21 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

Alrighty, I had an idea for new weapon modules, inspired by quirks, that affect a weapon class rather than a specific weapon itself. We already have range and rate of fire modules, so how about these:

Ballistic: Rifled Barrels
*Increases projectile velocity by 10%

Missile (LRM, SRM, Streaks): Synthetic Fuels
*Increases missile velocity by 10%

Missile (Excludes SRMs and NARCs): Advanced Homing
*Increases accuracy for homing missiles by 5%

Energy (Excluding PPCs, TAG, and Flamers): Focusing Lenses
*Decreases burn time by 10%

PPCs: Improved Plasma Envelope
*Increases velocity by 5% and reduces heat by 5%

Flamers: Improved Heat Shielding
*Reduces rate of heat build up in user Mech by 10%

All Weapons: Resilient Construction
*Increase crit resistance by 5%

All Ammunition-Based Weapons: Lightweight Ammunition Design
*Decreases overall Ammunition weight, allowing 10% more shots per ton of ammo. Note, this would not affect AC/20s or any weapon with less than 10 shots. Decimals would be rounded down. For example, a half-ton of AC/5 ammo is 15 shots. Thus, 10% would be 1.5 rounds. Rounding down would add one shot to the load-out.

TAG: Range Increase
*Boost range by 50 meters

Mech Modules:
ECM: Improved Broadcaster
*Increases range by 10%

BAP: Improved Broadcaster
*Increases range by 10%

Jump Jets: Efficient Thrusters
*Increase JJ thrust by 10%

Jump Jets: Reserve Fuel
*Increase JJ fuel by 10%

*Note: Wolf Clearwater pointed out that it may be best to keep the above values as scaling increments like the current weapon modules for range and cool down, rather than as a flat value like the 10% I included for most of them.

Mech Legs and Gyro: Improved Myomer Muscles and Mech Balance
*Removes the 15 kph penalty when legged and under fire

New Component:

IFF Jammer
*Makes your Mech appear friendly to the enemy team. Would be very expensive. Possibly only certain Mechs can equip? Discussion please.


******************************************

Please keep in mind that these are serious suggestions. If you don't like any or all of them, please say why instead of just saying posting something negative. Also, please include what you would like to see changed to make the item(s) in question more viable.

The TAG module is the only one I'm not sure about with regard to whether it, or some variation of it, is already in-game. If it is, could someone please verify. I don't have access to MWO's client this week. Thanks!

Feel free to suggest different values for the numbers. I kept it to 5% and 10% because those are easy to work with for the sake of example. Also, I don't think that they are unreasonable bonus values. If you think otherwise, let me know!

Last but not least, please keep the discussions courteous. Thank you.

*****************************************************************

Edit 1: Additional Info and Clarifications

1) Names: Someone mentioned that the names of the modules may not be suitable. If you find the module names to rankle a bit, then please suggest better ones. I just tossed some names out for working titles so that they sound more interesting than, "Medium Laser Cooldown Module."

2) Weapon Modules: These could scale like the current weapon modules, in which case their max rating would not be a 10% increase. However, since several of the ones I suggested cover a complete weapon type, rather than an individual weapon, I thought it better to keep the percentage low for starters. Feel free to discuss.

3) Purpose: None of these modules are meant to act as balancing for weapons or Mechs. They are merely there as end-game content for pilots to purchase to further define their specific play styles. For example, as a HBK, AC/20 loving brawler, I would probably equip my AC/20 range and cooldown modules, and purchase the ballistic velocity module to accompany them. Alternatively, I may purchase the crit reduction to help protect that shoulder cannon. None of these are intended to provide balance; they are merely supposed to be extra Lego pieces for those of us who like playing Legos with our BattleMechs.

4) IFF Jammer: There are a couple of different ways this could be implemented. I discussed it with a fellow MechWarrior so that I could refine the idea and provide better background for it.

Option 1) The Jammer could work similarly to ECM. It could have a 300 Meter Range (longer than ECM), but instead of disrupting sensors, it would instead provide a false signal. Example: If I run an IFF on my Mech and get within 300 meters of yours, the reader's, then you would see my red dorito change to blue. My radar dot would also turn blue. This would not mean a TK if you killed me. It simply means that, within 300 meters, I would appear as an ally to you. This would be very handy if I could sneak up within 300 meters without being seen. ECM could counter the effect. If it proved to be unbalanced, then BAP could probably also be included as a counter along with NARC. It would definitely require more presence of mind since you would need to be familiar with your team. Example: If I surprise you as a BLR and get within 300 meters of you, and you knew that you did not have a BLR on your team, then you would know that I was an enemy using an IFF Jammer (assuming I wasn't already shooting you of course! ).

Option 2) The Jammer would work like AMS with a togglable switch. It would be on by default, and would operate more in the style of the IFF Jammer in MW4. In short, it would jam everyone's IFF, preventing anyone from getting an IFF read on your Mech. This includes friendlies as well as enemies. It would also have no maximum range. Because no one would be able to read your IFF, both teams could target your Mech. Like in MW4, you could appear as a green dorito instead of blue or red. This would require closer teamwork since you would not want your allies to target and shoot you by mistake. The Jammer could be switched off as needed.

5) Lastly, please refrain from trolling or derailing.

End Edit 1

******************************************

Edit 2: Adding Information to Clarify About the Energy Duration Modules. Also Adding New Module Ideas by Kissamies.

1) Clarification: The energy duration module I suggested is intended to affect both lasers and pulse lasers, thus decreasing all their burn times by 10%. This is not intended to make lasers fire like pulse lasers as a replacement. It merely speeds up both their burn times. For example, if I ran a Mech with a Medium Laser and a Medium Pulse Laser, with this module equipped, then both the ML and the MPL would each receive a 10% bonus to their burn durations.

2) Kissamies' Suggestions:

UACs: Quality Mechanism
Reduces jam rate very slightly.

C3 Module
Users of this module share all of their sensor contacts, not only the ones they are actually targeting. ECM jams this module.

Links to Sarna C3:
C3 Command Unit: http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit
C3 Slave Unit: http://www.sarna.net...i/C3_Slave_Unit

In light of recent discussion, it may be best to make the C3 a component feature rather than a module.

End Edit 2

***************************************************

Edit 3: Additional Info

Added Wolf Clearwater's suggestions to Edits 1 and 2.

End Edit 3

Edited by Nightmare1, 07 March 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Ragtag soldier]

rifled barrels: autocannon munitions are too high caliber to use rifling efficiently.
synthetic rocket fuel: this is already the common fuel choice for missiles.
advanced missile homing: that's the Artemis system. you're asking for tonnage-free Artemis.
energy focusing lenses: that'd be pulse weapons. you're asking for free pulse effect.
improved plasma envelope: it's an EM field, not plasma
improved flamer heat shielding: tha- actually we have those in battletech, they're call cooling jackets. weigh a ton and reduce heat by two points for the weapon that mounts them. sound good?
resilient construction: did you think they're making this stuff out of glass? we got armored components though. but it's heavy stuff.

but enough making fun of you, it looks like you want to get modules to balance the weapons, which isn't what they should be used for. PGI should be balancing the weapons themselves, not giving you the option of buying them. i'd rather see modules that reduced the torso push from cannon impacts or widened the LRM lock window for tracking light targets. things that aren't balance so much as compensating for specific handicaps in dealing with certain enemies.

[Varent]

I actually really like these ideas. Could make for a lot of variation and further customization. I think obviously that a few of your ideas might need abit of tweaking but overall seems good.

Although someone above tried to de-rail your thread into another balance thread I can see that's not what you were after.

The only thing that might be iffy I think would be the IFF Jammer. Would need a lot of fine tuning.

[Nightmare1]

Ragtag soldier, on 04 March 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

rifled barrels: autocannon munitions are too high caliber to use rifling efficiently.
synthetic rocket fuel: this is already the common fuel choice for missiles.
advanced missile homing: that's the Artemis system. you're asking for tonnage-free Artemis.
energy focusing lenses: that'd be pulse weapons. you're asking for free pulse effect.
improved plasma envelope: it's an EM field, not plasma
improved flamer heat shielding: tha- actually we have those in battletech, they're call cooling jackets. weigh a ton and reduce heat by two points for the weapon that mounts them. sound good?
resilient construction: did you think they're making this stuff out of glass? we got armored components though. but it's heavy stuff.

but enough making fun of you, it looks like you want to get modules to balance the weapons, which isn't what they should be used for. PGI should be balancing the weapons themselves, not giving you the option of buying them. i'd rather see modules that reduced the torso push from cannon impacts or widened the LRM lock window for tracking light targets. things that aren't balance so much as compensating for specific handicaps in dealing with certain enemies.

We're playing a game who's lore considers fax machines to be high tech. There's also a lot of broken explanations and physics. If you're hung up on the names, then don't be; those can be changed. I'm merely suggesting new modules so that we have a bit more flavor instead of just range and cool down.

Like I stated in my OP, if you can't provide any real feedback, then don't bother. You're just a troll otherwise.

Finally, we already have modules for those things you mentioned. Reducing screen shake (torso push as you call it) can be achieved with Advanced Gyro. Increasing the lock window can be achieved with Targeting Decay and 360 Targeting. What you're asking for is already in-game. What you're denouncing isn't, but could be implemented to increase the variety of Mech and combat customization for each pilot.

Varent, on 04 March 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

I actually really like these ideas. Could make for a lot of variation and further customization. I think obviously that a few of your ideas might need abit of tweaking but overall seems good.

Although someone above tried to de-rail your thread into another balance thread I can see that's not what you were after.

The only thing that might be iffy I think would be the IFF Jammer. Would need a lot of fine tuning.

Thanks Varent! Your input is the kind I'm looking for here.

I did refine my ideas a bit after discussing it with my brother, another MechWarrior by the name of BerserX. I'll edit my OP to reflect this.

[Idealsuspect]

Interresting and nice imagination but in my opinion most of your propositions are False good ideas ..
.
Like balistic, missiles or lens laser ok it's fun to read and it make sence ... PGI buff range or cooldown with modules also why not buff duration, or velocity with news modules...

More modules will increase differents builds on battlefield but more modules will create also a deeper gate between casuals, non-richs players and hardcore or MC richs players ...


In addition of this, lots of players run mechs without right engine coze lack of money, worste about expensives modules or haven't enough mechbay. For this i am not sure double module's number is fair.

NB : I am not okay for durations basics lasers modules ... too powerfull we have heavy weight pulse laser for this.
Same if you want more velocity about ballistic weapon you can take a lighter AC ...

That's why for me that is false good ideas but like ours currents modules are in my opinion ... also why not Yea it look like conflicting.



But i like your Tag range module idea ... level 5 >> 12% it should add 90 meters ...
Ecm or even Bap module are interresting but in fine ... i'am not sure its very interesting for gameplay but why not.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 05 March 2015 - 12:21 PM.

[Kissamies]

UACs: Quality Mechanism
Reduces jam rate very slightly.

C3 Module
Users of this module share all of their sensor contacts, not only the ones they are actually targeting. ECM jams.

[Nightmare1]

Idealsuspect, on 05 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

Interresting and nice imagination but in my opinion most of your propositions are False good ideas ..
.
Like balistic, missiles or lens laser ok it's fun to read and it make sence ... PGI buff range or cooldown with modules also why not buff duration, or velocity with news modules...

More modules will increase differents builds on battlefield but more modules will create also a deeper gate between casuals, non-richs players and hardcore or MC richs players ...

The modules would primarily be end-game content anyways, so that really shouldn't be a problem. I myself am an MC/C-Bill poor player yet I suggest these anyways. Modules themselves may give a slight edge, but they are hardly game breakers; pilot skill will more than make up for the absence of a module.

Idealsuspect, on 05 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

In addition of this, lots of players run mechs without right engine coze lack of money, worste about expensives modules or haven't enough mechbay. For this i am not sure double module's number is fair.

Not sure what you mean by double modules. Your statement is poorly worded and difficult to read; I think you are trying to say that pilots don't have enough money for modules because they spend it all on engines? And that because of this lack of money they also don't have enough of the right engines? Not sure how this and a lack of Mechbays relates to modules. They appear to be separate issues...

Idealsuspect, on 05 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

NB : I am not okay for durations basics lasers modules ... too powerfull we have heavy weight pulse laser for this.
Same if you want more velocity about ballistic weapon you can take a lighter AC ...

The energy duration modules would affect both lasers and pulse lasers. The intent is not to make lasers fire like pulses. I will update the OP to reflect this.

As far as ACs go, that's not a good reason. Case in point, if you only have one AC slot, you will probably want to mount a heavier ballistic. Having a module available to help with velocity, in this case, would be nice. Let's say I am running a SHD. My only ballistic quirks are a generic quirk and a quirk for the UAC/5. If I want to run an AC/10, then I only have the generic quirk. Picking up a module to supplement the AC/10 allows me to fight my way more effectively without having to conform to PGI's cookie-cutter quirk build. In short, the modules would help expand the diversity of Mech loadouts by decreasing the gap between quirk friendly and non-quirk friendly builds.

Idealsuspect, on 05 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

That's why for me that is false good ideas but like ours currents modules are in my opinion ... also why not Yea it look like conflicting.

You want it but you're not sure, right? I've felt that way before too.

Idealsuspect, on 05 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

But i like your Tag range module idea ... level 5 >> 12% it should add 90 meters ...
Ecm or even Bap module are interresting but in fine ... i'am not sure its very interesting for gameplay but why not.

Cool!

Yeah, the BAP and ECM modules would be interesting. By keeping their values the same I also kept their balance the same to avoid one over-powering the other.

Kissamies, on 06 March 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

UACs: Quality Mechanism
Reduces jam rate very slightly.

C3 Module
Users of this module share all of their sensor contacts, not only the ones they are actually targeting. ECM jams.

The UAC module would be really nice; might actually make me re-invest in all the UACs I divested myself of a while back.

C3 is interesting, but may be overpowered if it also jams ECM. Since there are enough ECM counters in the game, I would probably leave that off.

I'll add both your suggestions to the OP in their original state. Thanks for the input!

[Kissamies]

Nightmare1, on 06 March 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

C3 is interesting, but may be overpowered if it also jams ECM. Since there are enough ECM counters in the game, I would probably leave that off.

No, I meant ECM jams it. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that at all because it's obvious. Anyways, I don't think the C3 very overpowered. More of a niche because it's not enough for just 1 player to use it. Other players need to use a module slot as well. I doubt that many players would go for that.

[Nightmare1]

Kissamies, on 07 March 2015 - 12:57 AM, said:

No, I meant ECM jams it. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that at all because it's obvious. Anyways, I don't think the C3 very overpowered. More of a niche because it's not enough for just 1 player to use it. Other players need to use a module slot as well. I doubt that many players would go for that.

Gotcha, sorry for the confusion!

I really like the sound of this module!

[Wolf Clearwater]

Nightmare1,
You have some really good ideas here. Instead of standard bonuses, like you suggested, I think the new modules should follow a 5 step increase just like the current weapon modules. Rank 1-5, each increasing a tiny bit. I think the IFF jammer is probably a bit much, just because I think it would create many problems with targeting locks like streaks etc.

Kissamies,
While I think the C3 is not a bad idea, it should have some weight and tonnage. I think it should be a piece of equipment installed rather than a module. While it would be a little too complicated to have master and slave components like the TT versions, having a C3 equiped would share info between all friendly C3 equiped mechs. Not a bad idea though.

Edit: Links

C3 master unit - http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit
C3 slave unit - http://www.sarna.net...i/C3_Slave_Unit

Edited by Wolf Clearwater, 07 March 2015 - 09:47 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Wolf Clearwater, on 07 March 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

Nightmare1,
You have some really good ideas here. Instead of standard bonuses, like you suggested, I think the new modules should follow a 5 step increase just like the current weapon modules. Rank 1-5, each increasing a tiny bit. I think the IFF jammer is probably a bit much, just because I think it would create many problems with targeting locks like streaks etc.

Kissamies,
While I think the C3 is not a bad idea, it should have some weight and tonnage. I think it should be a piece of equipment installed rather than a module. While it would be a little too complicated to have master and slave components like the TT versions, having a C3 equiped would share info between all friendly C3 equiped mechs. Not a bad idea though.

Edit: Links

C3 master unit - http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit
C3 slave unit - http://www.sarna.net...i/C3_Slave_Unit

Thanks Wolf, I appreciate the input! The tiered method may be the best way to go. I'll double check the OP to make sure that's mentioned as one of the alternatives.

As for the IFF Jammer, you're probably right. I just would love to see something like that in game to add to the information warfare side of things. It's probably a bit too complicated to implement though, and may only lead to a rash of TKs.

I'll add your C3 links to the suggestion made by Kissamies. Looking back over the C3, I think it may be best to make it a component. That, or let it be an add-on feature to the Command Console and Targeting Computers.

[Idealsuspect]

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean by double modules. Your statement is poorly worded and difficult to read; I think you are trying to say that pilots don't have enough money for modules because they spend it all on engines? And that because of this lack of money they also don't have enough of the right engines? Not sure how this and a lack of Mechbays relates to modules. They appear to be separate issues...

Not at all ... anyway forget that i said many players havent right engine in theirs mech and they grind money for this also you should understand they NEVER buy one old module and well you just wanna double or triple total module number ...
Casual players should said to themselve ok this game required to many hours for leveling i will find anoher one
ANYWAY on s'en fout

[Koniving]

Nightmare1, on 04 March 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

We're playing a game who's lore considers fax machines to be high tech. There's also a lot of broken explanations and physics. If you're hung up on the names, then don't be; those can be changed. I'm merely suggesting new modules so that we have a bit more flavor instead of just range and cool down.

"Rifled" is better suited as "improved powder" or somesuch, as whether or not something is rifled has nothing to do with the speed of the bullet. That affects the accuracy and the inertia (range before it slows down). What you're looking for is the propellant.

That said... On the technology in BT -- you'd be quite surprised that while there are some loopholes, most of them derive from misinterpretation (such as single shot autocannons) or new people who didn't read the old stuff creating new rules (Hot loaded LRMs is a prime example, which claim that standard LRMs are not loaded into the missile chambers until after a lock and a call to fire for IS mechs, where hot-loaded preloads them into the chambers ready to fire immediately removing the 180m minimum range. Compare to the original writing, which describes LRMs as fired upward at a 45 degree or higher ballistic launch angle where the missiles usually come down straight into the ground from directly above [meaning no building cover], and because they are fired up and not straight, trying to hit something at less than 180 meters was...difficult due to the missile's general lack of agility.)

Minimum range? New explanation: Field Inhibitors that keep the weapon from exploding in your face delay the weapon's firing sequence and because of this the likelihood of hitting a target at below 90 meters is very unlikely. Switch off your field inhibitor to bring your chance to hit to normal by removing the firing delay, allowing you to fire immediately -- at the risk of the weapon blowing up in your face.
Explanation from before ER PPCs in the actual game design: Being 7 tons, they were incredibly hard to turn with so against faster moving targets 'as small as a Battlemech', it is difficult to track them hence the 90 meter range. No way to get around it, but that's okay because most autocannons also had minimum ranges tied to the same reasons. Heavy things are slow to aim.

So there's that.
Fax machines might be high tech on one world, but not overall.

Rating____Technological_Sophistication____Industrial_Development

A_____High-tech_world_____Heavily_industrialized
B_____Advanced_world_____Moderately_industrialized
C_____Moderately_advanced_world_____Basic_heavy_industry
D_____Lower-tech_world_____Low_industrialization
F_____Primitive_world_____No_industrialization

Rating____Raw_Material_Dependence____Industrial_Output_____Agricultural_Dependence
A______________Fully_self-sufficient_____High_Output_____Breadbasket
B_____________Mostly_self-sufficient_____Good_output_____Abundant_world
C_____________Self-sustaining_____Limited_output_____Modest_agriculture
D______________Dependent_____Negligible_output_____Poor_agriculture
F_____________Heavily_dependent_____No_output_____"Barren"_world

And before someone quotes how preposterous a 90meter limit on an MG is... That's exclusively meant for MG versus Mech scenarios only.


ECM as referenced here, isn't the same as the Jesus Box of MWO or the Helm Memory Core ECM that comes up in BT, but instead more native military counter measures to include but not limited to flares, chaff, etc... which are then changed later on when new companies got ahold of it and 'reinvented' those to be included in the rule set as some special doodads.
-------
Also someone might notice I said "small" when quoting the passage about aiming at battlemechs.

Spoiler

With few exceptions, most Battlemechs are not much bigger than the size of tanks. The typical person standing next to the original Shadowhawk is depicted as a male of approximately 6 feet being just 2 feet short of the Shadowhawk's knee cap. A shorter, female pilot's body head and barely some shoulders are meant to show through the Shadowhawk's front visor. This puts the Shadowhawk at about 9 to 10 meters tall.



The Commando in MWO is 9.7 meters tall. The Shadowhawk in MWO is above the height of an MWO Centurion, which is 14.7 meters tall.

This Panther is pulled directly from MWO. It is taller than the Commando.


Notice the heights?
And here's a Wolverine.

So in the long run, the calibers used in Battletech could easily use your rifled module idea.
Those used in MWO? They cannot.

Food for thought.

[Kissamies]

Wolf Clearwater, on 07 March 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

Kissamies,
While I think the C3 is not a bad idea, it should have some weight and tonnage. I think it should be a piece of equipment installed rather than a module. While it would be a little too complicated to have master and slave components like the TT versions, having a C3 equiped would share info between all friendly C3 equiped mechs. Not a bad idea though.

Edit: Links

C3 master unit - http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit
C3 slave unit - http://www.sarna.net...i/C3_Slave_Unit

I am aware of the TT C3. That's where I got the idea from. The point has been made that MWO already much of the functionality of that system in the form of tranferable target locks. My suggestion adds to this, but part of C3 is already in game. Maybe it might be worth of 1 tons to few players, but I'm not that sure. Definitely not worth of 5 tons or 2.5 tons of the later C3i.

Beefing command console and targeting computers with it sounds interesting, though. Maybe console/computer could act as master and module users could act as slaves. The complexity would probably limit practical use to premades, but it would be much like that even the way I suggested it.

Edited by Kissamies, 07 March 2015 - 03:23 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Idealsuspect, on 07 March 2015 - 12:33 PM, said:

Not at all ... anyway forget that i said many players havent right engine in theirs mech and they grind money for this also you should understand they NEVER buy one old module and well you just wanna double or triple total module number ...
Casual players should said to themselve ok this game required to many hours for leveling i will find anoher one
ANYWAY on s'en fout

Ah, okay, I read you now, I think. You're saying that they're like Spuddies from Over the Hedge; enough is never enough!

[Idealsuspect]

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

Ah, okay, I read you now, I think. You're saying that they're like Spuddies from Over the Hedge; enough is never enough!

There isnt " OVER THE HEDGE" in france but yea in my opinion there is enough sort of weapon's module ... ( Tag range is required ).
But i am not againt new mech modules !!! In fact we need some.

[Nightmare1]

Idealsuspect, on 07 March 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

There isnt " OVER THE HEDGE" in france but yea in my opinion there is enough sort of weapon's module ... ( Tag range is required ).
But i am not againt new mech modules !!! In fact we need some.

Ah, sorry for referencing that then. Short explanation: It's an American cartoon where a character says, "With a Spuddy, enough is NEVER enough!" In the cartoon, Spuddies was a brand of potato chip like Pringles:



Yeah, I agree; we really need some more variety with out modules!

[Nightmare1]

I was considering Consumables recently and thought we could use some new ones there too. These are what I'm considering for both Consumables and a couple new modules:

Mines: If PGI won't give us a Mech-equipped mine launcher like Amanda Black's Thundershock Mines in Flashpoint, then how about a Consumable that deploys them? It can cost 40,000 C-bills, the same as a strike, and be aimed similarly but with a 200-meter range cap. It would deploy 5 mines that each deal 5 damage (for the match challenge, that's 25 potential points of damage total). They would be black, pancake-like objects that would be visible with the naked eye and destructible like UAVs. However, they would not appear on heat vision.

Metal Detection Vision: Equipped and activated similarly to Advanced Zoom, it would not change your view like heat or night vision, but would instead paint metallic objects yellow. This would help with visibility on maps such as Frozen City where Heat Vision is only marginally better than normal vision.

Upgraded Heat Vision: A module that replaces the current Heat Vision with the old-style Predator Vision we used to have.

Chaff: Fires a chaff burst straight up from your Mech, breaking missile locks immediately. Would cost 40,000 C-bills and affect anything targeting you for five seconds.

Smoke Strikes (both arty and air): Would basically copy the current Arty and Air Strikes. Instead of explosive shells though, it would be a dense smoke screen that obscures vision. Same cost and constraints as normal strikes, but without the damage that is dealt.

False IFF: Costs the same as a strike, lasts 5 seconds, and is fired like a Narc Beacon. It attaches to whatever it hits, Mech or inanimate object, and broadcasts a signal to the enemy team identifying the object or Mech as an enemy. The beacon itself is target-able. This would add additional elements to information warfare by providing teams with a tool to spread misinformation.

Decoy (drone or beacon): Fired like a Narc or UAV, depending on the type, and projects up to three Mech IFFs in on the ground around/below it to confuse the enemy. Would last ten seconds and require careful use to be effective. Would also cost 40,000 C-bills, increase information warfare, and expand the role of Lights.

I think that's it for now. Some of these are repeats that I have posted in other threads, but it's been a while and they deserve mentioning again.

[Nightmare1]

DoctorZuber, on 02 May 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

I'm busily coding software to teach your computer how to [tell you how much I disagree with you]. Wait for it. It's coming.

None of this is going to happen. MWO aka. Mechwarrior aka. Battletech is not new. It's a game system spanning over 30 years. One of the things PGI is doing very right is to stay as true as possible to the source material. So far, I think they have done a pretty good job of that. If they didn't, it wouldn't be Battletech, and I wouldn't play it. I am sure I wouldn't be alone in that. There are also potentially serious legal questions involved in manhandling an established IP like that. They could get sued if they do what you are asking.

Making up random weird stupid stuff would be a terrible decision.

Instead, here is what you can expect to see added to MWO over the next 15 years. There's a lot more coming. Relax, it's good stuff. You will like it.

http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

http://www.sarna.net...ory:BattleMechs

http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicles

And that's just the ground scenarios. For the space battles you also have AeroSpace Fighters, and Drop Ships to consider.

http://www.sarna.net...oSpace_Fighters

http://www.sarna.net...ropShip_classes

There are 89 different designs for Drop Ships alone which is literally more than the different mech chassis we currently have available. Battletech is an enormous game world with a wealth of material to draw from. It is not only unnecessary to make stuff up, it would be downright foolish to do so.

I guess you don't particularly care for civility.

Frankly, I'm not suggesting new equipment, just modules. I have no interest in re-inventing the wheel. MWO is a different beast from anything that has come before. The things I suggest in this thread are merely extensions of what is already in-game. From that perspective, nothing I have said is unreasonable. If you don't like the suggestions, fine, state your reasons. However, I suggest you refrain from boorish behavior and inane accusations.

To be honest, after reading your discordant reply, I doubt that you even read the OP.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 03 May 2015 - 02:10 AM.
Content in quote

[Nightmare1]

New Consumable:

Flare:
10,000 C-bills
Fires one illuminating flare up to the same height as a UAV. Flare illuminates up to 200 meters, blinding anyone with night vision. Heat vision would be partially blinded if looking directly at the flare. Flare would be most effective on night maps, and only partially effective on blurred maps (think Frozen City) where heat vision might be in play. Flare would last for five seconds and give off a white light.

Flare Artillery Canister:
40,000 C-bills
Fires one illuminating canister with the same behavior and constraints as an artillery strike. The canister will ignite upon striking the ground, illuminating an area up to 500 meters in diameter for 10 seconds. While active, night vision would be useless and heat vision would partially blind. Would give off a white light. Canister would be destructible and be most effective on dark maps.

Edited by Nightmare1, 04 June 2015 - 05:56 AM.