2
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?
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.
