32 replies to this topic

[Valdarion Silarius]

I would absolutely love to see these three baddies in a vehicle pack:







Especially the Demolisher prime. It's so satisfying watching an atlas blow up with a few well placed salvos of dual AC20's tearing through it's armor in MW:LL.

Before PGI even begins to think about adding vehicles and infantry, there are still a few mechs that need to be added into the game for both IS/Clan and so many other issues that need to be addressed properly. Yes, tanks and jets would add alot of immersion to the game but in it's current state and ED right around the corner, I don't think it would be such a smart idea. I'm very doubtful with PGI's recent lazy mech redesigns and apathy towards the general community, that they would consider adding anything else besides mary sue reskinned mechs at this point in time.

Edited by Arnold The Governator, 24 October 2016 - 08:30 AM.

[SmithMPBT]

I used to play an MMO called Terra: Battle for the Outlands back in 1996 and it had player controlled VTOL's and Tanks. It's 20 years later and cryengine already has all the components necessary to program it without starting from scratch. So as Shia Lebeouf says "Just Do It."

[Otto Cannon]

I think it's no good expecting people to play as a tank, but I'd be all for equipping them as a module and dropping them into play like an airstrike.

[GRiPSViGiL]

This wouldn't add anything to the game really. There is no depth at all to QP or FP so you have the same mundane pointless matches only with vehicles which will be more novelty than anything.

[Pika]

El Bandito, on 24 October 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

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.

Ain't there a saying in Batteltech that a 'Mech cannot ever stand up to a vehicle of equal or greater tonnage?

In TT it's certainly true, especially down at the lighter end of the weight scale. Don't know how well that'd translate over here though.

When it comes to gameplay though I'd love to see these guys just... wandering around the map. Making a push with you, helping you blast down the gates of the enemy base on CW.

Think MOBA minions. Just at 50+ tonnes each.

Edited by Pika, 24 October 2016 - 09:17 AM.

[LordNothing]

im wondering if they shouldn't be a consumable. if you use the consumable a dropship lands it at the lz. the player could then command it with the minimap, or delegate it to the commander. in fp teams could just organize their consumables so that each wave you have 6 or so support vehicle npcs to work with. you would then give them the order to delegate that vehicle to the drop commander, and then the drop commander can use them how he sees fit. otherwise you can command it, though this is less effective than massing up all the teams vehicles and having one person give them orders. you also have to choose between support vehicles and things like uav/airstrikes. in quick play same rules apply, but i figure more pugs will use their own vehicles vs delegate them.

Edited by LordNothing, 24 October 2016 - 09:22 AM.

[Chados]

I'd buy this if I could refit the turret guns on a J. Edgar and up armor it. Twin PPC turret on a hover tank. That might be interesting.

[Dahrsis]

GRiPSViGiL, on 24 October 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

This wouldn't add anything to the game really. There is no depth at all to QP or FP so you have the same mundane pointless matches only with vehicles which will be more novelty than anything.

It would open up possibilities for other game modes like i.E. Escort in QP or for Consumables. One shot Air drop of a 20 ton hovertank instead of an Airstrike. On the receiving end the tank would irritate me more than the Airstrike.

See it this way. In my perception, PGI is, atm, doing barley nothing what would consume money to give us for free. May it be they are burned out or because the money is tight. To get some things rolling we have to pay up. Would a bigger group of players pay for an Escort gamemode? I don´t think so. But, if we had one of the most money consuming tasks out of the way (Vehicles) with the side effect of us being even able to play them (even if just for fun or novelty), PGI would be more willing to take it that one step further to create a simple AI for different modes to use those assets.

Then we would have deeper gameplay options. At least the gates are a bit more open for it.

Don´t get me wrong. I am not a Tankhead and i am not even a fan of Escort missions. But this not so difficult thing to implement, opens up so many more options AND walks the way of least resistance for PGI as we would pay it.

From an aesthetical point of view. I allways thougth it was more immersion breaking to see only Mechs on the field and not one single tank.

[Dahrsis]

Chados, on 24 October 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

I'd buy this if I could refit the turret guns on a J. Edgar and up armor it. Twin PPC turret on a hover tank. That might be interesting.

My idea is to have them in the Mechlab and do some tinkering with it.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/J._Edgar

Would be possible if you drop the engine a bit and a bit armor if we disregard the usual BT Lore Vehicle build rules about Heatsinks. Would be a glass cannon tho.

P.S Sorry for double post. Was a bit distracted.

Edited by Dahrsis, 24 October 2016 - 09:36 AM.

[Johnny Z]

LordNothing, on 24 October 2016 - 05:11 AM, said:

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.

My thoughts as well but 2 slots per drop for support classes would be awesome. Scout/sensor/decoy mech, mine layer, artillery, recon drone launcher, sort of thing. All these would have minimal self defense capability like 1 large/medium laser kind of thing. Artillery would have to act more like the mortar in BF1 I seen video of, not very strong or accurate.

Edited by Johnny Z, 24 October 2016 - 10:25 AM.

[LordNothing]

Johnny Z, on 24 October 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

My thoughts as well but 2 slots per drop for support classes would be awesome. Scout/sensor mech, mine layer, artillery, sort of thing.

could be. i was thinking of having it be a consumable, you use it and your vehicle is landed in the drop zone, you can then give it orders through the minimap.

[Johnny Z]

LordNothing, on 24 October 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

could be. i was thinking of having it be a consumable, you use it and your vehicle is landed in the drop zone, you can then give it orders through the minimap.

These vehicles will no doubt make it into the game. NPC's of some sort is the common guess.

More use of dropships as air support is almost for sure as well.

Will these be faction play assets though? Determined before the battle. It seems likely.

The pre match screen for faction play shouldnt show enemy team names just icons for light lance and vehicles for instance. Like those old school battle map icons or Total War unit cards. Including dropships also or what ever.

A little bit of effort the pre battle screen could be a lot more exciting and actually show whats going to be involved in the battle.

Dropships will for sure get at least another model for Clans or what ever, maybe more.

How all of this would work as consumables is a good question, or not.

But support roles for players would be great because some people may not like fighting directly but want to take part.

Edited by Johnny Z, 24 October 2016 - 10:48 AM.

[Khalcruth]

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.

Well, it depends on exactly what set of optional rules you're using, but generally, vehicles perform poorly. They have more armor, but less internal structure and critical hits tend to be rather devastating. Any hits have a tendency to reduce their movement values, and once any unit is immobilized, you can effectively call your shots (i.e. not randomly roll to see what area you hit when firing, but choose the area). At this point they die very quickly. A valid strategy to kill vehicles was not to try and destroy them outright by punching through their armor, but just land hits until you immobilized them, then punch through the armor. Also, vehicles were restricted in the terrain types they could enter. This tended to make them less mobile overall than Mechs, except on wide open plains.

Vehicles real advantages were that they could theoretically have more armor and more guns than a similarly tonned (or BV'd) mech. In the case of very light vehicles (mostly hover tanks), they could trade both of those for some ridiculous movement rates.

Overall, though, you generally had to have 1.5 - 2 times as many vehicles to match a force of mechs.

On a completely unrelated note - I'd love to see infantry squads (not power armor) in the game replace the turrets. It would give people a real reason to take machine guns and flamers. I've always wanted to use the Firestarter for the real reason it was developed. I don't see why infantry couldn't be controlled pretty much the same way as the AI controls turrets.