Jump to content

To Make The World Of Mwo Alive (Describing Some Elements Needed To Do So)


16 replies to this topic

#1 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:46 AM

This here post represents some of my ideas and desires about additional interactive and non-interactive elements in Mechwarrior online. Additional to 'mech themselves, that is. Some of these are based on what i remember in past Mechwarrior games. Some others - namely p.4, p.9, p.14, p.15, p.16, - are based on things i've seen in other PC games.

This post is a re-work and expansion of my post made a few days ago elsewhere: http://capellanconfe...ull=1#post12523 .

1. Add destructible vehicles, including armed ones.
History:
- MW4 has NPC-driven vehicles - tanks, missile-carrying vehicles, humvees, etc - often in packs,
- At least one Mechwarrior-like game i know about - has playable vehicles.
Additional thoughts:
- computer-controlled ones can help very much with balancing and adressing some gameplay issues (like easy capping of an enemy base by a lance of light 'mech early in a match - just put few dozens nasty tanks patrolling a base, and capping becomes much more lengthy and risky affair),
- player-controlled ones can be a solid choice for new pilots, especially if the game will allow "pack commander" (see p.4 of this post),
- already existing in the game "artillery strike" could perhaps be given a physical source (a group of artillery-carrying vehicles), possibly range, possibly inability to be completed if the group was physically destroyed in a current battle, and possibly variable time of the strike's completion based on actual distance between artillery unit and the target.

2. Add destructible air targets, including armed ones.
History:
- MW4 has planes and choppers, both armed and unarmed, iirc.
Additional thoughts:
- flying units could possibly be used for recon and targeting information for LRM boats,
- already existing in the game "bomb strike" could perhaps be given a physical source (a group of aircraft), possibly range, possibly inability to be completed if the group was physically destroyed in a current battle, and possibly variable time of the strike's completion based on actual distance between artillery unit and the target,
- player-controlled ones can be a solid choice for new pilots and players who just like to control a flying unit, especially if the game will allow "pack commander" (see p.4 of this post),

3. Add destructible ships and/or boats, including armed ones.
History:
- MW4 has both armed and unarmed ships and boats, iirc.
Additional thoughts:
- since not all maps have any large bodies of water, not should have, - probably only computer-controlled boats and/or ships could be implemented in MWO,
- computer-controlled packs of military boats and/or ships may perhaps be an initially neutral force on the maps with large bodies of water, and remain neutral to both sides of the battle unless taking substantial damage from a mech or other unit controlled by one of players - upon which they possibly could turn hostile to either this particular player's mech (or group of vehicles / aircraft), or even to player's lance, or to player's company. Such boats and/or ships can effectively be a "dynamic terrain" for large bodies of water, - and one which can return some fire if hurt, with that. Larger ships could be used as a massive cover - and moving cover, with that; something which is quite impossible on land, since terrain doesn't move,
- maps with ports could possibly have some large destructable "civilian" ships being stationary in ports. Logic here is that upon arrival of 'mech parties, most civilians can hide in shelters, most civilian cars can be out of view in underground parking lots, planes could simply fly away; but it's quite difficult, if at all possible, to hide, say, an ocean liner or a huge container-transport, right? And if most of the crew of such ships are on shore leave, and/or they are not loaded with fuel for the next trip yet, - then such ships can't go to the sea in time for days on end. Substantial c-bills penalty could perhaps be implemented for destroying these, even?

4. Add "pack commander" feature, if playable vehicles / aircraft will be implemented.
History:
- none i know of.
Description:
- the ability for a player to nearly-instantly gain control of a new unit in an event that player's unit is destroyed, given that destroyed unit was not last of the player's pack. If a player will be able to control a vehicle (tank, missile carrier, etc), a chopper or a plane by piloting one directly, the rest of the "pack" can be made to follow player's lead and attacking same targets player attacks. This way, typical "lances" of 2 or 4 choppers, seen in MW4, can actually be made a playable entity, - low on armor, but having good mobility, relatively little size, and comparable to a mech firepower. Same for tanks, missile carriers, etc. And then, in an event player-controlled vehicle/chopper/plane is destroyed, but at least one of computer-controlled ones is still operational - "pack commander" feature will allow player to directly control that "next", still surviving, unit of the pack. This can be repeated for as long as at least one unit of the pack is operational.
Additional thoughts:
- this mechanic could be explained easily by advanced remote control interactive technology, used by unit's commander (player) from either (possibly "disabled" by enemy fire) command unit directly, or even from a base of operation,
- if so explained, then it may be a subject to ECM supression, in the form of clumsy movement controls and/or difficulties in operating weaponry or other equipment of the pack (if any) - which can be used to keep vehicles and aircraft at some distance by any group of 'mech which has ECM enabled (having swarmed by those little buggers is not exactly funny thing, - at least it wasn't in MW4 iirc :) ).

5.Make (at least some) buildings destructable.
History:
- it was a feature in MW4.
Additional thoughts:
- adds whole new dimension when considering whether to take cover behind buildings,
- adds a new meaning to long-range fire support,
- can - and should - be used for making new types of mission goals, just like it was in MW4.

6. Add destructable dropships, including armed ones.
History:
- it was a feature in MW4.
Additional thoughts:
- adds matherial representation for dropships which are said to be the thing bought by a merc company for that 12x18.8 millions c-bills,
- can be used as a protection for the base (if armed and are placed close enough to the base), and by giving dropships specific weapons, the range and intensity of such a protection can be easily tuned,
- can be used as a temporary "safegrounds" by a lance or a company during a battle, if buildings are destructible,
- increases importance of long-range weaponry - important, since currently in the game, most efficient 'mech setups are inevitably based on short-range or medium-range weaponry ("brawls"),
- can award additional exp and/or c-bills if destroyed during a battle, especially if dropships would have as massive "health" if they had in MW4.

7. Add demolishable trees.
History:
- in MW4, trees are destructable.
Additional thoughts:
- Apart from being fun, it is also tactically useful feature - if there are significant forests on some maps, that is. One can take cover, or even "hide" in a "forest" - power down and let main enemy forces pass then attack from behind at the right moment, etc. And when taking fire in return, trees get destroyed, exposing the attacker, creating the need to change positions frequently,
- If there would be good amount of forests on some maps, then it could have sense not just make trees demolishable, but also add some additional effects to it: like, a massive forest fire as a result of some laser hits there, which would ideally result in substantial heating for any mech entering the fire, and in substantial amount of smoke rising up above the fire (which affects visibility, of course).

8. Add pedestrians in MWO.
History:
- MW4 has them.
Additional thoughts:
- even if it would be purely cosmetic, it still adds - together with all of the above, - the feeling of "real deal".

9. Allow variable PuG battle sizes.
History:
- lots, if not majority, of online "shooter" games allow this in some form; counter-strike did it 10+ years ago.
Additional thoughts:
- If MWO is trying to be an online shooter game, then it is much expected by many (possibly - majority) of players to have an easy way to fight in good range of battle sizes, starting from 1x1 (duel) and all the way up to 12x12 or even 36x36, i guess. At very least, it makes sense to have a few choices of the sort, like: 1x1, 4x4, 12x12, (and if possible) 36x36.

10. Continue to fix existing weapons and add new ones.
History:
- MW4 had more weapons, and (as far as i can tell) less glitches in weapons' functioning.
Additional thoughts:
- some weapons are pretty much unusuable under certain circumstances. Examples: most of ballistic weapons when firing leading a strafing target if the point under the reticule is at greatly different distance than the target; ER PPCs and SRMs which (according to some players' testimonies) do not always connect (no damage inflicted despite visually making a hit to the target - i suspect it is related to the story i heard from one player who observed that he's able to inflict damage with ER PPCs to strafing targets when he's NOT leading the target - but fires his PPCs with his reticule placed directly on the target - he says that by doing so, visual shots miss, but actual damage is infliceted),
- current selection of weapons is already good, but personally, i still miss LBX-20x, SSRM4 and SSRM6 quite much. MRMs and mountable artillery - separate orom AC family, those large heavy artillery pieces which had ballistic-trajectory and dealt AoE damage - would be nice to have, too.

11. Add field repair and (or?) field ammo replenishment.
History:
- MW4 has both.
Additional thoughts:
- it surely takes careful balancing of required (to repair or refill) conditions - such as location, cost, duration, and vulnerability during the process, - to make sure this doesn't break multiplayer balance. But i am sure it can be done, and imho it should be done in some way,
- if repair/rearm structures would be destructible, it'd be even better.

12. Add 'mech with 180 degrees (effectively, 360 degrees) torso twist.
History:
- MW4 has some.
Additional thoughts:
- such 'mech add whole new dimension to hit-and-run, recon and piloting skills. Geometry of many 'mech in MWO allows it, too.

13. Add collision damage and knockback effects.
History:
- in MW4, these are present.
Additional thoughts:
- yes, i know it's low priority at the moment, and i know about technical difficulties to implement these properly in a multiplayer game. This here p.13 just underlines that yes, we players like these features, and we want them be present in MWO.

14. Add "too far to target", "small", planes and (possibly) spaceships and birds to the sky. Animated and travelling their own routes, of course.
History:
- none i could remember in Mechwarrior games, but probably it's my poor memory?
Additional thoughts:
- in "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic", when player arrives to Manaan, that beautiful sky is so much beautiful partially thanks to these "somethings" flying in the distance. Birds and creatures in the sky of Tatooine are the same deal. These bits are (hopefully) easy enough to implement, being non-interactive, client-only functions, - but when done and done well-designed, it adds quite much to making the game's world alive.

15. Add animated whales (and/or possibly, some phantastic sea creatures) at "too far" distance to "water horizons", possibly not on all maps with large bodies of water, but at least on some.
History:
- probably none in Mechwarrior games? Not sure.
Additional thoughts:
- similar to p.14, but for seas. Some animated creatures which would "pop out" now and when, possibly a few times per minute at different locations and distances. I hope it is not very difficult to implement.

16. Add more "nature" to maps, whereever and however applicable.
History:
- to some extent, MW4, but also other Mechwarrior games and many "shooter" games in general.
Additional thoughts:
- when i say "nature", i mean living plants (most of them green, but a few being other colors), and of course animals if at all possible. Even large animals which could wonder the maps within boundaries of their, say, "forest". There are shooter games with relatively large amount of life depicted in them, - as "nasty" as, for example, Far Cry, or as "toned down" as, for example, Beyond Good and Evil. What unites such games - is instinctive "additional" appreciation which vast majority of players give to such games exactly because their "natural world" is rich and large, in compare to most other games existing. Opposite examples are also known - such as Doom 3, which was a not bad game, but lots and lots of players said they didn't really like it, without realizing that much or even most of that dislike - is because there is almost nothing alive in the game (not counting abominations, of course - those are aplenty, but are not instinctively associated by most humans with healthy living things),
- adding more living beings to MWO maps - is (sort of) a direct meaning of the phraze "to make the world of MWO alive", which of course has much wider sense in total. Still, this is one curious thing worth notion, yes? :D

Conclusion.
Thank you for reading my thoughts. If even 2% of what i said here would somehow help with further development of MWO, then i consider my time not wasted. Best of luck to developers of the game!

Fins

Edited by FinsT, 16 October 2013 - 02:54 AM.


#2 Lokust Davion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 927 posts
  • LocationNew Avalon, Inner Sphere.

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:31 AM

Holy wall of text! I agree with everything you say though. It's like as if you can read my mind. ;)

#3 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:14 AM

Yep, it's a little bit long. I tried to structure it as well as i can.

Nope, i can't read your (nor anybody's) mind. However, i tried my best not to propose things which _some_ people might not like. End result being, hopefully, things which most or even all players would like. This includes yourself as much as any other person, of course. That's how there might be an impression i "read" mind; it's, of course, just an illusion. ;)

#4 Barantor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,592 posts
  • LocationLexington, KY USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:19 AM

I like all your ideas.

I had an idea on the NPC vehicles in that they traveled a specific route toward the enemy cap point in assault and would engage other enemy vehicles or mechs dependent on threat. There might be 2-3 routes they could take randomly to mix it up.

In conquest they would travel to a random capture point and sit there till cap, then move on to another random one. Players could help defend them against enemy mechs for additional firepower or let them go do their own thing. Enemies destroying the vehicles got a little cash from them.

The vehicles could be watched by lights in prep for an ambush, but would also give off alerts and spot enemies if attacked.

This would bring some "moba-esque" style elements to the game that I think would be a good addition.

#5 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:41 AM

iRt Barantor:

Yep, it's generally an excellent idea, man. Something like that existed in SP MW4, iirc - player had a task to destroy advancing wave of tanks / missile carriers, etc. Those with large lasers were quite nasty, when in large groups. ;)

I suspect, though, that technically, "offensive" moves by computer-controlled vehicles are more difficult to implement and balance than vehicle groups just defending some position (like, a base, or strategic location on the map - firing at _any_ mech which enters the protected area).

NPC vehicles travelling random routes is a known problem though - on any map which has rough terrain, that is. Imagine some dozen tanks stuck in some canyon, pityfully trying to climb nearly-vertical wall. Not exactly most entertaining sight, yes? And 3D algorithms for proper pathfinding (proper in that it would avoid such problems) - is a pain in the butt to design, i heard. MW4 avoided it mainly by using vehicles only in areas where they can't really be stuck - well, almost; iirc, in few cases, vehicles still managed to get stuck. MWO, on the other hand, has oh so many places on its maps, - currently, at least, - where vehicles are supposed to be stuck (it's not really realistic for tanks to climb nearly vertical walls).

#6 Barantor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,592 posts
  • LocationLexington, KY USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:57 AM

View PostFinsT, on 08 October 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

iRt Barantor:

Yep, it's generally an excellent idea, man. Something like that existed in SP MW4, iirc - player had a task to destroy advancing wave of tanks / missile carriers, etc. Those with large lasers were quite nasty, when in large groups. ;)

I suspect, though, that technically, "offensive" moves by computer-controlled vehicles are more difficult to implement and balance than vehicle groups just defending some position (like, a base, or strategic location on the map - firing at _any_ mech which enters the protected area).

NPC vehicles travelling random routes is a known problem though - on any map which has rough terrain, that is. Imagine some dozen tanks stuck in some canyon, pityfully trying to climb nearly-vertical wall. Not exactly most entertaining sight, yes? And 3D algorithms for proper pathfinding (proper in that it would avoid such problems) - is a pain in the butt to design, i heard. MW4 avoided it mainly by using vehicles only in areas where they can't really be stuck - well, almost; iirc, in few cases, vehicles still managed to get stuck. MWO, on the other hand, has oh so many places on its maps, - currently, at least, - where vehicles are supposed to be stuck (it's not really realistic for tanks to climb nearly vertical walls).


Well when I mean random route I actually meant like one of three to five different paths that the devs have set up so they don't get stuck like you said.

Maybe with command console or company command you could tell the npcs with path to take or something. Would give that leadership role a good boost.

#7 tib3r

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 103 posts
  • LocationHell

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:17 PM

Later on protomechs would be cool too, when their time comes.

And where you control the lead member of the group and the rest follow your lead with GOOD AI.

#8 PhyroPhyre

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 57 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 14 October 2013 - 06:30 AM

Destructible terrain would add a massive level of uniqueness each time you play a map. Mechs carry serious firepower, leveling large parts of terrain and buildings should be expected.

Dropping an artillery strike and taking shelting in the crater, anyone?

#9 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:01 AM

That would be VERY neat indeed! However, as far as i know, it is close to impossible to implement in a multiplayer game. If you wonder why, then keep reading. If not, don't. :ph34r:

Take your example with artillery strike. While i don't *know*, i can bet that every client in the game currently recieves information about it in a very condensed manner: namely, timestamp of the moment it was initiated, possibly the mech who did "cast" it, and coordinates on the map where it is to happen. Basically less than a hundred bytes.

This <100 bytes would not do if the terrain is destructible. Because, what if one of shells do not hit terrain, but hits a mech directly instead? Different shape of terrain damage there, if any. Or, what if the terrain was already damaged before? Again, different shape of further terrain damage. So, obviously, the server will need to send to every client information pretty much about every change of shape of any stone and little piece of soil on maps, and below-surface, too. That's MASSIVE amount of information, considering amount of explosions from cannons and missiles in this game. We are possibly talking about several megabytes per second to each client, if destructable terrain would be done in good 3D resolution...

Besides, it'd spawn all sorts of other trouble. Stuck in the pit with only lasers? "Sorry!". Camped by a lance which literally dag itself a perfect ambush location? "Oops". Owned by a team consisting of a lance of lights which keep their disance and spot, - and two lances of "buried" missile boats to which it'd take ages to "dig" a way in? "That's realism for ya". Or, enemy base's ground much torn to pieces by its own team, so that whomever stands in the enemy base - turns into a sitting duck due to rough terrain, one which enemy snipers are happy to snipe into pieces in no time. Lots of ways to exploit it, you see...

"Red faction" is one old PC FPS game with fully destructable terrain. Possible to dig tunnels there with explosives, rather long ones. It's single-player iirc. And yes, even in single player mode, terrain was much exploited by some players. Whole scripted scenes were somtimes missed because "diggers" went "around" fortified bottlenecks... %)

Destructable buildings are different in that they are only part of the map, - lesser part; so much of the map remains "solid and reliable". Plus, for buildings, it's easy to just put two states into the client: "intact" and "ruined", and assign some health to each. Then, whenever one is damaged, its ID is sent to all game clients with the damage amount; once health depleted, state changes to "ruined". Somewhat like it's done with mechs themselves, which turn "ruined" upon destruction and stay in ruined form on the map.

#10 PhyroPhyre

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 57 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:41 AM

Not to detract from your OP, but your reasoning is well made. Identifying those issues is the first step to avoiding them. However it doesnt have to be done hyper-realistically to be done well. Digging wherever you like would cause serious issues, like you described. But some level of terrain alteration adds a level of uniqueness to every match.

You're also right, buildings are definitely the first thing to start with. Very reminiscient of Battlefield 3 building destruction. Bang - Que sound effects and building collapse animation.

My point was that just like vehicles and natural scenery add realness to the game, terrain destruction is up there with what makes a game feel 'real' by modern standards.

#11 WM Wraith

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 171 posts
  • LocationQuit breaking the game, or changing irrelevant stuff and fix the bugs from closed beta.

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:52 AM

lots of words (and I thought I could get in to writing in a post), lots or work though for the devs to do things which may not be at all possible with the current game engine....with that said, lots of awesome ideas!

Would be cool indeed to see half these ideas implemented.

View PostX3kutor, on 14 October 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:


My point was that just like vehicles and natural scenery add realness to the game, terrain destruction is up there with what makes a game feel 'real' by modern standards.


Most true statement you will find on the forum's today. The environment being involved in a game like MWO would make the game over the top.

Edited by CyBerWraith, 14 October 2013 - 07:52 AM.


#12 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:58 AM

IRT X3Kutor

Modern standards, yeah. This part of them, though - _partial_ terrain destruction, - i dislike witha passion. For me, it's the worst when i can blow up _some_ things, but can't blow up other _similar_ things. Buildings stand out; artificial objects. But when i can dig a hole at one place, but can't at some other, - this ****** me off much more than a situation when i can't dig holes at all.

I guess it's a personal taste matter... So, yes, i can see now what you meant. May be you're right, may be limited terrain destruction would be a great next step for MWO. But we seem to agree that buildings are the thing to start with. If/when PGI would do that, then i guess next thing in line could be partial terrain destructibility. Just don't count on me joining on that one, though. %)

Edited by FinsT, 14 October 2013 - 07:58 AM.


#13 Conan Librarian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • LocationCimmeria

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:32 AM

PGI should hire this guy. Good stuff here.

#14 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:55 AM

Thank you.

I wouldn't actually mind to be hired by PGI, too. Unfortunately, there is a couple thousands miles between where i am and where PGI is, and i guess it's a little bit inconvinient, to say the least. I guess... %)

#15 Ziogualty

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Sergeant
  • Sergeant
  • 382 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:59 AM

I see many of us are of the same idea.
I posted something very similar in another 3d.

http://mwomercs.com/...-years-old-boy/

I really think that these kind of suggestion cannot harm the game while instead could have beneficial effects for both BT hardcore gamers and newcomers.

Let's hope some of our wishes can become reality through the will and love of the Devs for MWO.

#16 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 04:02 AM

Yep. Also, i posted a question in AtD 49, but did in a hurry and it was not as good as it had to be. And there were few other questions along same lines, all getting substantial votes.

#17 WintermuteOmega

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 139 posts

Posted 06 January 2015 - 08:16 AM

i have to oppose many of your suggestions, because many boil down to "MW4 has it". Main difference MW4 vs. MWO: Single/Multiplayer vs. MMO. You simply can't do the same stuff with an MMO that you can with an Single-Player game.


Destructable Vehicles in any form are in the best case scenario not more than eye-candy and in worst cases a balance issue (finding LL-Turrets in CW already painful to my little Ember) and they put stress on the server-communication.

Destructuble Terrain etc.
Been discussed a lot, and i would love to see it, but main reason for not having much destructable stuff is dataflow. When every broken tree has to be communicated to every player, that adds up very fast. You would possibly trade off eye-candy vs. massive rubberbanding and glitching issues. Nobody wants that. If you do it only client-rendered, then terrain may have not have any impact on gameplay, because every client would see a completly different map after some minutes. so that would be eye-candy, though nice one.

Packs:
I like it, but as i wrote in another topic, i would love to see Battlearmor as a post-dead-drop.

Variable Drop sizes: You already can do that with Premium-time.
Problem with allowing it for all players: Stretching plaer base to thin. The Players already are quite divided by 3 different game modes + CW. Waiting CW is already painful. And when ppl can opt in and out of different Squad-sizes, then there will be players only playing 4v4 or 12v12 etc., so the 4v4 players are not avaible for 12v12 matches etc. When you don't want to wait for oblivion, then this is not a good idea. Again, i would love it, if it would be feasable.

Repair/Rearm:
Don't like it, but more on a personal note. Repairung Mechs in minutes, or even rearming tons of Ammo just takes me out of the immersion. Also i really like the feeling of: This is what you go in, this is all you have to work with.
On the tactical side i could not stand seeing ques of Mchs with ac20's that need to rearm every 7 shots, because they are too stingy with the ammo. Ammo conservation is a big factor in the game. Taking this away would firstly imbalance weapons even more and change the way some weapons are played.

Collision and knock back (knockdown?):
I would like to see it return, but it was a real Small-mech muncher. Run over a small mech, shoot it dead. Small mechs are often killed fast allready, adding knockdown make survivability even slimmer. Also there were huge problems with hit detection. I read some tiome ago that dragons had so faulty hit detection, that an Atlasrunning into a standing still dragon would be knocked down.

Targeting:
I think, this was always the plan, but PGI never got around to do it. There are even modules increasing radar range (which are useless atm).

Vegetation and whales:
It does make for a better immersion, but having veridian bog, i would not trust PGI with that. Veridian Bog is a beautiful mess and a hell to navigate in. But a little more beauty would do good in the maps. I think a lot of the ugliness comes from maps that were implemented for / shortly after Beta-release, and therefore a bit ugly / scarse. A designer said once, he would love to redo all the "old" maps (especially the ones designed for 8v8).





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users