58 replies to this topic

[KingCobra]

Unless this was going to be a MMO and you have mission objectives i say no to mobile field bases and no to any repair facilitys after 10000 battles+ online i can tell you its a unfair advantage nomatter what you do in a league play system or any tournement system.

[Gunman5000]

KingCobra, on 27 November 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

Unless this was going to be a MMO and you have mission objectives i say no to mobile field bases and no to any repair facilitys after 10000 battles+ online i can tell you its a unfair advantage nomatter what you do in a league play system or any tournement system.

How about only in Conquest, where it is not league play or tournament play? I definately agree that it should not be available in competitive modes, but in Conquest (I basically read that as Coop Campaign against other players) where there are objectives and its not just a Team Deathmatch style gameplay, I think it would definately be fair if balanced properly (both sides would have access to their own MFB, at least until they get destroyed anyways).

[Nowan123]

I think it really depends on how the devs are going to do a damage model.
If it's like externals and internals, I think MFB's should only be able to repair external armor, and then only partially. In MWLL it's nice to have a base for repair, but this won't be the way on most of the maps here afaik. MFB's could also be "piloted" to do repairs, which would mean that even though there would be more armor, there would be less firepower.
APC's would be an awesome addition though, either as AI enemies or (if this becomes a Combined Arms game ) player-controlled vehicles. APC's/ammo carriers/coolant trucks/salvage trucks would be neat to have, but MFB's would basically be a base for a team in a game, not something dynamic.

[Hayden]

Nowan123, on 27 November 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

I think it really depends on how the devs are going to do a damage model.
If it's like externals and internals, I think MFB's should only be able to repair external armor, and then only partially. In MWLL it's nice to have a base for repair, but this won't be the way on most of the maps here afaik. MFB's could also be "piloted" to do repairs, which would mean that even though there would be more armor, there would be less firepower.
APC's would be an awesome addition though, either as AI enemies or (if this becomes a Combined Arms game ) player-controlled vehicles. APC's/ammo carriers/coolant trucks/salvage trucks would be neat to have, but MFB's would basically be a base for a team in a game, not something dynamic.

I agree with this. Ammo and Armor from the MFBs, if they're in at all, and it should take a long time for that to work. Honestly, MFBs always felt "Gamey", not a huge fan.



EDIT:

ManDaisy, on 27 November 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

Unless you had to stock the base up with your own personal inventory of spare parts, and destroying the base destroyed all your parts, I say no. Also to repair that much in a short amount of time is ridiculous. Also a left of MFB would be massive salvage for the enemy if you were beaten.

This pretty much captures my sentiment. Not a huge fan.

Edited by hayden, 27 November 2011 - 10:05 AM.

[ManDaisy]

Unless you had to stock the base up with your own personal inventory of spare parts, and destroying the base destroyed all your parts, I say no. Also to repair that much in a short amount of time is ridiculous. Also a left of MFB would be massive salvage for the enemy if you were beaten.

Edited by ManDaisy, 27 November 2011 - 10:03 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Yeah, I would like to see, more than MFBs, the trucks from the 3026 TRO and beyond, the service vehicles.

[Thrall]

If salvage was implemented into the game in a fair and reasonal way, (with a cap on it) - I would suggest that MFB's (along with many other items that are bound to be in the game) be optional choices to spend salvage on - with you and your lance mates. As a means to get a 1-up on opposing forces with mines, caliapies (spellcheck), MFB's (limited repairs) and so on.

Of course in my previous posts I would highly recommend that this only be allowed in Conquest, (or perhaps other gametypes that I am not aware of being used in this game - which require strong strategic/tactical gameplay.) As attackers and/or defenders (which is what it generally comes down too) will have their own unique options and abilities available to them anyway.

It would be rather interesting to see watch or participate as one of two platoons of Mechs facing off - having spent all of their Lance Companies (and personal) salvage/C-Bills on an entire base of equipment to dominate a match.

Hmm actually that would also be a good idea for Companies, to donate salvage and C-Bills to the Company you have joined for later use. (But that should be in another topic - so shutting up on that subject in here.)

Realistically, I still approve of having Mobile Field Bases "only" if they can be used in strategic value and limited to one for each team (only if they are selected by the participating lance(s) through salvage or C-Bills - Maybe both, selecting a payment option perhaps for what you want personally on the field?)

[Thoman Coston2]

Don't like MFB.
MFB resulted in MFB camping. If there is an MFB, it must be destructible.

[EDMW CSN]

No to MFBs but HELLO to J-27 Ordnance Transports.
Not only do they refill ammo (limited of course), they are targets for salvages or a firecracker if you are feeling particularly mean.

I can see entire missions being centered around HQ hijackings where MASH trucks and J-27 are the bonuses you get.

[Threat Doc]

Ooh... make it so they can be captured? In a persistent world? Oh, man, talk about implementing the perfect crap storm!!! This would force Command role-players to think very hard about the best places to stage their refit elements, and when to move them out, hehe. Finally, the enemy commander would have to be kept busy in order for them to NOT go after the staged elements, releasing their Recon Lance to go hunt down your resources. Oh, but I wish this would be implemented, hehe.

[MaddMaxx]

MFB's for a Lance on the move seems a bit much considering it would be preferred to be mobile and flexible. MFB's are slow and need hand holding.

How about in the persistent matches, if you win your Objective, let's say a base has been captured, you get to use an enemy MFB stationed there before leaving the mission area. It would allow a 50% armor repair and a FULL ammo reload.

It could be looked at as a Salvage reward and save you spending C-Bills (or whatever) to do the same repairs (save 50%) and reloads at home.

That way the Dev can set a realistic/appropriate time frame for said repairs (3 minutes a Mech) or the Commander can simply call a Bug out and spend the resources at home.

It could even add another element to a Mission. Just before the last enemy was disabled he called for assistance. Unbeknownst to your Lance, another enemy Lance, that was out on Patrol, heard the call and is be-lining it back to base. Do you risk getting caught in "Repair Mode" as once it starts on a Mech it can't be aborted, or risk it assuming when you get contact notifications (scout always Repairs last) you could get 2-3 Mechs done before bugging out.

OK, I like that idea quite a lot. Dev your up.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think "chaining" missions with reapair in between is an excellent idea. defeated/retreating players could have a chance to repair/re-arm while the attackrs can regroup but don't have a chance to do so unless they brought facilities with them.

[Threat Doc]

MaddMaxx, on 29 November 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

MFB's for a Lance on the move seems a bit much considering it would be preferred to be mobile and flexible. MFB's are slow and need hand holding.

I have no choice but to agree here. Perhaps, however, if the map is large and persistent, rather than being smaller missions broken out, an element that has completed an objective can travel to a meeting point, or back to an LZ for repairs?

Quote

How about in the persistent matches, if you win your Objective, let's say a base has been captured, you get to use an enemy MFB stationed there before leaving the mission area. It would allow a 50% armor repair and a FULL ammo reload.

Okay, back to MechCommander 2, where there are 'Mech Repair Bays, or even MechWarrior 4 (shudder, but same idea), where once you've completed your objective, as long as there are no enemies within a certain range (a la FO3), you can take over the MRB, get your units repaired, and move on.

Quote

It could be looked at as a Salvage reward and save you spending C-Bills (or whatever) to do the same repairs (save 50%) and reloads at home.

Y'know, come to think of it, now, with the various roles that have been said will be in this game, I am liking the idea of the by-mission C-Bill allowance for purchasing off-board things... oh, holy night, what if they're making a MechWarrior version of MechCommander!? Hmmm, hasn't occurred to me until just now, but would make sense.

Quote

It could even add another element to a Mission. Just before the last enemy was disabled he called for assistance. Unbeknownst to your Lance, another enemy Lance, that was out on Patrol, heard the call and is be-lining it back to base. Do you risk getting caught in "Repair Mode" as once it starts on a Mech it can't be aborted, or risk it assuming when you get contact notifications (scout always Repairs last) you could get 2-3 Mechs done before bugging out.

OK, I like that idea quite a lot. Dev your up.

I like this idea.

[BarHaid]

Yeah! Bring on the J-27s!

[SGT Unther]

How about another idea borrowed from MC2; no one starts with a repair vehicle on map but has the option to call for a transport to drop one off on the battlefield when it is felt by the commander that one is needed.

I believe this could solve the issue having to babysit a slow moving target.

Also the option could be that just an ammo carrier could be dropped off on the battlefield when just resupply is needed, this could also mean that an ammo carrier would cost much less to drop off than a repair vehicle

[Threat Doc]

I think that's excellent, and might be how PGI would deal with off-map resources being pulled on-map. I like that.

[EDMW CSN]

SGT Unther, on 29 November 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

Also the option could be that just an ammo carrier could be dropped off on the battlefield when just resupply is needed, this could also mean that an ammo carrier would cost much less to drop off than a repair vehicle

Oh please do. I would love to shoot the J-27 truck that was reloading a mech. It makes a nice fire cracker
Besides there is no Ares conventions or infamy or nobility being factored into this game so who cares.

[SGT Unther]

Also depending on how the vehicles are delivered it could mean a big "hey I'm over here!" This if something similar to MC2 is used, I mean that a large helicopter descends on the battlefield and drops off a ammo or repair truck. that in itself could be another huge factor when deciding to calling in support.

[EDMW]CSN, on 29 November 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:

Oh please do. I would love to shoot the J-27 truck that was reloading a mech. It makes a nice fire cracker
Besides there is no Ares conventions or infamy or nobility being factored into this game so who cares.

Yeah I always loved hitting ammo and fuel dumps in the mechwarrior games just because I can, getting enemies hit in the blast was just an extra bonus.

Edited by SGT Unther, 29 November 2011 - 07:33 PM.

[Halfinax]

I would like to see vehicles in general be added later once the Devs have the core game down. I definitely think that MFBs would be awesome especially for someone in a commander roll to be in control of (if they chose).

[Threat Doc]

Yeah, I think I would love to see a full-on explosion, something really big, not like previous games. I wonder how our hosts will work scatter and collateral damage? That question is, greatly, rhetorical.

Alright, I'm off this thread, too, folks. Just need to cool my posting for a day or two; my arms hurt, hehe.