Jump to content

Liam's summary of suggestions


21 replies to this topic

#1 Liam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • LocationStuttgart

Posted 02 November 2011 - 08:42 AM

Hello MWO Developers and MW community!
I did some compilation for a next MW game some years ago, in the hope for one coming some day.
Here is a short version first, followed by a longer one:


Reality factor against game factor:
There is the possibility to try to explain nonsense by doing right arguments, so that things sound more realistic. But there is also a way by trying to make realistic physics more playable and enjoyable, which is a better way to develop science fiction games.

Skill factor:
Easy to learn, but hard to master! Simplicity of total view, but complex details. Small details make the whole thing.

Scale and range factor:
Average mech size: between 8 – 14 m. / maximum detecting range something around 2 km
Correct scale factor of mech size compared to range. (This would need adapted terrain which will be more realistic) (Balance issue / link: weapon ranges and velocities)

The role of mech on battlefield:
Mechs shouldn’t be overpowered against anything. Their advantage is by being mobile.
A bit weaker against tanks / air units / elementals / infantry (mines) as in MW4.
At least a tank with same tonnage should be equal to a mech with same size, but not to mobility in bad terrain. (Challenge issue)

Mech designs (battletech):

There is a need to fix dumb chassis battletech types, by making them more effective with old battletech appearance, by fixing of too low arm position, etc. (Balance issue, less overused and under dog chassis types, there will be anyway some)

Visible weapon configuration via mounted weapons on the mech, is better that firing missiles from a gauss rifle. (Against eye cancer / personal customization).

Implementing of more hit boxes (not to many), by splitting frontal CT in 4 sections, arm in 6 etc. Let say 1 average hit box with an area of 1 m². (Balance issue / link: weapons damage model: splash and penetration damage)

Slot system:
Electronic slots:
choose your 4 from 10 (or more) electronics! Limited by volume not by weight. 4 additional electronics > maximum 4 t. (personal customization issue)
Command module: allowing to share radar sight and lock on (no more useless scouts)
Radar detection: affected by rocks etc. (no detection then only blinking of point on the radar)
Enemy appearance in radar range, not suddenly, dark blinking first on the radar, then faster blinking , then lock on (all this stuff in range frame of 100 m, at max. detecting range)

Weapon slots:
Similar to MW4 slot system with mixed slots: ballistic/energy, ballistic/missile, energy/missile, omni, energy, ballistic, missile.
Finer segmentation of slots would allow better balancing. Bulkier but stronger medium laser / 8 segments for Large Laser and not 2 as in MW4.

boom 1 ... simply removed

Edited by Liam, 12 January 2012 - 03:47 AM.


#2 Liam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • LocationStuttgart

Posted 02 November 2011 - 04:06 PM

boom 2

Edited by Liam, 12 January 2012 - 03:46 AM.


#3 Tweaks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 959 posts
  • LocationLaval, Quebec, Canada

Posted 02 November 2011 - 04:55 PM

WALL OF TEXT! May read later... but wow... lots of text...

#4 Dmitri Valenov

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • 131 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 03 November 2011 - 09:37 AM

That is your summary? Is the book published yet? If it is I think I'll wait for the movie anyway. I'm sure there are decent suggestions in there, but try to keep it short if it's supposed to be a summary.

#5 Antaydos

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 66 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts

Posted 03 November 2011 - 09:44 AM

tl;dr

#6 mbt201188

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationPickens, SC

Posted 03 November 2011 - 01:01 PM

So why dont you go make your own Mechwarrior game cuz it seems like that's the only way you will be satisfied with how insanely overly detailed you are. Not trying to be mean but PGI are making their own game their own way. Im all for suggestions but sheesh thats a little over the top.

#7 Liam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • LocationStuttgart

Posted 03 November 2011 - 04:19 PM

I’m sorry for the big overflow on text. The problem is, if you want to understand linked relations of suggestions, you will need to describe things a bit more. Otherwise, everyone could extract their anything from small abstract point. There is a reason why I try to explain so much.
But anyway thank you for feedback!

Mbt201188 I can't make a game by myself, because I space engineer and my programming skills are very limited. I know hat to fix all battletech stuff by still keeping its flair.

The suggestions in this list are linked between each other, and can be separated only in the limited way.

Reality factor against game factor:
There is the possibility to try to explain nonsense by doing right arguments, so that things sound more realistic. But there is also a way by trying to make realistic physics more playable and enjoyable, which is a better way to develop science fiction games.

Skill factor:
Easy to learn, but hard to master! Simplicity of total view, but complex details. Small details make the whole thing.

Scale and range factor:
Average mech size: between 8 – 14 m. / maximum detecting range something around 2 km
Correct scale factor of mech size compared to range. (This would need adapted terrain which will be more realistic) (Balance issue / link: weapon ranges and velocities)

The role of mech on battlefield:
Mechs shouldn’t be overpowered against anything. Their advantage is by being mobile.
A bit weaker against tanks / air units / elementals / infantry (mines) as in MW4.
At least a tank with same tonnage should be equal to a mech with same size, but not to mobility in bad terrain. (Challenge issue)

Mech designs (battletech):

There is a need to fix dumb chassis battletech types, by making them more effective with old battletech appearance, by fixing of too low arm position, etc. (Balance issue, less overused and under dog chassis types, there will be anyway some)

Visible weapon configuration via mounted weapons on the mech, is better that firing missiles from a gauss rifle. (Against eye cancer / personal customization).

Implementing of more hit boxes (not to many), by splitting frontal CT in 4 sections, arm in 6 etc. Let say 1 average hit box with an area of 1 m². (Balance issue / link: weapons damage model: splash and penetration damage)

Slot system:
Electronic slots:
choose your 4 from 10 (or more) electronics! Limited by volume not by weight. 4 additional electronics > maximum 4 t. (personal customization issue)
Command module: allowing to share radar sight and lock on (no more useless scouts)
Radar detection: affected by rocks etc. (no detection then only blinking of point on the radar)
Enemy appearance in radar range, not suddenly, dark blinking first on the radar, then faster blinking , then lock on (all this stuff in range frame of 100 m, at max. detecting range)

Weapon slots:
Similar to MW4 slot system with mixed slots: ballistic/energy, ballistic/missile, energy/missile, omni, energy, ballistic, missile.
Finer segmentation of slots would allow better balancing. Bulkier but stronger medium laser / 8 segments for Large Laser and not 2 as in MW4.
Slot space sharing with ammunition and heat sinks (best of 2 worlds (MW3+MW4) no space less ammunition and heat sinks anymore. (balance issue / link: energy management – capacitors)
Bigger slots to allow additional ammunition and heat sinks. Ballistic very bulky, missiles bulky, energy compact. Space equality: gauss + ammo equal to PPC + heat sinks. (balance / link: heat and energy management)

Heat and Energy management:

Heat sinks should be mounted near to the heat source (CT, LT, TR, and especially near weapons). Lighter heat sinks, but with more volume: more space limitation, less weight limitation. 0,25 - 0,5 t (Basically radiators are bulky and less heavy (car radiator))

Capacitors, energy storage equipment, mounted in torsos and near weapons. Allow to fire more energy weapons at once. Base capacitors are fixed ( enough for 2 Large Lasers). 0,25 – 0,5 t. (balance / link: weapon slots / energy weapons)

Energy transfer (activation / deactivation): from myomers to weapons (capacitors) and vice versa.

Weapons:

More to simulation (reality) shifted damage model. More damage, less armour (balance / link: hit boxes)
Splash based damage (low critical hit 0 – 15 % ): LBX, LRM, PPC (50 % crit electronics), AC (HE), Long Tom, Sniper- Thumper canon. Etc.
Penetration based damage (high critical hit 50 – 90 %): LASERs, Gauss, Railgun, AC (KE)
Bonus damage: Gaus or Laser hit after LRM / LBX / PPC hit in same area / hitbox (+ 10 -20%) (balance / link: hit boxes)

LASERs: pre focusing delay – 0,5 sec. in auto mode. This delay includes also preheating of weapons specific elements. (out of focus – 50% damage, - 30 % crit)

Additional weapon options (fixing further balancing issues)
Button 1: Weapon in auto / manual mode - no delay
Button 2: + focus range, + 5% heat, +10% reload (cooling down) time
Button 3: - focus range, + 5% heat, +10% reload (cooling down) time

Artillery Weapons: angle of bore 45 (max range) – 89 (min range) degree.
Button 1: auto range (point over) / manual
Button 2: + range
Button 3: - range
Long tom , thumper, sniper

PPC:
Button 1: auto charge / manual
Button 2: + more particle charge - more damage range, more heat, more reload
Button 3: - less particle charge- less damage range, less heat, less reload

Edited by Liam, 03 November 2011 - 04:32 PM.


#8 AJC

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 03 November 2011 - 04:35 PM

just stop your asking for way too much real hardness vs fun scifi blasting.

#9 canned wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • LocationFort Collins Colorado

Posted 03 November 2011 - 04:37 PM

Noone wants to read through all this **** to try and figure out what you're saying. Cut it down to like three or four sentences and try again. If you have an entire game in your head, make it, stop telling someone else that they should.

#10 Liam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • LocationStuttgart

Posted 03 November 2011 - 04:48 PM

*** people you can't describe it in 4 sentences. You cant fix Bt / MW stuff by picking one thing or another, you have to look at it as whole thing. Its about a fundament tweaking. Well I give up, live with your next / another one MW3 / MW4 online game ...

#11 Tweaks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 959 posts
  • LocationLaval, Quebec, Canada

Posted 03 November 2011 - 04:51 PM

Sorry Liam, but it's just too long to read... even if it's really good. If I wanna read this much text, I'll get an actual BattleTech book and read that on my couch. No offense...

#12 Rain Man the Excellently

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • LocationMontana

Posted 03 November 2011 - 08:50 PM

Liam, you have clearly put time and thought into this summary. You focused on the mech and put a lot of minute detail which a lot of people would think is excessive. I just wanna say good job and thank you for putting work into your post.

I personally don't agree with everything you've posted, and since you've covered so much it's hard to discuss it as a whole. Although, I do strongly agree with your comments on skill factor and scale. As well as remember that games can be patched, tweaked, and fixed after release. For me I love seeing the size difference between mechs. This definitely helps me with the reality factor of a MW game.

I was wondering if you have any thoughts on what effects a match might have on the galaxy. Personally I really enjoyed the system that was in MPBT:3025. It was very simple, each match win or loss causes your faction to gain or lose control of a planet. Win enough and you get the planet. I like to know that I'm not just grinding experience/C-bills, but furthering the cause of my alignment.

#13 MagnusEffect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 404 posts

Posted 03 November 2011 - 09:09 PM

For what it is worth Liam, I am down for brainstorming. You are at least as crazy as me when it comes to excitement at the prospect of a new mechwarrior game :)

http://mwomercs.com/...2740#entry12740

I am good at bulletpoints. We might actually be able to break it down to something people want to read. :D

Edited by MagnusEffect, 03 November 2011 - 09:11 PM.


#14 Liam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • LocationStuttgart

Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:47 PM

Well Magnus I quit ... I don't think people want improve the MW at all. It will never end. People will keep complaining about imbalanced things etc. and try to suggest to fix **** by ****. It won't work. It should be fixed from zero, not at brocken point. People also overreact if you write more accurate physics and realism etc. even if they wish it. At least they wish realistic feeling .. actually this is what my topic was all about, dont make it real, but look and feel a like ...
For myself I dont really care anymore because I dont think the game will have acceptable quality, at least it will be the next MW3 or MW4 Game.

#15 Tweaks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 959 posts
  • LocationLaval, Quebec, Canada

Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:54 PM

Welcome to the beta testing world Liam...

#16 gregsolidus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,352 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:59 PM

Long post is long and hard to read.

#17 Karn Evil

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 01 January 2012 - 10:52 PM

It's a bit late at night for me, but I've read a few key passages. Overall, I think the ideas you have are good, but they just don't fit with what a lot of people want from Mechwarrior. On the plus-side, though, I'm going to use this as guidelines for any mechs/tanks I draw in the future, and I'm glad somebody agrees with me about how great the design of the Shadow Cat is.

#18 Omigir

    Can I have a hug? :(

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,800 posts
  • LocationVa

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:35 AM

You cant fix something we have yet to see. I think that is part of why its so lengthy.. No offence man, but star with what you know that needs fixing, and sugestions of things you would like to see, rather then showing up and fixing every mechwarrior from the passed. Fresh game company, fresh start. Lets see what they do before we say that everything needs chanigng.

#19 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 02 January 2012 - 07:52 AM

This takes "walls of text" to an entirely new level. :(



P.S. Why did you "like" yourself? ^_^

#20 Stormwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,951 posts
  • LocationCW Dire Wolf

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:53 AM

Too much MW4 inspired stuff gotta say no to it, we should simply stick with the original system that the canon designs are based. Hate to burst your bubble here BTW.
Seriously, go read the novels and sourcebooks, MW4 is the dumbed down version of the actual mech warfare. And no, I don't want to turn this into a direct TT translation.

And yes, I read the wall of text, people shouldn't be too lazy to read something.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users