MechHero Forum

General Category => New Ideas => Topic started by: Storm on April 16, 2018, 08:30:03 PM

Title: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Storm on April 16, 2018, 08:30:03 PM
Hello and Greetings to the new owners,

I have played this game a lot, mostly in the past.   I have played many online games in past extensively.  I do like this game and will give a few suggestions that could make it more playable and successful.


These few changes could change the entire gameplay of this game.  There is more but did not want to overload.  Just think about it.  I took the time to post this.  No haters please.

Thanks

Taipan

Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 16, 2018, 09:01:10 PM
Some good points there :)
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Mayhem01 on April 16, 2018, 09:43:19 PM
•There is an app that allows you to see grids with 2, 6, 8 labeled.  Add this as a pay for item, will make up for superhero account and save many players a lot of time.

This is a bad idea...

1. New player(s) who does not know about the grids, about how they are "protected" by those who do know, and unsure if they are willing to spend money on this game (if they pay for options) will end up being attacked by angry players because of debris theft. The new player will then think that this game is full of @$$**** and quit it before giving it a fair chance.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 16, 2018, 10:16:42 PM
•There is an app that allows you to see grids with 2, 6, 8 labeled.  Add this as a pay for item, will make up for superhero account and save many players a lot of time.

This is a bad idea...

1. New player(s) who does not know about the grids, about how they are "protected" by those who do know, and unsure if they are willing to spend money on this game (if they pay for options) will end up being attacked by angry players because of debris theft. The new player will then think that this game is full of @$$**** and quit it before giving it a fair chance.
A mute point as the app is already out there and to charge for its use would involve paying royalties to the app owner.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: sweety on April 16, 2018, 10:31:31 PM
The only thing that I would want to change asap would be to remove paid transform option. Really... it makes absurd difference in army size you can sustain if you have it enabled. Just this thing makes you many times stronger, something like that shouldn't exist - it should be removed or the transform mechanic should be heavily changed.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 17, 2018, 10:58:29 AM
Thanks for your feedback. We definitely consider all of this things. We have to asses from many points of view impact of changes in Super Hero account, having also discussing with former developers.  For know we restart S1 as it is. What we want to focus in next releases to reduce micromanagent, wchich is time consuming for simple activities. We have planned whole set of automation mechanisms which I believe will be a strong relieve and player may more focus on strategy planning than just resources management, especially for those who has 5+ cities. More informations soon in ideas section.

Notification mechanism is one of many drivers, why we need to deliver apps. With mobile apps such notification is build and commonly used in mobile OS.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 17, 2018, 02:17:46 PM
Thanks for your feedback. We definitely consider all of this things. We have to asses from many points of view impact of changes in Super Hero account, having also discussing with former developers.  For know we restart S1 as it is. What we want to focus in next releases to reduce micromanagent, wchich is time consuming for simple activities. We have planned whole set of automation mechanisms which I believe will be a strong relieve and player may more focus on strategy planning than just resources management, especially for those who has 5+ cities. More informations soon in ideas section.
GREAT NEWS !!!!!!!!
Notification mechanism is one of many drivers, why we need to deliver apps. With mobile apps such notification is build and commonly used in mobile OS.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 17, 2018, 10:18:45 PM
Pilne !!! Znieście ograniczenia liczby graczy w sojuszu. Bo do sojuszu trafią tylko silni gracze. Nowi gracze nie będą mieli od kogo się uczyć. Słabi  szybko zrezygnują.

Urgent !!! Take down the restrictions on the number of players in the alliance. Only strong players will join the alliance. New players will not have anyone to learn from. Słabi will quickly give up.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 17, 2018, 10:35:27 PM
Pilne !!! Znieście ograniczenia liczby graczy w sojuszu. Bo do sojuszu trafią tylko silni gracze. Nowi gracze nie będą mieli od kogo się uczyć. Słabi  szybko zrezygnują.

Urgent !!! Take down the restrictions on the number of players in the alliance. Only strong players will join the alliance. New players will not have anyone to learn from. Słabi will quickly give up.
Alliance limit as I understand from many discussions from this forum and former designer is one of the ideas how to balance game play. but indeed it causes effect you just described. In other way if we take down this restriction, question is - to which value (if any) and if this will really fix the problem.

Real problem and our the biggest challenge and pain is currently limited number of users which makes game play balance very challenging. We count that further game development and information campaign will bring to play new as well as convince old, experienced players to back to Mech Hero.

Dzięki Lech!
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 17, 2018, 11:01:25 PM
Widziałeś ostatni serwer. Tak wyglądają servery od kilku lat. Ilość graczy w sojuszu nie odgrywa teraz żadnej roli. Z mojego sojuszu wystarczyło trzech graczy do zniszczenia drugiego w statystykach. A w sojuszu było jeszcze co najmniej 5 silnych graczy. pamiętam dobre czasy MH. Sojusz który miał 180 graczy, miał dużą trudność pokonać sojusz 20-graczy w którym było 5 super graczy. Co mnie narkotyzuje w tej grze? Strategia - to najlepsza gra strategiczna jaką znam.
PS wielkości sojuszu: Jak widziałeś z pozostałymi sojuszami miałem podpisany pakt o nieagresji. nie chciałem żeby się moi gracze ich atakowali i tym samym zniechęcili ich do gry. A oni żeby uczyli się grać
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 18, 2018, 10:58:21 AM
Do not waste your time protecting the server from multi-accounts. Leave it at the end. this is the theme of a river or ocean. Strong limitations will destroy the best that is in MH. Team game in the alliance. Simple questions:
1. husband and wife are playing together.
2. father and son are playing together
3. several students play from one room.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 18, 2018, 11:16:00 AM
According Alliance limits. If we completely romove such limit does it really help with anything?

Mulitaccounts. Adamsky told us some stories about players creativness :) Indeed - the same IP, lot of directional transfers, other rules broken (cannot tell now all, but game has such for identifying multi accounts) - and player complains that he play with family, mates, etc.

What do you all think about other aproach. Make for evident multi account life tliitle harder in the game and launch NPC attacks (even with AB) from time to time.  Multi can still play as it is utilising advantages, but game became more challenging. I think this would be fair for all.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 20, 2018, 02:55:51 AM
According Alliance limits. If we completely romove such limit does it really help with anything?

Mulitaccounts. Adamsky told us some stories about players creativness :) Indeed - the same IP, lot of directional transfers, other rules broken (cannot tell now all, but game has such for identifying multi accounts) - and player complains that he play with family, mates, etc.

What do you all think about other aproach. Make for evident multi account life tliitle harder in the game and launch NPC attacks (even with AB) from time to time.  Multi can still play as it is utilising advantages, but game became more challenging. I think this would be fair for all.

To be 100% honest , most multi accounts are produced so that they can be used as res cows create 4 accounts you then get close to producing the res a well run credit using account produces. If you make it a level playing field you reduce that incentive.

other multi accounts are created to harass bigger players who are never able attack the smaller players on S1 server due to the size restrictions.
and then other multi accounts are created to deal with those multi accounts used to harass.
Some of the new initiatives you are planning could have the result of reducing the amount of multi accounts on a server at any one time. However there are some players who will always seek to exploit.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: verkli on April 21, 2018, 12:04:35 AM
@robert

I do not really care about multi accounts. That is not effective except intelligence reasons.

The reason I was quit (I was/I am a MH maniac) the harvesting issues.

The main income is the harvesting. But becouse the rules thiefs have huge advantages over active players (credit buyers).
1. Radar has to be nerf, also the wiew range of the debris pictures. At high lvl you can see now 150 distance debrises worth...its insane. And you can see EVERY debrises on map without any limitation. Every player on map with a single radar and few harvesters could fuck with you. No matter how many mechs you have or how actively you play.
2. Fast server attack restriction evolved a new rat type player: They building small accounts inside big player's bedroom, and all their "gameplay" is to harvest the debrises and sending the goods to their main accounts. And the big players cant kill that cities becouse attack restriction. Its a bit demoralizing when you scan a near tiny player, who has more KP-s than offensive points. And you know all his thingy was in your wallet minutes ago.

Have to change this rules to keep the active players.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 21, 2018, 12:33:06 AM
Witaj verkli. O tym samym pisałem. Albo ograniczyć zasięg radaru - debris. Albo mechy na patronu będą niszczyły kombajny obcych.
Hello, verkli. I wrote about the same. Or limit the radar range - debris. Or mechs on the patron will destroy alien combos.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: ian hawker on April 23, 2018, 10:28:32 AM
in my honest opinnion  removing or leaving the alliance limits will have no impact on the game . at this time the player base is too low for it to have any impact on it .
A) leave the limit .. you get all the same players heading to one alliance and the game becomes a sim build game because they are all good players perfect example last server . the hussars spent 3/4 of the game playing a sim building games
B) open up the alliance limit and now everyone tries to get in that alliance, again the game becomes a sim building game because noone wants to be outside the aliance

 a good player will take 1 maybe 2 servers to be come good at the game but then will not want to set up on his own due to not enough players to compete against the uber alliance .

most people flock to play with each other in the same alliance .. friends of friends and even if they cant get in they set up a 2nd alliance that dosnt attack the uber alliance . so again you get a sim building game

i dont know of a way to combat this but the fact the game has lost so many good players due to the previous inactivity and lack of development  ... so as i say i cannot see playing with alliance limits will alter anything .
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Storm on April 23, 2018, 12:56:47 PM
Well, a big problem is little to no support. 

I reference 'no emailed credits' from last S1.  Lech did say he finally got his, however invalid and I have not heard anything.  I would be spending them now if I had them. 

Two games ago I started playing towards the end.  With only one city I was AB'd a few times and it was almost impossible to get out my second city.  A new player would have just quit.  I stated some good ideas, and I remember talking with adamsky many many years ago.  My prediction came true about continued loss of players.  I took the time to make some suggestions here.

I know everyone has their own ideas of what will work to revive the game.  The real answer is fixing the problems before adding new content.  A problem I did not state properly was:  Support The Game.

Please get at least 1 person who will look at trouble tickets and work towards resolving issues.  The early part of the game is very important.  Please send credits from last game.  I promise I will use them and buy more.  ROFL..

Anyways, Ian, you are right, changing alliance limits right now probably wont help.  I enjoy playing with HUSARIA friends.  I was around when Lech was a newbie, and I enjoyed playing with him then.  He had great ideas and look at him now.

Well, there is a few more cents worth of babble...

Taipan
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 23, 2018, 03:13:37 PM
Taipan uczyłem się grać, Ty miaŁeś już doświadczenie w tej grze. Nie ukrywałeś swojej wiedzy. Pokazałeś mi bardzo dużo. Nauczyłem się grać w MH. Teraz ja pomagam nowym graczom. To jest najlepsze w tej grze. Tworzenie sojuszy, wspólne dziłanie, wspólna strategia i nouka nowych graczy. Mam super zadowolenie kiedy mój uczeń jest lepszy niż ja. Wychowałem już kilku takich graczy.

Dzięki Taipan za pomoc na starcie.

Lech (Aleksander)

Taipan learned to play, you already had experience in this game. You did not hide your knowledge. You showed me a lot. I learned to play in MH. Now I help new players. This is the best in this game. Creating alliances, joint action, common strategy and nouka of new players. I have great satisfaction when my student is better than me. I've raised a few of these players.

Thanks to Taipan for help at the start.

Lech (Aleksander)
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 23, 2018, 09:59:35 PM
Limited numer of players, especially those experienced limits tension and competition. Do you have idea what could make old, experienced players to come back  o game to make real competition?

We have players database, but mass mailing action may cause treating our server a spamer, so we are causios about such approach.

 
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 23, 2018, 10:10:06 PM
Ja ściągam doświadczonych graczy. Mam do nich telefony i pocztę. nie zawsze wracają.
Ale powtarzam bardzo lubię tą grę i będę uczył nowych graczy.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 23, 2018, 10:14:05 PM
Ja ściągam doświadczonych graczy. Mam do nich telefony i pocztę. nie zawsze wracają.
Ale powtarzam bardzo lubię tą grę i będę uczył nowych graczy.

Thank you Lech. I remember tension and combat emotions from times where there few times more players. Hopefully we revive that.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 23, 2018, 10:23:02 PM
Mój pierwszy serwer? Grałem w sojuszu w którym było 180 graczy. Nie ważni są starzy gracze. Ważne żeby nowi nie odeszli.
Większość starych graczy jak się pojawi na serwerze do się ze mną kontaktuje.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Storm on April 26, 2018, 12:57:45 AM
To get new players to stay is important.  If you are so against making superhero account standard, then make the harvest part standard so you don't need to use a calculator.  BUT, I would probably never pay for the rest of superhero account stuff :)

There are some fundamental flaws in the game.  Steep learning curve.  Not newbie friendly (experienced players push out new players by using game mechanics).  Sitter broken (my counsin creates account and logs in 1/week, i play the account, see?).  You must Pay to Play (superhero account is a must so you dont need to calculate all debris harvest). 

If you think the last part is not correct, 127 people registered to play S1, only about 50 are playing.  And of those 50 maybe only 20 real players.

In good conscience I could not attempt to get new players to come here.  They would just quit and call me stupid for sugggesting they play.  However, make some real changes, make the game more playable for noobs, and I will spread the word.  You should also start a youtube channel and offer credits to anyone who subscribes, something like that.

OK, I have ranted enough... later gator

Taipan
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 26, 2018, 01:10:16 AM
Alliances have to be forged, for no single player can win this game , it is a team game.
Some people enjoy building and producing , some people enjoy fighting and trying to out think and out play other players.
The game as it exists now  with the lack of development in the past , has become very stale. The quick server on S1 is good because of the speed and some things are easier than on S3 , the slow server.When an alliance has the right mix of players then that alliance will dominate a server. They will be focused on winning and will basicaly crush opposition. adding some new twists into the game should make playing the game more enjoyable.
Things like the tournament are good , but perhaps a knockout tournament and a set of leagues would be a good idea. Run a knock out tournament the top 8 go into the premier league, the top 9-16 go into championship league the next 8 go into 1st division ... etc etc ... then like in a footbal league players play it out to find the best player in each divisionthe bottom 2 of each league are relegated the top 2 promoted and in the premier league the top player is crowned MechHero champion. This will give talented individuals opportunity to prove themselves.
you can also have aliance team games. These are all things that can help retain interest in the game and provide some unique game experience.
I hope that this gives food for thought.
~S~ F
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on April 27, 2018, 02:39:42 AM
I finally have my old forum login fixed. Thanks new admins.


What you should keep as is for the new players..

1. All current attack restrictions

2. Current alliance restrictions. This won't make a difference until game recovers its player base


New ideas. Well, here are some new and old ideas...

1. When declaring war against an alliance, all IR attack limits and daily attack restriction no longer apply to anyone within the declaration scope. Declarations of War can only be placed on an alliance (even if said alliance has only one player)

2. All debris in your 8x8 tileset is automatically and continuously harvested at an assigned rate based on total harvester and radar station levels. This could also include experimental radar tech levels to further boost collection rates. You could also manually send harvester to specific locations to purposely collect a specific debris pile with better equipment in them.

3. All resources obey laws of conservation. In other words, resources are never totally destroyed. If buildings, or tech, or mechs, or anything is destroyed a certain percentage is left in debris piles in the 8x8 tileset area they were destroyed (see next point). Further, if you send more resources than a city storage allows, the extra is conserved as debris around said city ready for harvesting. I would suggest an 80 percent conservation rate.

4. No tech at all allowed in debris, or looted from players. Everything taken is taken as resources. The only way to get any kind of tech is to make it yourself, or buy it on the open market. Consider that when you attack, all tech is destroyed and only scrap (resources) is recovered.

5. Debris in an 8x8 tileset should use a heat map. Red is recent deposit, toward blue are older deposits as an example. Radar and sats give better resolution and red vs blue ranges or colour levels.

6. All incoming attacks are 'discovered' and analyzed to give a report based on stationed sats, radar level, and experimental radar tech level. Based on these level, you may discover the size, or cell amount, or even each individual mech and armament at a certain distance from attacked city.

7. You can re-station any vehicle to another city (otherwise known as 'deploy' in other games). This means I can move my 500 harvesters from one city to another without recycling in one, and rebuilding in another.

8. The world map wraps. In other words, map location -256, -256 and 256, 256 are exactly one unit away from each other

9. Portals once opened are open for everyone. They cannot be defended. Furthermore, portals and moons allow for shortcuts from one earth map location to another. Example, I want to go from alpha sector to delta sector. Normally this might be hundreds of units to travel. If I were to open 2 or more portals leading to  galetea moon, I could theoretical have shortened my travel distance by cutting through this moon portals. Currently this is not allowed. You can only travel to a moon city, then once at this city, through another location. You cannot currently travel through 2 (or more) portals to make a shortcut.

10. Moons also have NPC's on them, but they are not your standard NPC. They also carry AB weapons.

11. You can spam elite AB NPC's on moons for resources just as you can spam normal NPC's on earth.

12. Missiles do not cost any cell resources to make or use. No one is using missiles right now, maybe this will help the situation.

13. Races. Each race has a perk that modifies some aspect of the game. Example, Plebs race might travel 25% faster in all cases but have 25% reduction in armour and hull values. Wimyns might gain 25% more resources when recycling but use 25% more cells per mech. Gunners race might gain 25% range but 25% reduction in damage. Missileministers race can build missiles at 25% increased rate, and for 25% cheapear, but can only use short range weapons otherwise.

14. MASC. Myomer Accelerator Signal Circuitry. Basically, allows the mech to move at twice normal rated speed (if you have the space to install this unit) at the cost of certain damage over time. Can be used to speed up time to travel to attacks, or to escape battles.

15. AMS. Anti-missile system. This will only be of use if the current missile system is revamped so missiles become a viable damage option.

16. Detonation module. Uses almost all mech space. Installable on lower mech only (up to athlas). Uses special explosive to create a detonation radius from mech equal to 10 times the current mechs hull points in damage out  to a distance of one tenth the current hull points. Useful in Kamikaze missions an clustered enemies.

17. Super Shields module. Uses half of mech space. Basically an anti-detonation module. Uses both shields and armours in a way to counter-act a mech detonation and can only be used on smaller mechs (up to athlas). The Super is re-usable and is not destroyed when used against detonation modules. Best used in front lines (or rear lines). There is no guarantee a line of Supers on mechs will protect non-Super mechs from damage that are further away.

18. Station-able mechs. I can send mechs to any map location and then send them to any other map location indefinitely. Example, I can send them to a bare map location outside of their radar range (radar needs to be fixed for this idea). Then when ready, attack them from this closer and more strategic location).



Now some things that need to be changed...

1. Using the ballistic branch of the tech tree needs to have a bonus vs cells. IMO, there should be an overall 20% to 30% reduction when using ballistic weapons only. Currently there is no real cell conservation if using ballistics. This might require reducing damages slightly on all ballistic weapons.

2. There is a 450 mech send limit. If you send more, the page crashes. Fix this!

3. If you destroy an enemy city with mechs or any other vehicle en-route to another city, all mechs/vehicles coming or going from said city vanish. Fix this!

4. There is a way to cheat the cell starve system...kind of. The system only checks for cell requirements every 15 to 20 minutes. Between this interval, the city need not have any cells in storage. I myself have saves 100K a minute using this tactic at times.

5. Sitters. Remove this idea entirely. Introduce vacation mode. Set vacation mode with no vehicle activity for min 48hrs (locks account for this long and cannot be attacked nor can attack others)


EDITS: Grammer ;p
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 27, 2018, 08:28:06 AM
Absolutely fantastic post. Really good ideas and remarks. I am happy that many of them are compliant with our ideas and our way of thinking.

I finally have my old forum login fixed. Thanks new admins.
You’re welcome :)

2. All debris in your 8x8 tileset is automatically and continuously harvested at an assigned rate based on total harvester and radar station levels. This could also include experimental radar tech levels to further boost collection rates. You could also manually send harvester to specific locations to purposely collect a specific debris pile with better equipment in them.

This is exactly or very close to Auto-harvest mechanism which I have described in other topic.

3. All resources obey laws of conservation. In other words, resources are never totally destroyed. If buildings, or tech, or mechs, or anything is destroyed a certain percentage is left in debris piles in the 8x8 tileset area they were destroyed (see next point). Further, if you send more resources than a city storage allows, the extra is conserved as debris around said city ready for harvesting. I would suggest an 80 percent conservation rate.
4. No tech at all allowed in debris, or looted from players. Everything taken is taken as resources. The only way to get any kind of tech is to make it yourself, or buy it on the open market. Consider that when you attack, all tech is destroyed and only scrap (resources) is recovered.

This worth to be considered. Especially point 3. Is just close to reality. Resources used for building/producing not disappears.

5. Debris in an 8x8 tileset should use a heat map. Red is recent deposit, toward blue are older deposits as an example. Radar and sats give better resolution and red vs blue ranges or colour levels.

As we rewriting game to new technology new map options appears. This is new one. I just wonder if factor new/old really matters?

6. All incoming attacks are 'discovered' and analyzed to give a report based on stationed sats, radar level, and experimental radar tech level. Based on these level, you may discover the size, or cell amount, or even each individual mech and armament at a certain distance from attacked city.
Few more players mention that. We have decision yesterday about that with former designer. We have to be cautious about that as it limits the tension and surprise/fake attacks factor.

7. You can re-station any vehicle to another city (otherwise known as 'deploy' in other games). This means I can move my 500 harvesters from one city to another without recycling in one, and rebuilding in another.

Definitely good and useful idea.

8. The world map wraps. In other words, map location -256, -256 and 256, 256 are exactly one unit away from each other
9. Portals once opened are open for everyone. They cannot be defended. Furthermore, portals and moons allow for shortcuts from one earth map location to another. Example, I want to go from alpha sector to delta sector. Normally this might be hundreds of units to travel. If I were to open 2 or more portals leading to  galetea moon, I could theoretical have shortened my travel distance by cutting through this moon portals. Currently this is not allowed. You can only travel to a moon city, then once at this city, through another location. You cannot currently travel through 2 (or more) portals to make a shortcut.

Both points are good idea how to make more tension. I could imagine that alliance players can built own portals Portals to make links to reach far areas of the map.


10. Moons also have NPC's on them, but they are not your standard NPC. They also carry AB weapons.
11. You can spam elite AB NPC's on moons for resources just as you can spam normal NPC's on earth.

I think about create NPC more active, especially against players considered by engine as multi account. This may be also used in moons to create challenge to establish presence on them.
I have sketch design of new race. They can be present in moons as locales :)

12. Missiles do not cost any cell resources to make or use. No one is using missiles right now, maybe this will help the situation.

This is exactly what I want to introduce. There is a lot of efforts to make missiles weapon type in the game, but they have a lot of drawbacks.
What I planned to propose is to double hits from them which would make another powerful type of weapon in the game. As a contr-weapon I plan to give Advanced Machine Gun Anti Missile ability and some percentage (20-30% by default + some new targeting equipment items and abilities) chance to shot down missiles.
I believe this both introduce new tactics and make AMG really useful weapon.

13. Races. Each race has a perk that modifies some aspect of the game. Example, Plebs race might travel 25% faster in all cases but have 25% reduction in armour and hull values. Wimyns might gain 25% more resources when recycling but use 25% more cells per mech. Gunners race might gain 25% range but 25% reduction in damage. Missileministers race can build missiles at 25% increased rate, and for 25% cheapear, but can only use short range weapons otherwise.

We had discussion about that with former designer and there were not any real design.
Absolutely fantastic idea! This would make exciting options for player, but mostly and alliances combinations :)

14. MASC. Myomer Accelerator Signal Circuitry. Basically, allows the mech to move at twice normal rated speed (if you have the space to install this unit) at the cost of certain damage over time. Can be used to speed up time to travel to attacks, or to escape battles.

I planned to boost speed by Jump packs bonus, which is close to reality, but of course there may by specialized equipment’s/abilities.

15. AMS. Anti-missile system. This will only be of use if the current missile system is revamped so missiles become a viable damage option.

See point 12.

16. Detonation module. Uses almost all mech space. Installable on lower mech only (up to athlas). Uses special explosive to create a detonation radius from mech equal to 10 times the current mechs hull points in damage out  to a distance of one tenth the current hull points. Useful in Kamikaze missions an clustered enemies.

17. Super Shields module. Uses half of mech space. Basically an anti-detonation module. Uses both shields and armours in a way to counter-act a mech detonation and can only be used on smaller mechs (up to athlas). The Super is re-usable and is not destroyed when used against detonation modules. Best used in front lines (or rear lines). There is no guarantee a line of Supers on mechs will protect non-Super mechs from damage that are further away.

Kamikadze units were proposed few times. I like this, because this make opportunity for create new battle tactics for offensve/defensive (how to shoot out kamikadze until he reach our mechs :)) combinations. Definitely will be introduced.

18. Station-able mechs. I can send mechs to any map location and then send them to any other map location indefinitely. Example, I can send them to a bare map location outside of their radar range (radar needs to be fixed for this idea). Then when ready, attack them from this closer and more strategic location).

Sneak attacks …. I have prepared some design for new stealth chasis mechs, harder to hit. This is another idea, but we have to assess if this fits to existing game mechanism (if we could easily deploy units on the cell , not in the city) – I don’t think so this would be a doable without huge refactor.
I could imagine new city type – hidden base where we could deploy units (only). This base would be invisible by other players but there should be some mechanism to discover that. The simplest is some chance to reveal such base during patrol mission, which is close to reality.
I believe such sneak attacks would be very exciting mechanism!

1. Using the ballistic branch of the tech tree needs to have a bonus vs cells. IMO, there should be an overall 20% to 30% reduction when using ballistic weapons only. Currently there is no real cell conservation if using ballistics. This might require reducing damages slightly on all ballistic weapons.

Sorry I don’t understand :( Could you give some examples .

2. There is a 450 mech send limit. If you send more, the page crashes. Fix this!
3. If you destroy an enemy city with mechs or any other vehicle en-route to another city, all mechs/vehicles coming or going from said city vanish. Fix this!
4. There is a way to cheat the cell starve system...kind of. The system only checks for cell requirements every 15 to 20 minutes. Between this interval, the city need not have any cells in storage. I myself have saves 100K a minute using this tactic at times.

Bugs put on a bug list to be fixed. Thanks!

5. Sitters. Remove this idea entirely. Introduce vacation mode. Set vacation mode with no vehicle activity for min 48hrs (locks account for this long and cannot be attacked nor can attack others)

Frankly speaking I was never fun of Sitter mechanism, which IMHO gives a huge space for cheating. I would never dare to remove that without players feedback. I am curious If more players share the same opinion.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 27, 2018, 11:21:11 AM
some great ideas there :)


Quote from: TheDude on Today at 02:39:42 AM

    2. There is a 450 mech send limit. If you send more, the page crashes. Fix this!
    3. If you destroy an enemy city with mechs or any other vehicle en-route to another city, all mechs/vehicles coming or going from said city vanish. Fix this!
    4. There is a way to cheat the cell starve system...kind of. The system only checks for cell requirements every 15 to 20 minutes. Between this interval, the city need not have any cells in storage. I myself have saves 100K a minute using this tactic at times.


Bugs put on a bug list to be fixed. Thanks!

Point 2 concerns the game mechanics and engine, it is a limitation of the game engine .. If you have player A with 200 Nova and he attacks player B who also has 200 nova the game engine only has a finite number of moves it can process on the battle. so often Battles of this size will take place and mechs will be lost however the battle is not resolved to a conclusion as the game engine runs out of moves and the battle ends without a clear outcome. In mechhero 2.0 I guess the game mechanics may be improved to allow these megga battles to be concluded.. The biggest battle I ever saw was between 2 armies each side had 500+ mechs each

 point 3 is not a bug ... if the city is destroyed it no longer has the capacity to keep the mechs alive so they die. It happens the moment the city is destroyed. Now if you could have mobile cell storage untits that can accompany army , then it might be possible for the army to survive.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 27, 2018, 03:09:14 PM
Tekst z forum:

Mechhero - gra strategiczna. Wszelkie zmiany nie mogą tego zmienić !!!!!

Po pierwsze: Należy uruchomić grę dla wszystkich graczy !!!. Jedni będą grać tylko na wolnym a inni tylko na szybkim serwerze. Pozostali dowolnie. Powinniśmy się zastanowić jaką prędkość wybrać: x1 (s3),  x5 (s1) ja proponuję x3. Może pojawią się wszyscy.
Po drugie: Gracze którzy niszczą tę grę. Terroryści. Budują miasta tylko po to żeby kraść szczątki. Nie można ich znisczyć i są złośliwi. Nie interesuje ich gra. Propozycja: Stworzyć satelity bojowe, które patrolują teren wokół miasta (sektora w którym jest miasto). trzeba ustalić ile jeden satelita i na jakim poziomie zniszczy (10 -50) kombajnów zbożowych.
Terroryści często przywłaszczają nazwy graczy liderów tej gry. Propozycja: zablokować nazwy graczy na 2-3 lata. Przez ten okres nie można ich używać. Aby zachęcić liderów do częstego grania wprowadzić listę(ranking)  graczy. Każdy gracz po zakończonym serwerze otrzyma medale i punkty za: 1,2 i 3 miejsce w ostatecznym rankingu. Medal i punkty za bycie do końca w zwycięskim sojuszu.

Lech


Forum text:
Mechhero - a strategy game. Any changes can not change this !!!!!

First of all: Run the game for all players !!!. Some will only play slow and others only on a fast server. They remain as free. We should consider which speed to choose: x1 (s3), x5 (s1) I suggest x3. Maybe everyone will appear.
Second: Players who destroy this game. Terrorists. They build cities just to steal the remains. You can not tell them and they are mischievous. They are not interested in the game. Proposal: Create combat satellites that patrol the area around the city (the sector in which the city is). you need to determine how many one satellite and at what level will destroy (10-50) combine harvesters.
Terrorists often appropriate the names of players of the game's leaders. Suggestion: block the names of players for 2-3 years. During this period, you can not use them. To encourage leaders to play frequently, enter a list (ranking) of players. Each player after the completed server will receive medals and points for: 1,2 and 3 place in the final ranking. Medal and points for being in the winning alliance.

lech
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 27, 2018, 03:44:43 PM
S3 (normal speed) will be restarted in about 2 weeks.

Creating one player account is one of our development prioroty now. This is in our opinion one of the greatest design flaw of this game (now uniquenes is only on cocnrete game server run). This would simpliphy lot of things and prevent from nick stealing as well as allow to one credit pool (we could get rid of Credit Codes), avatar and many many others ....

Debris stealers. Many of you mention that. What do you think will be the simplest solution for that? Just reduce radar range?
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: kylar on April 27, 2018, 04:16:23 PM
Reducing the radar range won't fix the problem at all i agree that we need a way to counter that directly cause its way 2 annoying atm.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Nobody on April 27, 2018, 04:20:43 PM
In my opinion the main problem (as couple of my friends mentioned earlier) is that you can see debris from whole map, you might not know what is inside of it but you can try gamble and get something good. I think this problem can be fixed if you reduce radar and you won't be able to see debris from the whole map.

PS. I like idea about combat sattelities
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 27, 2018, 08:45:04 PM
The issue is a pain in the neck !
but if say debris fields were linked to action.
For example we know that if you destroy an npc then res will spawn in random locations within the 8x8 grid If that debris pile was only visbile to the player who created it, that would solve the issue completely.
However this is a combat game I favour that anyone clicking on a debris pile would see a message this was created by player xxx if you proceed to send harvesters Player xxx will be alerted and regardless of your size any attack restrictions will be lifted for 24 hours... Player xxx would get a system message ... Player yyy has taken res that you have produced You can now attack player yyy for 24 hours please note there are no restrictions on the amount of attacks you can send. If you are in an alliance then the whole alliance will be able to attack the player.
I can guarantee that after 3 weeks AB weapons will have been produced and that player would be toast.
However the only drawback to this is the way new players spawn the first city... Currently there are 4 players in the grid I currently occupy there were 6 2 quit after I attacked them and 1 joined our alliance the last 2 are 2 small for me to attack them. We have such a small player base it might be worth trying to limit the new player spawns to  occupy an empty grid if possible , and you might consider letting NPC spawn in unoccupied grids. Adding a tutorial advising the new player how to effectively farm the grid he occupies will also help :)
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on April 27, 2018, 09:27:32 PM
Dla mnie najlepszym rowiązaniem są specjalne satelity które wykryją i zniszczą kombajny. Oczywiście każdy gracz otrzyma rapory. Proponuję: Jeśli gracz wyśle satelity na godzinę - bezpłatnie. Stały nadzór - płatny.

For me the best solution are special satellites that will detect and destroy combine harvesters. Of course, each player will receive a rapory. I suggest: If the player sends the satellites for one hour - free of charge. Permanent supervision - paid.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: kylar on April 27, 2018, 09:56:25 PM
The issue is a pain in the neck !
but if say debris fields were linked to action.
For example we know that if you destroy an npc then res will spawn in random locations within the 8x8 grid If that debris pile was only visbile to the player who created it, that would solve the issue completely.
However this is a combat game I favour that anyone clicking on a debris pile would see a message this was created by player xxx if you proceed to send harvesters Player xxx will be alerted and regardless of your size any attack restrictions will be lifted for 24 hours... Player xxx would get a system message ... Player yyy has taken res that you have produced You can now attack player yyy for 24 hours please note there are no restrictions on the amount of attacks you can send. If you are in an alliance then the whole alliance will be able to attack the player.
I can guarantee that after 3 weeks AB weapons will have been produced and that player would be toast.
However the only drawback to this is the way new players spawn the first city... Currently there are 4 players in the grid I currently occupy there were 6 2 quit after I attacked them and 1 joined our alliance the last 2 are 2 small for me to attack them. We have such a small player base it might be worth trying to limit the new player spawns to  occupy an empty grid if possible , and you might consider letting NPC spawn in unoccupied grids. Adding a tutorial advising the new player how to effectively farm the grid he occupies will also help :)

I agree with furion solution of the problem but i strongly disagree that alliance can attack the player also. I would like more to se 1vs1 battles than 1vs99 atleast that would be more fair for both sides i think.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Nobody on April 28, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
Since everyone is sharing with their ideas i would like to add some of mine which might be interesting.

First of all I think variation of NPC is very low and it should be changed. I think it would be great if there were new NPC which would make this game more interesting.  Moreover add some special NPC which will spawn rarely. Those NPC will be stronger than usual ones and will give better awards for defeating them, for example some equipment that can't be produced.

Secondly Outposts, It's for mid-game before portals, There will be several outposts around the map and each player can fight for it(Each outpost will have strong army which is defending that). It will be something similar to portal but the difference is that they can build things inside and use it as extra city. However this city can be lost to another player by simply attacking it and capturing. In those cities players can produce some special mechs or equipment that they can't in normal cities. Moreover those outposts will give some bonus which will make other players want it as well. Also there will be no limit to how many outposts one player can have, the more you have the harder to control all of them.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 28, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
Since everyone is sharing with their ideas i would like to add some of mine which might be interesting.

First of all I think variation of NPC is very low and it should be changed. I think it would be great if there were new NPC which would make this game more interesting.  Moreover add some special NPC which will spawn rarely. Those NPC will be stronger than usual ones and will give better awards for defeating them, for example some equipment that can't be produced.

Secondly Outposts, It's for mid-game before portals, There will be several outposts around the map and each player can fight for it(Each outpost will have strong army which is defending that). It will be something similar to portal but the difference is that they can build things inside and use it as extra city. However this city can be lost to another player by simply attacking it and capturing. In those cities players can produce some special mechs or equipment that they can't in normal cities. Moreover those outposts will give some bonus which will make other players want it as well. Also there will be no limit to how many outposts one player can have, the more you have the harder to control all of them.
I like this idea a lot :)
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on April 29, 2018, 09:00:13 AM
Good ideas. Both refers to new equipments/mech chassis and some unique. Definitley we want to expand existing eqipments base to new ones (speed booster, auto-destroy, auto repair, decrease enemy accuracy, bonus accurasy, pilot capsules, and many, many others).
Definitely it would be good to have new NPC locations, that may be taken over  (Strongholds (strongly defended), Outposts, Mercenaries (hire new unique mech chassis) etc.). They are jsut ideas now, but will considered to developemnt.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Nobody on April 29, 2018, 10:02:33 AM
One of the mech class that you can consider adding is support mechs(or support equipment). Those mechs will support other mechs in combat giving them different boosts or heal them. This would for sure make lots of new possibilities for players as there will be so many new configurations.

I would like to also add some idea about Strongholds, there would be couple small outposts around it and firstly you would need to have control over all outpost around Strongholds before you can start attacking it as there will be barrier protecting it.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Furion on April 29, 2018, 05:16:19 PM
One of the mech class that you can consider adding is support mechs(or support equipment). Those mechs will support other mechs in combat giving them different boosts or heal them. This would for sure make lots of new possibilities for players as there will be so many new configurations.

I would like to also add some idea about Strongholds, there would be couple small outposts around it and firstly you would need to have control over all outpost around Strongholds before you can start attacking it as there will be barrier protecting it.
Awesome !!! Each server could have its own Unique outposts... yes the anticipation grows :)
would there also be a way to have armies made up from multiple players launch a single timed attack on a location to arrive at the same time and therefor join the battle at the same time... This cannot happen at the moment and is one of the biggest drawbacks...
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Storm on May 01, 2018, 03:52:43 PM
I know there are many suggestions about what changes are needed.  Many of these are great (new) ideas.  Fixing the existing issues that cause players grief I think is most important.

On debris, if you do not want to limit the Radar Station range, then create a new 1 credit scan.  This will scan your current cities grid and tell you the player and type of mission to going on to any sector in that grid.  I think this fix will solve the debris issue, create more combat (as this is a combat game) and generate money for the owners.

Making debris fields expire in 12 hours would also prevent the super-player from being able to achieve massive armies by forcing npc spawns right next to the city.  This is probably the best way to move forward but it will not be a favorable move to many that currently use that 'trick'.

You need to 'level' the playing field. 

I have 'come back' to play the last few months.  I do hope there are positive changes in the future.  I think I will drop out for now and try again in another year or two.  I hope to come back to a thriving game but that is not my call.  I wish everyone luck.

Feel free to email me in the future with 'changes' and if they look good I may try again earlier.  This could also be a way to entice older players to come back.  Email them with the changes to the game to create renewed interest.

Thanks and Later,

Taipan
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on May 03, 2018, 01:30:06 AM
1. Using the ballistic branch of the tech tree needs to have a bonus vs cells. IMO, there should be an overall 20% to 30% reduction when using ballistic weapons only. Currently there is no real cell conservation if using ballistics. This might require reducing damages slightly on all ballistic weapons.

Sorry I don’t understand :( Could you give some examples .

Right now, if you use energy branch of tech, or ballistics branch of tech, there is no difference in cell usage when you equip such weapons. Because of this, most players always use the energy branch due to the more effective low and mid range damage (there is really no good mid range ballistics weapon).

This does not seem right.

The ballistics branch should use a minimum of 20% less energy overall across the board. I would even suggest from 33% to 50% cell reduction for most ranges but the extremely long range or short range weapons.

Example...
PLR (energy) 7dam/r, 28cell used per item
LRR(ballistic) 8dam/r, 24cell used per item
In this case, the LRR should use between 14 to 18 cell per item as opposed to the PLR 28 cell per item. This should be done across the board, not just for PLR/LRR.

The only comparison that is actually in line with this now is the PFT vs the AR. The PFT comparatively uses ALOT more cells per item, as it should.

These are energy weapons after all! Why would ballistics (I assume using chemical means of propulsion) use just about as much enegy to fire a weapon?
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on May 03, 2018, 01:41:44 AM
Another idea I don't ever think was mentioned...

Each mech could get a bonus depending on which weapons, or type of weapon, or armor, or shield were installed.

Anyone ever notice the Nemesis looks like a missile mech? Why not make this mech have a capacity bonus vs missiles so you can fit another 50% missiles on this mech only?

The Wolverine is very big and bulky, slow moving. Maybe that is because this chassis uses a special kind of energy conservation. So maybe anything equipped gets a 50% reduction in cell usage.

Ever notice that the Puma looks kind of streamlined? Maybe if you would only put  a single PLR on this mech, it could run at 50% faster speeds?

Maybe all vulture, athlas, wolverine mechs always get a further small 10% cell reduction if you only use ballistic weapons?

Maybe all puma, spidertank mechs always get a further small 10% cell reduction if you only use energy weapons?

I am sure you get the idea...
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 03, 2018, 07:08:21 AM
Right now, if you use energy branch of tech, or ballistics branch of tech, there is no difference in cell usage when you equip such weapons. Because of this, most players always use the energy branch due to the more effective low and mid range damage (there is really no good mid range ballistics weapon).

This does not seem right.

The ballistics branch should use a minimum of 20% less energy overall across the board. I would even suggest from 33% to 50% cell reduction for most ranges but the extremely long range or short range weapons.

OK. Got it.

I noticed that common aproach as one winning strategy is to configure  Nova+PLR and we discussed that with former designer. I had answer that LRR is fully playable and can be winning againnst PLR's, but requires some player experience.

Balancing LRR vs PLR can be addresed with multiple ways:
1) Decrease energy consumption for ballistic weapons as you described.
2) Give +20% HP for all mechs (+ 50% repair speed) which makes battles longer and mechs survive till reach target - this was reccomendation from former designer.
3) Range manipulation (no concrete idea yet)

Your idea is much simpler and can be easily implemented. Still PLR has range advantage, but LLR and other ballistic will be more usable.

We will implement 20% decreasing of energy consumption for ballistic on new S1 (fast server) :) Even possible on new S3, but I would like to have normal server speed as more stable and changes testplay on fast server first, before will be deployed on normal speed server.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 03, 2018, 07:27:03 AM
Each mech could get a bonus depending on which weapons, or type of weapon, or armor, or shield were installed.

In Mech Hero 2.0 we want to completely change aproach to mech configuration, utilising 3D models.

Briefly idea description:
Players will be completely free to configure mechs. First will have to choose two main componens Body (different sizes) and Chasis (leg (few types), spider (small and big), wheeled?). Then attach to those equipment and weapons. 3D model will re-renderred apropriately. It requires having 1 item per 1 slot, so recalculations are neccecery.

Of course this is still possible that some Bodys/Chasis will have some bonuses.

It will takes some time to rework the game in such way, but that's idea and this is doable.

Bonuses to weapons fiths perfectly to Pilot Abilities which we have in scope for dveleopment in Q3-4 2018. Pilots occured much more complex than we initially thought.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Nobody on May 04, 2018, 06:54:19 PM
Another suggestion that I would like to share is idea about honour pts.

I don't really see the points of honour points, you don't get anything if it's positive or negative. How about when you have lots of negative points higher ranking players can attack you, it will of course depend how much you have them, more you have the higher ranking players can attack you.
Also when you defend someone your honour points will rise so it can be more balanced.


Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on May 12, 2018, 05:11:46 PM
I have heard recently that my suggestion to reduce ballistic weapon energy usage will be downgraded to only 10 percent. I originally stated an initial value of 20% might help, and that more likely 33 to 40 percent were likely required to make ballistics somewhat useful over energy weapons throughout the game.

If you are only going to mod by 10 percent, then don't bother.


Lets use a few examples....

A fully upgraded Nemesis army of 30 mechs using LRRx21 RG2x3 X2M...

...with 0  percent reduction in cell running cost uses approx 50K per hour (1672 cell per mech x 30)

---with 10 percent reduction in cell running saves you a whole entire 1710 cells/hr (whoopty do)[sarcasm]
    -each mechs saves LRR 2 cells each and RG2 5 cells each 21 x 2 + 3 x 5 = 57 x 30 = 1710
    - amounts to a 3.42 percent cell reduction overall
    - useless
   
---with 20 percent reduction in cell running saves you a whole entire 3420 cell/hr (or 2 extra Nemesis)
    -each mechs saves LRR 4 cells each and RG2 10 cells each 21 x 4 + 3 x 10 = 78 x 30 = 3420
    - amounts to a 6.84 percent cell reduction overall
    - meh
   
---with 33 percent reduction in cell running saves you a whole entire 5940 cell/hr (or 3.5 extra Nemesis)
    -each mechs saves LRR 7 cells each and RG2 17 cells each 21 x 7 + 3 x 17 = 198 x 30 = 5940
    - amounts to a 11.88 percent cell reduction overall
    - now we are starting to have some value here
   
---with 40 percent reduction in cell running saves you a whole entire 5940 cell/hr (or 4 extra Nemesis)
    -each mechs saves LRR 8 cells each and RG2 21 cells each 21 x 8 + 3 x 21 = 231 x 30 = 6930
    - amounts to a 13.86 percent cell reduction overall
    - as I stated in other post, this is likely what is really required
 
IMO even 40 percent may not be enough. So you get a few extra Nemesis, big deal. Will not make up for the more effective mid ranges in energy weapons

---with 50 percent reduction in cell running saves you a whole entire 9270 cell/hr (or 4 extra Nemesis)
    -each mechs saves LRR 11 cells each and RG2 26 cells each 21 x 11 + 3 x 26 = 309 x 30 = 9270
    - amounts to a 18.54 percent cell reduction overall
    - so this might be enough
   
FYI, if you swap any weapon out for something else; swap RG2 for MO, the overall percentages are reduced (get worse). The only likely scenario I could see is if a player were to use RG2 exclusively on say a spidertank. This would create massive savings. Of course, they would also be obliterated by anyone with Nemesis or Nova and any kind of long range weapons (lets say RG2)

Spidertank with jumpjets using say powerclaws is another huge cell savings and might be considered unfair advantage. Nope. Ballistics do not have the damage or range of good energy weapons. A few Spidertanks with even regular PGL will destroy these junmpers.


I'm not bald, okay? I shaved my head.  Understand?  (Kill Bill Vol 1)
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 12, 2018, 09:55:26 PM
Suggestive argumentation :)

I had on other way feedback from other experienced players (inlcuding former designer) that ballistic weapons can be a winning equipment. Every player has individual point of view. That's why I am cautios about bigger equipment characteristic changes, especially having less experience in Mech Hero gameplay that some players :)

My personal feeling following your way of thinking as I simply see in the game(s) that ballistic weapons are not popular.

In other way this simply close to reality. Ballitic weapons are driven by gunpowder. They don't consume as many energy as energy weapons :)

So, let's test 20% energy consumption discount for ballistic weapons on new S3.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on May 13, 2018, 02:12:38 AM
I agree, ballistics can be very effective. At times they can be even more effective than energy weapons.

Superior usage of the ballistic system can only be accomplished by the veteran player. Even if a veteran were to show a new or mid level player how to do it; makes no difference. You have to play on a massive scale to get the required weapons in the first place. I am not talking about just the last few weeks of the game when everyone might have the required number of  ballistics weapons in each range category.

Everyone starts out with energy, even the veterans, because multi range energy weapons are easy to get. Sure, LRR are easy enough to find too. However LRR alone will get you into trouble. You need support weapons, especially for anti jumpers and anti mid-range high damage energy weapons. This is where RG2 or MO come in. It is very hard to get enough RG2 to make the ballistics system work properly.  MO are not as effective, and can get the regular player into trouble.

It has taken me 3 weeks to finally be able to switch over to use LRR and RG2/MO effectively. Had I done it sooner, I would have lost many mechs. Energy is safe comparatively. Players would rather stay safe then risk mechs, unless there is some other benefit. Not just a small benefit either.

Some would argue that you can run spidertank jumpers with ballistics effectively with AR and MO as support within the first week. But this is not effective use of the entire ballistics branch. These jumpers can easily be taken out with low cost anti-jumper weapons like PGL or even PFT on any mech; even slow nova. In order to do this with ballistics, you need massive amounts of RG2 preferably, and MO as second option. The numbers of ballistic weapons will require 3 weeks minimum to get on a veteren hard-core account. So extrapolate from there.

Not really trying to argue here. Just trying to show you guys how hard it can be to get large armies fully equipped in proper form using ballistics branch. It takes not only knowledge, but game time as well. There needs to be a meaningful reason to switch to ballistics later on.

20 percent energy reduction is a step in the right direction, but I think ballistics will require something more than this. Let's check this out first I guess.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 13, 2018, 04:53:26 PM
20 percent energy reduction is a step in the right direction, but I think ballistics will require something more than this. Let's check this out first I guess.

Exactly. Let's evaluate this first if this makes ballistic weapons more usable. I am open for further changes.

Next area of improvements are rockets. We developing some changes which makes rocket weapons next possible superior weapon. There will be also counter-weapon - Anti missile guns.

I want to make every equipment and mech chassis - playable and usable.


Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 14, 2018, 12:06:12 PM
Another suggestion that I would like to share is idea about honour pts.

I don't really see the points of honour points, you don't get anything if it's positive or negative. How about when you have lots of negative points higher ranking players can attack you, it will of course depend how much you have them, more you have the higher ranking players can attack you.
Also when you defend someone your honour points will rise so it can be more balanced.

I have discusses that with former designer. Actually Honor points has no real impact on game mechanics. When player attacks weaker opponent he get negative honor points, but when attacks stronger positive.

Currently, I have no idea how to utilise Honor Points in the game. Maybe your idea would be a good option. Possibly, Player with high (to be detrmined) HP could be attacked by everyone. Have to think it over.

Thanks for the clue!
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Nobody on May 14, 2018, 03:25:08 PM
One more thing I would like to add, this honour system has big flaw, if you are top 1 you can't get positive points as you can only attack weaker players...
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: LastPhoenix on May 16, 2018, 01:39:58 AM
On the debris fields. Is there a way to maybe add a visual effect similar to the flags to the debris fields to indicate who generated them? 
I do like the idea of ways to defend them from poachers. But i feel like resource denial should remain a valid tactic.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: citizenX on May 24, 2018, 04:03:01 PM
First, my best wishes to the new owners and may this game get the players base it deserves!

On my suggestions now:
A) this game is good. The battle system is the best there is. So, don't change anything fundamental.

B) the user interface was never very good and now it looks obsolete. Moreover, it is not suitable for mobiles and tablets. I play from my phone and it is really hard. So, first thing that is needed is an good app to access the same servers from a mobile.

C) the downside of a good strategy game like this is that you can't appreciate it with a couple hours of trying it. That's why it's difficult to attract and keep new players and I don't have a real suggestion here but a shiny new app would help.

D) debris stealing is a real issue. It was an integral part of the game from start but it became an issue after two changes: attack restrictions and the strategy of keeping debris in the 8x8. Players create new accounts just to mess with opponents 8x8. Actual debris value is not a real problem, the holes are. Modern player strategies are dependent on keeping an 8x8 full with debris. If you plan on discouraging this strategy then the debris stealing is not an issue.
If you let this strategy be then you need to fix debris stealing somehow.
Right now an honest player has a disadvantage.

E)Many issues will be solved automatically simply by having many players in a server. Game will be more interesting, there will be a place for smaller players and you will have competing alliances like in the past.

Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 25, 2018, 08:20:30 PM
Thanks citizenX.

C) the downside of a good strategy game like this is that you can't appreciate it with a couple hours of trying it. That's why it's difficult to attract and keep new players and I don't have a real suggestion here but a shiny new app would help.

I am thinking a lot how to make this game easier for newbies, but keeping mechanics complexity.

I am wonder if especially research may be overcomplicated. Instead of researching technology, wchich gives you acces to the concrete equipments it would be easier to research concrete item (for example a concret gun or armor) and present to player research tree. Such technology tree would show whole path (having disabled items which has not been researched yet). I hope you catched the idea.

Effect would be the same, but given in more natural way.

D) debris stealing is a real issue. It was an integral part of the game from start but it became an issue after two changes: attack restrictions and the strategy of keeping debris in the 8x8. Players create new accounts just to mess with opponents 8x8. Actual debris value is not a real problem, the holes are. Modern player strategies are dependent on keeping an 8x8 full with debris. If you plan on discouraging this strategy then the debris stealing is not an issue.
If you let this strategy be then you need to fix debris stealing somehow.
Right now an honest player has a disadvantage.

Two thoughts:

1) Yeah. Debris stealing is a common topic. There is plenty of ideas how to defens debris. I am Wonder and even discussed with former designer that debris generates now too much equipment (potentialy could generate more resources). Less equipment in debris would stimulate gameplay (marketplace, production and research) and made debris stealing less effective strategy.  I am curious your thoughts.

2) More experienced palyers use "an exploit" strategy, not to get debris, leaving near city space clear for NPC. This will be fixed. Debris should have been added to existing ones (if present).


Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Enneagon on May 26, 2018, 02:03:00 AM

12. Missiles do not cost any cell resources to make or use. No one is using missiles right now, maybe this will help the situation.

This is exactly what I want to introduce. There is a lot of efforts to make missiles weapon type in the game, but they have a lot of drawbacks.
What I planned to propose is to double hits from them which would make another powerful type of weapon in the game. As a contr-weapon I plan to give Advanced Machine Gun Anti Missile ability and some percentage (20-30% by default + some new targeting equipment items and abilities) chance to shot down missiles.
I believe this both introduce new tactics and make AMG really useful weapon.

I do believe I suggested doubling rockets damage at some point. :)

That might help,  but the most important thing to make rockets a viable option as a weapon, you also need to reduce the production time drastically (and I mean, to 1/10 or so); price in resources is irrelevant (or ratger, becomes at the top level of play), time is the only real restriction.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on May 26, 2018, 02:20:56 PM
More I am diving into mechanics details and observing gameplay, I am more dare to more aggresive configuration changes.

Next fast server will have new configuration changes, so as effect I would like to have 3 types of viable, effective weapons:
1) Energy - having disadvantage of higher energy consumption
2) Ballistic - good damage, low energy consumption. Disadvatage - range.
3) Rockets - highest range, but ammo depletion and as disadvantage. Rockets shouls be produced quicker and mostly from gas.

I think rockets ammo pods would be a nice item fo use. The same speed boosters for heavy mech chassis.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: citizenX on May 26, 2018, 02:34:23 PM
A) on debris:
If you make changes so that players can not use the "exploit" strategy, then the debris problem is not very important, especially in servers with no attack restrictions.
Making debris fall on top of each other doesn't sound like a good idea. I would prefer debris to expire very quickly. A player could use the exploit partly and for a small period of time. Something between now and no exploit at all.

B) on new players:
There is nothing wrong with current game complexity IMHO. The problem is that it takes time to see the really interesting parts of the game, like big battles or even clever npc farming. So players need something to keep them entertained during the first days.
Tournaments would help.
Pre-loaded npc configurations in the simulator could help. (At least for smaller npcs.)
Word of mouth could help.
And above all, a simple, easy to use, shiny, mobile friendly, graphics rich new user interface.

It's difficult to appreciate this game. I have tried dozens of similar games. There is no game where deciding where to build your next city is a serious strategic decision that can keep you busy for some time. There is no game where setting up your army can make a difference between a triumph and a tragedy. Big army beats small army is the norm.
And I could go on for some time like this, BUT you can't see this as a beginner.

( more of the subjects here like debris, missile modifications, etc are just conversation subjects for us insiders. )
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on May 26, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
debris....
Like I mentioned in previous posts, no tech in debris. Only allow crystal/gas/cell. That will get rid of debris stealers. These small accounts are only really interested in the high level tech. As I mentioned, there should be no way for anyone to gain any tech, except through the exchange post, or if you make it yourself.

ballistcs vs energy cell consumption...
Good start on the slow server. But that server is not a good use for a test scenario. Not enough players. You should consider only having one server until the player base returns.

Missiles...
As I mentioned, and Enneagon restated, no cell consumption for making missiles. You will likely have to decrease production time. You have said that missiles will be changed for the better, but I have no idea what you really have planned for them other than they will cost mostly in gas. This is a good start.


I would add, as I mentioned above, that you need to get the player base back, and until then, there should be only one server running. The slow server is way to slow for most players. The fast server is a tad fast, but good enough for the time being. Later, if you could make a x3 speed server, this would be the best between all aspects of current and previous server parameters.

When I say a x3 server, I mean a true x3 server. The speed server is supposed to be a x5 speed. In reality, this server is a x5 for travel and build, but x1.2 for cell production. So, not really x5 speed. If you decide to make a x3 server, everything is, including cell production, building, production, travel, storage etc.

You should also consider automating all aspects of server functions. For example, for the x3 server, make the game run for 25 week. One week break at endgame. Then restart. AUTOMATICALLY!. Two games per year. Auto-tournaments, once every 5 weeks. Auto base artifacts come out week 8. The good artifacts week 12. Every time, every game, like clock-work. This will go far I think with many players. In time, everyone will know when the new server starts/finishes.

When you get that x3 server figured out and running good, then and only then, add another x3 server with some unique aspect. Lets say, +25% build speed for one game. Then next time, maybe 25% less cell production, or 25% more. ETC. ETC. This will let you test certain aspects to implement permanently in the first x3 server. Then add another x3, same process. And so on...
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Lech on June 18, 2018, 10:32:13 PM
Super rozwiązania o których już pisałem wcześniej. Testujmy grę na serverze x3.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on July 05, 2018, 05:08:48 AM
All this talk about making missiles useful, and you have actually made them totally useless now. Missiles MUST be used in LARGE numbers to be effective.

You increased damage x2 and increased resources cost accordingly (mostly with gas). But the deal breaker is the time. You have increased time to make a single missile by 3 making this aspect of the game TOTALLY USELESS.

The point was to make them a viable option. It used to take me 24hrs to make about 77 long range missiles with lvl12 Armory. Now I can only make 25 per day. 77 missiles at 95 damage is 7315 damage produced per day vs now the 25 missiles at 190 damage for 4750 damage produced per day. DO YOU GET IT!

In order for missiles to be used effectively, you need massive amounts. Something like 5000 to 10000 by endgame. Even then , these numbers only allow a few attacks with large armies. But now, you can divide those numbers by 2 or 3. And that is by the most veteran and hardcore players. Imagine a new player, even less. I smaller account; 5 or 6 cities (which is the way I now play) has no hope to stockpile anywhere near enough missiles to even bother. Of course, newer players will not know this, and waste their time.

I am the only one here that I know of that has used any large number of missiles to do anything in this game.

I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

Effectively, you have overall decreased damage from missiles to two-thirds of what it once was (2x the hit, 3x the time to make it).

Are you sure you guys know what you are doing?
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on July 06, 2018, 06:29:11 PM
Hi Dude,
Thank you for feedback. I have fixed configuration on S1 rocket master data. Indeed there was bug in rockets production time which was based on Normal speed server.

To summarize Rockets now:
1) Damage is doubled
2) Production costs have not changed in total. Cost is in 90% based on gas and 10% on crystal
3) Halved production time.

Hope this helkp to make rocket weapons to be more usable.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on July 06, 2018, 09:49:10 PM
thank you very much.

I was a bit PO'd because I planned on using (or at least stockpiling for endgame) alot of missiles. When I got my first missile city up....it was more than a bit disappointing.

Now it is good. Smaller players can theoretically take down larger ones with rockets (and alot of time and patience of course). Well, as long as the defender has no idea that a rocket attack is inbound. You can config to defend against this sort of thing.

Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on July 06, 2018, 10:00:53 PM
I would just like to reiterate, you should not have 2 or more servers running at the same time. There is not enough player base to do so. When you start the 2 you have (s1fast and s3 slow), the base is at first split. Then when the s1fast server restarts, many abandon the s3slow server to cross over. Problem is, a week or so later, many abandon the s1fast because some have nova or at least nemesis nby then and is very discouraging.

Basically, running 2 servers divides and removes many players that would otherwise be playing if you made the choice for them.

s1fast is the only server for any skilled veteran player. So if you want to keep the vets/fans (and so you should) keep the s1fast running (contrary to popular belief, the slow server is not the vet favorite. It is only the blow-hards that like the slow server so they can grind to hammer status over a long period and win this way)

Other than that, you could have a really wild say 2 week prototype server only to test possible future integration and gameplay. Maybe start with a preset mid game start scenario for every player (nova research complete, and LRR weapons for example) Could be anything really. Not for the purpose of winning anything. Purpose is for testing. You tell us what you want to know about a particular implementation and how it is working when it is running for these 2 weeks. And then the next 2 weeks. And so on. Feedback...right?

In summary, consider shutting down the s3slow server (once endgame is over of course), and have ONLY s1fast and maybe a short run test server going.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on July 09, 2018, 05:24:59 PM
Thank for your input. We still evaluating this...

To give you some comment. Question is  - is normal speed server and fast server "canibalize" each other. In what we found out from previous developers and what I am observing - should not. There are two different types of servers and differrent player base. Normal speed is not as time consuimg as fast server.

IMHO problem for s1 is that vets are organized in one Alliance and dominated whole server which makes no real competition. S3 looks much more promising.

We had very promising begginig after start of normal speed server (but still far away from expectations). So, we will be observing both servers and make descision when S3 will reach end game.
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: TheDude on July 10, 2018, 10:07:35 PM
You have a good outlook on the server s3slow. But all is not what it seems.

I was on s3slow just for show and to keep an eye on things, until 2 days ago where I put account up for deletion. I am still running on s1fast as you can see.

You are right in that s1fast is dominated by one group. The only group of 'non-asshole' veterans left. What do I mean by that? We do not really attack just for kicks, just to destroy an account, just to be.....an asshole. Many past players where like this, and is why many other players are not playing anymore (and is also why attack limits where put on s1fast). They alway played on the s3slow server because there they could grind away and every one of them could become a 'hammer'. I have stronger words for these 'assholes', but that will suffice for now. They were some of the worst cheaters I have ever known. One time I infiltrated them, and collapsed their entire network of multi-accounts, the entire alliance was gone by the time I was done. It took weeks. I beleive they called themselves 'death' or some other soy boy effeminate ego tripping name. But I digress. Back to the discussion at hand.

The s3slow server seemed to have 4 other alliances. But in reality, there are only 2. And of those 2, I believe 'olive guardians' is now defunct. I am betting most joined the only real alliance left, 'Horizon'. The 'dark knights' is a splinter of the former 'olive guardians' but they won't last. The rest of the alliances are basically multi-accounts pretending to be an alliance. You know it.

How did this happen? Well the main members of 'olives' deleted about 2 or 3 weeks ago. The only reason any of this has happened is unfortunately because of us vets on s3fast. I suspect most knew we don't play on s3slow much. But by this time the damage is already done. As you used the term 'cannibalize'; it is very accurate. They started on s3slow, and quit on s3 slow. No one showed up on s1fast but us...in a general sense.

But forget all this. Imagine you are only running one server. What do you think is better to develop a new player base? One 'fast' server that restarts every 8 to 12 weeks, and is viable for about 2 weeks each restart until you can only really learn, or take a support role. Or another type of 'slow' server that restarts every 36 to 54 weeks, and is viable for about 4 or 5 weeks each restart until the same happens. Which server do you think is better for expanding the player base?

There is nothing really wrong with this game, except it needs to be constantly updated and added to to keep the base, and add new base players. The faster server offers faster turn-around, and therefore, quicker research into gameplay as well (and more money income I suspect too).

Personally, I don't think I will stick around if only s3slow is running. It is just really to long and grindy. Takes forever to do anything.

It is all up to you guys. Good luck ;p
Title: Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
Post by: Robert-MH on July 11, 2018, 10:25:36 PM
Thanks for the intel. We really appreciate your input :)

Enabling S3 (normal speed) server means a lot of learning asset for us and giving us answers for such obvious questions as:
- is this shared playerbase?
- how deep/much configuration requires to have server faster/slower?
- is this generates new revenue?
- which types of play is more popular?
etc.

Normal speed server would be good option for occasional plaers which log in to game ca. once per day.

We all knows that to significantly expand player base we need to deliver apps and enter web stores. 

We have finished some urgent works behind the scene and now starting to develop Mech Hero 2.0. I hope first scetches we could see in next you tube report.