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 1312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheDude

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #45 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)
Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #46 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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 09:58:03 PM by Robert-MH »
Logged

TheDude

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #48 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.


Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #49 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!
Logged

Nobody

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #50 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...
Logged

LastPhoenix

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #51 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.
Logged

citizenX

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #52 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.

Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #53 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).


Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #54 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.
Logged

Robert-MH

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #55 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.
Logged

citizenX

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #56 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. )
Logged

TheDude

  • Vulture
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #57 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...
Logged

Lech

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: New 2.0 Suggestions
« Reply #58 on: Yesterday at 10:32:13 PM »

Super rozwiązania o których już pisałem wcześniej. Testujmy grę na serverze x3.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]