33 replies to this topic

[m]

Would anyone prefer failures within a 'mech if damage to the Head occurs into the Orange (25% Chance of a single failure) or Red (50% Chance of multiple failures)?


EDIT: Notice how there is no armor.

By 'failures' I am referring to a multiple random chance of loss of permanent control to modules, 3rd person view, night vision (turns off), heat vision (turns off), can't be seen on radar by enemy or team, disconnected from VOIP communication, and/or disconnected from Team Chat (not Global) communication.

I think it's a great idea to have vulnerabilities like this within the game when the Head is damaged severely. What does everyone else think of these consequences if damage occurs to the 'Head'?

Eager to hear what everyone else thinks.

Please discuss.

Thank you.

Edited by m, 08 March 2016 - 02:06 PM.

[mechsnstuffyo]

I would like to see this, but maybe on a larger scope

-PPC's should effect voip and target gathering for a short time (in the same way they disable ECM for a duration)

-Crits to standard mech structures (engine, joint actuators, life support etc) with reduced movement or loss of limb control, obviously reduced move speed with leg actuators damaged. life support damage could lower your shutdown threshold so you don't cook your pilot. Head damage could possibly disable a hud function (ammo count, weapon readouts, ability to target, remove crosshair or hide the remaining armor on a particular limb.)

-Fall damage with a chance to damage leg actuators (but not destroy) might also work.

I think changes like this would go a long way for making you feel like you're in a 3 story tall machine of war, and not a slightly tall soldier with some fancy info on his visor.

[Astarot]

Should focus on making certain things modules then, instead of making everything a broad range failure. "Oh, my mech's head became orange, oh! Every tactical thing I had such as heat and night vision is disabled.

Honestly, I think if you want to go with that system, you should go with Mechsnstuffyo's system, that way everything is consistent with each other. This could give things like machine guns, or low damage, but high critical chance weapons more of a impact on the battlefield they what they currently are.

Finally, will this be fun for other players? While I'm perfectly fine with this system, mainly because I come from line of games that are very difficult, like Arma, or rogue like games. You have to remember that everyone is different. While some people are fine with random chances of things, some people arn't.

[VinJade]

if the head is hit and goes yellow then there should be a low chance to disable voip completely while orange gives it a much higher chance to disable voip and if red a 70-90 percent chance for voip to be taken off line.

if a mech his shut down then voip is offline as well or heat effects voip, among other things.

[m]

mechsnstuffyo, on 20 February 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

I would like to see this, but maybe on a larger scope

Completely agree.

Astarot, on 20 February 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Honestly, I think if you want to go with that system, you should go with Mechsnstuffyo's system, that way everything is consistent with each other.

Any form of implementation would be great. It would add an abundant amount of depth and immersion.

VinJade, on 20 February 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

if a mech his shut down then voip is offline as well or heat effects voip, among other things.

All great ideas toward implementation. Keep it going.


By the way, if anyone is against any type of implementation please tell us why.

Edited by m, 03 May 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Hotthedd]

The people who will be against this suggestion are the ones who believe the word random is synonymous with the word evil.
They do not believe random things can ever happen in real life OR video games, and that the illuminati supercomputer is out to get them through "random" game mechanics.
You will not convince them otherwise, unless you are somehow able to remove their tin foil hats, but that only happens randomly.

[Mark of Caine]

I'm fine with most of the suggestions except VOIP. Everyone and their mother will just use TS and bypass the VOIP functionality altogether, and render Pugs even more useless that rely on in-game voice chat. As much as I understand your point of view of communications systems failing from a crit, the practicality of it in a video game is not feasible.

But I'd be for HUD issues that arise from your cockpit being in the red with say [75]% chance of something failing. Orange should have a small chance of failure, say [15-20]%, and yellow less than [5]% chance.

[Burktross]

mechsnstuffyo, on 20 February 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

I would like to see this, but maybe on a larger scope

-PPC's should effect voip and target gathering for a short time (in the same way they disable ECM for a duration)

Alas the VOIP part puts big bad 12 man groups at an advantage in terms of coms.
(with that same logic we should also remove deadchat too)

[m]

Burktross, on 03 May 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

Alas the VOIP part puts big bad 12 man groups at an advantage in terms of coms.
(with that same logic we should also remove deadchat too)

I wouldn't say that a 12 person group has a higher advantage if this was implemented. Anyone who experiences damage of this nature would be put in to a somewhat logical position of damage, and since damage to the head is not necessarily that easy, it doesn't mean a group would be any better. If said group used an external service for VOIP it still means that if you are a PUG you will have better immersion, and being that rarely anyone ever uses in-game VOIP at the moment, I don't feel as if it's that much of a loss.

Also in Community Warfare, I don't feel as if 12 man groups are a big deal either when discussing this VOIP logic, especially since we have multiple drops.

I think having it is good, especially for the new player, and if they choose to destroy their immersion then let them. I just don't want to have an immersion-less game. Mechwarrior doesn't deserve a lack of immersion.

Burktross, on 03 May 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

(with that same logic we should also remove deadchat too)

Well if a player is dead (which is kind of a similar situation to damage to the head of the mech) they should be removed from Team Chat. Removal from Global chat would be too harsh and just unfriendly.

Edited by m, 11 May 2015 - 01:18 PM.

[Burktross]

m, on 11 May 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

I wouldn't say that a 12 person group has a higher advantage if this was implemented. Anyone who experiences damage of this nature would be put in to a somewhat logical position of damage, and since damage to the head is not necessarily that easy, it doesn't mean a group would be any better. If said group used an external service for VOIP it still means that if you are a PUG you will have better immersion, and being that rarely anyone ever uses in-game VOIP at the moment, I don't feel as if it's that much of a loss.

Also in Community Warfare, I don't feel as if 12 man groups are a big deal either when discussing this VOIP logic, especially since we have multiple drops.

I think having it is good, especially for the new player, and if they choose to destroy their immersion then let them. I just don't want to have an immersion-less game. Mechwarrior doesn't deserve a lack of immersion.



Well if a player is dead (which is kind of a similar situation to damage to the head of the mech) they should be removed from Team Chat. Removal from Global chat would be too harsh and just unfriendly.

Here's the logic.

12 mans: Teamspeak 3-- Comms Unaffected by PPCs
PUGS: VOIP-- Communication affected by PPC
And if no one uses VOIP already, why add a literal nerf to it?

[m]

Burktross, on 11 May 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

if no one uses VOIP already, why add a literal nerf to it?

When damage is severe to the head, disconnection from VOIP makes logical sense. It's not a nerf. To 'nerf' something would be to make it easier for those you are adjusting against. A PUG does not drop with a GROUP in standard play. There is no advantage. In Community Warfare, there is a drop deck, and PUGs drop with GROUPS.

In this case, why not make the game better for immersion, regardless of a teams' personal preference of using an external VOIP? Besides if this game ever gets to the point of literally being played in a formal setting, in a stadium in a league setting, I highly doubt someone's personal teamspeak server is going to be allowed for that.

Edited by m, 11 May 2015 - 02:47 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

>-PPC's should effect voip

i suggested that ecm should effect chat and voip, people thoroughly disliked that idea (:

[Burktross]

m, on 11 May 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

When damage is severe to the head, disconnection from VOIP makes logical sense. It's not a nerf. To 'nerf' something would be to make it easier for those you are adjusting against. A PUG does not drop with a GROUP in standard play. There is no advantage. In Community Warfare, there is a drop deck, and PUGs drop with GROUPS.

In this case, why not make the game better for immersion, regardless of a teams' personal preference of using an external VOIP? Besides if this game ever gets to the point of literally being played in a formal setting, in a stadium in a league setting, I highly doubt someone's personal teamspeak server is going to be allowed for that.

Because when it comes to a PUG in CW vs. a 12 man in CW, 9/10 the 12 man will be using external voip, and as such, be at a distinct tactical advantage. They could affect the PUG coordination, but pugs could not do the same to them.

[m]

bad arcade kitty, on 11 May 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

>-PPC's should effect voip

i suggested that ecm should effect chat and voip, people thoroughly disliked that idea (:

I personally don't care at the moment how, when damage to the head goes into the red or orange causes things to fail. I just hope it's implemented in some way. After it's implemented then as a community we suggest on how to tweak it.

My initial suggestion of;

m, on 20 February 2015 - 04:04 PM, said:

into the Orange (25% Chance of a single failure) or Red (50% Chance of multiple failures)

... multiple random chance of loss of permanent control to modules, 3rd person view, night vision (turns off), heat vision (turns off), can't be seen on radar by enemy or team, disconnected from VOIP communication, and/or disconnected from Team Chat (not Global) communication.

.. is a typical generic start. I guess afterward, ideas we grind out here together in friendly debates would be next etc.

The game really does need this type of damage immersion.

[m]

Burktross, on 11 May 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

Because when it comes to a PUG in CW vs. a 12 man in CW, 9/10 the 12 man will be using external voip, and as such, be at a distinct tactical advantage. They could affect the PUG coordination, but pugs could not do the same to them.

Being that Community Warfare is in Beta I would suggest not discussing around Community Warfare as they are constantly working on it, and to debate around Community Warfare would just be pointless in a week, two, or three weeks, if they come out with random fixes that negate our discussion entirely around VOIP for Community Warfare ( I'm not saying it's possible they are going to do something to VOIP, I just feel that debating around Community Warfare is pointless at this moment).

Let's stick to standard play when discussing certain things such as VOIP.

Edited by m, 11 May 2015 - 03:28 PM.

[Burktross]

m, on 11 May 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

Being that Community Warfare is in Beta I would suggest not discussing around Community Warfare as they are constantly working on it, and to debate around Community Warfare would just be pointless in a week, two, or three weeks, if they come out with random fixes that negate our discussion entirely around VOIP for Community Warfare ( I'm not saying it's possible they are going to do something to VOIP, I just feel that debating around Community Warfare is pointless at this moment).

Let's stick to standard play when discussing certain things such as VOIP.

Despite being in Beta, CW is standard play for most.
But very well-- what of a team of 6 two mans versus a twelve man in group queue?

[m]

Burktross, on 11 May 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

Despite being in Beta, CW is standard play for most.
But very well-- what of a team of 6 two mans versus a twelve man in group queue?

In standard play or Community Warfare? This is a debate of skill. You can't 'nerf' someone's actual skill.

Edited by m, 11 May 2015 - 04:11 PM.

[Burktross]

m, on 11 May 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

In standard play or Community Warfare? This is a debate of skill. You can't 'nerf' someone's actual skill.

Standard play, and again, communication wise.

6 two-mans: Intra-team comms can be knocked out
12 man: Intra-team comms (TS3) cannot be knocked out.

Thus the 6 mans are at an even greater advantage than they typically are because they can't communicate effectively to boot.

[m]

Burktross, on 11 May 2015 - 04:14 PM, said:

Standard play, and again, communication wise.

6 two-mans: Intra-team comms can be knocked out
12 man: Intra-team comms (TS3) cannot be knocked out.

Thus the 6 mans are at an even greater advantage than they typically are because they can't communicate effectively to boot.

So you mean in standard play with one team having a 12 man group in some external voip service, and the other team with 6 Groups with each having 2 people a piece right?

It comes down to skill. You can say that the 12 man group is going to be better or going to be worse. You can't base it solely on VOIP. What if their external VOIP service somehow stops working? Wouldn't the in-game service be more effective and reliable since it's built in?

Besides, you have to consider how long they've known one another and played with one another. 11 of the 12 could have just installed the game that day and the 1 that hasn't could own a TS server and just built the group from scratch. Even if it was a 12 man Unit, you could have six 2-man veteran groups with talent and coordination that can easily know how to work together.

I see your stance, but I can't agree with you on it.

Edited by m, 11 May 2015 - 04:31 PM.

[Burktross]

m, on 11 May 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

So you mean in standard play with one team having a 12 man group in some external voip service, and the other team with 6 Groups with each having 2 people a piece right?

It comes down to skill. You can say that the 12 man group is going to be better or going to be worse. You can't base it solely on VOIP. What if their external VOIP service somehow stops working? Wouldn't the in-game service be more effective and reliable since it's built in?

Besides, you have to consider how long they've known one another and played with one another. 11 of the 12 could have just installed the game that day and the 1 that hasn't could own a TS server and just built the group from scratch. Even if it was a 12 man Unit, you could have six 2-man veteran groups with talent and coordination that can easily know how to work together.

I see your stance, but I can't agree with you on it.

A Teamspeak will always be more reliable than a voice convention in game that can be, via game mechanics, disabled. Also, see the common forums proverb, "Teamwork is OP" for the bearing on the course of the game. If one team has consistent (also better quality) comms, and the other has easily disabled comms, the former will be at an advantage.