Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Breaking the ice
Topic Started: Aug 16 2010, 10:47 PM (89 Views)
The Tin Mare

Because someone has to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hats McGee

DAMMIT MAN, I WAS SKATING ON THAT. Seriously though, what up?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dnlhl

I'm here to help too!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The OP
Administrator
Sorry for the late responses, gentlemen.

It seems the more-notable, and therefore more-likely-to-draw-decent-help board 'Mercs and Planes' has set up a board just for Mearker. I've noticed the last 4chan thread 404'd.

I've been going over some concept work to figure out how to revamp a few things, including the Hull Integrity and damage system, implement special components, campaign rules, alternative deployment options, include drift rules for movement(because some anons seemed to like that, no idea why), work in weapon positions on ships, come up with rules for certain systems to fail upon taking a certain amount of damage, and any number of other things.

We need to seriously raise the bar, here, because we lost some of the anons with the alpha rules. I dropped the ball there, and we need to fix that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dnlhl

I've been considering a few things, so I'll put them up here:

In terms of weapon mounts, using a hex grid, a ship basically has 6 locations from which a weapon can fire.

My suggestion is that your ship has a hull configuration, which determines the prices of weapons mounted in those locations. There would be 3 levels of cost, 1 level where the mounted weapon is cheaper than base price, one where it is equal to base price, and 1 where it is more expensive than base price. For a normal hull, you can choose to add a cheaper mounting direction, in exchange for having to have a more expensive mounting direction.

The problems I can see are:
If you ship has 3 or less weapons, you might as well make all three cheaper, and put the expensive mountings where you don't have weapons, so the mountings might have to have some other effect, like adjusting the price of some other component in the opposite direction.

Just as a random example, your hull is built around a heavy gun, with a forward mount, so it is cheaper to install the big gun. However, the stern is mostly taken up by the drive, so if you wanted to mount a weapon here to defend your rear, it would cost you more.

I also don't know how this works with multiple weapons facing the same direction. This is only half an idea so far, but I thought I would put it out there.

I'm one of the anon who thought thrust rules were a good idea, but as far as I am concerned, they can be patched in later, I'm happy to keep things simple for now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hats McGee

I think it would be a good idea to move mechanics discussions over to other threads since we have a whole forum at our disposal here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dnlhl

>>6

I was trying to make this feel as much like /tg/ as I could. Hopefully, besides the trolling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The OP
Administrator
Hats McGee
Aug 18 2010, 11:31 PM
I think it would be a good idea to move mechanics discussions over to other threads since we have a whole forum at our disposal here.
Well, the good news here is that the far more reputable Planes and Mercs site has given us a whole board to work with. We can move from here to here.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/PlanesAndMercs/index/

Worth it - Bigger potential contributor-base.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply