32 replies to this topic

[Dahrsis]

As i read the forums these days the main focus of the complaints is the lack of diversity. Sure, balance is one thing, but new weapons would be in high regard too. Same with new maps (and modes) or a revitalization of FP.

While i was reading the newest rant about FP i got into the unusual mode of thinking what could be indeed done to revitalize FP, and i realized i was at a loss. But something other occurred to me.

Vehicle Packs! Ok, i hear your groaning. Hear me out please.

What i think could work would be the following scenario:

- PGI sells us a Vehicle Pack for the Usual 20$. Containing at least 3 different Vehicles.
Contents i.E.:

J.Edgar (25 tons)


SRM Crrier (60 tons)


Bulldog LRM Variant (60 tons)


- The reason why it could technically work.

Designing and implementing 3 Vehicles would us, as a community, only cost one Month time without a Mechpack (fair trade for me).

The implementation of the Hover animations (for the J. Edgar) should be simple. The only other animations would be the turrets.
The Cryengine of 2010 came stock with a vehicle Library (Tanks and Cars) which means the locomotion mode codes should be present and PGI should only need to alter variables to implement them.

The Mechlab overlay for a Vehicle would need to change of course, but everything else like weapons and engines is already in place.

- The reason why it has its use in the long run.

We would pay for assets PGI can use in other scenarios. We would suddenly have the assets for Escort missions for QP for example (sure, AI still missing, but a step forward). Same goes for new FP scenarios.

New assets for the HBR Battletech Game which could be shared.

We would finally have something completely different to play with. Vehicles would have its drawbacks and advantages of course but i think it balances out even for non-masochists (Hey, we still see some people in Victors, a Tank could work too).

- The balancing and other problems.

This is a spur of the moment idea and i am absolutely sure i am not the first one who had it and
it is not completely thought out as you can see.

There will be balancing problems and the usual Vehicle design rules of BT Lore need to go, i am aware of that (and i am fine with it). Furthermore there could be problems with some of the maps (Canyon comes to mind immediately)


Thank you for reading all of this and i really would like to hear your take on it.

[LordNothing]

i kind of think that these need to be npcs. i like them better when they are things to step on, like they were in mech 4, vs things that can go one to one with a mech and win, like the tanks in MWLL. vehicles need to be strictly a support role.

[Single Mom]

World of Future Tanks here I come.

[lazytopaz]

FP/QP both could benefit from this.
Even if these would be tied to very stationary/static role of just patrolling the area/standing still and guarding something.

If it was suppose to be player controlled I think it would need to a separate branch from drops. Battlemechs have their own tonnage drop restrictions + tank drops (more players per match but others would be controlling the tanks only?)

This is a matter of proper idea and working through it.
More variety/stuff to see/to do in the game is always a positive change for me.
I'm with you on this one OP.

[Belacose]

Probably has less of a chance of actually ever coming to fruition as Judas' championed Quads.

Gave you a 'like' for at least thinking outside the box.

Edited by Belacose, 24 October 2016 - 05:34 AM.

[Battlemaster56]

Nice idea would be complete support, now the real challenge is to get this idea to hollowed minded guys at top to accept this idea.

[Zieten]

I think this would need an update on the game engine. Just think about how many times you get stuck on terrain - and then imagine sitting in that spot on tracks without jumpjets.

[El Bandito]

I do not mind piloting vehicles, such as the Challenger MBT, but stats-wise they are clearly inferior to equal weight battlemechs. Those vehicles can't even climb slopes as well as mechs!

Their only saving grace is cheaper cost compared to mechs, but that means nothing in MWO.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 October 2016 - 05:55 AM.

[martian]

Vehicles would need a good AI, and I am not sure if PGI is up to that task ...

[Dahrsis]

Single Mom, on 24 October 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

World of Future Tanks here I come.

Even tho you being sarcastic...think of the benefits.

It didn´t occurred to me till you said it, but it would open up the player base a bit more to people outside of our niche corner.

To Zieten and El Bandito,
Yes indeed. I touched it in a half sentence allready. It could conflict with some maps, but it wouldn´t need major engine change. Just the variables need to be set correctly. Battlemech traverse correction is measured at the groundplate of the feet, you could measure tank (hover, wheeled and tracked) traverse correction from the floor pan (hover need that anyway).
Still there are the questions of Canyon for example, which would make travelling difficult.

As for going toe to toe with battlemechs. I am undecided on that, tbh. In the end i would decide on near equl terms. The Vehicles would have less hit locations, so would pop faster, but they are a smaller target which would equal that out. And to be honest. I do not expect PGI to implement it if we don´t pay for it. And we won´t pay for it, if we can´t drive it.

Combat Vehicles are indeed one thing, but lets say a Mobile HQ.

Undergunned for sure, but let it send out a UAV like ping every 20 seconds which holds the targets for let say 5sec.
That player who brought it along just became his own Escort side mission for his AND the enemy team.

And PGI still can make Vehicle boni (Exp and C-Bill Rewards) which complemet that.

martian, on 24 October 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

Vehicles would need a good AI, and I am not sure if PGI is up to that task ...

My idea is to make them playable options.

[martian]

Dahrsis, on 24 October 2016 - 06:18 AM, said:

My idea is to make them playable options.

I am not sure if it would work. The game has been developed with the idea that the 'Mech is the king of the battlefield.

[Appogee]

I would re-open my wallet for VTOLs.

They're readily available within CryEngine. MWLL used the same engine, and had them.

So: Hawkmoth or Yellow Jacket + Demolisher Tank + SturmFeur (LRM Launcher)*, and there's your three vehicles.







* Bonus: the noobs with tubes will stop taking LRM Assaults.

[invernomuto]

How does combat vehicles performs agains Battlemech in the TT? In BT novels, they're cannon fodder even against light/medium mech.

[Mole]

I wouldn't mind vehicles at all. I don't believe PGI has any desire to try though. Nor do I believe they could do it right if they did want to try.

[Dahrsis]

martian, on 24 October 2016 - 06:29 AM, said:

I am not sure if it would work. The game has been developed with the idea that the 'Mech is the king of the battlefield.

I understand you and i am on your side with that, i just don´t want them to be the pushover they were in the last installments of the franchise (except MWLL). See it as a conscious decision to make them a bit underpowered (like to make the Clans first appearance to make them OP by PGI) and let the players/buyers know that.

Main reason, to restate, is. If we would get Vehicles made, they would be readily available as assets for so many more things in the game and we would get the masochistic fun of driving a 25ton hovertank at 180kmh to boot as a side effect.
Win - Win in my book.

[martian]

invernomuto, on 24 October 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

How does combat vehicles performs agains Battlemech in the TT? In BT novels, they're cannon fodder even against light/medium mech.

It depends.

There are two possible approaches:
1) Zerg rush
You spam the battlefield with cheapest (I am talking about BV) vehicles available and expect that you will overwhelm your enemies or at least damage them significantly.

2) Combined arms tactics
Combined arms force that includes well-designed vehicles can be a tough nut to crack, especially if used with some tactical approach in mind.

[Appogee]

Mole, on 24 October 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

I don't believe PGI has any desire to try though.

That single statement sums up all gaps between MWO:current and MWO:possibilities.

[martian]

Dahrsis, on 24 October 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

I understand you and i am on your side with that, i just don´t want them to be the pushover they were in the last installments of the franchise (except MWLL). See it as a conscious decision to make them a bit underpowered (like to make the Clans first appearance to make them OP by PGI) and let the players/buyers know that.

I have nothing against vehicles and I hated when in previous MechWarrior games tanks popped after one laser or PPC hit. I use vehicles in my battleTech games.

Dahrsis, on 24 October 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

Main reason, to restate, is. If we would get Vehicles made, they would be readily available as assets for so many more things in the game and we would get the masochistic fun of driving a 25ton hovertank at 180kmh to boot as a side effect.
Win - Win in my book.

One problem is that many existing MWO maps have not been designed with the vehicle use in mind.

[Barantor]

I often wondered if a MOBA style map with vehicles as the little NPC mobs moving toward an objective might be interesting.

[Tibbnak]

I'd love to see elementals and battle armor too. Maybe have a game mode that is just elementals and vehicles and maybe a light mech or two?

some mix of 4-6 vehicles 4-6 battle armors maybe 2-3 areofighters/vtol and 1 light or medium mech. Extra if you can grab ahold of the light or medium mech's staples and hitch a ride.