|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on May 6, 2017 16:54:42 GMT
So I know somewhere in this thread I listed some modeling projects I'm hoping for...one of which is the "put the texture details in the mesh" idea. Herby, I just tested a mech skinned with only a basic grey on every single texture and guess what....the game DOES do shadowing and if the mesh had details on it they would show up with flat non-detailed textures!! So what I'm thinking about would be a HUGE undertaking, knowing that my work on the skins would only be "half" the job. A combination of details in the skin textures and details in the meshes is probably the best idea. I don't know if the game has limits on polys but we could test it by putting in a "detailed" mech with a flat texture like I've done and see how it looks. Like I said, if it does work well then it would be a MAJOR undertaking: think 18 mechs...between 16 and 18 body parts per mech...plus all the "details" that would be representations of the details in the textures. A LOT of work. A team of 18 modelers might get it done within 6 months, right? lol ...18 being the number of mechs in mech3 |
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Nov 29, 2018 12:53:25 GMT
Ha, here's my necropost  Re-reading the stuff about flamers, man I really wish I could make it so only a few flamers can be loaded on a mech because actual real-life mechanics probably say that even with a fusion engine as a power source to energize them the number of actual flamers would probably be limited to like, 2, maybe 3 or 4 at most, and probably serious penalties would occur, like heat shut-down, drastically slowing your mech down to a crawl temorarily, things like that. Flamers in battletech do not carry fuel tanks and are fueled by the engine which must be a huge drain of power and also explains why they can only fire in bursts like in 'mech 3. Wishes, wishes. That's how I'd do them if I could do "anything". Laser--Herby I really wish I could do the happy medium between how you used to like them (just before last patch) and how they are now and still have the animation not separate from the firepoint. I might just change them back anyway, even though I don't like the animation separation that happens. I've been using them for a while now and not really that happy myself. |
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 1, 2018 11:23:00 GMT
I like some of what you're thinking, but probably because I'm suddenly thinking outside the "box" of multiplayer tradition. I think it's safe to say the old 'mech3 multiplayer days are over, and the traditional ways of playing mech3 multiplayer are a thing of the past. Maybe it's time to change the rules somewhat, and really try and figure out how to mod multiplayer itself.
Things I know can be done:
1) take down all previous downloads of multiplayer maps on my own sites.
2) re-do the list of multiplayer maps into a single installer and put that up. (change things like repeated maps; get rid of old ice maps)
3) include as many of the proposed multiplayer changes as can be done in mp maps and a future version of the mod.
4) include/create a lot of versions of the new "team maps" idea, both with and without objectives
5) create a "texture map installer" which is an idea I've been toying with mainly for ice maps but could also be used to make maps "new" again by using different textures, and of course I would make new ice maps with snow and ice textures. Not all of the new ice maps would have to be totally freezing...they can be made to be just "cool"...more variety. In fact, maybe that should be the new standard, after all, you never see winter maps in the other mech games that completely eliminate heat management.
6) Another mp idea I had was to make mod patches that limit what mechs are available in a multiplayer game, and as a group of players finishes a round or two with that patch, then they upgrade to the next patch which has more selections, and so on...but with the decline of players that actually play it's pointless now.
Things I think can be done but need testing:
1) I think I can do a version of the mod that forces no respawn selection in multiplayer. This would likely cause players to play a little more cautiously. Update: tested and it works.
2) I think I can do a version of the mod that forces stock selection in multiplayer. If these two can be done then I can force mfb's as well. Update: tested and it works.
3) ....well I don't know what 3 is yet but i'm sure we'll think of something
I like your idea about the flamers...they should be as hot to use as PPC's at least...and with the new mechanics model I'm thinking about it makes sense to also increase their recycle time.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 1, 2018 19:48:37 GMT
Didn't I just say all that? lol It's not hard at all, just use the multiplayer mission editor: www.dropbox.com/s/egwu0o9w9hfgxxs/Mech3MPMissionEditor_1.1.00.exe?dl=0If you make your own maps, just remember I'm doing a re-shuffle at some point so they'll be numbered differently. Also, before you save a new mission remember you must not repeat a mission number...and you can only number them like 1 thru 255 I think. |
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 2, 2018 16:50:14 GMT
Basically, if you have all the maps loaded on your game from the mw3cp mega map pack (on the downloads page of the main site page here) you can check the world folders to see if the map number you'd like to save a new mission to is already in use.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 2, 2018 16:50:51 GMT
oh...and my two "freakos maps" packs, and the new team maps I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 3, 2018 15:13:03 GMT
"0" or "1" is zero degrees. depending on the game. Since you don't have a way to do pirate's moon maps it doesn't matter, but the PM maps won't accept a setting of "0", so "1" has to be used in order to make it an "ice" map.
Put it this way for 'Mech3: 31 is the heat for the Op 1 area. "0" is absolute cold. You can look at maps that take place on the other worlds for examples of other temps.
Op 2 is still warm but a little "less hot" than op 1, except when you go underground it gets a little cooler.
Op 3 is a little cooler than Op 2.
Op 4 is desert hot like Op 1
Snowfields is ice cold.
For what I think we're shooting for on a new "non-ice" but cold map that has snow would probably be something in the 2-10 degree range, we'd have to test them out.
I think if we did another "ice" map equivalent to traditional ice maps, we'd have to make the excuse that it's a hostile world where the fictional temperature is far below zero.
So an average cold map, like say we did the Op 2 area with snow textures, you'd still have to manage your heat but it would be easier than say, a warm map.
Descriptively, I think that's what we should shoot for.
Actual temp settings we end up using would have to be trial and error.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 3, 2018 23:05:58 GMT
It all makes sense but your scale is way off because you're basing your upper limit on that lava map you mentioned. Did you actually play it? If the temp is set to 80 then being on that map is probably like standing in the lava of the lava pit. I remember there being a map like that and it was ridiculous, you couldn't play...all you could do was stand there and shut down. In fact, weren't you in that game? 80 is like the extreme opposite of ice.
I would build the scale off the Op 1 world, and figure it's the average temperature of an actual desert, say around 100 degrees F and go from there.
If you use Finnegan's maps as a reference then you'll see the exact temps of the non-editable maps which represent the single-player temps. His multiplayer maps always matched the single-player versions, that was a rule of thumb for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 6, 2018 16:25:20 GMT
I'm guessing by the look of this chart that you may be thinking that I can change how the actual heat scale in the game works? I can't. It's fixed, so maybe we were thinking 2 different things (wouldn't be the first time ;p)
Ambient temp in the op 1 world being 40, and looking over your chart comparing celcius/farenheit, then that would be 104 degrees which sounds like a good basic desert temperature to me. I'm going to surmise that the devs intention was to base their worlds in celcius, and that the setting of zero being just at freezing, yet in our estimation there should still be some heat management until you get to like way below zero, so obviously they hadn't thought about going that far into detail.
It also occurs to me that you're trying a preliminary scale to show what you think we should do based on the premise I just mentioned. OK...if so, 32 degrees for a map is going to be about 89 degrees F'...not freezing at all. If we want to match the 32F freeze temp and create our scale of proper heat management, then I'm going to estimate based on my knowledge of the gameplay heat that roughly a setting of 10 would come close, but needs to be tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 6, 2018 16:28:18 GMT
What we should do is go in game and test at what temp the need for heat management begins after zero based on a build with 10 single heat sinks and 1 er small laser.
THAT might just be a good place to start in the search for a "32F heat management" point.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 6, 2018 23:58:26 GMT
you can't edit a stock map, but you can make your own, go in and find out.
I think you'll find that 10 or 12 are pretty close to creating a "need" for heat management.
Also, I'm really not getting what you're attempting to do with that heat chart. If the "mech3/pm" collumn is supposed to match the other 2 then it's way, way off.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 7, 2018 15:30:13 GMT
We ARE trying to do that.
Ok, as an example: Make a map with 42 ambient temp, then go in and try using a madcat prime. According to your chart, that should be in the comfort zone of 20c/68F....but in game it's the same as playing on the op 1 desert world...it doesn't fit. If you moved the mech3/pm collumn down by between 10 and 15 degrees I'm thinking that's roughly where it should be (according to what we're shooting for)
But the way you have it, it's way way extreme but on the other side of the extreme. Yes, we want it to be fair by dismantling the concept of "Ice" maps, but we don't want to go to extreme heat either.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 7, 2018 19:58:33 GMT
Why don't you just do a few mp maps and we'll start testing them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 8, 2018 11:18:54 GMT
lol looks like rocket science to me. Actually that's pretty cool, what you did there, I'm just busting. But what was each mech doing to get shut down, just standing there, firing a weapon(weapons?) running?
I think adding a pair of lasers would be a good control, and use just 10 dsinks.
Also, I'm surprised a mech doesn't just shut right down on start up at 1000 degrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by AncientxFreako on Dec 8, 2018 21:32:14 GMT
Ok let's try one out like you suggest.
|
|
just checking in