60 replies to this topic

[Random Carnage]

ARM32, on 26 September 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Ok, small test №2 (camo). Got some ideas, so, if u want helps - info in video. And sorry for my English - keep learning...

12 mechs total.
3 are easy. 8 I'm relatively confident on.
4 I believe are there but wouldn't bet my life on it.

The letters I didn't see were: J, G, L, I, H, D.

I'm all for camo. Only reservation I have is whether my red/green colour deficiency would work against me to the point where sensors couldn't be used to compensate. If that happened, where camo completely nullified sensors, it wouldn't be a fun experience through no fault of my own.

Edited by Random Carnage, 28 September 2016 - 12:35 AM.

[ARM32]

Nik Reaper, on 28 September 2016 - 12:21 AM, said:

Nice tech demo, if you make some wide nonspecific promises about developing this further there might be some that could donate some ca$h towards funds for a new PC.

Even if you don't see your self becoming a full time game developer, you could just see about making it a bit more pretty , add in a few more mechanics and make the thing open source.

With this as a good base there will probly be a number of devs who would try to build a bit and try to sell it on steam X) , at some point something good might crop up X) .

Thanks. Yep, on current point, i can't be more specific, coz i keep looking on community reaction on forum, in MercStar teamspeak, on other teamspeak also.
So, now, i just gathering information and points of views from players. And again, i'm tier 2 player and my skills in game - don't give me enough info. So, when i'll gather all info what i need - after this, i can be more specific... Coz i don't want to waste my time (still got 1-4 h\ per day for this) on something, which is useless... Also yes - my PC really bottlenecking me now.

Random Carnage, on 28 September 2016 - 12:28 AM, said:

12 mechs total.
3 are easy. 8 I'm relatively confident on.
4 I believe are there but wouldn't bet my life on it.

The letters I didn't see were: J, G, L, I, H, D.

I'm all for camo. Only reservation I have is whether my red/green colour deficiency would work against me to the point where sensors couldn't be used to compensate. If that happened, where camo completely nullified sensors, it wouldn't be a fun experience through no fault of my own.

Nice, thanks. About camo, u know, it can works on different ways. I'm riding all (almost) my mechs with white camo and red stripes\bones. I'm not hiding. And keep teaching on FW (when it's not dead), that white + red = danger =)) But, whatever, one of my points of view - make pilots not trust on 100% to radar and target systems... So, camo can be good to hide, or, to show ur self as "Here i am! Run in fear!" or... =)


So, i'm got some new ideas, i'll check them (and my PC) when i'll get more free time. Share my "work coffee breaks" to answer comments =) Good Luck comrades =)

[Rebas Kradd]

KingCobra, on 26 September 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Way to go MercStar looks good finally someone that understands mechs and warfare and the mechs are not made of paper and the mechs take a good amount of damage before they die.

Now if Russ and PGI could just understand this MWO would be a much better game.
Its no wonder new players to MWO do a couple of drops die in 30 seconds because there mech armor does not work and is to weak then uninstall the game the same day.

MWO would be the exact same way if it weren't 12 mechs versus 12 every single match. It would be a nice loooong time to kill a mech.

Sounds like the OP is off to a good start.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 28 September 2016 - 09:25 AM.

[Fake News]

I wish LRMs worked like that with the tag laser. that's bad ***.

[vocifer]

I like the idea of damaging weapons by directly hitting them. Imagine how it balances the high-mounted weapons.

ebolachan, on 28 September 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

I wish LRMs worked like that with the tag laser. that's bad ***.

And it's more intuitive. The only problem is that my logic can't accept missile (optic) sensors locking on something not in their LOS or infinitely distant spot in space. but those are tweakable, ofcourse.

[ARM32]

ebolachan, on 28 September 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

I wish LRMs worked like that with the tag laser. that's bad ***.

Yep, after "tag & narc" event, i got this idea and use it on test...

vocifer, on 28 September 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

I like the idea of damaging weapons by directly hitting them. Imagine how it balances the high-mounted weapons.

And it's more intuitive. The only problem is that my logic can't accept missile (optic) sensors locking on something not in their LOS or infinitely distant spot in space. but those are tweakable, ofcourse.

Not optic. As idea, it's like "Wi-Fi", why?
+ is: guided projectile with nice damage,
- is: slow, can be destroyed on flight and i don't put ALL ideas on "CPS system board" on test, so... =)

[vocifer]

ARM32, on 28 September 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

Not optic. As idea, it's like "Wi-Fi", why?

Because you need optics to track tag.

[ARM32]

vocifer, on 28 September 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Because you need optics to track tag.

Nope =) Not =) Ok, idia is - mech got optic, TAG = rangefinder (hardcore version) and, it got's position of point in world, AND, send info to rockets... It make them OP about targeting, but also, useless if connection lost... That's a point of my idea.

[vocifer]

ARM32, on 28 September 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Nope =) Not =) Ok, idia is - mech got optic, TAG = rangefinder (hardcore version) and, it got's position of point in world, AND, send info to rockets... It make them OP about targeting, but also, useless if connection lost... That's a point of my idea.

Oooohhh.... I got it. Yeah, that can work.

[Hunter Watzas]

I enjoyed the video and do like the concept ideas. The exact details on the implementation (AKA numbers for all parameters: Missile speed, turn radius, etc...) would need to be tuned but that isn't really the point.

IMO: issues
1 -> More mechanics while make the game more indepth and immersive adds a cost in balance issues. Balance issues are always much worse on Multiplayer focused games than single player games.
2 -> Performance issues. A lot of your mechanics require a lot of data tracking and mathematics.

Mechanic Suggestions:
You talked about different types of actuators, hydraulic vs electric motors. Motors provide faster response, solid control/precision, but the heavier the mech the more power draw from the entire power system. Then hydraulics would probably provide slower response, similar amount of control/precision, and draws no/minimal power. For weight, i would have motors increasing exponentially while hydraulics increased linearly. Have some set point that intersects at medium weight classes where motors are lighter than hydraulics. If you added in melee combat, hydraulics would excel in that. I wouldn't limit the max turn radius or etc by internal components but rather it be a chassis design itself.

It would also be cool to add in actuator damage in addition to weapons. Damage the leg actuator and now you lose some kind of power output and control to that limb.

I mentioned an overall power system above. Engine relates to how much power a vehicle can draw (Optimal, Max so you can overclock your machine for a little bit in exchange for heat or damage). You have power draw from actuators (hydraulic or electric), Combat Computer + modules (additional systems such as artemis, targeting comp, command module), weapon systems, cooling, JJ?. In the hanger/or in game you could tweak the values given to each system set so you could boost power to cooling if you know you are going to drop on a hot map. You might get small 5-10% increases in performance. Cooldown for weapons + damage for lasers (heat too), dissipation rate on cooling, faster actuation, more CPS, etc...

I didn't watch the camo video but unless you were relying on the optical spectrum, infrared and radar would still work. Perhaps you could have systems on your vehicle to distort different spectrums and have different sensors on your vehicle. You would be allowed to have as many sensors on your vehicle as you want but you trade power, weight and slots for that (plus CPS) but you could only have one anti-sensor system.

[Mechteric]

Random Carnage, on 28 September 2016 - 12:28 AM, said:

12 mechs total.
3 are easy. 8 I'm relatively confident on.
4 I believe are there but wouldn't bet my life on it.

The letters I didn't see were: J, G, L, I, H, D.

I'm all for camo. Only reservation I have is whether my red/green colour deficiency would work against me to the point where sensors couldn't be used to compensate. If that happened, where camo completely nullified sensors, it wouldn't be a fun experience through no fault of my own.

Games should let you change HUD colors anyway, so you can set up purple/yellow or whatever you want to make it work for you. Can't help you with the scenery camo though I guess, though I thought I heard somewhere that color blind/deficient people are better than normal at picking out differences in brown/tan colors or something?

[Appogee]

Some great ideas in that video.

[ARM32]

vocifer, on 28 September 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

Oooohhh.... I got it. Yeah, that can work.

Yep, correct - i just want to make some stuffs different, look how it works, look how community take it and... U know =)

CapperDeluxe, on 28 September 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

Games should let you change HUD colors anyway, so you can set up purple/yellow or whatever you want to make it work for you. Can't help you with the scenery camo though I guess, though I thought I heard somewhere that color blind/deficient people are better than normal at picking out differences in brown/tan colors or something?

Eh, ok. Plan is simple - give nice settings (not on test) of all UI - on\off, color, image... Aaaaand, it's not all ideas about settings. So, it already in mind. About "color blind/deficient people" don't know, seems if i'll go forward with it - need them also for test... Again, it's long road forward, so...

Appogee, on 28 September 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

Some great ideas in that video.

Thanks =) Keep working, when got some free time, until my PC start smoking =)

[ARM32]

Hunter Watzas, on 28 September 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

I enjoyed the video and do like the concept ideas. The exact details on the implementation (AKA numbers for all parameters: Missile speed, turn radius, etc...) would need to be tuned but that isn't really the point.

IMO: issues
1 -> More mechanics while make the game more indepth and immersive adds a cost in balance issues. Balance issues are always much worse on Multiplayer focused games than single player games.
2 -> Performance issues. A lot of your mechanics require a lot of data tracking and mathematics.

Mechanic Suggestions:
You talked about different types of actuators, hydraulic vs electric motors. Motors provide faster response, solid control/precision, but the heavier the mech the more power draw from the entire power system. Then hydraulics would probably provide slower response, similar amount of control/precision, and draws no/minimal power. For weight, i would have motors increasing exponentially while hydraulics increased linearly. Have some set point that intersects at medium weight classes where motors are lighter than hydraulics. If you added in melee combat, hydraulics would excel in that. I wouldn't limit the max turn radius or etc by internal components but rather it be a chassis design itself.

It would also be cool to add in actuator damage in addition to weapons. Damage the leg actuator and now you lose some kind of power output and control to that limb.

I mentioned an overall power system above. Engine relates to how much power a vehicle can draw (Optimal, Max so you can overclock your machine for a little bit in exchange for heat or damage). You have power draw from actuators (hydraulic or electric), Combat Computer + modules (additional systems such as artemis, targeting comp, command module), weapon systems, cooling, JJ?. In the hanger/or in game you could tweak the values given to each system set so you could boost power to cooling if you know you are going to drop on a hot map. You might get small 5-10% increases in performance. Cooldown for weapons + damage for lasers (heat too), dissipation rate on cooling, faster actuation, more CPS, etc...

I didn't watch the camo video but unless you were relying on the optical spectrum, infrared and radar would still work. Perhaps you could have systems on your vehicle to distort different spectrums and have different sensors on your vehicle. You would be allowed to have as many sensors on your vehicle as you want but you trade power, weight and slots for that (plus CPS) but you could only have one anti-sensor system.

Waagh, lots of text, ok...

Thanks, parameters i'll change after tests done. For test i'm need some time OP weapon, or 1 health weapon, so...

1 - Correct, but, i'm in MercStar Unit, so, if i need people for tests and balance... Also some friends (100+) from other units, so... Yep, it'll take some time, but, this moments already in my mind.

2 - Not as much, as it can seems from a side... I know some optimization tricks =) But yes, after some tests, i'll get position where i need to feed some calculations with more info, or opposite... So, same - it already in my mind.

Copy to idea list.

Copy to idea list, but i'll think about it again on deep tests.

Copy to idea list.

Correct - it's already on plan list =)

Thanks again, interesting ideas, i'll rethink some of my ideas after it.

[wolf74]

A Test I would like to see is a Manual Set Convergence point that the weapons Default too if No Target is Lock, VS what is Under the crosshair at this very moment.

No Lock Set Point = Value A
If Target is Locked = Value B (Locked Target Range)

Value A can be Dynamic set; I think the Mouse wheel Up/down would be a Good Default key binding.

I see this doing 3 things. 1st Make Target Lock more important, 2nd aloud for over the Hill Blind Missile shots, 3rd most likely increase time to kill this is due to the fact without a Lock you will have more scatter shots because your convergence point will be off point.


Edit PS
It also nice to see that Sake906 & Mine AT1:Battletech has not been Totally forgotten.

Edited by wolf74, 28 September 2016 - 10:15 PM.

[ARM32]

wolf74, on 28 September 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

A Test I would like to see is a Manual Set Convergence point that the weapons Default too if No Target is Lock, VS what is Under the crosshair at this very moment.

No Lock Set Point = Value A
If Target is Locked = Value B (Locked Target Range)

Value A can be Dynamic set; I think the Mouse wheel Up/down would be a Good Default key binding.

I see this doing 3 things. 1st Make Target Lock more important, 2nd aloud for over the Hill Blind Missile shots, 3rd most likely increase time to kill this is due to the fact without a Lock you will have more scatter shots because your convergence point will be off point.


Edit PS
It also nice to see that Sake906 & Mine AT1:Battletech has not been Totally forgotten.

Disagree. Some time ago, PGI try some stuff close to it with laser optimal range - if enemy not targeted optimal Laser Range x 0.5, if targeted 100%. Why, i'm disagree with both variants - rangefinder. It simple. U put rangefinder and any gun anywhere around it. After, u taking small PC (still enough for it). After - weapon position comparing to rangefinder position as constant value. After - get range from range finder. After - simple math/geometry - triangle where 1 side length = rangefinder number, second side - length between weapon and rangefinder. Angle between 1 and 2 lines - constant from weapon position. After, u can count rest of info and point ur weapon on a target. It can be done with power of mobile phone... If it can be done like this - huge mech with range finder + powerful PC inside - 100% can do it, and do it realy fast...

Other way - ballistic type weapons. I think about make it possible, shoot from cannon over the ridge, as arty... But not on first test, it closer to balance & gameplay test, and now it's only posibility + ideas test...

[wolf74]

You misunderstand sir, not a ghost damage system like pgi tested. But a system where the weapons convergence point is set By the you the player if you do not have a target locked. If you have a locked target than the convergence point would be the targets range from you.

[Railgun05]

wolf74, on 29 September 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

You misunderstand sir, not a ghost damage system like pgi tested. But a system where the weapons convergence point is set By the you the player if you do not have a target locked. If you have a locked target than the convergence point would be the targets range from you.

Because there is a language barrier, if I am understanding correctly, Let say you have 2 ERLL with no target. You want to be able to set the cross point manually (i.e. say 90M to 1k) with the scroll wheel.

I can see the reason for LRMs if you are looking to be able to blind fire, but what are you looking to achieve with direct fire weapons?

Edited by Railgun05, 29 September 2016 - 01:07 PM.

[wolf74]

The Biggest thing I think I would be trying to do is a Minor remove of Surgical Alpha Strike that PGI is been Fighting by Double internals & armor, Ghost heat, the New Energy Draw system. Everything go back to the pin-point Atomic needle-point perfect Convergence we have in game. The big trick is to find some system that give the player most of the control but is not perfect.

The 1st step I think is to SLOWLY back off the Perfect Convergence system. Which is what my suggestion is a baby step in which we the players have more control of the mech system VS the computer always Correcting for the Z axis on the X,Y,Z target Location.

P.S Thank you for asking for what you don't understand VS just yelling no.

Edited by wolf74, 29 September 2016 - 05:56 PM.

[ARM32]

wolf74, on 29 September 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

The Biggest thing I think I would be trying to do is a Minor remove of Surgical Alpha Strike that PGI is been Fighting by Double internals & armor, Ghost heat, the New Energy Draw system. Everything go back to the pin-point Atomic needle-point perfect Convergence we have in game. The big trick is to find some system that give the player most of the control but is not perfect.

The 1st step I think is to SLOWLY back off the Perfect Convergence system. Which is what my suggestion is a baby step in which we the players have more control of the mech system VS the computer always Correcting for the Z axis on the X,Y,Z target Location.

P.S Thank you for asking for what you don't understand VS just yelling no.

Ok, more understandable for me now.(Keep learning English) So, for my point of view - CPS system solve it. For new player, who just install game and start playing - it'll be really hard to control all. But, CPS - not "free" - u need to put 1-2 tons of PC inside mech and it 1-2 slots inside it, to make "Convergence system" works. And as for me - manual convergence will be realy annoying for lots of players. But, all this systems i test only by my self, so, when\if it comes to alpha test (with network) - i can check them more correctly. If fights show the current CPS convergence too OP, i can switch it to manual at any time... So, thanks for ur point of view =) U know, even bad idea is better than silence =) But, u got ur point on it, so, i'm not saying 100% NO to your idea, but, it's not a time for it - but i'll think about it when\if i'll make tests with real players...