Battlezone Universe

Community Project => The 1.3 Community Project => Topic started by: Nielk1 on November 11, 2009, 09:56:54 PM

Title: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 11, 2009, 09:56:54 PM
Ah mechanics, the most simple structure of anything.

The mechanic of the ISDF has them building with adjacency requirements, a linear power system, and treaded units that collect scrap or deploy on pools to make resource generators.

So, what mechanics can we come up with that *MIGHT* be of interest to the CP? Some examples are below, I plan to edit this list with some more as we go:

(As a C++ DLL programmer with weird ideas I should be able to reliably tell you how much of a chance of working in code an idea has.)

Salvage/Wreckage
A salvage or wreckage system where biometal craft give carcasses. Collection method can be anything from an automated tug to having to kill the wreckage to make it into scrap. The tug method would allow for instant gain of biometal or adding to a pile on some refinery that would then process over time (like an extractor), but only if it has wreckage on the pile.

Portals
We all know them we all love them, there are tons of different possible implementations. Feel free to mention any design.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Shadow Knight on November 11, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
I like the idea of salvaging things, which would give tugs an actual use outside of the campaign other than FFS LET ME DOWNing the unwary human opponent.

It could also allow scenarios within the campaign such as "The Aeneads have developed personal teleportation technology, take out one of their teleport tanks and haul it's carcass back to the recycler"
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 11, 2009, 10:11:36 PM
I already envision the unit I made with some sort of "Fold" special that shot it forward very quickly with a long recharge time with cool teleport like effects.

Being Aeneads/Aeneans (I really like the N better) we might want to look into Roman references, but only to early Rome, not late. Pre-Rome even.

A mission like that can be done no matter if we use carcasses in default or not. I hope we do ALL our DLLs in C++ at this point :-P

EDIT:
Quote from: Shadow Knight on November 11, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
which would give tugs an actual use outside of the campaign other than FFS LET ME DOWNing the unwary human opponent.

I am pretty sure some control flags were added to tugs to control what they disable and they were defaults to let humans bail/hop.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: sabrebattletank on November 11, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
What about a bz1-style power system? Instead of the ISDF's "all power or no power" and the Scion's building-specific power, what about a power supply that supplied power to x units within y radius?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 11, 2009, 11:10:36 PM
That can be done 100% ODF for gun towers. Extending it to other structures would require DLL to swap out the offline and online versions of the structures, but no real issue there (if we do the C++ for single-player too)

I had the idea to have Ley line Generators that produce more power if put close to a Ley line path on the map. That is more for the strange mythic thing I have in one of my modding folders with arcane circles and other weird magical looking stuff.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: sabrebattletank on November 11, 2009, 11:13:23 PM
What's the status of buildings and water? Could you have a water power plant somehow?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Zero Angel on November 11, 2009, 11:29:40 PM
Front Line Soldiers (a canceled mod) had a 'base adjacency extender' building called a command center, which could be built on the field and allowed base buildings to be built next to it -- allowing the EDF to start a 'forward base' by demoing their factory/armoury and building it next to the command centre. (the other functions of the command center as the 300m range motion detector, huge radar detection radius, as well as relay bunker functionality). I thought that this was an interesting mechanic, though one thing I wouldve liked to add was the ability to reset the player's respawn point to the command center's location.

A similar effect could be made simply by making the EDF recycler undeployable by default. And some missions (if the player is indeed playing as the EDF) could involve the player starting a forward base, achieving some objective, and then having to retreat the rec when the forward base is counterattacked.

Another mechanic that I think would be interesting would be a type of 'all-in one' base that utilizes powertaps and building upgrading to extend the functionality of a main building (for example, a large battleship (recycler class) can be upgraded with a communications module, defense Lv.1 module, factory module, weapons module, defenses Lv.2 module, etc)

I also like the idea of utilizing expressway tunnels, which could quickly transport units to different parts of the map. It's much more reliable than FE portals ever were, though I dont know if it would work well in multiworld.

Another mechanic that might be worth implementing is a 'global upgrade' type of functionality, which extends the capabilities of the entire army in some passive way. Such as a building that adds a slow armor and weapons regeneration to units within a certain radius (like 400m).
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: bigbadbogie on November 12, 2009, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Zero Angel on November 11, 2009, 11:29:40 PM
Such as a building that adds a slow armor and weapons regeneration to units within a certain radius (like 400m).

A service bay with 400 metre range.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Zero Angel on November 12, 2009, 12:38:27 AM
Quote from: bigbadbogie on November 12, 2009, 12:05:43 AM
A service bay with 400 metre range.
My thought exactly
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: AHadley on November 12, 2009, 12:57:39 AM
Ability for a player to select any friendly building to respawn at when killed.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: bigbadbogie on November 12, 2009, 01:20:08 AM
Quote from: AHadley on November 12, 2009, 12:57:39 AM
Ability for a player to select any friendly building to respawn at when killed.

Battlefield 2/2142 style?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: TheJamsh on November 12, 2009, 03:37:56 AM
This may or may not interest the CP, Serenesis has an semi-infantry system, so (if toggled on at thee start of a game), if you die, the .dll interprets what race you are, and pulls up a UI which contains a list of soldiers you can respawn as for your race. (List filled by a TXT file per map). You can then progress and choose the weapons you want to respawn with as well, if that soldier tye can carry them.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Axeminister on November 12, 2009, 06:20:03 AM
 The husks idea is a super. Tugs carry back to base until you build towers out in the field, then you could drop of husks at a structure that takes place of relay bunker requirement for towers.
  Can there be hovering service trucks, currently tracked ones bump and move one another out of range when stopping and starting.
How about solar power generators? Has that been done?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 06:51:04 AM
What about a large deployable power generator which you either spawn with or can build from the recycler with your starting scrap. The Power plant could power everything you would need but you would have to build relay bunker type buildings which "transmit" the power fro the plant to the building. Either that or power lines. Any adjacent buildings would be powered without needing either of these.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: TheJamsh on November 12, 2009, 06:54:20 AM
Calvin your idea is VERY close to QFMod. Their power gens can be built anywhere, and thus build additional structures anywhere. (at least they could last time i checked)
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 07:08:57 AM
Um...So?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: TheJamsh on November 12, 2009, 07:22:08 AM
so its been done
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 07:33:36 AM
Um...So?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 12, 2009, 09:09:55 AM
Both of you shut up.

Solar PGens, with a dynamic power or a static power?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 09:21:18 AM
Static, Don't want them to be too complicated.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 12, 2009, 09:59:48 AM
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 09:21:18 AM
Static, Don't want them to be too complicated.

Then how are they different from stock Pgens unless they turn on and off?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 10:03:17 AM
They have to be at least a little similar to the other cthonians. I didn't know quite what you meant by dynamic. Explain?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 12, 2009, 10:06:11 AM
A dynamic solar power generator would give power as a function of the current light situation on the map.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 10:10:58 AM
It would require a great deal of balancing. I think we should stick with static non-solar power generators. Find some cool way to explain how they work. I still think a main power plant and multiple outlets would work.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 12, 2009, 12:39:10 PM
Just because you think it is hard to balance does not mean it is something we should not try.

Now, MORE suggestions.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 12:54:23 PM
But it would require dlls specially made for every map, correct?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Axeminister on November 12, 2009, 12:54:56 PM
As the game moves forward into more advanced and harder to beat modes I think the idea of the solar power plants dependng on the light from the map would be more fun since the darker maps would cause commanders to be cautious about what they build.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 12, 2009, 01:09:24 PM
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 12:54:23 PM
But it would require dlls specially made for every map, correct?

It would require all maps that use it have a DLL written in C++ so they can all use the template containing the code. After the code is written, adding it to all DLLs would be approximately 3 lines of work. This does shaft non C++ DLLs for SP though, which might be for the best.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Mr X on November 12, 2009, 01:40:19 PM
I've had an idea, how about making one of the three Cthonian races operate in the following way:

Instead of using power generators, base building have their own generators that create a surplus power, therefore the amount of guntowers you can have is restricted by the size of your base.

I'd also like to see relay bunkers that can be accessed by non-commanders.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: sabrebattletank on November 12, 2009, 01:45:35 PM
I remember someone once put forth the ideas of capture points: What about control points, that if captured, gave the player/players team a slight advantage?
For example, I hold control point x for y minutes, and every couple of minutes a weapon spawns in my base.
Or, I hold point q for a couple of minutes, and then my ship moves 10% faster, or all of my team's ships move 10% faster, or GT's fire 10% faster, or something along those lines.
Or, I hold point z for a couple of minutes, and then my ships have 5% more armor.
Or, I hold point s;irtar for a couple of minutes, and my ships have increased armor/amo regen.

When I lose the control point, I lose the special powers when reasonable: the weapons dropped in my base might remain (but not spawn any more), but my ships return to normal flight/shoot speed and normal armor levels.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: sabrebattletank on November 12, 2009, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: Mr X on November 12, 2009, 01:40:19 PM
I've had an idea, how about making one of the three Cthonian races operate in the following way:
Instead of using power generators, base building have their own generators that create a surplus power, therefore the amount of guntowers you can have is restricted by the size of your base.

Ah, that's interesting. That implies that there would be an upper limit to how many gun towers you can have (assuming that most building are "you can only have one of them at a time"), unless you could upgrade the power generators on base buildings to give more power.

I like it.

Expanding that a little bit: what about each base building has, say, three (just to pick a number), "addon" slots, and you could pick from some general sort of upgrade: gives more power, has more health, builds faster, fires a light weapon defensively, etc?

Quote from: Mr X on November 12, 2009, 01:40:19 PMI'd also like to see relay bunkers that can be accessed by non-commanders.

Yes, please.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: sabrebattletank on November 12, 2009, 01:55:10 PM
I like ZA's ideas in this post.

Quote from: Zero Angel on November 11, 2009, 11:29:40 PMclick teh link
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Zero Angel on November 12, 2009, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: Axeminister on November 12, 2009, 06:20:03 AM
The husks idea is a super. Tugs carry back to base until you build towers out in the field, then you could drop of husks at a structure that takes place of relay bunker requirement for towers.
 Can there be hovering service trucks, currently tracked ones bump and move one another out of range when stopping and starting.
How about solar power generators? Has that been done?
Keep in mind though that units slots are expensive, though I do like the idea of depots where the tugs can drop off the husks in order to get a refund on the unit (I like the idea of using depots, not necessarily the idea of using tugs, which seems unweildy in principle). It would make it more imperative to establish a front line base in order to increase resource gathering speed (since you wouldnt want to wait for the tug to traverse the entire distance of a big map)
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: ScarleTomato on November 12, 2009, 02:31:17 PM
For scrap generation with one of the races, you could ignore the pools and go with a borehole mine. You upgrade it to increase the generation rate and build silos to increase the capacity. Make it really hard to collapse but if it gets destroyed, it sets you back a ton.

Could use a similar concept for a centralized power. Maybe a solar tower and you can make it taller to get more power.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: sabrebattletank on November 12, 2009, 02:45:05 PM
Could building deaths result in uneven terrain so that once a factory dies, you can't rebuild it on the same terrain squares?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 02:48:36 PM
Quote from: ScarleTomato on November 12, 2009, 02:31:17 PM
Could use a similar concept for a centralized power. Maybe a solar tower and you can make it taller to get more power.

Isn't that what i said?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: AHadley on November 12, 2009, 03:40:46 PM
Actally, NK1 said it.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 03:45:29 PM
I think a dynamic solar power would be too limiting in game. It would be extremely frustrating, you know, when assault tanks and walkers are charging your gun towers and suddenly they quit cause its night time.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: VSMIT on November 12, 2009, 04:09:14 PM
What I find interesting is that last time salvaging was brought up, people didn't like it.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 12, 2009, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: VSMIT on November 12, 2009, 04:09:14 PM
What I find interesting is that last time salvaging was brought up, people didn't like it.

I think it is all in the presentation of the idea.

MWAHAHA! More ideas, and MORE!

Some of these ideas that are ODF bases are consequently displayed in some modding I have already done, like the Scrapper Rec.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 04:26:40 PM
Ok, so, no portals but an accellerator. You go through it and your blasted forward at super speeds. Good for outposts and base entrances.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: TheJamsh on November 12, 2009, 04:29:20 PM
Bad for mappers. Something like that would have to be map-specific. And AI wouldn't work with it unless asked by .dll
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 12, 2009, 04:45:27 PM
QuoteYou go through it and your blasted forward at super speeds

Anyone else here thinking rail gun?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Axeminister on November 12, 2009, 05:03:55 PM
clavin if it gets dark you could always make solar flares by your solar panels to keep up the power during an assault. That would have to be an option I guess, or some way to make it work. Windy even said wind turbines for dark maps, solar panels for light maps.

Windy's idea for power generation. Map has crystals spread out across the land that when picked up by a tug/scav can be brought to base and utilized on platforms built by the constructor. They could be upgraded which would turn them different colors.

I have a wacked out idea that might be cool. How would it be if the biometal fed the power generators. The amount of buildings you can build would depend on how much biometal you have for the power generators. The more pools, the bigger base. Upgrade your pools, more even more power available. But you wouldn't use the current numbers that come up telling you how much power there is, like 3 meaning power for 3 buildings. That number would instead tell you how many ships you could build. A total reverse of the way we control resources. The number could even be made to have alternate meaning like if the actual resource the new race utilized was gigawatts of energy. The number 3 could represent 3 gigawatts of energy. Rocket tanks might cost 2.7 gigawatts, scouts cost 1.2 gigawatts etc.

Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Warfreak on November 12, 2009, 05:25:30 PM
Stock pgens technically utilize Reactions of biometal to generate power, but your take on this is good.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 05:33:30 PM
Why can't we just make a normal power generator and make up a cool way that their supposed to work. All this stuff sounds complicated and frustrating.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 12, 2009, 05:58:56 PM
Besides rail guns, I am also thinking maybe using geothermal energy, you could use it no matter the weather and would come in handy when you have no pools, perhaps drill for bio-metal with them?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: ScarleTomato on November 12, 2009, 06:40:03 PM
You can build a small factory on each pool, these factories continuously build scrap transports that dont take up a command slot and immediatley are commanded to recycle at the recycler.

The more pools, the more transports per unit time, the faster your scrap increases. You have to defend the pools along with defending the path from the pool to the recy. You build base silos for extra capacity. For big maps you can build a off-site scrap drop so the transports don't have very far to go.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Warfreak on November 12, 2009, 06:42:31 PM
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 05:33:30 PM
Why can't we just make a normal power generator and make up a cool way that their supposed to work. All this stuff sounds complicated and frustrating.

Because we have a coder who WANTS to do crazy and awesome things. :evil:  If you can't deal with this whole concept pitching thing the door is right behind you.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 12, 2009, 06:46:25 PM
Quote
The more pools, the more transports per unit time, the faster your scrap increases. You have to defend the pools along with defending the path from the pool to the recy. You build base silos for extra capacity. For big maps you can build a off-site scrap drop so the transports don't have very far to go.
\

Hat to sound pushy, but you could fire said scrap units out of a rail gun!

{I know, i am obsessed with rail guns}
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: ScarleTomato on November 12, 2009, 06:48:42 PM
Interesting, you could instead make them armories that launched scrap crates back at your recy. then a hoverscav collects them
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 12, 2009, 06:49:34 PM
even better.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: AHadley on November 13, 2009, 12:38:30 AM
Quote from: Warfreak on November 12, 2009, 05:25:30 PM
Stock pgens technically utilize Reactions of biometal to generate power, but your take on this is good.

Going to have to start that theory thread I was planning.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 06:17:46 AM
Quote from: ScarleTomato on November 12, 2009, 06:48:42 PM
Interesting, you could instead make them armories that launched scrap crates back at your recy. then a hoverscav collects them

Um what would be the point of that?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: ScarleTomato on November 13, 2009, 06:50:58 AM
ATM I'm just brainstorming. I like the strategy required for the transports better but both of them help explain how the scrap actually makes it back to the recycler. It also gets rid of the question "Why does only one extractor fill up at a time?"

You could have extractors that spew out biometal near the extractor that looks like crates, and then a scav comes an collects them and takes them back to the recy. That might take a lot of micromanaging though.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 06:54:23 AM
It'd be too complicating. imagine when yourn the middle of a big fight and you need reinforcments. You go to make but, Your out of Scrap! so you have to send out some scavs to collect the biometal crates to bring in enough scrap for a couple ships then you have to wait for more crates. In the meantime your getting torn to pieces.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Axeminister on November 13, 2009, 07:21:58 AM
1). I like Scarlet Tomatoes idea of when the solar panels are upgraded they get higher, giving more power. It also is a simple but cool concept that should make it easy to grasp.
2). Rethinking the collection of husks makes me realize how Zero Angel is correct that it would be a clumsy concept to use as resource gathering, but instead just use it as technology gathering. This would create less stress for a Commander.
3). I like Scarlet Tomatoes idea of a building built solely for shooting more and more health into the power generators. This action could be used for a quick recharge for players who drive through the traveling pods from this rail gun type pod shooter. It is actually another simple but cool idea that is easy to grasp.  
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: ScarleTomato on November 13, 2009, 07:56:18 AM
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 06:54:23 AM
It'd be too complicating. imagine when yourn the middle of a big fight and you need reinforcments. You go to make but, Your out of Scrap! so you have to send out some scavs to collect the biometal crates to bring in enough scrap for a couple ships then you have to wait for more crates. In the meantime your getting torn to pieces.
Well thats part of the commanders job ain't it? I always have scavvies gathering loose scrap, if i lose one i just build another. They're only twenty scrap. That and I usually keep my scrap meter out of the green. If I have nothing else to build I pump out rocket tanks. It would take some micro managing and if it were implemented it would definitely be a race for advanced commanders. Respawning loose scrap fields are gold for a commander that knows how to use them.

I really like the gathering crystals for power, and husks for technology ideas. It makes it very easy to drastically change the game dynamics from map to map.

I was thinking about making a neutral monolith structure for one of my maps that you could tug around and have it quickly heal things within a large radius. Extra map related resources like this would do alot to change the mechanics while still using simple concepts.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 10:44:31 AM
You may have all of this but the complications must be balanced out, or the races will be way out of balance.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: ScarleTomato on November 13, 2009, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 12, 2009, 05:33:30 PM
Why can't we just make a normal power generator and make up a cool way that their supposed to work. All this stuff sounds complicated and frustrating.
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 06:17:46 AM
Um what would be the point of that?
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 06:54:23 AM
It'd be too complicating. imagine when yourn the middle of a big fight and you need reinforcments. You go to make but, Your out of Scrap! so you have to send out some scavs to collect the biometal crates to bring in enough scrap for a couple ships then you have to wait for more crates. In the meantime your getting torn to pieces.
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 10:44:31 AM
You may have all of this but the complications must be balanced out, or the races will be way out of balance.

Yes, Clavin, I get it, thank you. From what I can tell this is a brainstorming session. He asked for new game mechanics so I'm throwing out some concepts i've been thinking about tinkering with for a while. If they're not accepted then no one has to use them.

On overall gametypes/game mechanics. I think it'd be awesome to have a variant of MPI where you can have multiple allies against multiple AI enemies. I know there was already a 3way in FE. Basically an offshoot of that with thug recyclers. I'd be willing to make some large maps for that and work on a DLL for it.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Axeminister on November 13, 2009, 11:35:49 AM
I was driving earlier and thought more about Windy's idea with the crystals.
1). Have the power platform built by the constructor and as the tug moves in you can tell him to "drop off" the crystal at a loading point on one of the four corners on the platform( captured by an invisible mits mine that also serves as a place to point your reticle for the drop off) and it would hover over one of the four corners of the power platform. To upgrade the power simply drop off another crystal until all four corners have a crystal.
2). Or, have the power platform be a tug class object and the crystal be a deployable class object and when a tug drops a crystal near enough, the platform captures the crystal and holds it up in the air and deploys to create the power generator. This could also be done on four corners if the platform had the capabilities of four tugs, or not.
3). Currently the bomber bay is built by a constructor, so it can build a building with a vehicle on the top of it. Also currently, if you build a building right where a vehicle is sitting the invisible walls that reach the sky while the building process is happening always moves things to the edge of the build square. Well place a crystal (have it be some appropriate vehicle class) where you want the power generator and when the power platform is built the crystal simply gets pushed into place somehow, like the bomber.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: General BlackDragon on November 13, 2009, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: ScarleTomato on November 12, 2009, 06:40:03 PM
You can build a small factory on each pool, these factories continuously build scrap transports that dont take up a command slot and immediatley are commanded to recycle at the recycler.

The more pools, the more transports per unit time, the faster your scrap increases. You have to defend the pools along with defending the path from the pool to the recy. You build base silos for extra capacity. For big maps you can build a off-site scrap drop so the transports don't have very far to go.

I like this idea. :)

ScarleTomato has really nice ideas :)

Here's one: Service bay that also spawns a tapped service pod on it. For quick refills. My FSB mod's Sbay has spawning health and ammo crates.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 13, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
Quote from: General BlackDragon on November 13, 2009, 11:35:55 AM
Here's one: Service bay that also spawns a tapped service pod on it. For quick refills. My FSB mod's Sbay has spawning health and ammo crates.

All 10 incarnations of NRV I have gone through have had that.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: AHadley on November 13, 2009, 01:02:49 PM
Quote from: Clavin12 on November 13, 2009, 06:54:23 AM
It'd be too complicating. imagine when yourn the middle of a big fight and you need reinforcments. You go to make but, Your out of Scrap! so you have to send out some scavs to collect the biometal crates to bring in enough scrap for a couple ships then you have to wait for more crates. In the meantime your getting torn to pieces.

Never played BZ1 then? No nice easy extractors there.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Zero Angel on November 13, 2009, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: Nielk1 on November 13, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
All 10 incarnations of NRV I have gone through have had that.
Regardless, this is an excellent idea. I would like to mentally bookmark it for adding to a vet rec variant for 1.3.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 13, 2009, 01:58:16 PM
perhaos we could have it so that certain units can only be made by loose scrap and others by extractors

[though that may get to hard and confusing.]
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Nielk1 on November 13, 2009, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: Zero Angel on November 13, 2009, 01:58:03 PM
Regardless, this is an excellent idea. I would like to mentally bookmark it for adding to a vet rec variant for 1.3.

Indeed. Revision 11 of my rec I am still working on is a factory that can make a large cluster of pods all at once.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 13, 2009, 03:54:21 PM
It would be very good to have, also like GBD's idea of the service pod in the service bay.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: General BlackDragon on November 13, 2009, 04:21:38 PM
Where's my other post? maybe should incorperate it into this.
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: iron maiden on November 21, 2009, 07:58:38 PM
I would like everyone to know i have deleted the previous message that was here as I felt it brought this thread to a halt. I apologize for stopping it and will try to get it back on track. A few suggestions:

A) Some form of heavy rail gun type gun tower with awesome range

B) A kind of long range, missile defense system

C) On a mostly water map, perhaps some kind of strong boat unit


Are any feasible?
Title: Re: DISCUSSION of game Mechanics
Post by: Clavin12 on November 21, 2009, 08:01:25 PM
The boat would probably have to be a one time single mission from what I recall because it has to be done with dlls for it to work perfectly.