MechHero Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: New 2.0 Suggestions  (Read 1043 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nobody

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #30 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
Logged

Furion

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #31 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 :)
Logged

Lech

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #32 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.
Logged

kylar

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • Email
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #33 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.
Logged

Nobody

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #34 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.
Logged

Furion

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #35 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 :)
Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #36 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.
Logged

Nobody

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #37 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.
Logged

Furion

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #38 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...
Logged

Storm

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #39 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
Logged

TheDude

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #40 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?
Logged

TheDude

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #41 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...
Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #42 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.
Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #43 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.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 07:29:49 AM by Robert-MH »
Logged

Nobody

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #44 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.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4