Just had a mad vision of mechwarrior online being in elite just thought of the amount of fun that would make planet based missions carrying your own mechs or tanks and letting lose planet side in war, defense or convoy missions, and having the srv as a scouting discovery class as your ships can fight it out over head would make the system controlling factions fighting it out so much more realistic and reasons for staying planetside for a while . just a thought for 2.4??
Horizons Imagine if Elite dangerous and Mechwarrior had a love child?
- Thread starter zidon
- Start date
My mate and I have had that chat abou ED and Mech Warrior 2 many tipsy times. IT WOULD BE AWESOME!
http://www.funnyjunk.com/Awesome+art/funny-pictures/5465390#f248ca_5464946
http://www.funnyjunk.com/Awesome+art/funny-pictures/5465390#f248ca_5464946
Oh, gads, I think I am going to be ill; that would reinforce all the worst aspects of Elite's ship design philosophy.
Mechwarrior needs a disclaimer, "Content licensed so that we could use the branding, in spite of the fact that game has nothing in common with Battletech except for shapes."
Mechwarrior needs a disclaimer, "Content licensed so that we could use the branding, in spite of the fact that game has nothing in common with Battletech except for shapes."
Last edited:
I was addicted to Microprose MechWarrior 3, the devs mentioned in a live stream that they are open to the idea of implementing Mechs into the game at some point.
Last edited:
Someone asked Sandro on a live stream recently, he liked the idea. Tbh it surprises me that they didn't release mechs with horizons. Defending & attacking bases with mechs would work perfectly in this game.
Oh my.. That would be awesome!
That's essentially what many of us were hoping would be the case, a while back... It should be relatively easy to make genuinely interesting military-based missions, because they're so diverse in reality. There were lots of fun sorties I remember from way abck in the days of the Janes series of flight smiulators and 'EF-2000', to say nothing of the 'Wing Commander' games and, of course, the ever-beloved 'TIE Fighter', which could also be fairly creative in terms of both scripted and coincidental events, along with basic missions priorities.
They don't have to include actual combat. Recon would be very fun, because it would involve trying to be stealthy and plot your way around enemy sensor nodes. Anyone remember the old 'F-19' Microprose game and how they did that in there?
I'd love to be able to undertake escort missions for NPC strike packages, too, which could be very thrilling. Even hiring NPCs to escort you seemed like an incredibly basic feature Frontier could yet install (not all ships can physically launch fighters, after all). All sorts of stuff...And if they ever get around to properly armoured combat ground vehicles (the present SRVs look like glorified scientific scouts, at the most), Frontier could learn wisely from Microprose's two 'M-1 Tank Platoon' games, which had lots of really fun ground-based missions. If I remember correctly, they could even be procedurally generated, to result in thousands and thousands of potential different missions.
Right now, there's nothing stopping them from giving us missions with surface targets in, either. God knows why 'skimmers' can't be targetted from a ship (they damned well should be able to be), but I'd love to be able to use mine for interdiction and search-and-destroy missions, like the Microprose and Janes helicopter gunship simulators used to do. Frontier coudl learn a lot by reading through their manuals and reviewing old footage available on You Tube of the mission briefing screens!
What you describe would effectively be like acting as a dropship. There's a simulator of the Russian Hind gunship you can get on Good Old Games (titled 'Hind') which simulated going to a certain location as part of the missions (it would sometimes be the primary objective, sometimes not) and briefly landing, whereupon your small contingent of troops would disembark. You'd sometimes have to make sure the Landing Zone was pacified before doing so. Then you lifted off and either went to the next target or back to base. One of the later 'Silent Hunter' submarine simulators, set in the Pacific, did something similar, where you launched or recovered divers, I think.
There's no reason why we couldn't have something smiilar. Especially since we actually have a ship which is literally called the Federation Dropship.
It's just a case of constructing the mission so that your ship has to either land or stop (or merely decrease speed) at a pre-set designation. It would be easy enough to have missions where you ferry troops or vehicles in that way. Evolving it further, so that you can then take direct control of a surface vehicle which disembarks and has to take care of its own surface combat missions (which could include a series of different objectives, ranging anywhere from recon to escort and strike), should be simple to do.The only caveat with that is that it would really need Frontier to give us NPC allies and 'wingmen'. Games like 'M-1 Tank Platoon' and 'Janes Navy Fighters' always had at least three other NPC team members you could send commands to (including selecting formation types). 'EF-2000' evolved that, somewhat, by also making it so that you could select the EMCON level... 'Emissions Control': This would limit or open up the kind of communications you would be setting, so that you could be emitting any signals you wished when in friendly territory, but knew you had to cut down on it in enemy territory, otherwise they might stand a better chance of detecting you (even when flying at an extremely low altitude). It also dictated whether you and your wingmen would be allowed to use things like active jamming, because that also involves emitting signals. You'd have to choose between survivability and 'stealthing up', which made things extremely fun, the closer you got to a coincidental combat patrol flying around your target...
Was it aware of your location? Were they tracking you? Did they have a lock? Then maybe they'd turn away at the last moment and you'd breathe a sigh of relief... They didn't see us! Woo! No, wait, they're turning to engage - argh! Have you been allocated an escort? Maybe you could turn and fight, but it would use up too much fuel. Vector your escort in to help you out!Which brings in the question of engagement protocol. It would be nice, in combat missions, if we had to abide by certain rules of engagement. I remember as far back as 'F-19' that this was dictated by whether the political state between two factiosn was peace, cold war, hot war and such. So, maybe it'd have to be like 'Top Gun' and, even if someone has a lock on you, you aren't allowed to fire before being fired upon. Doing so might fail your entire mission. Would apply just as much to our ships as any surface vehicles. Maybe we'd enter a system undetected, make it to inserting a ground vehicle, but then suddenly find ourselves surrounded! Do you shoot your way out? Do you try and manipulate them into shooting at you, knowing you could call upon support and then wipe them out?
Stuff like that, diversity of choice and giving the player an array of choices which can dictate a mission's outcome, makes them feel empowered and like their decisions truly matter. It opens missions out, so that it no longer feels like painting-by-numbers.
great ideas planet side is just so bland not to look at but what to do there I dont think frontier should think about atmosphere planets yet until they know they can do it right in another season. but for now focus on fleshing out what they have created so far,i remember how simple tie fighter and the old mechwarrior games were, but the missions were so engaging, for now they could even put in a mining srv truck for us to start grinding stuff planetside while fighting off pirates wanting our wears. but just think it would be great when the local system factions fight for control it out would be great to be a part of it landing your fighter ,tank or mech in the middle of a war zone..
- - - Updated - - -
would not have to be mechwarrior just inspiration from it, could just be armored tanks ,convoy trucks for now
- - - Updated - - -
would not have to be mechwarrior just inspiration from it, could just be armored tanks ,convoy trucks for now
- - - Updated - - -
would not have to be mechwarrior just inspiration from it, could just be armored tanks ,convoy trucks for now
- - - Updated - - -
would not have to be mechwarrior just inspiration from it, could just be armored tanks ,convoy trucks for now
That's essentially what many of us were hoping would be the case, a while back... It should be relatively easy to make genuinely interesting military-based missions, because they're so diverse in reality. There were lots of fun sorties I remember from way abck in the days of the Janes series of flight smiulators and 'EF-2000', to say nothing of the 'Wing Commander' games and, of course, the ever-beloved 'TIE Fighter', which could also be fairly creative in terms of both scripted and coincidental events, along with basic missions priorities.
They don't have to include actual combat. Recon would be very fun, because it would involve trying to be stealthy and plot your way around enemy sensor nodes. Anyone remember the old 'F-19' Microprose game and how they did that in there?
And if they ever get around to properly armoured combat ground vehicles (the present SRVs look like glorified scientific scouts, at the most), Frontier could learn wisely from Microprose's two 'M-1 Tank Platoon' games, which had lots of really fun ground-based missions. If I remember correctly, they could even be procedurally generated, to result in thousands and thousands of potential different missions.
Right now, there's nothing stopping them from giving us missions with surface targets in, either. God knows why 'skimmers' can't be targetted from a ship (they damned well should be able to be), but I'd love to be able to use mine for interdiction and search-and-destroy missions, like the Microprose and Janes helicopter gunship simulators used to do. Frontier coudl learn a lot by reading through their manuals and reviewing old footage available on You Tube of the mission briefing screens!
What you describe would effectively be like acting as a dropship. There's a simulator of the Russian Hind gunship you can get on Good Old Games (titled 'Hind') which simulated going to a certain location as part of the missions (it would sometimes be the primary objective, sometimes not) and briefly landing, whereupon your small contingent of troops would disembark. You'd sometimes have to make sure the Landing Zone was pacified before doing so. Then you lifted off and either went to the next target or back to base. One of the later 'Silent Hunter' submarine simulators, set in the Pacific, did something similar, where you launched or recovered divers, I think.
There's no reason why we couldn't have something smiilar. Especially since we actually have a ship which is literally called the Federation Dropship.
The only caveat with that is that it would really need Frontier to give us NPC allies and 'wingmen'. Games like 'M-1 Tank Platoon' and 'Janes Navy Fighters' always had at least three other NPC team members you could send commands to (including selecting formation types). 'EF-2000' evolved that, somewhat, by also making it so that you could select the EMCON level... 'Emissions Control': This would limit or open up the kind of communications you would be setting, so that you could be emitting any signals you wished when in friendly territory, but knew you had to cut down on it in enemy territory, otherwise they might stand a better chance of detecting you (even when flying at an extremely low altitude). It also dictated whether you and your wingmen would be allowed to use things like active jamming, because that also involves emitting signals. You'd have to choose between survivability and 'stealthing up', which made things extremely fun, the closer you got to a coincidental combat patrol flying around your target...
Which brings in the question of engagement protocol. It would be nice, in combat missions, if we had to abide by certain rules of engagement. I remember as far back as 'F-19' that this was dictated by whether the political state between two factiosn was peace, cold war, hot war and such. So, maybe it'd have to be like 'Top Gun' and, even if someone has a lock on you, you aren't allowed to fire before being fired upon. Doing so might fail your entire mission. Would apply just as much to our ships as any surface vehicles. Maybe we'd enter a system undetected, make it to inserting a ground vehicle, but then suddenly find ourselves surrounded! Do you shoot your way out? Do you try and manipulate them into shooting at you, knowing you could call upon support and then wipe them out?
Stuff like that, diversity of choice and giving the player an array of choices which can dictate a mission's outcome, makes them feel empowered and like their decisions truly matter. It opens missions out, so that it no longer feels like painting-by-numbers.
amazing ideas , if they could do it for old games like them in the early 90's should be a piece of cake now ?? its like the canvas planetside is set just needs stuff to happen[big grin]
That's essentially what many of us were hoping would be the case, a while back... It should be relatively easy to make genuinely interesting military-based missions, because they're so diverse in reality. There were lots of fun sorties I remember from way abck in the days of the Janes series of flight smiulators and 'EF-2000', to say nothing of the 'Wing Commander' games and, of course, the ever-beloved 'TIE Fighter', which could also be fairly creative in terms of both scripted and coincidental events, along with basic missions priorities.
They don't have to include actual combat. Recon would be very fun, because it would involve trying to be stealthy and plot your way around enemy sensor nodes. Anyone remember the old 'F-19' Microprose game and how they did that in there?
And if they ever get around to properly armoured combat ground vehicles (the present SRVs look like glorified scientific scouts, at the most), Frontier could learn wisely from Microprose's two 'M-1 Tank Platoon' games, which had lots of really fun ground-based missions. If I remember correctly, they could even be procedurally generated, to result in thousands and thousands of potential different missions.
Right now, there's nothing stopping them from giving us missions with surface targets in, either. God knows why 'skimmers' can't be targetted from a ship (they damned well should be able to be), but I'd love to be able to use mine for interdiction and search-and-destroy missions, like the Microprose and Janes helicopter gunship simulators used to do. Frontier coudl learn a lot by reading through their manuals and reviewing old footage available on You Tube of the mission briefing screens!
What you describe would effectively be like acting as a dropship. There's a simulator of the Russian Hind gunship you can get on Good Old Games (titled 'Hind') which simulated going to a certain location as part of the missions (it would sometimes be the primary objective, sometimes not) and briefly landing, whereupon your small contingent of troops would disembark. You'd sometimes have to make sure the Landing Zone was pacified before doing so. Then you lifted off and either went to the next target or back to base. One of the later 'Silent Hunter' submarine simulators, set in the Pacific, did something similar, where you launched or recovered divers, I think.
There's no reason why we couldn't have something smiilar. Especially since we actually have a ship which is literally called the Federation Dropship.
The only caveat with that is that it would really need Frontier to give us NPC allies and 'wingmen'. Games like 'M-1 Tank Platoon' and 'Janes Navy Fighters' always had at least three other NPC team members you could send commands to (including selecting formation types). 'EF-2000' evolved that, somewhat, by also making it so that you could select the EMCON level... 'Emissions Control': This would limit or open up the kind of communications you would be setting, so that you could be emitting any signals you wished when in friendly territory, but knew you had to cut down on it in enemy territory, otherwise they might stand a better chance of detecting you (even when flying at an extremely low altitude). It also dictated whether you and your wingmen would be allowed to use things like active jamming, because that also involves emitting signals. You'd have to choose between survivability and 'stealthing up', which made things extremely fun, the closer you got to a coincidental combat patrol flying around your target...
Which brings in the question of engagement protocol. It would be nice, in combat missions, if we had to abide by certain rules of engagement. I remember as far back as 'F-19' that this was dictated by whether the political state between two factiosn was peace, cold war, hot war and such. So, maybe it'd have to be like 'Top Gun' and, even if someone has a lock on you, you aren't allowed to fire before being fired upon. Doing so might fail your entire mission. Would apply just as much to our ships as any surface vehicles. Maybe we'd enter a system undetected, make it to inserting a ground vehicle, but then suddenly find ourselves surrounded! Do you shoot your way out? Do you try and manipulate them into shooting at you, knowing you could call upon support and then wipe them out?
Stuff like that, diversity of choice and giving the player an array of choices which can dictate a mission's outcome, makes them feel empowered and like their decisions truly matter. It opens missions out, so that it no longer feels like painting-by-numbers.
SO. MUCH. WIN.
ç_ç
+Rep...
Yeah that was me.
Potential for adding is on the grounds of their "rule of cool".
Gimme a sec, I bet I can find it.
edit : Here ya go, it is only brief
Click here for direct time index ===> https://youtu.be/Z_hpH8Rca5c?t=3771
Or scroll to 1:02:50
[video=youtube_share;Z_hpH8Rca5c]https://youtu.be/Z_hpH8Rca5c[/video]
I do indeed think walking SRVs would be great!
Last edited:
Yeah that was me.
Potential for adding is on the grounds of their "rule of cool".
Gimme a sec, I bet I can find it.
edit : Here ya go, it is only brief
Click here for direct time index ===> https://youtu.be/Z_hpH8Rca5c?t=3771
Or scroll to 1:02:50
https://youtu.be/Z_hpH8Rca5c
I do indeed think walking SRVs would be great!
Ah man! the vision is there just not the man power like Star citizen [knocked out] might have to go into cryogenic sleep until this masterpiece reaches it potential[zZzZz]
Stomping a MadCat out the back of an Asp would certainly be something
well heres to hoping if they do realease mechs into elite it will be like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2lsZU_Y4A
and not this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhL3yBmYAJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iyEGSZq8HE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2lsZU_Y4A
and not this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhL3yBmYAJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iyEGSZq8HE
Last edited:
The point I was going for is that MWO doesn't use Battletech's design mechanisms. I always thought those were overly simplistic, but MWO actually made them worse.
I am all for more than the Scarab as vehicle choices, I just don't want it modeled on a game that misuses its namesake that badly...
Seriously? FDev cannot iron out the bugs from the ED core game let alone implement mechs as described above, tsk tsk tsk
I want Star Citizen to turn out great, I am a backer, but honestly, considering all the 'man power' they have, their progress is...quite slow, and Elite generally has a bigger scope, with 1:1 worlds and such.