First Dev Question: The Devs Want To Hear From YOU!
Posted 04 July 2012 - 09:39 PM
Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:24 PM
Kind of a Given all our comps should have all mechs loaded for IR
Mech Armor and Internal Structure.
This could go either way. You want to see it because if you have a hypothetical mech with 10 points of leg armor and 7 Internal that takes only a Guass to the knee. You know that mech is 2 points from losing a leg and while not being out it is definitely pretty much done.
A commander like me wants to see that because if I see something like even if the rest of the mech is pristine I am going to throw enough fire at it that I'll be pretty sure I am taking out that leg and as such taking out that mech. I would vote to see it. But I understand others who would want to keep liabilities like that hidden to keep that mech getting focused fired.
I think that this choice should be based on how well your artist can show the damage visually. If you can do that really well then not as much need to see it on a mech sheet. If you can't then definite need for a mech sheet veiw of it.
Again an either way thing based on how well you present it visually. I know why people would want it hid. You have PPC's then I know to stay under 3 hexes from you. You have an AC/20 I know to stay more than 9 hexes from you. It is trying to position for optimal fire while reducing your opponents chance to hit. It is a huge part of Battletech controlling the range of an encounter.
But you really need to base this one on visual recognition. ask yourself this. Someone manages to mount an AC/20 on a jenner (for the sake of the hypothetical). Can your artist truly show that weapon at a scale that will make it obvious it is an AC/20 or will it shrink due to mech size and possible be confused with a AC2 or AC5. Or someone lazorboats a hunchie for sake of aurgument. Can you realistically show 10 medium lasers on it recongnizable by visual inspection.
If you can do this then not so much need. If you can't then it probably needs to visual on a sheet.
Think again this falls under the heading of something a advanced peice of equiptment like a mech should easily be abe to read.
I think this should be decided on based on if we can modify our engines. If we can make our mechs move faster or slower or be able to jump or not jump in the mech lab. Then this should probably be shown. If All mechs are limited to movement they come with standard. Then Hiding this would be within acceptable because then it is learning just the mech chassis's standard.
This would be a fairness issue. A 2/2 pilot in a jenner is a much bigger threat than a 4/5 pilot in a hunchback. I say this falls under information that needs to be known. But I definitely could see why poeple would want that hidden. 2/2 pilot = primary target regardless of mech. I say show, but it comes down to what you devs think is fair.
Critical Slots and Critical Hits
You can't do this on a sheet without really showing at least weapons loadout but if I manage to hit his engine twice and hit his hip once I want to know it and see it. But knowing I hit one of the 3 atlases he has on the feild twice in the engine and remembering which one it was is two different things. Probably also a visual thing on wether this should be hidden or shown.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 12:35 AM
Who are your target audience?
I ask this because as developers you have to know whether you are interested in a hardcore audience, a casual, or a mix. And realisticaly it comes down to the more information hidden the more you swing from a casual to hardcore audience.
I am a 36 year old man who has played BT for the over two decades. My son is 14 years old and has never seen a mech.
You can show or hide as much info for me and I will still play regardless. Hide to much info though and my son probably won't. To the casual they won't care if it is realistic. They will care that their atlas is always getting smoked by that other jerks atlas and they have no clue why. Most (and I say most not all) won't take the time to go buy the books or read the forums or look up online why they are getting dominated. they will just stop playing or not start playing at all.
Now I'll spend way to much money on myself I know this. But would I spend money on my son if he is always getting killed and cannot learn the mechanics of the game, Nope.
Also in a game like mechwarrior that is more simulator then limited info makes sense. In this game being a tabletop recreation I think limited info is probably not the best way to go.
I understand why us hardcore like the appeal of limited info. It is a great epeen mesuring stick for us. But are you making chess or checkers. Chess is a much better more strategically advanced game. I love chess, but I play checkers with my kids because they can never beat me at chess.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:00 AM
(Oh, and Nova, you need to learn how to throw games of chess... my dad did it for me. =P Fatherly love. I could probably legitimately whup his ass now, but it was nice to win an especially 'tough' game when I was little.)
les Trente Sale : the Dirty Thirty
RA: defender of JagerMechs. Tester of betas. Acolyte of oldtech. 1BB comms guy.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:22 AM
For instance if you have a bunch of non-scout mechs near the enemy all the should be able to see if something like ATLAS
However, if it is a scout within maybe 5 hexes (obviously the hex number would need to be tweaked, perhaps upgrades could increase the range as well as altitude) they should be able to tell something more specific like:
12 x Small Laser
75% HEAT CAPACITY
DAMAGE COMPONENTS: Engine, Right Leg
This should make it so that having scouts is important, which I think is key.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:11 AM
I dunno, I think some damage/loadouts could be easily detectable visually. Unless you're an MWT Commando, in which case your chest-mounted twin LRM-10s could be anything. (Ahh, boots, stomp some more.)
Now, what would be good is if they implemented indirect LRM firing and rewarded the scouts for IDF hits. Granted IDF is so inaccurate as to be nearly useless (unless it rolls over and sets trees on fire), but for when it does work, it'd be nice to get props for it. Maybe a little WoT-esque cash bonus for first unit sighting would be in order as well.
les Trente Sale : the Dirty Thirty
RA: defender of JagerMechs. Tester of betas. Acolyte of oldtech. 1BB comms guy.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:18 AM
If you field a Warhammer, the WH should just see that there is an Altas 800m ahead. He would know the Atlas is heavily armed, armored and slow but not more. No information about the damage taken, ammunition left or if the pilot is taking a nap
But if a Raven scouts for the WH, the Raven should be able to spot the Atlas way ahead of time, get detailed intel on weapons modifications and status and share it with the WH, so you can choose the best tactic to deal with the Atlas.
If you ask, that's a picture I'd like
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:27 AM
In 3025, there really weren't hidden mech rules, Beagles, ECM, or Fog of War (this was Pre-double blind rules) it was like chess with fewer pieces, math, and a a bigger board. You knew everything because everyone saw each others sheets. And if you hid your sheets away, you were That Guy and nobody wanted to play That Guy. So damage(pts. not color), Heat, mech, weapons load, movement.
The game engine can act as a GM, allowing lots of advanced rules. Solaris rules, double blind, hidden mechs. Which means less can be more if you choose an option to play a game with a specific advanced rule set.(Everybody has played a game where a specific weapon or rule is disallowed. This is no different) As long as I can see damage(pts of armour remaining and damaged equipment), heat level, and movement, I have all I "need". More info can come with better sensors, and closing distance, and regardless of rules, play will adapt.
I just want to see damage to armour as pts remaining. An Atlas with armour in the red can still have alot of armour pts. But an Atlas with less that 10pts armour in the C.Torso (which is also "red"), its time to move in for the kill. I need numbers. If you take away the numbers you'll blunt the aggression of the game a bit, and you'll end up with a flashy click game like dark age...and there was a reason why that went over like a turd in the pool.
I'm not speaking for everbody, but I'm looking for a board game that I can play against friends to far away to sit down and throw dice with. I'm hoping this ends up being Megamek with graphics.
Sorry, but in one of the interviews the devs stated that MegaMek has been done and they did not just want to remake that game. They are going in a different direction.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:27 AM
Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:08 AM
I suppose that poses another question about how good sensors are. But I think at a minimum I'd want to know weapons loadout. I am assuming that the type of Mech is a given and it wouldn't be something which would need to be requested.
I'm not concerned with armor and since we won't be able to target specific locations it doesn't really matter where potential breaches are. Speed you can probably figure out relatively quickly. I guess those are nice to haves, but weapons loadouts knowledge definately plays into tactical decision making. I suppose speed does as well but I don't think it's a must have.
Perhaps this has other potentials like different sensors can pick up different information or sensor skill levels of your pilots will allow you to learn more about your enemy. Perhaps Star League sensors are better than current ones and maybe current sensors can only give you information about weapons loadout. Star League can give you info about weapons, armor and heat levels, that sort of thing...
Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:52 AM
Thats what i'm looking for myself... And yes i do play information warfare, you need to see a mech to shoot it, so FOW is paramount for me
Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:34 PM
If there is a scanning option, either by equipment selection or range, loadout could then be acquired but it shouldn't be free knowledge.
Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:40 PM
Beginning the obvious would be tonnage and maybe the unit or player you are facing.
As you enter combat sensor range ; Mech name and weapons (something you would expect in a scan ) as the battle progresses you may want to see Damage estimates maybe even weapons conditions ( if you blew off an arm did you get a laser arm or the AC-10?)
Another suggestion may be a range check when you spot an opponent. Maybe what is in view on you HUD (a leg and arm or the head?)
More then this what is the point of playing to much info and the match will likely be over before it starts
You can run but you will only die tired
Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:16 PM
Mech Chassis (no variant info)
Affiliation (House, known Merc unit, Unknown)
Armor Diagram (color coded for condition)
Internal Diagram (ditto)
General heat scale indicator (based on computer IR intensity reading)
Not in favor of seeing:
Weapon data (hopefully the 3D models will be representative of the weapons installed tho)
Any exact numbers (armor, internal, heat, ammo, etc)
Pilot data (typically unknown except for famous/well known units)
Often times in double-blind type game setups you don't get to look at the other player's mech sheet whenever you want.
Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:44 AM
In canon, notable pilots were recognizable icons. Now, I don't believe that you're exact stats should be displayed, but in all honesty I think rank should. And any specializations or skills once used. I really like the idea of double blind and hiding info for a surprise. However, the way the 'Mech is being handled should give you an indication of how skilled the pilot is, and what his special stats are over time. Now, these apply to specialties, not base gunnery/piloting skills.
I love the idea of knowing what is what when it's seen. I walk into sight range of a centurion, and I get that it's a 9A or something, cool. But might not know that it's heavily modified. When it fires it's weapons, I know for sure. And of course, if the pilot is an autocannon specialist and gets a bonus when using them, I would know after being smashed by that AC10 a time or two.
But basically, if I'm fighting a green pilot, I'd like to know he's not some elite warrior from the Black Watch or something.
Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:26 AM
At first glance there should be type of mech visible
Obviously state of the armor should be visible - but it may be shown grey at first glance and after some time (depeding on pilot's skill) be updated to more precise data
(for example - in first turn you get no info, in second you see it's between 50 and 100%, in 3rd you see it's betwen 70 and 90 in 4th you see it's between 80 and 85, in 6th you see its 84%)
Similarly with weapons - some should be easily spotted, some very hard to spot, all weapons should be very easy to spot when used. Similarly jump jets and other stuff
heat level should be visible if your mech has some equipment allowing for thermal vision. plain and simple.
Other then that, I think when your pilot spotted something, I should be able to easily check everything my pilot should know - If my pilot would know speed of enemy mech, then I should be able to see where it can go next round, if my pilot knows what weapons enemy have, then I should know at what range he can use what.
All the data that skilled mech pilot would know should be allowed to check without requiring players to learn them
Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:45 AM
Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:55 AM
*Note, Used Google Translate, sorry if the translation is poor*
* Beachten Sie: Gebrauchte Google Translate Es tut mir leid, wenn die Übersetzung ist schlecht
Ich bin damit einverstanden auf die Bewegungspunkte. Ich sollte immer wissen, wo diejenigen an mit einer engagierten Gegner sind. Allerdings konnte wissen, dass ganz am Anfang eines Engagements brauchen nicht notwendig sein, sondern etwas, "geschätzt" wird von einem Scout zu sein. Allerdings sollte dieses Wissen sehr offen zu mir im Nahkampf so dass ich richtig schützen kann meine hinteren Rüstung.
I agree on the movement points. I should always know where those are at with an engaged enemy. However, knowing that at the very beginning of an engagement need not be necessary, but could be something that is 'estimated' by a scout. However, that knowledge should be very open to me in close combat so I can properly protect my rear armor.
Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:11 AM
Mech name and variant...or if modified simply the name with "modified" attached.
Armour status of each location.
If a mech is standard then it's up to us to know what we are facing.
If it is modified I am unsure as whether it is right/good to show the weapon config. I can see that modding to gain an advantage would be very desirable. However running into a full lance of modded enemies could prove to be EXTREMELY frustrating as it would be very difficult to work out the tactics required for your own unit and the games could quickly devolve into the realms of pure luck to decide the outcome.
Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:50 AM
Hehehe... Now I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 4 shots of 5 from his AC/20? Well you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky? Well? Do you? Punk! *BOOOOOOOM* 5 shots. But I forgot to mention the 2nd ton of ammo.
"The first rule of jungle warfare is, obviously, remove the jungle. " - Long Tom artillery commander
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users