Things I'd like to see

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Nastyogre » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:56 am

TO supply lines, Air Superiority and other ideas. I like them. I've wanted supply lines for a long time. It requires significant code however and we are not tackling those sorts of ideas at this time.

Arty: We will take this up soon I expect as we work through operations. I have mixed feelings on the idea and personally I have not seen arguments to sway me either way. I have a great deal of respect for those discussing and putting forward the ideas. So trust me, I am taking it seriously, even if I am not convinced.

Nemesis
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Nemesis » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:20 am

Nastyogre wrote:How would the interested players feel if Aero ops paid virtually nothing, provided no RP and provided only token land? This is because your undestroyed units would not need to be repaired and the anticipation that Aero could farm flu relatively safely. (Though that might not stay that way)
Additionally, Aeros would probably be pretty expensive to maintain (in bays or rental)
I'd be fine with no land exchange at all, and normal payout just so people have some incentive to play. Also destroyed aero units would still need to be replaced, right? It's only repairs that are free? If I remember correctly, aero is a very deadly game, with most units being glass cannons. It would also still be triggering post-game bay rent, so that would need to be covered as well.

Keep bay costs small, the same 1/2/3/4 as vees. Maybe even 1/1/1/1 since aero should have no game effect and you'd probably need to keep 12 fighters around to have a decent shot at finding a game.

If possible, have aero armies not count for flu generation to prevent that issue.

Given all the issues we currently have with integrating aero as a full fledged op, I'd like to see it be something like SOL in space. Something we play for fun, just to do something different once in a while, and without the concerns about land exchange. All it would need to provide is enough cbills to cover the cost of buying and maintaining a small squadron, as well as bay rent and a bit left over.
Nastyogre wrote:I do wish you all could see the discussions we have, it really is pretty damn cool. 5 VERY engaged players discussing not what just is best for their faction but for the server and the game here. The staff comments only a little but with significant importance to help us remember the implications of things we are talking about or have decided.
5??? But I thought we had 6 factions? (looks at FedSuns) ;)

Nemesis
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Nemesis » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:24 am

Nastyogre wrote:I have a great deal of respect for those discussing and putting forward the ideas.
With one or two exceptions, of course. :D

Crucis lancers
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:48 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Crucis lancers » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:19 am

init compesation rule .
why , my last game as im posting it went for 13 turns . i had init 2 turns .

Eric von Kastell
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Eric von Kastell » Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:21 pm

oh, that's quite much ... last cycle I played a game, where my opponent had 2 inits in 24 rounds (one was the first after deployment).

Stereg
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Stereg » Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:21 pm

Crucis lancers wrote:init compesation rule .
why , my last game as im posting it went for 13 turns . i had init 2 turns .
As had been said before, init comp is an optional setting that you can always ask your opponent for it you like.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Nastyogre » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:14 pm

It changes the fundamental operation of the game in a way I do not favor. You are welcome to ask your councilmember to bring it up in the Council of Six and we can discuss it. It takes only 3 members currently to enact a change. It's been debated many times but if you could come up with some arguments that are more convincing or ways to counteract some of the negative unintended consequences, I would be willing to listen and if convinced I would bring it up myself.

Aule
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:36 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Aule » Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:21 am

I know init compensation tends to make people preemptively play defensive (and thus draw out games) when they have an init streak going because they are 'expecting' to lose init. What about front-loaded init though? What's the current thought process on that option?

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Nastyogre » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:52 am

See my previous post. Change to intrinsic rule. (Though different than what INIT streak compensation does) Show us compelling reasons for it and it could happen. Be sure to answer the arguments counter especially any concerns with altering intrinsic rules.


This is a general comment.
The Council listens, but does not always act or debate ideas openly. Do not mistake not doing what someone requests as not listening. I guarantee we are listening.

Aunodin
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:17 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Aunodin » Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:49 pm

While this may be a rather poor idea and not too well thought out, my suggestion in making aerospace matter instead of just something you did when you wanted a change of pace would be to make it that the factory planets and capitals require one victory of aerospace forces in order for you to land mechs for ground incursions and assaults in addition to the first drop conquests. This represents you taking out the air defenses that these important worlds would have.

It could also open up a smaller bv games for stealth drops.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by TigerShark » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:23 pm

Aunodin wrote:While this may be a rather poor idea and not too well thought out, my suggestion in making aerospace matter instead of just something you did when you wanted a change of pace would be to make it that the factory planets and capitals require one victory of aerospace forces in order for you to land mechs for ground incursions and assaults in addition to the first drop conquests. This represents you taking out the air defenses that these important worlds would have.

It could also open up a smaller bv games for stealth drops.
This has been tried on other servers. It became a miserable quagmire, after a time, since very, very few people were Aerospace savvy. I like the idea; it just didn't work in practice. :-\ (This was on The Shack, circa 2009-2010)

BaRbArIaN
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:02 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by BaRbArIaN » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:48 am

A rule that you can only field two of anything. I dislike a tank whore army of mostly Behemoths thrown in with a Demolisher for good measure for example. Or a quartet of Atlases, which I haven't seen (yet) probably due to how rare it is to get one.

Aunodin
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:17 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Aunodin » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:51 am

BaRbArIaN wrote:A rule that you can only field two of anything. I dislike a tank whore army of mostly Behemoths thrown in with a Demolisher for good measure for example. Or a quartet of Atlases, which I haven't seen (yet) probably due to how rare it is to get one.
Hey what is your problem with a steiner scout lance?

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Deadweight » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:10 am

BaRbArIaN wrote:Or a quartet of Atlases, which I haven't seen (yet) probably due to how rare it is to get one.
I have 3 and a King Crab, but they're far too costly to put into an army together...

Aunodin
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:17 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Aunodin » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:53 pm

Well it is probably never going to happen but I would honestly like to see a penalty happen to players who wreck their own cities trying to take out buildings even if they have no way to see you halfway across the map and are just doing it. Since it is against the whole ares conventions, and especially if they win they suddenly wrecked the crap out of their own city. Just a slight pet peeve of mine

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:02 pm

Aunodin wrote:Well it is probably never going to happen but I would honestly like to see a penalty happen to players who wreck their own cities trying to take out buildings even if they have no way to see you halfway across the map and are just doing it. Since it is against the whole ares conventions, and especially if they win they suddenly wrecked the crap out of their own city. Just a slight pet peeve of mine
It's the Russian Leningrad/Stalingrad concept. Whatever it takes to beat the invaders.

I would guess that code would be a tall order. Having the client note if you were the defender on a urban world and destroyed a bunch of buildings then apply a penalty.
It's not very accurate in universe, but the Succession Wars threw the Ares conventions out the window and sort of brought them back. There are numerous examples of defenders intentionally drawing invaders into the city to ambush them, so it's probably the sort of thing that requires an active game master.

Now, we have talked about an operation that would require the defender to defend buildings. They wouldn't want to destroy them then. It would only be for that operation type however.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by TigerShark » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:52 pm

Nastyogre wrote:
Aunodin wrote:Well it is probably never going to happen but I would honestly like to see a penalty happen to players who wreck their own cities trying to take out buildings even if they have no way to see you halfway across the map and are just doing it. Since it is against the whole ares conventions, and especially if they win they suddenly wrecked the crap out of their own city. Just a slight pet peeve of mine
It's the Russian Leningrad/Stalingrad concept. Whatever it takes to beat the invaders.

I would guess that code would be a tall order. Having the client note if you were the defender on a urban world and destroyed a bunch of buildings then apply a penalty.
It's not very accurate in universe, but the Succession Wars threw the Ares conventions out the window and sort of brought them back. There are numerous examples of defenders intentionally drawing invaders into the city to ambush them, so it's probably the sort of thing that requires an active game master.

Now, we have talked about an operation that would require the defender to defend buildings. They wouldn't want to destroy them then. It would only be for that operation type however.
There is code for 'buildings destroyed' as a victory condition. I haven't looked at it, but it MAY be doable to change some of the language and make it a penalty or 'auto loss'.

We have an Op like that on Dominion, though nobody uses it. It doesn't always report correctly and requires a declaration eventually.

Aunodin
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:17 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Aunodin » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:25 am

Nastyogre wrote:
Aunodin wrote:Well it is probably never going to happen but I would honestly like to see a penalty happen to players who wreck their own cities trying to take out buildings even if they have no way to see you halfway across the map and are just doing it. Since it is against the whole ares conventions, and especially if they win they suddenly wrecked the crap out of their own city. Just a slight pet peeve of mine
It's the Russian Leningrad/Stalingrad concept. Whatever it takes to beat the invaders.

I would guess that code would be a tall order. Having the client note if you were the defender on a urban world and destroyed a bunch of buildings then apply a penalty.
It's not very accurate in universe, but the Succession Wars threw the Ares conventions out the window and sort of brought them back. There are numerous examples of defenders intentionally drawing invaders into the city to ambush them, so it's probably the sort of thing that requires an active game master.

Now, we have talked about an operation that would require the defender to defend buildings. They wouldn't want to destroy them then. It would only be for that operation type however.
True the first two succession wars were really brutal on everyone, although they did say the third and fourth ones tended to avoid destroying infrastructure

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Jackal » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:01 pm

One thing that there is in abundance by the time of SW3 and SW4, however, is RUINED cities. That would be a totally valid place to have a battle even under the Ares Conventions.


If we want to make our city maps a little more canon consistent, maybe we should just add some craters and debris tiles. :)

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Deadweight » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:28 pm

Jackal wrote: If we want to make our city maps a little more canon consistent, maybe we should just add some craters and debris tiles. :)
And heavy and fortified buildings that have CFs below 20...

Ceorl
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:43 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Ceorl » Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:56 pm

Just get rid of city maps as far as I'm concerned. The RMG handles urban planning about as well as a toddler with a bunch of crayons.
(Retired)

User avatar
Mole
Posts: 433
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:27 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Mole » Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:35 am

Ceorl wrote:Just get rid of city maps as far as I'm concerned. The RMG handles urban planning about as well as a toddler with a bunch of crayons.
Perish the thought! Where would my Urbies go out to play?
"Take what you can, give nothing back!"
The beard, the earrings, the rum...of course I'm a pirate.

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Zerberus » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:59 pm

Ceorl wrote:The RMG handles urban planning about as well as a toddler with a bunch of crayons.
Or ... put some thought into ways improving the RMG to produce better urban maps? :)

Ceorl
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:43 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Ceorl » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:41 pm

I'm not a coder, and I know just enough about the process to know I don't know anything.

For what its worth, I gather the RMG seems designed to build off pre-set %, which the system them randomly inserts into the map. This generally works for fine for "natural" terrain (i.e. hills, forests, canyons), but struggles mightily with "man made" terrain (the placement of any building really), which is built with logical considerations distinct from marking off a % checklist.

My recommended change would be to use player created maps for city games.
(Retired)

User avatar
Cloudy
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:42 am

Re: Things I'd like to see

Post by Cloudy » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:14 am

-1 to hit for units that haven't move.
I feel like faster units are at a disadvantage atm bv wise.
Image

Post Reply