Wil McCullough, on 13 August 2019 - 02:30 AM, said:
Yeah which means technically, it's possible to have an ac5 that behaves just like a shorter ranged rac2 that doesn't jam. Funny as hell.
Not quite right. The AC5 that fires a steady stream would most likely have a smaller calliber, packing a less explosive punch per shell while the RAC5 fires the bigger shells or even faster.
Also there is the cooldown between shots to consider. So while the normal AC5 maybe fires 30 rounds in 10 seconds it has to cooldown more often/longer while the RAC is build for much longer bursts of fire.
So there would still be some differance in those weapons even if you can fire both in a stream fire manner.
Not quite right. The AC5 that fires a steady stream would most likely have a smaller calliber, packing a less explosive punch per shell while the RAC5 fires the bigger shells or even faster.
Also there is the cooldown between shots to consider. So while the normal AC5 maybe fires 30 rounds in 10 seconds it has to cooldown more often/longer while the RAC is build for much longer bursts of fire.
So there would still be some differance in those weapons even if you can fire both in a stream fire manner.
so long as the fundamental mechanic of the weapon remains the same. getting too far off the baseline is going to cause balance issues. variants would be balanced against the baseline and baselines balanced against each other.
problem areas are weapons that are not as well defined. like lasers in mwo are essentially all using the same mechanic, the pulsing of pulse lasers are just aesthetic. id like to see that be different in mwo2. pulse laser bursts would all be a string of spaced out concentrated ppflds rather than hit scan with a smaller fraction of damage every tick. variation in the number of pulses and spacing between them become a basis for different variants.
not all weapon variants need to revolve around different performance, a lot of money can be had selling different colored lasers, acs with tracers rocket exaust on missiles and so on. madnayancat for the win. though maybe keep it more subtle than that. i dont want bolt on levels of silliness.
Nesutizale, on 13 August 2019 - 04:37 AM, said:
I would say by the time PGI finishes the first DLC the year will be over and the exclusive deal be done. As far as I can tell Epic is only interested in selling the main product / complete games and not so much in any addons/dlc/expansions...whatever its called these days.
maybe cross our fingers and hope they are developing it in secret (perhaps why mechpacks have stopped). or maybe epic will extend their offer, idk.
If we are going to concentrate more on the industry influential route, MechWarrior 2 was probably the most important title. That game pretty much solidified the brand and led to a decade long successful run. I know it is hard to believe now, but not only was MechWarrior 2 a visual powerhouse for the time, but it also launched around the time that 3D accelerator cards were starting to become popular, and it helped promote those as well. It wasn't unusual to buy a 3D card and have a custom version of MW2 included to promote it.
MW2 was also one of the first titles to come out on CD. I had to update my PC at the time with a new fangled 2X optical drive just to be able to load it. LOL bought the game at the shop and then had to spend another $100 and wait a week for the CD drive to come in, very frustrating at the time.
i didnt have a pc proper till about '96 or '97. though before that i did have an old 286 that didn't work, a ti99 that only had one cartridge, and an apple 2. i dont think any of those could have handled mechwarrior 2.
Not quite right. The AC5 that fires a steady stream would most likely have a smaller calliber, packing a less explosive punch per shell while the RAC5 fires the bigger shells or even faster.
Also there is the cooldown between shots to consider. So while the normal AC5 maybe fires 30 rounds in 10 seconds it has to cooldown more often/longer while the RAC is build for much longer bursts of fire.
So there would still be some differance in those weapons even if you can fire both in a stream fire manner.
I was comparing a vanilla ac5 to a rac2. They deal about the same damage in lore. My point is that it's entirely possible lore-wise to have an ac5 and rac2 that are both "minigun-ish" in that they function by continously shooting out a stream of bullets until you let go of the trigger, with both dealing roughly the same amount of damage.
AC5 5 damage <-> RAC2 2-12 damage
How is that nearly the same? In singleshot mode they are about the same but the RAC characteristig is that it can fire up to 6 times as fast. Even if both use stream-fire the RAC can "boost" that speed up to a firerate the normal AC can only dream of.
So in lets say 30 seconds
AC5 - 50 bullets
RAC2 - 20 bullets -> 120 bullets
Both would look like they fire the same steady stream of bullets but one would still do much more damage.
Look at the games the kids play today and try to see if that is working with the Battletech franchise at all. Battle-Royal? Nope don't see it working with BT. Fast paste action shooter with building stuff? Yah Mechs burn down stuff not build it. PGI needs to go back to the drawing board and sit down and see what is the essence of BT and what made it cool. Stompy robots aren't carrieing thing anymore or alone. There needs to be something, some feeling that only BT provides.
I gotta agree with you on that. PGI, BT and MW needs their own unique catch.
Battle Royale? Someone already got the idea and recently released a game with it.
YouTube videos for those who don't think it was possible.
It already picked up over a million downloads in less than two days after its global release.
Anime mech designs are not necessary in my view for a successful mech game. Games like War Robots and Battle of Titans has shown you can pick up a global audience, even with Asians, Chinese, Koreans and even Japanese.
Japanese teams are something I frequently encounter on this game which happens to be made with the Unreal engine.
But if other games already got non anime mecha designs, what does that leave you for BT/MW?
That's the story for another chapter.
The funny thing is, the mecha game genre might actually be starting to resurge.
This already took in over a million global players in a few days, and yes, its available in North America.
I do think that MechWarrior should stick to it's roots, and I also think there is a solid audience for that, however I also think that there is room for less traditional BattleTech based games as well.
For something like a 3rd person shooter/Battle Royale style game, maybe a new MechAssault title would fill a roll like that.
My only concern with something like that is that the Battle Royale segment seems already too crowded for yet another game like that. Games like Radical Heights, The Culling & The Culling 2, and I'm sure even more that are escaping me right now. I think there are even signs that Apex Legends is seriously slowing down already.
In any case, a more action, fast paced BattleTech themed game can work as well. MechAssault was good for the time (although greatly spurred on due to being the first Xbox Live game), so there is always a chance for a game like to re-emerge. Heck, there was rumors that a new MechAssault game was to be announced this E3, although that ended up not being true. Maybe where there is smoke, there is fire, so maybe the game is being developed, but wasn't ready for E3. Doubtful, but one can hope.
I love MechWarrior, but I can enjoy some MechAssault too .
Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 14 August 2019 - 04:55 AM.
If you want a Mechwarrior/Battletech that sticks to its roots, strategy games on mobile is flourishing. In fact, some of the most successful mobile games are strategy games. The old hexagon style maps would do fine, with a bit of RPG story telling. It would not be difficult for HBS to turn their game into a mobile one, considering its already Unity based.
As a franchise revival campaign, I tend to think you need at least three games, two on mobile and one on PC. The first being a Battletech strategy game adapted to mobile devices with touchscreens as I have mentioned. The second is an arcade Mechassault type of game for those interested in both casual and competitive PvP in mobile, which is now the biggest platform for games per population.
War Robots is essentially the MechAssault game with a new IP, modernized, added with scifi features.
The difference is what all these years of modern mobile technology will get you over the original X-box.
Mechassault
Another game, Robot Warfare. This particular title can seamlessly switch between first and third person POV
Once again, Battle of Titans. This game has the best presentation but suffers from the lack of content.
A Mechassault type of game should be suitable for the mobile platform. The new mobile MechAssault game focuses on quickness, fun, revenue collection --- from collecting all those mechs --- and as a franchise introduction for the hundreds of millions in mobile gaming.
The PC and console BT/MW should be another game. This should be more complex and more traditional Mechwarrior focused on the hard core but that's another story to fill out in detail.
If you want a Mechwarrior/Battletech that sticks to its roots, strategy games on mobile is flourishing. In fact, some of the most successful mobile games are strategy games. The old hexagon style maps would do fine, with a bit of RPG story telling. It would not be difficult for HBS to turn their game into a mobile one, considering its already Unity based...
Oh...No no no no....I can't agree with that at all. Mobile Games are the epitome of anti-consumer in their practices.
I would not want to see any franchise I liked on a mobile platform. Mobile games are notoriously exploitative. Mobile games like Dungeon Keeper Mobile, C&C, Commander Keen, Elder Scrolls, and many more are all terribly monetized and some like Dungeon Keeper have some pretty brutal pay-walls.
If I remember right, there was even a Harry Potter one where a character would hit a point where them or one of the characters was being choked, and to help them you would either have to pay to continue or wait a day to save them. Just a terrible implementation of design choices and mechanics all around.
I am sure that there are the occasional "ok" mobile games that don't absolutely try to squeeze money from one's pocket, however they are so few and far between that hoping a BattleTech game wouldn't be one of them just seems futile.
Personaly I would go away from the Battle Royal crowd and more in the oposite direction of a simulation.
For that I would redesign some parts like weapons would have more realworld values or at least twice the range of what we currently have and make them more distinguished.
Like missiles have very high range if you have a scout to log on for you, further then you can see but low damage. Explain it with a bit of handwaveium like explosives are less effective against mecharmor then laser or hard shells like from the AC but those weapons have lower ranges.
Give the AC two distingushed groups of sniper like guns with the AC2+5 and streamfire behavoir with the AC10+20.
Maybe even go as far and take a Tank from Battletech, Rommel for example and an Abraham or Leopard 2 and make them alike in values, then extrapolate Mechs from that basis.
Makeing it more like the old Tank driving games before World of Tank cassualised it. Where you where driving around slowly, finding your target and sometimes even need a heli or other scout to find targets? A little bit more that direction of hard military simulation.
Still would tone down the realism a bit as we have giant mechs as a basis. It would be a bit tricky to have find a good middleground but I think a good tactical mech combat game where you are part of a big unit could be interesting and would attrack the simulation people.
I still think that BattleTech as whole doesn't need to change too much. I don't think that is it's main issue. I think that it's main issue is just hype. It isn't being made by a AAA publisher with AAA influence and marketing resources. When companies like Activision, Microprose, and Microsoft were publishing them, they had all the marketing and hype it needed. When it is more Indie in influence like HBS and PGI, the word just doesn't get out, and to those who hear about it, there aren't videos and articles being written to wind up the hype machine.
Heck, I think HBS being purchased by Paradox even helped BattleTech out quite a bit. PGI has no such help.
A lot of games that sell well aren't really that deep or have detailed stats or stories to back it up, but they do have good marketing and a wicked hype machine at it's disposal, and that is really what a game needs.
This is all my opinion of course, but in my experience, that is generally the way to go. There are the occasional self-promoted success stories (like Minecraft), but right place at right time is a rarity.
Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 14 August 2019 - 06:38 AM.
Just taken a look. Rommel and Leopard 2 are actualy pretty close in weight (I chosse the Rommel because its one of two Tanks whos name I remembered).
Rommel 65t, Leopard 2 ~62t
Both have a single main cannon. Leo with 120mm, Rommel....well AC can range from 25mm-203mm. When we say:
25mm = AC2 | 69,5mm = AC5 | 114mm = AC10 | 205mm = AC20 => Then the Rommel would have an AC10.
Leos attack range...haven't found the max range but it was stated values of armor penetration of 2000m so lets go with that.
Leo can also fire an anti-tank missile with 6000m range. While its only a single missile lets take that as a basis for the LRM of the Rommel.
I will ignore the small Laser of the Rommerl as there isn't an equivalent.
That would mean that and AC10 would have an effective range of 2000m and LRMs about 6000m. That would change mech combat quite a bit.
I bet with more research you could find more weapons, armor and stuff to compare and build a quite unique Battletech experiance from.
Oh...No no no no....I can't agree with that at all. Mobile Games are the epitome of anti-consumer in their practices.
I would not want to see any franchise I liked on a mobile platform. Mobile games are notoriously exploitative. Mobile games like Dungeon Keeper Mobile, C&C, Commander Keen, Elder Scrolls, and many more are all terribly monetized and some like Dungeon Keeper have some pretty brutal pay-walls.
If I remember right, there was even a Harry Potter one where a character would hit a point where them or one of the characters was being choked, and to help them you would either have to pay to continue or wait a day to save them. Just a terrible implementation of design choices and mechanics all around.
I am sure that there are the occasional "ok" mobile games that don't absolutely try to squeeze money from one's pocket, however they are so few and far between that hoping a BattleTech game wouldn't be one of them just seems futile.
A lot of mobile games are not heavily monetized, and quite often the most successful one are like that. For example Pokemon Go. You don't need to spend a lot of money on it. I have been playing that for four years. I don't think I spent more than $10 or $20 in a month, and sometimes none, and that's on the high level. Many people never payed a dime on it. Still grossed $3 billion
Another game I play,
The only thing that is monetized here, is your avatar's appearance. You may have to gacha the avatar you like through random rolls. But it has ZERO effect on how you win, since its only for appearance. The main focus of Autochess is esports, so its trying to gather a huge audience for it, and for a genre that is only born in 2019, its doing a hell of a job on it.
This battle royale mech game I showed you.
The main focus of its monetization are skins. Avatar skins, Mech skins, weapons skins.
In fact, monetization on battle royale games is based on skins, buying them or playing random gacha for the rare ones. Some skins can only be earned by achievements however.
I do think that a degree of monetization is needed. One of the reasons Hawken is dead is because of the lack of it. I've seen games die for the lack of it.
If people wants to pay for things in the game, give them that choice. But if you want to be free, you can go ahead and play.
This game,
If you want to spin coins to get all eight parts to complete an original Gundam type that appeared in one of the TV series, yeah that will cost you money. But in no way that will affect your performance in the game. If you use the currency you earned in the game and make a few spins out of that, you can build a mecha or even a custom Gundam out of the mix of parts you get in your collection, and that will perform more than adequately for coop or arena once you leveled the parts up.
In order for a game to be successfully F2P, you must present various F2P avenues of winning. You can still retain side grade options for those who want to pay to be unique.
Given the huge content in BT/MW, you can go free by acquisition with grind earned currency. Special skins can be paid or gacha'd but they have to be balanced so they are not any stronger than the free ones. There will always be the avenue for you to skin the grind by buying skins directly.
No heroes or no premium models that are exclusively gold priced. They have to be achievement acquired.
Game companies tend to underestimate that people will pay much money for rare skins, just to look different, awesome or sexy --- in gacha games, they will pay money for a waifu hero that may not have the best stats, but she just looks hot in a bikini.
The lesson I learn with Pokemon Go is that people will raid and raid (you spend a dollar for the next raid of the day after the free one) just for a shiny Legendary, or that rare 100% IV Legendary. Its all about rarity, never mind that the game meta is based on evolving more common Pokemon that you can catch on the street.
mobile games arent exactly what im after. the only ones i play are mostly old 90s games that i can run on my raspi tablet (its amazing how many games released source code back then and have since been ported or you can run on dosbox and other emulators).
battle royale, not my thing.
i do want persistent battles on megamaps though. perhaps each representing a planet in the inner sphere. everyone would start at a faction owned outpost or units could set up their own. you could have skirmishes with other outposts on the same planet. if you wanted a foothold on another planet, you would need at least one dropship and enough cbills to pay the jump ship. jump fees might be a source of monetization as units could pool resources to do major invasions of other planets.
to keep mega units from owning everything you would need to be significantly more vulnerable the further away from their base they are. respawns are only available within a certain proximity to the base on MY HOME PLANET. however an expeditionary force, limited by space on available drop ships and what mechs and equipment you brought with you. jump ships set the limit on the number and size of drop ships you can bring. possibility of permanently losing a dropship might make you choose your battles more carefully. even a strong unit against a pug base would be at a disadvantage due to their ability to respawn.
size of maps would make it difficult for a single unit to control the whole thing. dropships might cover the distances between base and be subject to the same rules for expeditionary drops. maybe each planet might have 3 or 4 faction bases on them, a number of unit created bases, and then other points of interest that you can control for fun and profit.
you still got the pug problem, but the default bases could send out their own expeditionary forces to give players the opportunity to play other maps. bases would also need to be garrisoned or have automated defences. units might even hire pugs for garrison duty. for units the name of the game is maximizing their influence, bases, assets, etc.
there is no quick play. if you are new you spawn at your home base, pick one of your mechs. you could leave the base and explore the map, perhaps look for a fight. or go to the starport if you want to do an off planet expedition, another location might provide on planet missions, a recruiting area would exist where you could sign on with units permanently or do contract work for them. i figure it would be more like one of those space trading games, but with less commerce and more battle. the unit focus is battling other units. maintaining and growing their influence, wealth and territory.
Ignoring mobile games is not a good business decision. More than half of all game revenue made in a year is now on mobile and the slice of the pie grows bigger each year. That means mobile takes more than PC + all consoles combined.
Second the player bases in mobile is enormous. Just a niche mecha mobile game like War Robots is able to have 50 million downloads just on Google Play alone, not counting iOS. That's a game that started with zero lore, zero IP and zero brand awareness.
The mobile hardware is getting better each year, thanks to Moore's Law going full blown on mobile. Candy Crush isn't the future of mobile. Nowadays, phones are playing huge multiplayer maps with 100 players that look like this.
As the hardware becomes more powerful, the line between the games are blurring.
I just started playing battle royale games this year. I found there are pluses to the format and the reasons why it has risen to the top for shooters. It emphasizes map knowledge, experience, strategy, tactics, stealth, situational awareness, weapons knowledge and anticipation more than twitch than any other shooting game. However, the design of such a game mode is pretty unique and like MOBAs, stands on its own. Like for example, there is a game called Onmyoji that is an RPG, but it also has its MOBA version called Onmyoji Arena. Or Mobile Legends Bang Bang which is a MOBA, but it also has a separate adventure and questing game called Mobile Legends Adventures. I see BRs like that.
I don't think BR would fit in a BT/MW narrative. Plus if you design a game today, you need to be thinking ahead years from now. What will the games be then?
Long ago I played a game on console called Chromehounds. This game is the Mother of all Community Warfare. You got the game separated into three factions, and a large hexagonal master map. Each hex is invaded by a squad. If the drop happens while an enemy squad is there, a PvP encounter happens. If there is no human squad there, you engage an AI squad in coop. When squads are dropping for decisive battles on strategic cities and ports, you get a lot of action there. The map changes where you drop, and the game has a lot of maps, from deserts to full blown city maps. If a faction owns more territory, all the squads in the faction get more resource bonuses. The season ends when one faction conquers all the map, and when that happens you can switch your squad to another faction, and whole cycle repeats again.
This game has much potential, and the reason why it failed is because SEGA sucks, and its developers, FromSoft, went to the Dark Souls business. Like its hard to argue that Dark Souls can make much more money than Chromehounds or even Armored Core.
But I like to see this idea resurrected and refined, then adapted to the Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise since its ideal. No need for 12 vs 12 drops, or even 8 vs. 8 drops. Just four vs. four drops are enough. That's the standard size for many raids anyway. I won't put respawns but i will add heals by calling on repair stations that are dropped on certain locations if bases and objective points are captured.
I also like the idea of players fighting in the human level if their mechs are destroyed. They can use various weapons to help destroy enemy mechs or human players. If they call for reinforcement, there is a cool down period and a drop ship will drop a replacement mech for the human player. Human players can also take over vehicles and spare mechs that are laid in the battlefield, similar to a Battle Royale, which is one of the point of such games is that they have a high interaction level with the environment. The battle is won if the objectives are met or captured or if one team loses all its players in the human level (human pilot = no respawn; mech = three respawns from drop deck). Human players get a benefit --- mechs can lock on to other mechs, but they cannot lock on to human players. Nor will they appear on any radar map. But they are easy to blow up when they are found.
and for Mobile Gaming the Performance must converted down for the lower Performance of the Mobile Hardware ..its like games thats converted to consoles
and not all plays only by sitting of the backseat of a Car or in a Train ...to many Smombies now on way
Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 15 August 2019 - 02:40 AM.
and for Mobile Gaming the Performance must converted down for the lower Performance of the Mobile Hardware ..its like games thats converted to consoles
and not all plays only by sitting of the backseat of a Car or in a Train ...to many Smombies now on way
Seriously? Tell that to PUBG and Fortnite. They got they got the same game running on all platforms. The client app maybe scaled to the client hardware but not the server back end. Game like Autochess and Dota Underlords looks the same whether its on an iPad or a PC and you can play across platforms.
PC games converted to consoles today, has no difference other than the controls (touchscreen vs. game controller vs. keyboard and mouse) and the operating system they run on. A lot of the abstraction are done by the game engine anyway which handles the hardware details. Exactly what Unreal or Unity engine does.
phones do have pretty good polygon pushers. but the second you try to run something physics heavy you run into the problem of the crappy fpus that arm chips have. so its not a great platform for simulation games. one project i was working on i just used fixed point because float was too slow. almost doubled my performance.
phones do have pretty good polygon pushers. but the second you try to run something physics heavy you run into the problem of the crappy fpus that arm chips have. so its not a great platform for simulation games. one project i was working on i just used fixed point because float was too slow. almost doubled my performance.
1
Wil McCullough, on 13 August 2019 - 02:30 AM, said:
