7 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

TL;DR version

Modules are split into two types of modules, one for giving boosts (like 25 % sensor range) and on for giving new abilities (like Seismic Sensor).
Mechs would have slots for both type of modules, you can't put a boost module in an ability module and vice versa.

We might also change all existing mech efficiencies into boost modules, to generate additional build choices even long after you mastered your mech and bought everything you can have for it, adding more options at endgame.


Long Form:
The recent Command Chair Post introduces us to two new modules.

Quote

Hill Climb Module
The deceleration received when climbing inclines is reduced by [10%]

Advanced Gyro module
The screenshake amount is reduced by [33%]

What I immediately notice is - this could just as well be mech efficiencies.
There are some other modules like this. The sensor range modules for example.

And there are modules that distinctively different from this (and I am not talking power level here, just conceptual)
- Seismic Sensor
- 360° degree tracking
- Artillery Strike
- AIr Strike
- Cool Shot.

One type of modules acts as a boost to an existing stat (sensor range, deceleration from climb speed, screenshake), others introduce some new ability (tracking 360°, Seismic Sensors).

Now, I might be only an armchair game designer, but I follow game design, and this calls out to me as something that is "off" and could be improved.
The concept I have in mind was introduced to me as "siloing". The idea is - you have different types of improvements and they are basically orthogonal to each other. A common example (so common we don't realize it most of the time) would be something like armor and weapon in a fantasy game. You can carry a Dragonscale Full Plate of Invulnerability or a Chain Mail Bikini, but you can't decide to equip a Knife of Ogre Slaying instead of an armor (or vice versa). Though that is still a rather simple concept - another is if you consider all your equipment choices and then power choices you get from leveling. A Wizard doesn't choose to either learn Fireball or equip a Robe of Supreme Magical Prowess +5. These two are conceptually extremely different game elements.

So, as a long term approach to me could be two distinguish two types of modules:
"Efficiency Modules" (or "Boost Modules")? that grant stuff like Improved Sensor Range or Cool Running
and
"Ability Modules" like Seismic Sensor or Air Strike.

The benefit of this is that you have a better ability to design these abilities. You know that no one has to choose between -25% Climb Speed Reduction or Seismic Sensor, they have to choose between Seismic Sensor or Air Strike and -25 % Climb Speed REduction and +10 % Speed Boost.

My example assumes that basically all current mech efficiencies could be turned into modules, which allows an additional layer of (forced) customziation - no longer do you just upgrade everything you got, you have to make choices. This would allow more depth at endgame, because there aren't clear cut choices (ideally at least, it depends on how well you balance things


Each mech would then have a number of efficiency modules and ability modules.
Per default, lower weight mechs in a weight category might have more efficiency modules, and lower weight classes might have more ability modules than higher.

Of course, we would need some new module ideas, particularly for ability modules, and we might want to tweak some to make them more competitive with other modules.

- Seismic Sensor
- 360 ° Target Retention (The range of target retention could be extended, and we might also give the mech a general "near field" Radar detection...)
- Artillery Strike
- Air Strike
- UAV
- Cool Shot
- Magnetic Sensor
- Mine Deployment (similar to artillery strike, but you mine an area pre-emptively)
- Stationary Camera/Sensor Deployment (place a camera somewhere and allow the team to switch to them.)
- Supply Drop (Drops a bit of ammo, can be taken up by hand actuated mechs)
- 3PV Camera Drone (everyone has this unlocked and installed by default, but it can be taken off. If you had to pay for it in a module slot, people might look at it different...)
- Satellite Sweep (A Satellite Sweep covers the entire map and reveals the position of all enemy mechs on the map for a short time.)
- Passive Sensor Mode (Switch to Passive Sensor Mode to lose some sensor range but become undetectable by Radar, Satellite Sweeps, UAVs etc. unless very close to viewer. Still suspectible to Narc, Tag and target sharing)
- Multi Target Tracking: You can track multiple targets and share them with your allies.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 October 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Cybermech]

really love the direction of this OP.
+1

[Nothing Whatsoever]

We need something for Role Warfare and this is a good starting point to expand on that. And maybe parallels what the devs seemed they were headed towards when they put this together: http://mwomercs.com/...le-warfare-cont

[Khobai]

Id go in a different direction personally. I'd have role warfare skill trees. Basically there'd be 6 skill trees (command, support, strike, assault, recon, and pursuit). You could learn any number of skills simultaneously and thered be no need to ever respec. The catch being you could only have one active skill tree at a time, which you could change freely in between games.

Each skill tree would give active and passive abilities related to that role and it would unlock role-specific modules that you could use while that skill tree is active. Additionally you could have generic modules that could always be used regardless of your active skill tree.

So basically wed have 6 different roles in the game, and all the modules/skills would be divided up among those 6 roles, so no one person could do everything at once (which promotes teamplay). And there would be a number of generic modules that anyone could use regardless of role, and the generic modules would be for bonuses/abilities that are important enough that everyone needs them regardless of their chosen role.

Edited by Khobai, 24 October 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Id go in a different direction personally. I'd have role warfare skill trees. Basically there'd be 6 skill trees (command, support, strike, assault, recon, and pursuit). You could learn any number of skills simultaneously and thered be no need to ever respec. The catch being you could only have one active skill tree at a time, which you could change freely in between games.

Each skill tree would give active and passive abilities related to that role and it would unlock role-specific modules that you could use while that skill tree is active. Additionally you could have generic modules that could always be used regardless of your active skill tree.

So basically wed have 6 different roles in the game, and all the modules/skills would be divided up among those 6 roles, so no one person could do everything at once (which promotes teamplay). And there would be a number of generic modules that anyone could use regardless of role, and the generic modules would be for bonuses/abilities that are important enough that everyone needs them regardless of their chosen role.

Also interesting. I like the idea of "multi-classing", but your approach has the advantage of allowing less cherry-picking. It also enables certain design options a "all modules in one class are equal" doesn't - you can intentionally make a certain abiltiy in a tree weaker because you know there is another ability in the tree that compensates for it.

[fandre]

This is not WoW or something alike. It is MWO. I have voted no, because I don't want any pseudo-MMORPG features, especially classes implemented in a mech game. IMO classes should be defined solely by the mech not by a selectable pilot skill tree. If I go with a light mech, maybe it will be the reacon, When I go with the assault ...

Maybe it would be interessting to see a stealth "Ninja-Atlas" or a "Tank-Locust".

Edited by fandre, 25 October 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[FinsT]

Voted "no" and "no" again to poll's question.

Restricting which combinations of modules i can use with a mech - restricts freedom of building a better mech. It's not like weapons, since one can't add more than 1 of any particular module - there can't be "boating" modules. Please don't restrict my freedom, ok? Your words about "forced customization" i do not like, you see. If i want some WEIRDO combination of modules, - please let me. If i want some very situational combination of modules, - please let me. Basically, as long as it's not coockie-cutter thing, - let me to do anything i want with the mech. And for cookie-cutting things, - in majority of cases, this is to be sorted by tuning modules itself, not by adding type restritions; think about seismic. People said it was OP, and it was nerfed (range). People still say it's kinda OP, - and i hear, early november it gotta be nerfed more. Would it help the situation in a mech would only be able to equip one "ability" module at a time? Nope. Seismic would still be OP, and would still be used by a big majority of pilots. Types or not.

Mech efficiences can't be turned into modules just like that, because these are mech-specific, and modules are not mech-specific. I can buy, say, advanced zoom module for my Jager, yet if i get bored with my Jager at any moment in the future, - i can take the module out of the Jager and put it, say, into a Battlemaster or anything else. If i can't take a module outta one mech and put it into another (into any other one), - then what sort of module it would be? Very word itself, - "module", - means the thing can be attached to one or another "base" (i.e., mech). Therefore, if you turn mech efficiences into modules proper, - then i could "earn" efficiences on one mech, take 'em out, and "install" into another mech. But then, there would be no reason to call these efficiences/modules being "mech's efficiencies/modules", since they wouldn't be tied to a same mech. The sense of "learning" each particular mech - as reflected by unlocking its efficiencies, - would be lost (proportionally to how many efficiences you'd "turn" into modules); mastering a chassis would become less of an achievement; c-bills grind would become much more boring, since much more of it would be done solely for the reason of earning c-bills (while now it more often also earns _useful_ mech exp and _useful_ GXP). I wouldn't like these things to happen; this voted "no" in the 2nd question.

"Siloing" you talk about, - is present already in many features of MWO, and personally, i find the amount present as being close to optimal at the time. At least, if to follow how you describe it (which to be honest is not crystal clear). Anyhows, applying your examples to MWO with nesessary assumptions for particularity:
______ your example 1 ________
- "you" = Atlas,
- "Dragonscale Full Plate of Invulnerability" = fully armored Atlas,
- "Chain Mail Bikini" = paper-armor Atlas,
- "you can't decide to equip a Knife of Ogre Slaying instead of an armor (or vice versa)" = quite often, you can't decide to equip additional weapon instead of having full armor; namely in all cases except when it's "not enough tonnage" problem which was preventing you from equipping additional weapon, i.e. cases of "i don't have another weapon slot of this type", "there are not enough critical slots to equip the weapon i want", "the only possible way to have it - is to use XL engine, and i don't want to be that fragile", etc.

______ your example 2 ______
"A Wizard" = a locust (whatever ),
"learn Fireball" = unlock "speed tweak" elite efficiency,
"equip a Robe of Supreme Magical Prowess +5" = equip an engine with a higher rating than default engine your Locust was bought with,
"These two are conceptually extremely different game elements" = same thing in MWO. Speed tweak works with ANY engine, and you don't have to buy any particular engine to have speed tweak to remain helpful. Speed tweak does not have weight and can't be "sold", once learned, - engine does and can be. Speed tweak doesn't take any slots but needs to be "earned" for each particular variant, - while engine takes 6 or 12 slots (std and XL, correspondedly) but can be transferred from any mech to many other ones (as allowed by min/max engine ratings of other mech). Two things are extremely different game elements to me.

Last note. If/when amount of content (i.e. if/when number of "things" such as efficiencies, modules, support items to be equipped, etc) would grow dramatically, - only then it would be a good time to consider further "siloing". It's then when more siloing would be significantly helpful - including for reasons you mention, too. But as of now, we don't have rich enough content to go any much further with "siloing". MWO, for now, is not a WoW which has tenths of thousands of functional "features" such as items, skills, talents, pets, mounts etc - many of which have unique or rarely-happening effects.

Edited by FinsT, 25 October 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

A module like Seismic Sensors is just on a completely different level than lowering your climb speed deceleration by 10 %. Having them use the same type of module slot just doesn't make sense to me... So I would prefer siloing to come early. But maybe you're right, and we need more content of the type first. But I think it's also important to consider this this type of design concepts early, as it can help formulating what kind of modules you want, and may serve as a way to "brainstorm" ideas.

For nostalgia's sake, let's remind ourselves what kind of stuff PGI once had planned:
http://mwomercs.com/...mation-warfare/
http://mwomercs.com/...3-role-warfare/

Many changes from those old blogs are understandeable, but I think there are alraedy hints of the different classification (or siloing) of items to be found there.. and it now remains underdeveloped.

Of course, I will freely admit that I think a fully developed information and rolewarfare system is far more important to me than Community Warfare, which I suspect is not an opinion shared with many.