand that from a balance and game play point of view you may want to keep them.

Let me help you by disecting the word "Aerospace"

First, you have aero, meaning air, then you have Space, meaning.....  Well SPACE. 

To get more technical, here is a quote from Sarna.net

Description
Aerospace Fighters are similar to Conventional Fighter aircraft, but are capable of operating in both an atmosphere and in space, which makes them far more versatile. They use fusion engines, instead of the jet or turbine engines usually employed by conventional fighters, which makes them immune to engine stalling and overall provides them with far more durability, as well as comparatively more space for their loadouts. However, they are much more expensive and use advanced technologies much harder to manufacture compared to conventional fighters and BattleMechs, which prevent them from gaining a dominant role on the battlefield. [1]

[whatever]

the "ice" on your window might be some kind of element collecting...in other words it might be liquid florite "freezing" on your window...

[Homer Johnston]

Sorry, but it really bothers me that you're flaming that guy when he's not wrong... Space doesn't have a gravity field. Atmospheres allow a plane to overcome a gravity field. Wings are meaningless - next time you're on an airliner, imagine how the plane would fly if the wings fell off  . But, I'd still see no issues leaving them in for gameplay reasons as mentioned.

(on another note, it should also be possible to accelerate to infinite speeds - but we don't allow that for obvious gameplay aspects, either. Right?)

[Stahlseele]

Aero-Space have wings so they CAN act inside an athmosphere.
Drop-Ships don't have wings for the most part.
And of course, the wings are good for mounting weapons, bombs and armor.
Basically, ALL Aero-Space are Vector Thrust capable machines.

[Automaticman]

Even if I agreed that the plane style aerospace fighters were fine, you can't tell me that a VTOL type "jet chopper" would fly in no atmosphere....

That having been said, the comment on aerospace was really a minor thing in my post, and not something to be dwelled upon.

[Torashuu]

I don't see why aerospace fighters are a hard concept. Its basicly the same concept as a space shuttle, which flies just fine both in space and atmosphere. And a jet chopper would also work brilliantly. You see, all you need to stay in the air is a force which counteracts gravity. If I understand the fluff correctly all airborne vehicles use various exotic technologies that completely internalize the engines and its fuels.

The reason a normal airplane can't get into space are three reasons. First the trivial one, its not airtight. Second, its engines depend on oxygen from the air to function and third the engines do not generate enough thrust to proppel the vehicle fast enough to exit the gravity well.

For the aerospace fighters and VTOLS, these problems are circumvented. Firstly, since space is part of their intended operational theatre we can assume they are airtight. Secondly since they use fusion powered engines, they do not relly on any substances outside the vehicle for its engines to function, thus function fine in vacuum. And finaly we can assume they are designed with the propper amount of thrust to weight ratio as well so they can reach escap velocity. Not to mention in the low grav enviroment of an astroid (if any) would only make them need less thrust to fly, so this only makes it easier.

Back to the main topic, its good to read that people have similar problems with the map. Both the impossibility of navigating it in a meaningfull way with ground vehicles and its large size are the main contributors to my frustration with this map.

[Automaticman]

I don't see why aerospace fighters are a hard concept. Its basicly the same concept as a space shuttle, which flies just fine both in space and atmosphere. And a jet chopper would also work brilliantly. You see, all you need to stay in the air is a force which counteracts gravity. If I understand the fluff correctly all airborne vehicles use various exotic technologies that completely internalize the engines and its fuels.

The reason a normal airplane can't get into space are three reasons. First the trivial one, its not airtight. Second, its engines depend on oxygen from the air to function and third the engines do not generate enough thrust to proppel the vehicle fast enough to exit the gravity well.

For the aerospace fighters and VTOLS, these problems are circumvented. Firstly, since space is part of their intended operational theatre we can assume they are airtight. Secondly since they use fusion powered engines, they do not relly on any substances outside the vehicle for its engines to function, thus function fine in vacuum. And finaly we can assume they are designed with the propper amount of thrust to weight ratio as well so they can reach escap velocity. Not to mention in the low grav enviroment of an astroid (if any) would only make them need less thrust to fly, so this only makes it easier.

Back to the main topic, its good to read that people have similar problems with the map. Both the impossibility of navigating it in a meaningfull way with ground vehicles and its large size are the main contributors to my frustration with this map.

You forget that space shuttles do not navigate with rudders and wing flaps because there is no atmosphere to create the drag needed to turn. A space shuttles course is plotted out to use the gravity of the earth and moon to get it's navigation. They launch when the earth is in the proper rotation so the initial aim is in the direction they need the ship to go. Minor adjustments are made with smaller jets to correct course, but the course itself is not "steered" on the fly.

You also neglect the lift factor present in planes. It's the higher air pressure built under the wing, with the foil allowing for lower air pressure above the wing. This high-below air pressure is what gives the plane lift (not the engines or jets, those simply give it thrust).  Without atmosphere, there is no air to create drag on the underside of the wing, thus no lift. Likewise, it would be impossible to turn.

Additionally, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With less air for the reaction, you get less lift on the action - not more.

Now, I know I'm no rocket scientist, but this is simple high school physics. Your entire view on how airplanes and space shuttles work is so wrong it's not even funny.

Here's a link to show you more about how air pressure is needed to affect flight:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/lift-v.gif

V is the velocity of the wind. Higher velocity means lower pressure. The higher pressure of the underside (and lower velocity of the air) creates the lift.
Without atmosphere, and thus air, there is nothing moving under or over the wings. In a vacuum, a plane won't fly. Without air, the propellers of a helicopter will not create the backforce needed for lift either.


Once again, digressing from the topic of the map, to which I suggest removing hovercrafts.

Edit: I do want to clarify again that this not only gets my mod of the year award, it's one of my "best mods of all time" nominations as well. I'd even go so far as to say GAME of the year quality here. Not trying to detract from the mod teams wishes, just pointing out things that were perhaps not investigated by the mod team (hence beta). I really love the work you guys have done and no amount my arse-kissing can encompass the enjoyment I'm receiving from this mod ^_^
I only toyed around with MW4, and have played in tesla pods many times. I used to play a ton of MW2:Mercenaries though, and this mod encompasses everything I loved about those and adds in the entirety of the awesomeness that is Battletech. You guys have a home run up to bat, that's for sure. I eagerly await every hotfix leading up to release!

[WhiteFeather]

The space shuttle actually doesn't fly in the atmosphere either.  It's propelled on a rocket into space, then falls (glides) back to Earth.

Really, Aerospace don't make  a lot of sense, I don't think they could realistically maneuver in space...  However, this is a common problem with most sci-fi.

[Automaticman]

Well there is water on extremity, and gasses so it shows that there is SOME atmosphere present. I'm willing to let the aerospace bit go at that. But Hovercrafts just don't perform well in low gravity. "The VTOLs" make the least sense, physics wise. Perhaps as a map feature, make the VTOLs take longer to obtain lift due to the lower amount of atmosphere? Just some brainstorming here.