7 replies to this topic

[Roadbuster]

Just a collection of, in my opinion, good ideas to improve different aspects of the game which could possibly increase the gameplay experience.
Different opinions and additions are welcome.

I don't claim credit for any of these ideas!
Many of them were brought up by other players in different threads but got lost somewhere in the dephts of the forum.


a. Increase torso armor and internal hitpoints:

This would make disarming mechs more effective and might reduce the focus on center torso to destroy mechs.


b. Implement sensor stations:

Like the station on the hill in Alpine. Capping such a station could grant radar information of the surrounding area withing a limited range.
This would give teams additional objectives and could also be rewarded with XP/CB at the end of the match.


c. Upgrade the drills in assault matches to real bases:

Give the starting point some defensive structures like walls and some turrets, and add a sensor to the base to notice and inform the team when enemy mechs approach the base.
This could reduce the number of base rushes and give defending teams a better chance to react.


d. Randomize starting points (if that is possible):

Let the teams start on random points of the map and hide the base on the radar untill it's been spotted through scouting.
This could also lower the number of base rushes and make scouting more important, since you don't even know where the other team starts.
Might only be possible and usefull on big maps.


e. Increase speed of mechs running downhill:

I think this doesn't require any further explanation.
Limit speed to a certain maximum depending on mech and engine size. If going too fast mech will topple.


f. Give PPCs a firing delay:

A delay fo 0,5s-1,0s after pressing the fire button, before the PPC actually fires, could reduce the pinpoint accuracy of loadouts which bother many players at the moment.


g. New quirk for Awesome mechs:

Give Awesome mechs the ability to fire 3 PPCs/ER-PPCs without heat penalty.


h. Weapon weight limits:

Don't let mechs equip weapons which weight more than a certain pertentage of their total weight. For example, no AC20 on a Raven or PPC on a Spider.
Exceptions could be made with mech quirks.


i. Improved commander tools:

It would help if the lances and lance commands were color coded to quickly see the current orders of each lance.
In addition the symbols from the menu (defend, attack, flank left,...) should get the description added to the symbol. For example "<< - Flank Left"


j. Reward people for following commands:

Mabye it would encourage players to follow commands if they would be rewarded for following them.
Limit the maximum ammount of the reward to prevent abuse.
This might reduce the ongoing practice of rushing ahead in a bulk to cap.


k. Add quick lance/team commands:

Things like a call for help with predefined text and info about the position of the mech, or the known commands from shooters like, "Follow me." "Attack my target [target name]" and so on.


l. Improved HUD info:

Add current position of enemy mechs next to their names on screen or change the size of the minimap so you can see the position without going to full map when targets are further away.

Edited by Roadbuster, 08 August 2013 - 05:22 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

I like the randomized starting points and speed downhill. The PPC firing delay is worth a thought since lasers have a duration.

[Roadbuster]

Added some points and a poll.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

With Armor, I'd like to look at splitting up the current shared setup we have with our torso sections.

I originally posted the idea here, so adding a link and spoiler describing a way I was thinking about to boost them and make the separate.

Spoiler

The idea is twofold, to raise the Max Armor value by the amount separating front and back torso sections from sharing armor points between them and a slight tweak to Internal Structure values.

So for example, a Commando currently has 24 points to share been Front and Back Side Torsos and 32 for front and back CT.

The idea is to set the front side torsos to a cap to the full value of 24 and the rear side to half, so 12 for the Commando. CT would then be 32 front and 16 back. So that change would increase the max armor to 218 from 178, an increase of 40 armor points.

My question is if this can be applied would something like this fit with the lore;

and do all mech weights get the same treatment?

Here is a Chart brainstorming how the idea would look applied to other mechs, by tons, currently in MWO (just missing 20 ton mechs and I left in 55 ton by accident).

Spoiler

So in order to gain a benefit from the raised Max, you still need to spend on tonnage to pull it off. And if my math is right it comes to a ~22% to 24% potential boost in armor, and an increase in needed tons from 1.3 to 4.6 to reach the higher max value for the different weights.

Also, with the idea there is room to provide mech specific buffs.

For example, the four Hunchback variants (4G, 4H, 4J and 4P) could have an asymmetrical distribution, that gives more armor to the front right torso and the right internal structure, since it has more surface area and is bigger than the left side.

For example,

Armor Values

RT _ 60, CT _ 64, LT _ 48
RRT 12, RCT 32, RLT 24

Internal Structure Values

RT 48, CT 48, LT 24

And for quick reference here is a chart calculating how it would look adding the armor in 0.5 increments up to 24 tons.

Spoiler

Last idea with current Internal Structure Values what if we provide like a 25% boost to most of the mech from current numbers? Again it's just brain storming and can be restricted to certain classes as needed, if the idea could help.

Here is a chart of what I mean.

Spoiler

I wasn't sure about the head, but adding 3 seemed okay there.

And numbers can always be changed, since the idea is to improve gameplay, hopefully without causing further imbalances. I guess I can also make a thread, but it would be about Armor also, so I'll wait to hear from the OP or a mod if I should do that or not.

Edit: fixing images

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 07 August 2013 - 11:08 PM.

[Morang]

Roadbuster, on 07 August 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

A. Increase torso armor and internal hitpoints.
B. Implement sensor stations.
C. Upgrade the drills in assault matches to real bases.
D. Randomize starting points.
E. Increase speed of mechs running downhill.
F. Give PPCs a firing delay.
G. New quirk for Awesome mechs.
H. Weapon weight limits.
I. Improved commander tools.
J. Reward people for following commands.
K. Add quick lance/team commands.
L. Improved HUD info.

A. No. Fine as it is.
B. Yes, could be interesing.
C. Yes. Another good solutions are cap reset (as in WoT by damaging the capper) or, better yet, cap recharge (base regains integrity slowly if capper(s) left the square).
D. I afraid No. Maps are designed around the fixed starting locations. Perhaps it's possible to add fixed alternate starting points (i. e. turned 90 degrees from current state), this can require some map revamp.
E. No. I think that mech should actively try to not exceed maximum speed when going downhill. Honestly I think that with knockdowns reimplemented a mech going down a too steep slope should slip and be knocked down.
P.S. Another idea... maybe yes! But not exceeding a maximum speed limited by engine limit for this chassis, otherwise knockdown? I. e. Atlas with any engine will topple if going downhill faster than 64,2 if tweaked or 58,3 if not.
F. I voted no, there are other means to balance it and I remember how terrible ballistics were before HSR.
G. Yes.
H. NOOOOOOO! Dammit. I love my AC/20 Locust.
I. Always, always welcome!
J. No, I think. Will require too much additional resourses to implement correctly and is prone to exploits.
K. Yes of course!
L. Same as I and K! Communication and awareness are the keys!

Edited by Morang, 07 August 2013 - 11:27 PM.

[Roadbuster]

Praetor Shepard, on 07 August 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

With Armor, I'd like to look at splitting up the current shared setup we have with our torso sections.

I originally posted the idea here, so adding a link and spoiler describing a way I was thinking about to boost them and make the separate.

I like that idea. Basically everything that makes fights more interesting and disarming a real alternative to coring, is a good thing.

Morang, on 07 August 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

E. No. I think that mech should actively try to not exceed maximum speed when going downhill. Honestly I think that with knockdowns reimplemented a mech going down a too steep slope should slip and be knocked down.
P.S. Another idea... maybe yes! But not exceeding a maximum speed limited by engine limit for this chassis, otherwise knockdown? I. e. Atlas with any engine will topple if going downhill faster than 64,2 if tweaked or 58,3 if not.

Good idea. Just imagine an assault of a whole team running down a hill on Alpine and suddenly all topple and glide down to the valley.

[Tweaks]

Quote

j. Reward people for following commands:

As long as this only applies to certain commands such as attack (where you have to kill an enemy within a certain range of the attack waypoint), that's fine. Otherwise, it'd be way to easy to exploit and farm XP from it.

And again... I can see people exploiting the attack command as well when they know their team is about to wipe the enemy at a specific location... too easy to predict.

Edited by Tweaks, 30 September 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[SockSlayer]

Here is another of my old post revisits...you know...it would be nice if they went a bit faster going downhill. Some CTs have been quirked since this post happened. It does seem in part or whole that most of the changes suggested here have happened in some form. Cool!