53 replies to this topic

[Anjian]

MechaBattler, on 25 November 2018 - 07:11 PM, said:

Don't the vehicles not have internal compartments? So as soon a their breached, they are dead, right? That and imagine them having to drive the whole way around on canyon network.

You have to play War Thunder Ground Forces to experience this kind of armor breeching mechanic. If the armor is breeched using the armor deflection formula which is geometric and physics based, the crew has its own HP, then its a bit of random if they all survive, one or two dies, or all dies. The tank can still go on if the crew dies, and if one dies, either one of the crew takes over double duty, which reduces the efficiency of the tank, or you can bring in an extra crew member. But if all dies its a knock out. If the shell hits the engine, you got a fire, but if the shell hits your ammo rack, the tank goes up, and this is referred to as getting "'racked".


Of course you can't do all that in Battletech game, so it would be easier to have just what is essentially HP based armor, followed by all internals as structural HP. This is simple enough. One question is whether you want the external armor to be quirked against kinetic weapons (AP damage resistance or reduction) vs. thermal or energy weapons vs. high explosive or missile weapons.

Edited by Anjian, 25 November 2018 - 08:12 PM.

[JediPanther]

I'm just waiting with $100 for that sweet robotech Stinger/Wasp LAM ultimate mech pack. I don't give a dam if it's nothing more than a cosmetic change in the mech's looks combined with a limited 'fly' ability al la masc. i'd buy that in a hurry because with the champion you know the art dept can nail those cockpit and fighter jet looks. The more robotech maccross look the better. Or I should see if robotech has an online game similar to mwo.

[Summon3r]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 25 November 2018 - 02:17 AM, said:

It works super good in Living Legends but i think MWOs maps are just too small for bigger scaled battles. Not to think about aerial battles.

I can see tank reinforces for dead players tho.

this.

would love to respawn in a Shrek after I die.............. zomg i just said the evil word respawn!!

[MechaBattler]

Anjian, on 25 November 2018 - 07:53 PM, said:

You have to play War Thunder Ground Forces to experience this kind of armor breeching mechanic. If the armor is breeched using the armor deflection formula which is geometric and physics based, the crew has its own HP, then its a bit of random if they all survive, one or two dies, or all dies. The tank can still go on if the crew dies, and if one dies, either one of the crew takes over double duty, which reduces the efficiency of the tank, or you can bring in an extra crew member. But if all dies its a knock out. If the shell hits the engine, you got a fire, but if the shell hits your ammo rack, the tank goes up, and this is referred to as getting "'racked".


Of course you can't do all that in Battletech game, so it would be easier to have just what is essentially HP based armor, followed by all internals as structural HP. This is simple enough. One question is whether you want the external armor to be quirked against kinetic weapons (AP damage resistance or reduction) vs. thermal or energy weapons vs. high explosive or missile weapons.

I know. I've been playing War Thunder lately actually. I just mean that with a mech you can spread the damage with your limbs, your side torsos, provided you're not IS with an XL. And obviously they'd be using the same armor as Battlemechs. So penetration wouldn't be a factor. Just armor points. Structure doesn't hold up very long as it is, so I imagine that direct trading with mechs might not work out so well. But I do think they would have enough advantages to make for an interesting change of pace.

[Anjian]

MechaBattler, on 25 November 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

I know. I've been playing War Thunder lately actually. I just mean that with a mech you can spread the damage with your limbs, your side torsos, provided you're not IS with an XL. And obviously they'd be using the same armor as Battlemechs. So penetration wouldn't be a factor. Just armor points. Structure doesn't hold up very long as it is, so I imagine that direct trading with mechs might not work out so well. But I do think they would have enough advantages to make for an interesting change of pace.

That's going to be the big disadvantage of tanks, and some quadmechs, which is the inability for damage spreading. They have to compensate for example, by heavier concentrations of HP armor in the front.

One tank can end up feeling like another tank, unless you introduce the concept of damage resistance. Basically some weapon classes will lose a percentage of damage, like say, making some tanks more resistant to thermal damage, while others are more resistant to HE damage. The system works somewhat like quirks.

Edited by Anjian, 25 November 2018 - 09:52 PM.

[Tesunie]

Anjian, on 24 November 2018 - 11:51 PM, said:

And to that... well, there has been a long long history of good suggestions by players that have been ignored by the developers.

---

And besides, if the tanks prove they can outperform, outkill the mechs, oh boy can you imagine the player base ruckus? They will start calling the game "Tankwarrior". Just like the way they did during the Mechwarrior Dark Age, when the artillery units (pogs) were becoming a dominant meta in the game, and disenchanted players began referring to the game as "Pogwarrior".

If it's not too late to respond?

At the first subject, I would make the counter argument that there have also been a long long history of bad suggestions by players that have been (thankfully) ignored by the developers.

Now mind, those bad ideas where being totted around by their suggestors and a few other people are "great" ideas. So "good" and "bad" ideas are often a point of perspective/view. PGI can't take every suggestion (good or bad) and implement it all. It would also take a lot of time to implement tests of "I told you so" builds of the game of same said "suggested changes" from the players. (AKA: Not every idea is good, and there are even different/divergent ideas that are each equally good, but both might not be able to exist at the same time.)

---

Oh, we are already getting that from between Clan and IS tech. Toss in "over performing tanks" (I'm using this term very loosely) and it probably would just lead to another point for people to complain about. I wouldn't mind seeing some Tanks and Aero-fighters added into the game, or at least FP game modes if nothing else. FP needs something more. Capturing a vehicle depot to add a squad of AI vehicles to the fight could be an interesting concept, but would need to be carefully implemented to prevent it from becoming too powerful or too easily obtained. Think Long Tom here, and how it effected the game. It is very possible that vehicles could suddenly become the new Long Tom... or VIP "useless and dumb"...

---

Oh, and I agree with a previous statement that the VIP should probably be a command mobile HQ (Tanks) rather than a mech. And it probably should only have a single health pool (it's not like it's going to be intentionally shielding with it's "arms" no more than the VIP Atlas does).

Personally, I'd love to see Quads make it into the game, rather than Tanks. At least as a player controlled element. But we've been needing something more in FP. Something to liven it up...
(If anyone wishes to read this, my personal opinion is that FP lost a lot of it's steam once the first map reset happened. After that, gains for specific houses became less valuable, as we all knew it would just get reset later again, nullifying our progress for our faction.)

[Tesunie]

As a general statement to a vehicle's advantages... It's short stature with high "turret" mounted guns would probably be a large advantage in many cases. Small enough to take advantage of nearly any type of terrain, while having many of it's weapon's loaded up high so it can shoot over stuff. Present a side angle, and they might be able to spread damage...?

Overall, I'm not certain of how tank/vehicle mechanics work within BT rules at the moment. So I don't know if they might have more advantage of placing more armor forward, or would each section have max values like the mechs?

---

As quads where mentioned... Quads should be able to spread damage much like current mechs do, minus shield arms. Depending upon leg mounts/hit boxes, their front legs might be able to absorb crazy amounts of damage. But, leg destruction may be interesting for MW:O to handle, and how those rules will apply within the game in a fair manner.

Quads would have several advantages right off the bat:
- Higher max armor values: All Quads have higher max armor values on every section for their weight.
- Low stature: This could be powerful, but might also be a weakness. It certainly would be harder to keep line of sight on it, and terrain would be more beneficial... unless you wish to shoot "over" the terrain.
- Twisting: Typically, a quad is unable to twist (but may have turret like points). However, for MW:O, the mechs would have to be redesigned much like the Nova and Ebon Jaguar, granting the ability for it to twist it's torso. I would imagine limited twisting, but it would have to be able to do it. Then turrets (if it has any) would count as an arm with actuators. Mechlab might have a field day with this... depending upon how it's done and how it assigns weapons to a turret mount.
- Possibly good "sheild" legs: If it's a quad like the Goliath, it's going to behave much like a normal mech, just with four legs (and the ability to place extra armor on it's chassis). If it's like the Stalking Spider, then it's legs might make very good shield, or lead to a quick death/mobility impairments. Once again, depending upon how leg destruction is handled with a Quad...
- Typically tighter weapon groups: Having less available space to visually place many weapons, quads most likely would have better weapon convergence over biped designs.
- Stability: If done right, a Quad mech should have very good stability. When getting hit, it should rock nearly as much when hit by enemy fire, falling, or even possibly jumping. I would imagine reduced reticle shack would be a major feature of quads in general. Possible being reduced with each leg destruction, with some moderate speed loss until it reaches biped like speed loss for losing too many legs.
- Legging it isn't as viable of an option: With having four legs, coring out a Quad is going to become more viable than trying to blow three or four legs off (depending upon how it's handled). With increased armor max values... This may lead to some quads being very durable with easy to spread damage hit boxes.


Besides it's delicate nature of adding them in, I would love to see quads in this game. I think they could have a good amount of advantages and disadvantages to make them viable without under or overwhelming current mechs in the game.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Anjian, on 25 November 2018 - 05:10 PM, said:

I put tanks in the list that includes:

Quadmechs

Tanks and hovercrafts are like the get to main forces of battletech, that and infantry. There's like a dozent vehicles and god knows how many infantry for every light mech. 3-4 medium mechs are planetary defense forces and heavy or assaults are ultra rare.

Quadmechs are the super special unicorns of battletech and not even remotely on the same page as groundforces vehicles.
They're not even on the same page as "regular" battlemechs.

Anjian, on 25 November 2018 - 05:10 PM, said:

Unified player queue --- cancel EU and Asia servers --- and consolidate into a single global server.

Do that and i'll stop playing. I already do not like being forces to play on a the laggy NA servers for faction play. As a european with 130~ ping. I flat out refuse to play 300+ ping games.

[LordNothing]

VonBruinwald, on 23 November 2018 - 05:52 PM, said:

A bit late, but yes.

Always felt the VIP should be a tank.

make it a super heavy and have it defend itself.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

LordNothing, on 26 November 2018 - 07:57 AM, said:

make it a super heavy and have it defend itself.

MFB! And let first guy to die take control over it.

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 26 November 2018 - 11:11 AM.

[Anjian]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 26 November 2018 - 03:30 AM, said:

Tanks and hovercrafts are like the get to main forces of battletech, that and infantry. There's like a dozent vehicles and god knows how many infantry for every light mech. 3-4 medium mechs are planetary defense forces and heavy or assaults are ultra rare.

Quadmechs are the super special unicorns of battletech and not even remotely on the same page as groundforces vehicles.
They're not even on the same page as "regular" battlemechs.

Doesn't matter how rare something is on lore, it feels to me there is a stronger interest for quads than tanks. In any case, implementing both means returning IK to the game.

Quote

Do that and i'll stop playing. I already do not like being forces to play on a the laggy NA servers for faction play. As a european with 130~ ping. I flat out refuse to play 300+ ping games.

I often have to play 300+ ping games on the European and Asian servers because of the long wait times on the NA server. I can see your point but then that reason has made me only plus just only a few games lately.

Plus I don't recall Europeans having 300+ server pings on the NA server, since I can see Russians, like the RJF clan get way lower than 300 pings on faction play. If I play on the European server, I can hear American players by their accents, and their pings to Europe are nowhere close to 300. All faction play are done on the NA server, and that does not stop European clans, as in plenty of Germans too, from playing FP.

For the first two years of MWO, the game did fine with a single server in Toronto. I have to practically live with a 230+ ping.

Edited by Anjian, 26 November 2018 - 05:56 PM.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Anjian, on 26 November 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

Doesn't matter how rare something is on lore, it feels to me there is a stronger interest for quads than tanks. In any case, implementing both means returning IK to the game.

I don't see how quad mechs add anything to the game or gameplay mechanics. Sure they probably look cool but that's about it. In the end it's just a mech.

For tanks on the other hand, think about this:

Scouting gives another bonus @ 80% winrate

- Tank reinforcment: If you have no more mechs to choose from your dropdeck, you can drop in a Gallant.

It's just an example but come one, it would add so much more to the game.
Or tie it in to loyalty ranks. Rank 6+ can have one additional drop in a light combat vehicle. Rank 10+ can get one more additional drop in a heavy combat vehicle. Rank 15+ gets another one in an assault combat vehicle.

Tanks etc don't have to be costumizable, they can even rock the respective faction camo.
There are so many ways they could be implemented.
And if IK is that important, let's start with a hovertank, problem solved.

Anjian, on 26 November 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

I often have to play 300+ ping games on the European and Asian servers because of the long wait times on the NA server. I can see your point but then that reason has made me only plus just only a few games lately.

Plus I don't recall Europeans having 300+ server pings on the NA server, since I can see Russians, like the RJF clan get way lower than 300 pings on faction play. If I play on the European server, I can hear American players by their accents, and their pings to Europe are nowhere close to 300. All faction play are done on the NA server, and that does not stop European clans, as in plenty of Germans too, from playing FP.

For the first two years of MWO, the game did fine with a single server in Toronto. I have to practically live with a 230+ ping.

I meant oceanic players, who often have 200 to 300 or more ping. If i am playing on NA i have 130 ping (from central europe), fighting another one with 130 ping and i'm at 1/4 second delay. At 250ms HSR starts to correct a lot damage. Heck, even zooming in an out comes with a noticeable delay. Plus, i can tell if a commando/locust player comes from SEA "

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 27 November 2018 - 12:22 AM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Inverse kinematics for tracked vehicles are not nearly as demanding as for legged vehicles. You only need to orient the chassis to the terrain- you don't need to rig legs and feet to run different animations depending on facing and slope. IK code for tanks and wheeled vehicles is already baked into the engine, because the game the engine was built for had conventional vehicles in it. The work has already been done on that, and was done before PGI ever started making the game. They could buy an asset pack for tank models, plop one in the game, and have it working by tomorrow.

*edit- not that they should do that, because it'd be a mess, but they could. The code is already there, and proven across multiple cryengine games.

Edited by WrathOfDeadguy, 27 November 2018 - 08:57 AM.

[Anjian]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 27 November 2018 - 08:56 AM, said:

Inverse kinematics for tracked vehicles are not nearly as demanding as for legged vehicles. You only need to orient the chassis to the terrain- you don't need to rig legs and feet to run different animations depending on facing and slope. IK code for tanks and wheeled vehicles is already baked into the engine, because the game the engine was built for had conventional vehicles in it. The work has already been done on that, and was done before PGI ever started making the game. They could buy an asset pack for tank models, plop one in the game, and have it working by tomorrow.

*edit- not that they should do that, because it'd be a mess, but they could. The code is already there, and proven across multiple cryengine games.

IK for legged "vehicles" are also baked with every game engine. Every animal and human and fantastical beast used in a game uses IK, and the same IK is used for bipedal to quad robots. The only difference between robot and human, quad and animal, is that they're only skins going on the same frame.

IK for tanks isn't about orienting the chassis to the terrain ---- it is about orienting every wheel to the terrain. For vehicles there are about four of them, and for tanks, many more of them. These wheels need to bop up and down individually with the undulations of the terrain. Its very subtle but if you pay close attention you will see this. But tanks are a common feature in games so this feature should be baked in with every game engine, e.g. Armored Warfare uses Cryengine.

IK as a whole is deactivated in MWO. If you are going to have tanks with IK, it has to be re-activated for the entire game, and not for specific items on the game.

One big problem of MWO for tanks is that the maps are too cluttered and rugged, too many steep slopes. I can't see how tanks would work on Veridian or Therma for example. The maps are just too tank hostile. One important issue is how the tank cannon can elevate and depress which is vital for irregular terrain.

Edited by Anjian, 27 November 2018 - 03:40 PM.

[Anjian]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 27 November 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

I don't see how quad mechs add anything to the game or gameplay mechanics. Sure they probably look cool but that's about it. In the end it's just a mech.

Not necessarily.

Spider like mechs can be given the ability to climb up steep surfaces. The ability to climb over steep surfaces should be like this.

Quads > Bipedals > Tracked vehicles > Wheeled vehicles.



Tanks, on the other hand, are reliant mainly on flat surfaces.

Quote

For tanks on the other hand, think about this:

Scouting gives another bonus @ 80% winrate

- Tank reinforcment: If you have no more mechs to choose from your dropdeck, you can drop in a Gallant.

It's just an example but come one, it would add so much more to the game.
Or tie it in to loyalty ranks. Rank 6+ can have one additional drop in a light combat vehicle. Rank 10+ can get one more additional drop in a heavy combat vehicle. Rank 15+ gets another one in an assault combat vehicle.

Tanks etc don't have to be costumizable, they can even rock the respective faction camo.
There are so many ways they could be implemented.
And if IK is that important, let's start with a hovertank, problem solved.

Hovertanks aren't very armored, they'll die easy.

Quote

I meant oceanic players, who often have 200 to 300 or more ping. If i am playing on NA i have 130 ping (from central europe), fighting another one with 130 ping and i'm at 1/4 second delay. At 250ms HSR starts to correct a lot damage. Heck, even zooming in an out comes with a noticeable delay. Plus, i can tell if a commando/locust player comes from SEA "

Sooner or later this game will face the harsh reality it cannot sustain regional servers anymore.

[dante245]

Pain G0D, on 24 November 2018 - 09:31 PM, said:

If potential players dont care for giant robots , they are certainly not going to care about tanks or jets .

Why would Tankers play a giant robot game with one or two tanks instead of a game that offered 100 or 200 tanks ?

CAUSE the largest MWO currently in the world is .... wait for it...A TANK GAME! and its been going strong for over 10 years..in fact there celebrating there 10th anniversary right now in World of Tanks. i came from that game to MWO and thanks to my days in WOT i was able to pick up the controls and game mechanics quicker then some one who had not.

[El Bandito]

Anjian, on 27 November 2018 - 03:32 PM, said:

IK for tanks isn't about orienting the chassis to the terrain ---- it is about orienting every wheel to the terrain. For vehicles there are about four of them, and for tanks, many more of them. These wheels need to bop up and down individually with the undulations of the terrain. Its very subtle but if you pay close attention you will see this. But tanks are a common feature in games so this feature should be baked in with every game engine, e.g. Armored Warfare uses Cryengine.

IK as a whole is deactivated in MWO. If you are going to have tanks with IK, it has to be re-activated for the entire game, and not for specific items on the game.

Nah, there is no real need to turn on IK just cause of tanks. Those tanks wheels doesn't have to bob up and down following the terrain cause most people don't care about such details when choosing between that and the ability to play tanks.

[dante245]

also..in battletech...tanks can way and carry the same fire power as mechs! let that sink in. an 80 ton tank...but tanks,,,cause they are tracked, would be able to carry more wait of weapons per ton then mechs, albeit with some mobility limitations, but almost if not the same armor. only big down side is not allot of hit boxes, so all the damage would go to your sides, CT, head "gun" and thats it. tracks and sides are the same thing.

[El Bandito]

dante245, on 27 November 2018 - 03:55 PM, said:

CAUSE the largest MWO currently in the world is .... wait for it...A TANK GAME! and its been going strong for over 10 years..in fact there celebrating there 10th anniversary right now in World of Tanks. i came from that game to MWO and thanks to my days in WOT i was able to pick up the controls and game mechanics quicker then some one who had not.

The fact WoT offers a historical tanks plays a big part in it though. Those Russkiis love their WWII tanks.

[Anjian]

El Bandito, on 27 November 2018 - 03:59 PM, said:

Nah, there is no real need to turn on IK just cause of tanks. Those tanks wheels doesn't have to bob up and down following the terrain cause most people don't care about such details when choosing between that and the ability to play tanks.

Then the tanks will end up looking like they are floating on highly irregular terrain, which MWO maps have far too plenty of. So many of MWO's maps are genuine tank unfriendly.

In the end, it makes MWO look like a cheap game even further.