Roadmap 1: Define a mech - Page 2

Screamfeeder · 08-15-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khorum

I could've missed it, but I'm just curious how the team came to that determination. You mentioned it was a heated debate but I'm curious what tipped it towards a static EVE-like component system.

I think the reason it was decided to keep the mech as one static model was because of having to x-ref different .dts files per player. I think this was done for simplicities sake but I could be wrong

I am of the mind that players should be able to swap out the arms/weapons of a Mech and have that visual change take place on the model.

I could be wrong though.

I still think we should have mechs with interchangeable parts and have that represented on screen.

Khorum · 08-15-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

I think the reason it was decided to keep the mech as one static model was because of having to x-ref different .dts files per player. I think this was done for simplicities sake but I could be wrong

I am of the mind that players should be able to swap out the arms/weapons of a Mech and have that visual change take place on the model.

I could be wrong though.

I still think we should have mechs with interchangeable parts and have that represented on screen.

Ah so there's a project scope worked out somewhere? As in what limitations for rulesets and visuals and whatnot? Would be good to read before posting more walls of texts heh.

Screamfeeder · 08-15-2007, 06:50 PM

I'm just repeating what I heard/argued in IRC.

splok · 08-15-2007, 08:34 PM

Even if you are having each mech be a single entity, that doesn't exclude the possibility of having a number of various chassis designs. It seems like that would be a nice way to go with it. Some chassis having more of this slot, fewer of that one, some really heavy chassis, some really light ones, etc. Even without being modular, there are a ton of options.

One thing that I don't seem mentioned much is the powering of the mech. It seems that in a mech, the engine or whatever it is you use to actually provide the power for movement and systems would be one of the most crucial components. Someone might want a ton of power and to get it they might need to fit a incredibly heavy engine (or batteries, or whatever) that hugely limits their mobility. They might want a really fast mech, so they have to pick the best combination of chassis and engine weight compared to power. Maybe the mech wants max speed at all costs, so he is able to devote all of his power to movement, or use his equipments slots for modules which enhance his movement, or even intentionally leave slots empty to save on weight.

If there will only be one chassis type, one customization option might be allow for the same chassis to be able to have different slot configurations. Lets say you have as a default: 2 medium weapons slots, 2 medium armor slots, 2 medium systems slots, 2 medium power slots. If you want to customize these, you can trade in your 2 armor slots for an extra medium weapons slot, or maybe trade your 2 weapons slots and armor slots for one extra large weapon slot. Give each mech a set number of base points, each slot a cost, and let the player design his own configuration. You could break the points pools down into weapons/armor/etc, and let them be interchangeable, but not at 100% efficiency. Using armor points for weapons slots might require a 50% penalty or something, to, encourage (but not require) balanced builds.

9n1or9 · 08-16-2007, 06:40 AM

I'm working on doing a rough demo in about a week. I will rig our existing kit to work just for proof of concept, but ideally will require some good config and possibly code changes.

I have modeled 3 arm sets, 3 shoulder weapons, and am currently working on a chassis. With our current kit I think there is only 4 mount points at the moment (which can be changed later), so that is all I will use, mount 0 and 1 for the arms, mount 2 and 3 for the shoulder. I'm not doing any rigging or animation at the moment, but the simple route is to rig and animate only the chassis, for leg movement, and torso twist.

I think it is quite doable to have enough variety in chassis appearance, and with common mount points also have a variety in arm and shoulder weapons. For leg variety, each chassis could have unique legs, or keep them the same. Making the legs seperate from the chassis is where things could get tricky. Only other tricky thing I can forsee is keeping the poly count low enough and have it still look decent, but good texturing can help that along. The sum of the parts adds up quick.

Linbog · 08-16-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

I think the reason it was decided to keep the mech as one static model was because of having to x-ref different .dts files per player. I think this was done for simplicities sake but I could be wrong

I am of the mind that players should be able to swap out the arms/weapons of a Mech and have that visual change take place on the model.

I could be wrong though.

I still think we should have mechs with interchangeable parts and have that represented on screen.

A number of very important aspects of mech design can have no model appearance change, specifically armor type, powerplant and engine.

Fixed appearance and fixed torso/leg combos do not have to limit the customizability of the chassis.

Edit: perhaps we've gotten far enough on(or even off) this topic to where we really should be thinking about how mech roles should be defined over details of customizability.

Sir Yakk · 08-28-2007, 02:05 PM

Do we want "slot Christmas trees", like EQ/WoW, where you fill each slot independently with the best item for the slot? (of course every warrior wears two earrings!)

Or do we want a Battle-tech like system, where the slots are only one resource?

...

Z factors: factors that limit how much "stuff" you put on your character. Weight, power requirements, CPU requirements, etc.

Q factors: factors that limit how good the "stuff" you put on your character is. Skill, level, or Power Supply Purity could all limit the quality of the stuff on the character.

How much should be tied to the pilot, and how much to the mech?

Should mechs be designed for roles?

Ghiest · 08-29-2007, 08:13 AM

Well, if it wasn't limited by the current tech you are usuing for the server/client.

Certain weapons for certain slot because of size. For example you couldn't have large power consuming Railgun/gause type weapon in the chest/leg because of hte long barrel it would need to be arm/sholder mounted due to size/power restriction. But the smaller weapons could go anywhere, like machineguns/rocket launchers ect.

So be limited on some but not all weapons/items.

08-16-2007, 06:40 AM	#20 (permalink)
9n1or9 !1 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Knox Vegas Posts: 151 +0 Internets	I'm working on doing a rough demo in about a week. I will rig our existing kit to work just for proof of concept, but ideally will require some good config and possibly code changes. I have modeled 3 arm sets, 3 shoulder weapons, and am currently working on a chassis. With our current kit I think there is only 4 mount points at the moment (which can be changed later), so that is all I will use, mount 0 and 1 for the arms, mount 2 and 3 for the shoulder. I'm not doing any rigging or animation at the moment, but the simple route is to rig and animate only the chassis, for leg movement, and torso twist. I think it is quite doable to have enough variety in chassis appearance, and with common mount points also have a variety in arm and shoulder weapons. For leg variety, each chassis could have unique legs, or keep them the same. Making the legs seperate from the chassis is where things could get tricky. Only other tricky thing I can forsee is keeping the poly count low enough and have it still look decent, but good texturing can help that along. The sum of the parts adds up quick. __________________ Join the Überguilds Rosetta@Home team

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-15-2007, 06:50 PM	#18 (permalink)
Screamfeeder I MAEK ART!! Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,700 +69 Internets	I'm just repeating what I heard/argued in IRC.

08-15-2007, 08:34 PM	#19 (permalink)
splok Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Guildhall Posts: 405 +0 Internets	Even if you are having each mech be a single entity, that doesn't exclude the possibility of having a number of various chassis designs. It seems like that would be a nice way to go with it. Some chassis having more of this slot, fewer of that one, some really heavy chassis, some really light ones, etc. Even without being modular, there are a ton of options. One thing that I don't seem mentioned much is the powering of the mech. It seems that in a mech, the engine or whatever it is you use to actually provide the power for movement and systems would be one of the most crucial components. Someone might want a ton of power and to get it they might need to fit a incredibly heavy engine (or batteries, or whatever) that hugely limits their mobility. They might want a really fast mech, so they have to pick the best combination of chassis and engine weight compared to power. Maybe the mech wants max speed at all costs, so he is able to devote all of his power to movement, or use his equipments slots for modules which enhance his movement, or even intentionally leave slots empty to save on weight. If there will only be one chassis type, one customization option might be allow for the same chassis to be able to have different slot configurations. Lets say you have as a default: 2 medium weapons slots, 2 medium armor slots, 2 medium systems slots, 2 medium power slots. If you want to customize these, you can trade in your 2 armor slots for an extra medium weapons slot, or maybe trade your 2 weapons slots and armor slots for one extra large weapon slot. Give each mech a set number of base points, each slot a cost, and let the player design his own configuration. You could break the points pools down into weapons/armor/etc, and let them be interchangeable, but not at 100% efficiency. Using armor points for weapons slots might require a 50% penalty or something, to, encourage (but not require) balanced builds.

08-28-2007, 02:05 PM	#22 (permalink)
Sir Yakk Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 22 -1 Internets	Do we want "slot Christmas trees", like EQ/WoW, where you fill each slot independently with the best item for the slot? (of course every warrior wears two earrings!) Or do we want a Battle-tech like system, where the slots are only one resource? ... Z factors: factors that limit how much "stuff" you put on your character. Weight, power requirements, CPU requirements, etc. Q factors: factors that limit how good the "stuff" you put on your character is. Skill, level, or Power Supply Purity could all limit the quality of the stuff on the character. How much should be tied to the pilot, and how much to the mech? Should mechs be designed for roles?

08-29-2007, 08:13 AM	#23 (permalink)
Ghiest Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 40 -6 Internets	Well, if it wasn't limited by the current tech you are usuing for the server/client. Certain weapons for certain slot because of size. For example you couldn't have large power consuming Railgun/gause type weapon in the chest/leg because of hte long barrel it would need to be arm/sholder mounted due to size/power restriction. But the smaller weapons could go anywhere, like machineguns/rocket launchers ect. So be limited on some but not all weapons/items.