MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The Elite Mechaniers (Forum now up!)Mecha
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Mech Arena (WIP)
 Group admin 
Here is where discussion about Rabid's idea for some sort of system based on seeing who's mechs are the best at beating the proverbial snot out of each other.

Currently a Work In Progress. However Alpha testing may begin early next year.
Permalink
| December 24, 2011, 3:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
The problem with the patents idea is that in war, anything goes, and seldom are the rules of the patent followed. If it was an arena, like Heavy Gear, I could see it having more weight, and with only a few interested, we could start out that way. But if more people joined, it would start to get cumbersome.

As for stats. With the basic three, weight, power, and size, all the other stats are hinged on.

Speed would depend on all three. You would need high power, low weight, low size for the best speed.

Armor would be affected by power and size, and would in turn affect weight, which would alter other stats.

Agility/Manueverability would be affected by power weight and speed.

Built on weapons would affect weight as well, but small hand held onesare negligible, because they can be dropped. Heavy handhelds would factor in though.

Have I missed anything?

Now I see how the stat balances works. Power is the amount of electrical or otherwise energy available to the mech, yes? I suggest physical strength being based on speed. More speed equating to less strength (ie; the gearing of the motors). However this brings about a problem, what if a mech has two systems working in tandem, one with low gears and one with high?

This is the problem I see with basing stats off three main stats, it doesn't take into account using different tech. If all the mechs were using the same tech but different armour/weapon/equipment combinations that would work fine, but most of us use different tech. That was the reason behind the peer review system: to be ready to deal with any technological and statistical situation.

And what's to stop people seeing what works the best for one person and making a slightly different version, then calling it their own and winning because of someone else's design? The patents system was meant to stop this, as if everyone was designing their own tech and patenting it then everyone would have to use their own creativity.

And is it war between companies, or just a friendly to see who's making the best mechs at the time?
Permalink
| December 24, 2011, 3:40 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Now I see how the stat balances works. Power is the amount of electrical or otherwise energy available to the mech, yes? I suggest physical strength being based on speed. More speed equating to less strength (ie; the gearing of the motors). However this brings about a problem, what if a mech has two systems working in tandem, one with low gears and one with high?

This is the problem I see with basing stats off three main stats, it doesn't take into account using different tech. If all the mechs were using the same tech but different armour/weapon/equipment combinations that would work fine, but most of us use different tech. That was the reason behind the peer review system: to be ready to deal with any technological and statistical situation.

And what's to stop people seeing what works the best for one person and making a slightly different version, then calling it their own and winning because of someone else's design? The patents system was meant to stop this, as if everyone was designing their own tech and patenting it then everyone would have to use their own creativity.

And is it war between companies, or just a friendly to see who's making the best mechs at the time?


Strength would actually be a combo of the power and weight. The more weight behind something, the stronger it'll be, and a minor effect of armor, naturally, the heavier the armor, the stronger the unit.

And of course, that would affect speed, since a heavier unit won't be as fast.

The three main stats would remain the same for alternate tech, because you're still counting in weight and size. Flight capable units will either need to really light, or have a very large power source in order to sustain the flight, for example. I think it'll end up balancing itself.

As for patents, I can see what you mean, and I'd say we'll go as a trial basis, and see how it works. And I didn't say that we would need to have peer review. It's going to be absolutely important to have accountablity to the group.

As for the purpose, for now it's friendly, but if we get the system streamlined, and enough people involved, then maybe we can "let" a war breakout. I know any contenders I intend to produce will be representative of RGF Productions.
Permalink
| December 25, 2011, 3:31 pm
 Group admin 
I still think that basing off three stats over simplifies the complexities of some mechs, but lets try this way and see how it goes.

So what size range would we be looking at? Mini-mechs or standard mechs (CBMC Classic and AEGAKS size). For the moment I think mini-mechs would mean we could make new models fast for the alpha, however I think we should have at least two leagues for different sized mechs if we can get this to take off.

As for weapons, I see five main classes: Firearm (projectile), energy weapon (laser), rocket/missile, physical melee (swords, maces, etc.) and energy melee. Obviously energy weapons and melee would require power. But how would damage be worked out for other types of weapon?

Now here's the big one: How would the battle system work? I don't think it's fair to just say "he has better stats, he wins". I think we need some way of making the way the mech is used be important as well.

I won't be able to make any MOCs for this until a few days into next year when I get back from my holiday and can use LDD again. So I think we need to enlist someone to make some mechs and possibly battle you if we get that far.
Permalink
| December 25, 2011, 5:37 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
I still think that basing off three stats over simplifies the complexities of some mechs, but lets try this way and see how it goes.

So what size range would we be looking at? Mini-mechs or standard mechs (CBMC Classic and AEGAKS size). For the moment I think mini-mechs would mean we could make new models fast for the alpha, however I think we should have at least two leagues for different sized mechs if we can get this to take off.

As for weapons, I see five main classes: Firearm (projectile), energy weapon (laser), rocket/missile, physical melee (swords, maces, etc.) and energy melee. Obviously energy weapons and melee would require power. But how would damage be worked out for other types of weapon?

Now here's the big one: How would the battle system work? I don't think it's fair to just say "he has better stats, he wins". I think we need some way of making the way the mech is used be important as well.

I won't be able to make any MOCs for this until a few days into next year when I get back from my holiday and can use LDD again. So I think we need to enlist someone to make some mechs and possibly battle you if we get that far.

Well, you also have to think this.

Who's going to generate the stats? If someone sends us a model, and we generate them, then that's fine, we can add as many as we want. If the model creator has to generate them, they probably won't want to spend too long counting up stats. And it can make things somewhat over burdened. Let's start simple and then upgrade from there.

As for size range, I'm thinking mini to start with. It makes it a lot easier.

As for the battles, at least to start with, lets based it off a grid style turn based map. Three on three to start. Until we get six people, we'll run more than a single mech a person. Once we get plenty we can start running free-for-alls. The maps would be able to add bonuses for certain terrains, and deficits for certain terrains.

The weapons ratings'll have to wait until we get the basic stats settled.

We'll see you when you get back, ey?
Permalink
| December 25, 2011, 6:39 pm
 Group admin 
Your first point sounds like my peer review system. Great minds think alike but say the same thing differently. Anyway, I think we should make a panel of three-ish people to decide on stats. So you, me and *insert name here* would agree (or not XD) on the stats of the unit, of course we wouldn't do the stats for our own mechs.

I'm going to ask everyone in the UC thread if they want to join the first battle.

I think we should try using the full mechs on the battlefield before we start a battle because some us have slow computers (like me =D ) and they might not be able to take all the bricks. I guess we'll see in Jan.

So for terrains we could have things like snow slowing mechs, or water giving amphibious mechs an advantage? That sounds good.

Are we going to have formulas for working out the secondary stats or will the review panel roughly base them off the primary stats?

And what do you propose as a name?
Permalink
| December 25, 2011, 9:36 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Your first point sounds like my peer review system. Great minds think alike but say the same thing differently. Anyway, I think we should make a panel of three-ish people to decide on stats. So you, me and *insert name here* would agree (or not XD) on the stats of the unit, of course we wouldn't do the stats for our own mechs.

I'm going to ask everyone in the UC thread if they want to join the first battle.

I think we should try using the full mechs on the battlefield before we start a battle because some us have slow computers (like me =D ) and they might not be able to take all the bricks. I guess we'll see in Jan.

So for terrains we could have things like snow slowing mechs, or water giving amphibious mechs an advantage? That sounds good.

Are we going to have formulas for working out the secondary stats or will the review panel roughly base them off the primary stats?

And what do you propose as a name?

Hmm, not thought of a name yet. I have spotty performance when it comes to names, some things get awesome names, other struggle. Maybe we could have outside input?

And I'm not exactly saying that it's going to be a review panel. It'll be something like a referee system. The "player", since I keep seeing this as the potential to become a videogame, designs, builds, and creates stats for their own units. The "review board" simply determines if the unit is balanced enough to participate. For example, a light mech that has low armor and high speed would definitely be a balanced candidate. Whereas a Heavy mech with heavy armor and high speed would not, because it would break the stats model.

Simple formulas can be used to calculate the secondary stats. We'll need to work out something ironclad before we start, but it may change once we do.

Also, for the battlefield, I'm thinking we won't have the major mechs. Instead, We'll have markers to show who's where, and then close ups of the action? Yeah, you can definitely tell I've been playing older TBS games lately. At least until we get the mechanics of the stats down.

As for the terrains, some terrains would be beneficial to certain types of units, like you said, and others would be detrimental to certain or all units. For example, Lava might slow a unit down, and deal damage. Or a land-based unit would be slowed in the water, just like a water-based unit would be slowed on land.

In anything we do though, there has to be a balance. In order to get high stats in one area, those extra points have to come from somewhere else. No uber units, no invulnerables. Everything naturally have a weakness, even if it's tough to exploit, at least that's my thinking.

Also, I was wondering if you might have Messenger. Mine's Jadom516@hotmail.com
Permalink
| December 25, 2011, 10:13 pm
 Group admin 
I don't have messenger but I've got email. So how large are you thinking? Just a coloured stud as a marker? Then we could have big maps. But until we get more people I don't think we should go too big or we'll end up spending ages moving towards each other before we actually get to battle.

How would the battle work? I think we should make it that once a unit enter an enemy's attack range then the zoomed in battle view begins. The main map continues in tandem with the zoomed one. So if you move close for a melee attack then the two markers become closer. This would also allow units to run away from battles that they are losing if they have more speed and enough time to escape.

I think stats could buff weapons, such as power buffing energy weapons, agility buffing melee and weight debuffing melee. I also think that missiles could track units, appearing as a transparent marker of the colour of the firer.

As for terrain buffs, I think flight should give the unit exemption from these buffs but they have a limited number of moves before they run out of fuel or power.

I also think that during games the power stat should be the upper limit of an energy stat. Energy is depleted as the mech does things, like mana or stamina in a video game. That would require an energy recharge stat or just instant refuel each turn. But then we wounld need a reason for players to opt against putting lots of power into their mech. It would increase weight, but we need more than that. Also, I think agility would reduce the energy cost of some attacks.

EDIT: I just thought, what if having more power increases recharge time? So some mechs would do weaker attacks more often and other would do devastating attacks but have to take three or four turns to recharge.
Permalink
| December 25, 2011, 10:54 pm
 Group moderator 
A quick question about the mechas used: do they need to have a weak spot somewhere?
Permalink
| December 26, 2011, 12:27 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting JakTheMad JTM
A quick question about the mechas used: do they need to have a weak spot somewhere?

Well, the idea, is that units are going to be balanced. Light quick units will be fast, lightly armed, but not very durable, where as heavy armored units will be slow, heavily armed, and very durable.

All units will have to give to take. No unit will be able to have perfect stats. If it excels in one field, it'll naturally lack in another. Or it can be average, with no real strengths or weaknesses in that regard.
Permalink
| December 26, 2011, 4:59 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
I don't have messenger but I've got email. So how large are you thinking? Just a coloured stud as a marker? Then we could have big maps. But until we get more people I don't think we should go too big or we'll end up spending ages moving towards each other before we actually get to battle.

How would the battle work? I think we should make it that once a unit enter an enemy's attack range then the zoomed in battle view begins. The main map continues in tandem with the zoomed one. So if you move close for a melee attack then the two markers become closer. This would also allow units to run away from battles that they are losing if they have more speed and enough time to escape.

I think stats could buff weapons, such as power buffing energy weapons, agility buffing melee and weight debuffing melee. I also think that missiles could track units, appearing as a transparent marker of the colour of the firer.

As for terrain buffs, I think flight should give the unit exemption from these buffs but they have a limited number of moves before they run out of fuel or power.

I also think that during games the power stat should be the upper limit of an energy stat. Energy is depleted as the mech does things, like mana or stamina in a video game. That would require an energy recharge stat or just instant refuel each turn. But then we wounld need a reason for players to opt against putting lots of power into their mech. It would increase weight, but we need more than that. Also, I think agility would reduce the energy cost of some attacks.

EDIT: I just thought, what if having more power increases recharge time? So some mechs would do weaker attacks more often and other would do devastating attacks but have to take three or four turns to recharge.

For battle, I'm thinking that we'll go classic TBS. That means in the grid directly next to is melee range, anything past that is ranged. I was thinking exactly the same in regards to the map, and using the studs to mark unit locations.

Keeping track of fuel/power consumption is a good idea, but right now, we need the basic framework first. That can be added later. Right now, it just needs to be simple so we can work it out.

Starting tonight, I'm going to start working on formulas to work out the stats, so anyone who's interested, if you could send me a random mini mech, so I can work on the stats work. I'm going to start with mine first.

As for special attacks, again, a good idea, but we have to start simple.

But we'll keep all that input for later reference.
Permalink
| December 26, 2011, 5:12 pm
 Group admin 
Okay. Post the formulas when you're done.

I was about to say you could use one of my mechs, but then I realised that I haven't posted any minimechs on MOC pages other than the LTM Base. I should fix that soon... Anyway, if you can find a mech that I have overlooked then you can use it.
Permalink
| December 26, 2011, 5:42 pm
 Group admin 
I just had another idea to try out later. Support abilities! Such as healing, recharging or reviving (at the cost of the mech using revive). Also a shield overcharge ability that greatly reduces the damage taken by your mech for one turn, at the sacrifice of lots of energy.

I know that we wont think of everything that people will want their mechs to do, so what if they can post ideas that we will consider for addition?

Also, for the gameplay aspect, one thing I disliked about the TCS was the turn-basedness of it. I think we could make this game faux-realtime by getting each player to email us their move (eg; Arik sends us: North 3, West 1, Shoot Jak) and then which ever one of us was moderating the game would update the battle MOC with all the moves at once. If each player took turns to download, move their player and upload each turn then it would be very slow, but sending one of us an email would be much quicker. It would also let us include randomised things like dodging, missing or critical hits, the likelihood of these events could be effected by stats.
Permalink
| December 27, 2011, 2:22 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
I just had another idea to try out later. Support abilities! Such as healing, recharging or reviving (at the cost of the mech using revive). Also a shield overcharge ability that greatly reduces the damage taken by your mech for one turn, at the sacrifice of lots of energy.

I know that we wont think of everything that people will want their mechs to do, so what if they can post ideas that we will consider for addition?

Also, for the gameplay aspect, one thing I disliked about the TCS was the turn-basedness of it. I think we could make this game faux-realtime by getting each player to email us their move (eg; Arik sends us: North 3, West 1, Shoot Jak) and then which ever one of us was moderating the game would update the battle MOC with all the moves at once. If each player took turns to download, move their player and upload each turn then it would be very slow, but sending one of us an email would be much quicker. It would also let us include randomised things like dodging, missing or critical hits, the likelihood of these events could be effected by stats.

The problem with doing the moves in a round is that everyone has an idea of what they want to do. Say I wanted to fire at unit b, but you fired at unit b and destroyed it before I did. Then my move would be wasted, since it was all emailed together.

Again good ideas, but that's for later. I had also ideas for "resupply" depots, and other such perks/traps.

Later on, when abilities are brought in, there will be ground work for how to make them and apply them in battle.
Permalink
| December 27, 2011, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
The problem with doing the moves in a round is that everyone has an idea of what they want to do. Say I wanted to fire at unit b, but you fired at unit b and destroyed it before I did. Then my move would be wasted, since it was all emailed together.

Again good ideas, but that's for later. I had also ideas for "resupply" depots, and other such perks/traps.

Later on, when abilities are brought in, there will be ground work for how to make them and apply them in battle.

Well with a team battle I assumed the team mates would be communicating and working together but with free for all that might be unavoidable using my method. However I still think that it should be the moderator who does the LDDing, otherwise the process is very slow.
Permalink
| December 28, 2011, 2:36 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Well with a team battle I assumed the team mates would be communicating and working together but with free for all that might be unavoidable using my method. However I still think that it should be the moderator who does the LDDing, otherwise the process is very slow.

That's what I was thinking. still working on formulas. And I may start a concept map soon.
Permalink
| December 28, 2011, 5:10 pm
 Group admin 
I've been thinking about weapon stats and I think they should be separate from the mech's stats. Then weapons could be transferred between mechs without the weirdness of one gun being for powerful when held by a different mech. (However some mech stats would give bonuses to weapons.)

For the first test I think we should test movement (only include simple terrain buffs such as 'you may not walk on water or lava'; and no flying), stats and basic battle. As such I think all mechs should be armed with the same assault rifle and sword. Rockets, energy weapons/blade and grenade can be done later.
Permalink
| December 29, 2011, 2:43 am
 Group admin 
A note on movement. I think that for the first few tests (until we can bring in energy) each player's turn should consist of moving and then attacking. However later I think that attacking, moving and using other abilities should be usable whenever the mech has enough energy and it is their turn.
Permalink
| December 29, 2011, 3:45 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
A note on movement. I think that for the first few tests (until we can bring in energy) each player's turn should consist of moving and then attacking. However later I think that attacking, moving and using other abilities should be usable whenever the mech has enough energy and it is their turn.

Sounds good.

Should we determine the weight by actual size, or should there be a scale for it? Say, like it's mini sized, but irl it would hold a person. Like the gundams.

Also, take a shot at the stat generation, you may get an idea that I might miss.
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 12:52 am
 Group admin 
For the minimech league I think we should stick with minifig scale as that is what XT-style minimechs (minus the Conka =D) are made at.

I think size should be related to height, whereas weight would be how much armour, guns, missiles, etc; has been chucked on the mech. If you're thinking something different then say.

Okay, I'll have a shot at some stat generators. Hopefully we should be ready for the first test once you finish your IRL stuff.

And is it just me, or does this game sound kinda similar to DotA?
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 1:59 am
 Group admin 
Oh. Riiiight. I think I might have messed up. Are we using metric or US measurements (I know there's some overlap but I'd like to be clear for when the don't)? Personally, I vote metric but most of us are in the US so it depends what the majority of you guys use.
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 5:25 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Oh. Riiiight. I think I might have messed up. Are we using metric or US measurements (I know there's some overlap but I'd like to be clear for when the don't)? Personally, I vote metric but most of us are in the US so it depends what the majority of you guys use.

I vote metric. Nuff said.
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 11:50 am
 Group moderator 
Defintely metric. It makes things easier to calculate.

I'm actually thinking that size would be determined by the tangent of the height, thickness and width of the model, calculated like one caluclates the inches on a tv.

So a really short, wide model, might be roughly the same size as a tall narrow model.

Weight, I think should be measured in bricks. Heavier units will naturally have more bricks(in mass) than a light model. But this is really open to debate.

Power will have to be set by size and weight. Can't mount a powercell that's too big, or too heavy, you know, and that would limit it.
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 1:31 pm
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Oh. Riiiight. I think I might have messed up. Are we using metric or US measurements (I know there's some overlap but I'd like to be clear for when the don't)? Personally, I vote metric but most of us are in the US so it depends what the majority of you guys use.

I'd say metric. metric measurements are a lot more hi-tech-ish than English measurements in my opinion.
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 1:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
Defintely metric. It makes things easier to calculate.

I'm actually thinking that size would be determined by the tangent of the height, thickness and width of the model, calculated like one caluclates the inches on a tv.

So a really short, wide model, might be roughly the same size as a tall narrow model.

Weight, I think should be measured in bricks. Heavier units will naturally have more bricks(in mass) than a light model. But this is really open to debate.

Power will have to be set by size and weight. Can't mount a powercell that's too big, or too heavy, you know, and that would limit it.

Okay, looks like we're using metric. Phew. I've done a draft of some formulae in metric. I'll upload them in an MOC soon. It'll probably include some stuff on the maps and stud markers as well.

As for size, that method would require more maths than just using a pillar of studs to measure height. Most people don't make short, wide mechs anyway. How about we use the length in bricks of whichever dimension (height, width or depth) is largest.

Weight I think could be partially based on that, but I think that how heavy the mech looks should have something to do with it. So a mech with a low brick count but masses of undetailed armour would weight more than a lightly armour but detailed mech.

I agree with the power, but I think that people should be able to mount external cores to increase power.
Permalink
| January 1, 2012, 5:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
I'd say metric. metric measurements are a lot more hi-tech-ish than English measurements in my opinion.

You do know that England swapped to metric before the US, right?
Permalink
| January 8, 2012, 5:38 am
Quoting ED.Eroomdivad... Teh me =D
You do know that England swapped to metric before the US, right?

so, English measurements aren't even used in England? that makes a while lot of sense... :P
Permalink
| January 8, 2012, 4:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
so, English measurements aren't even used in England? that makes a while lot of sense... :P

Who needs sense when you can have dollars, right? =D
Permalink
| January 9, 2012, 2:15 am
Quoting ED.Eroomdivad... Teh me =D
Who needs sense when you can have dollars, right? =D

Just wait untill the economy gets so bad that the US has to switch to the Euro....
Permalink
| January 9, 2012, 4:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
Just wait untill the economy gets so bad that the US has to switch to the Euro....
I think you missed the whole point of the joke, Richie.
Permalink
| January 9, 2012, 4:36 pm
Quoting BiO.Andrew (All Purpose Mechanical Soldier series 1 coming soon!)
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
Just wait untill the economy gets so bad that the US has to switch to the Euro....
I think you missed the whole point of the joke, Richie.

I didn't miss the point of the joke, i only changed the subject based on the last word of the punchline.
Permalink
| January 9, 2012, 4:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
I didn't miss the point of the joke, i only changed the subject based on the last word of the punchline.

I fail to see the relation to the word "=D".
Permalink
| January 10, 2012, 2:01 am
Quoting ED.Eroomdivad... Teh me =D
I fail to see the relation to the word "=D".

"=D" isn't a word ;P
Permalink
| January 10, 2012, 9:03 pm
 Group admin 
wow, how did I miss this convo going up! SOunds awesome It'd be great to have a mech arena type game!
I don't know if this has been braught up or not, but allot of things from my TCS game I was working on could be braught over to this, like the grid-based map and stats and classes and such. This would definitely work best turn-based. It could play out almost like the pokemon trading card game where each player takes turns using an attack on an enemy. Maybe that attack could have an effect or there could be damage types. Sorry if some of this has already been braught up, I got lazy and didnt read all the comments XD
Permalink
| January 10, 2012, 9:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
"=D" isn't a word ;P

What! But it comes just before =P in the dictionary!
Permalink
| January 11, 2012, 3:54 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
wow, how did I miss this convo going up! SOunds awesome It'd be great to have a mech arena type game!
I don't know if this has been braught up or not, but allot of things from my TCS game I was working on could be braught over to this, like the grid-based map and stats and classes and such. This would definitely work best turn-based. It could play out almost like the pokemon trading card game where each player takes turns using an attack on an enemy. Maybe that attack could have an effect or there could be damage types. Sorry if some of this has already been braught up, I got lazy and didnt read all the comments XD

Welcome! I'll bring you up to speed:

So we're ("we" being Rabid and myself) looking at making a game where each player controls a mech they have created. To start with we're looking at having team battles 3 on 3. And there's some basic stuff you need to know about.

Stats: The game will be based around stats. Stats are generated using three base stats (for mechs: size, weight and power) that are substituted into formulas to generate more complex stats like speed, armour, strength, etc.. Weapons will also have stats (accuracy, power, damage, weight, etc.), but for now we're going to give each player the same weapons for testing until we're happy with movement and player stats.

Maps: The game is play on a map (I know, original, right?). Each mech is represented by a coloured stud. Movement speed is stat based. Different terrains can give buffs or debuffs like lava dealing damage and slowing units. I see the maps as being more complex and individual than the TCS maps (each map made from scratch, rather than using tiles).

In-game stats: During game play there will be some stats that will be kept track of. For now there is only HP. However EP (energy points) might be added and is the fuel (or eqiv.) available to the mech during it's turn.

So if you could keep awake through all that, I'd like to hear what you think.
Permalink
| January 11, 2012, 4:11 am
 Group moderator 
That's a very good break down of it, Ed.

Sorry, with my fiancee here, I've not even thought of the stat computations. I'll definitely get on them.

Hey Chunk, I appreciate the offer, but we're going to build this from the ground up.

That doesn't mean that we don't want you input. On the contrary, be sure to give advice.
Permalink
| January 11, 2012, 11:30 am
Quoting Rabid Goldfish Hey Chunk, I appreciate the offer, but we're going to build this from the ground up.

Uh, Might i suggest that, instead of working from the ground up, you should work from the Sky Down. Allow me to explain. Recently i've been analysing the TCS and my verdict was that its downfall was due to severe developmental methodology error. In short, While Chunk worked UPWARDS from the Tactical aspects of the TCS (thus the name), It would have worked better to start from a Colonization Aspect and work our way DOWN to the eventual exchange of ammunition between two units. I would suggest you operate similarly.
Permalink
| January 11, 2012, 5:34 pm
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
Uh, Might i suggest that, instead of working from the ground up, you should work from the Sky Down. Allow me to explain. Recently i've been analysing the TCS and my verdict was that its downfall was due to severe developmental methodology error. In short, While Chunk worked UPWARDS from the Tactical aspects of the TCS (thus the name), It would have worked better to start from a Colonization Aspect and work our way DOWN to the eventual exchange of ammunition between two units. I would suggest you operate similarly.

ermmm, colonization? I was under the impression this would just be some arena thing where we pit our Mecha Contest entries against each other in battle...

speaking of the TCS and other related combat systems, I have some ideas for a combat system of my own. and considering that I would kinda like to do more than just build Mechs, such as seeing them in active combat against other Mechs, developing a new and functional combat system would be nice.
Permalink
| January 11, 2012, 6:00 pm
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
ermmm, colonization? I was under the impression this would just be some arena thing where we pit our Mecha Contest entries against each other in battle...

speaking of the TCS and other related combat systems, I have some ideas for a combat system of my own. and considering that I would kinda like to do more than just build Mechs, such as seeing them in active combat against other Mechs, developing a new and functional combat system would be nice.

The Colonization thing was Strictly for the TCS.
Permalink
| January 11, 2012, 6:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
That's a very good break down of it, Ed.

Sorry, with my fiancee here, I've not even thought of the stat computations. I'll definitely get on them.

Hey Chunk, I appreciate the offer, but we're going to build this from the ground up.

That doesn't mean that we don't want you input. On the contrary, be sure to give advice.

Thanks. I'm suprised I didn't miss aything worth pointing out.

I've made a draft set of formulas but they're on my laptop and I can't get access to that until the weekend after this one.
Permalink
| January 12, 2012, 2:34 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
Uh, Might i suggest that, instead of working from the ground up, you should work from the Sky Down. Allow me to explain. Recently i've been analysing the TCS and my verdict was that its downfall was due to severe developmental methodology error. In short, While Chunk worked UPWARDS from the Tactical aspects of the TCS (thus the name), It would have worked better to start from a Colonization Aspect and work our way DOWN to the eventual exchange of ammunition between two units. I would suggest you operate similarly.

Maybe, but as the combat system is pretty much all we're doing here, I don't see how we could really work from the top down.
Permalink
| January 12, 2012, 2:36 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
That's a very good break down of it, Ed.

Sorry, with my fiancee here, I've not even thought of the stat computations. I'll definitely get on them.

Hey Chunk, I appreciate the offer, but we're going to build this from the ground up.

That doesn't mean that we don't want you input. On the contrary, be sure to give advice.

No problem, I'll be sure to do as much as I can to help progress this along and make it a reality, as I would love nothing more than to see an MBS and an AEGAKS duke it out =D (Hopefully I'll have the grey wolf uploaded and the new Crusader I bin workin on done before then)
And thank you for the breakdown ED, was very informative. I'm not sure what exactly I could do right now to help but if you need somethin done leme know I'll see what I can do
Permalink
| January 12, 2012, 9:43 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
No problem, I'll be sure to do as much as I can to help progress this along and make it a reality, as I would love nothing more than to see an MBS and an AEGAKS duke it out =D (Hopefully I'll have the grey wolf uploaded and the new Crusader I bin workin on done before then)
And thank you for the breakdown ED, was very informative. I'm not sure what exactly I could do right now to help but if you need somethin done leme know I'll see what I can do

I dunno, it'd take a pretty stinkin' powerful AEGAKS unit to take down the Grey Wolf, even if only due to size comparisons. :P hey Rabid, ever considered making something a good deal larger than your average-sized AEGAKS unit? :P
Permalink
| January 12, 2012, 9:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
I dunno, it'd take a pretty stinkin' powerful AEGAKS unit to take down the Grey Wolf, even if only due to size comparisons. :P hey Rabid, ever considered making something a good deal larger than your average-sized AEGAKS unit? :P

I donno Erik, as awesome as the grey wolf is, A really decked out AEGAKS could take it, especially one designed for maneuverability. Becuase no matter how many jets I stick on an MBS, there's still always the concern of inertia, so there's a proverbial cap on it's maneuverability. So if I can't hit him and he can hit me, by default he wins. And lets not forget, your brand new little mech apparently beat an MBS, so don't throw Rabbid out of the game just yet.
Permalink
| January 13, 2012, 12:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
I donno Erik, as awesome as the grey wolf is, A really decked out AEGAKS could take it, especially one designed for maneuverability. Becuase no matter how many jets I stick on an MBS, there's still always the concern of inertia, so there's a proverbial cap on it's maneuverability. So if I can't hit him and he can hit me, by default he wins. And lets not forget, your brand new little mech apparently beat an MBS, so don't throw Rabbid out of the game just yet.

In theory you could get enough manuverability by piling on retros. But I guess we'll just have to see, wont we?
Permalink
| January 13, 2012, 3:19 am
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
I donno Erik, as awesome as the grey wolf is, A really decked out AEGAKS could take it, especially one designed for maneuverability. Becuase no matter how many jets I stick on an MBS, there's still always the concern of inertia, so there's a proverbial cap on it's maneuverability. So if I can't hit him and he can hit me, by default he wins. And lets not forget, your brand new little mech apparently beat an MBS, so don't throw Rabbid out of the game just yet.

hm, good point. heh, that would be an interesting project too, an MBS designed for maximum speed and maneuverability...

by the way Chunk, seeing as you seem to have looked at the Broadsword, I'd like to apologize for using your Mechs like that. if you'd like, I can remove the pics that have your Mechs in them, as well as any mention of them. also, I'll make sure to ask your permission before using any from this point on. :)
Permalink
| January 13, 2012, 11:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
hm, good point. heh, that would be an interesting project too, an MBS designed for maximum speed and maneuverability...

by the way Chunk, seeing as you seem to have looked at the Broadsword, I'd like to apologize for using your Mechs like that. if you'd like, I can remove the pics that have your Mechs in them, as well as any mention of them. also, I'll make sure to ask your permission before using any from this point on. :)

Well sir, that would pretty much describe the crusader! And no you can leave the pictures up. Just ask next time thats all. (And you and I both know that MBS pilot was a recruit just out of training who didnt understand propper MBS tactics.)
Permalink
| January 14, 2012, 4:09 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Well sir, that would pretty much describe the crusader! And no you can leave the pictures up. Just ask next time thats all. (And you and I both know that MBS pilot was a recruit just out of training who didnt understand propper MBS tactics.)

oh, yeah! *facepalm* how did I forget the H-MBS units? :P

and yes, all our experienced and most skilled MBS pilots are currently out on the front line blasting away at enemy troops.
Permalink
| January 14, 2012, 4:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
(And you and I both know that MBS pilot was a recruit just out of training who didnt understand propper MBS tactics.)

As were the AIs in those minimechs who were just standing by watching their friends get blasted.
Permalink
| January 14, 2012, 7:03 pm
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
As were the AIs in those minimechs who were just standing by watching their friends get blasted.

hm, good point. I doubt IWE's AI programs are as good as XT's. I'll have to try that demo over again... (kidding, Bio :P)
Permalink
| January 14, 2012, 8:51 pm
 Group moderator 
Well, to start off, we're going to use mini mechs. But eventually I don't see why we couldn't use full size, and even super robot class mecha.

And you can bet my AEGAKS will be getting some of the action.
Permalink
| January 14, 2012, 10:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
Well, to start off, we're going to use mini mechs. But eventually I don't see why we couldn't use full size, and even super robot class mecha.

And you can bet my AEGAKS will be getting some of the action.

Super-robot class huh? sounds like I need to upload the Titan II here =D
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 2:52 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
oh, yeah! *facepalm* how did I forget the H-MBS units? :P

and yes, all our experienced and most skilled MBS pilots are currently out on the front line blasting away at enemy troops.

Well yes but what I was actually referring to is the Crusader 2 I have been dabbaling at on and off for a while now. I have some arms and shoulders designed which look great and really improve on the first design whilst still keeping the original Aerodynamic look, and some legs in progress, so it will eventually be completed lol
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 2:54 am
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Super-robot class huh? sounds like I need to upload the Titan II here =D

Yeah, RIGHT NOW!
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 3:07 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Well yes but what I was actually referring to is the Crusader 2 I have been dabbaling at on and off for a while now. I have some arms and shoulders designed which look great and really improve on the first design whilst still keeping the original Aerodynamic look, and some legs in progress, so it will eventually be completed lol

ermmm, exactly how "aerodynamic" is it? because, as I tell my younger brother, the last Crusader looks kinda like Starscream in mid-transformation. :P (I'll let you decide if that's good or bad :P)
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 5:33 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Super-robot class huh? sounds like I need to upload the Titan II here =D

uh oh.

in the words of the great philosopher C-3PO, "We're doomed!"
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 5:50 pm
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
ermmm, exactly how "aerodynamic" is it? because, as I tell my younger brother, the last Crusader looks kinda like Starscream in mid-transformation. :P (I'll let you decide if that's good or bad :P)

Chunk, I just looked at the crusader in LDD and, uh... Oh, jeez.... It Does look like Starscream inmidtransformation but, uh, if i may be so bold, Not in a good way... :/ What were you thinking when you designed that bucket of bolts?
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 6:06 pm
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
uh oh.

in the words of the great philosopher C-3PO, "We're doomed!"

Nawm TorukaTsatnok, Arik! Why must you allways quote Star Wars?
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 6:10 pm
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
Nawm TorukaTsatnok, Arik! Why must you allways quote Star Wars?

"Because, sir, the odds of successfully besting the Titan II in combat are 5,729,843,112 to 1!" AND because Star Wars has all the best quotes. :P
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 8:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
Chunk, I just looked at the crusader in LDD and, uh... Oh, jeez.... It Does look like Starscream inmidtransformation but, uh, if i may be so bold, Not in a good way... :/ What were you thinking when you designed that bucket of bolts?

I was thinking "how many boosters can I strap onto this thing?" I like the looks of it personally, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You also have to remember the original crusader is a rather old design, and trust me, the new one will be 2000% better. Bigger, more maneuverable and more practical, not to mention easier on the eyes XD
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 8:42 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
I was thinking "how many boosters can I strap onto this thing?" I like the looks of it personally, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You also have to remember the original crusader is a rather old design, and trust me, the new one will be 2000% better. Bigger, more maneuverable and more practical, not to mention easier on the eyes XD

And hopefully with a shmaller chest...
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 8:58 pm
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
"Because, sir, the odds of successfully besting the Titan II in combat are 5,729,843,112 to 1!" AND because Star Wars has all the best quotes. :P

Tawtute...
Permalink
| January 15, 2012, 9:01 pm
Are you taking into consideration the various internal scales of what competitors might build for your game? Even if someone devises a mini-scale AEGAKS, if a minifig represents a six-foot-tall individual than an AEGAKS is often no bigger than thirty-five feet give or take. Bio, Thomas and several others make minimechs that are taller than an AEGAKS if sized to full-scale. Mobile Suits are often eighteen meters and since Armor Frames are based on Mobile Suits size standards, Thomas's MS twelve-inch-IRL MS designs and my six-inch-IRL AF designs are outside the fictional class of a ten-inch-IRL AEGAKS. LEGO scaling and actual IRL scaling are hard to reconcile. Imagine someone pitting a machine from Patlabor against the Gunbuster, for example...
Permalink
| January 18, 2012, 9:14 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Forte Noir
Are you taking into consideration the various internal scales of what competitors might build for your game? Even if someone devises a mini-scale AEGAKS, if a minifig represents a six-foot-tall individual than an AEGAKS is often no bigger than thirty-five feet give or take. Bio, Thomas and several others make minimechs that are taller than an AEGAKS if sized to full-scale. Mobile Suits are often eighteen meters and since Armor Frames are based on Mobile Suits size standards, Thomas's MS twelve-inch-IRL MS designs and my six-inch-IRL AF designs are outside the fictional class of a ten-inch-IRL AEGAKS. LEGO scaling and actual IRL scaling are hard to reconcile. Imagine someone pitting a machine from Patlabor against the Gunbuster, for example...

I have considered that, and that's why I've said we're limiting the size. Just "small" mechas at first until we get things settled and then we'll work our way up scale wise.

And on the issue of scale, I was planning on making a "scaled" line up for the match before hand, so everyone would know what size they all are, despite the fact that they may be different scales.

Originally my Conka was meant to be on the scale to hold a person, but I didn't specify, since it was going to be my "test dummy" for this experiment. That way it can go both ways.
Permalink
| January 18, 2012, 9:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Forte Noir
Are you taking into consideration the various internal scales of what competitors might build for your game? Even if someone devises a mini-scale AEGAKS, if a minifig represents a six-foot-tall individual than an AEGAKS is often no bigger than thirty-five feet give or take. Bio, Thomas and several others make minimechs that are taller than an AEGAKS if sized to full-scale. Mobile Suits are often eighteen meters and since Armor Frames are based on Mobile Suits size standards, Thomas's MS twelve-inch-IRL MS designs and my six-inch-IRL AF designs are outside the fictional class of a ten-inch-IRL AEGAKS. LEGO scaling and actual IRL scaling are hard to reconcile. Imagine someone pitting a machine from Patlabor against the Gunbuster, for example...
Hmm, I'm not sure if you're thinking that I build in a similar scale to your AFs, because most of my mechs as meant to be to mini-fig scale. If you weren't implying that, then don't mind me.

Permalink
| January 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Forte Noir
Are you taking into consideration the various internal scales of what competitors might build for your game? Even if someone devises a mini-scale AEGAKS, if a minifig represents a six-foot-tall individual than an AEGAKS is often no bigger than thirty-five feet give or take. Bio, Thomas and several others make minimechs that are taller than an AEGAKS if sized to full-scale. Mobile Suits are often eighteen meters and since Armor Frames are based on Mobile Suits size standards, Thomas's MS twelve-inch-IRL MS designs and my six-inch-IRL AF designs are outside the fictional class of a ten-inch-IRL AEGAKS. LEGO scaling and actual IRL scaling are hard to reconcile. Imagine someone pitting a machine from Patlabor against the Gunbuster, for example...

Adding to Rabid's reply, we wont not allow a mech for being in a different scale, but for the purposes of play it will be considered to be the same scale as everyone else's, which for the moment is minifig scale.
Permalink
| January 19, 2012, 3:28 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Adding to Rabid's reply, we wont not allow a mech for being in a different scale, but for the purposes of play it will be considered to be the same scale as everyone else's, which for the moment is minifig scale.

in that case, Forte's Mechs are probably gonna dominate. :P
Permalink
| January 19, 2012, 12:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
in that case, Forte's Mechs are probably gonna dominate. :P

Nothing is certain in war, so there's no way to tell who would dominate.
Permalink
| January 19, 2012, 6:35 pm
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
Nothing is certain in war, so there's no way to tell who would dominate.

true, but typically a Mech twice the size of the Titan II is a very powerful and effective Mech, and hard to beat. well, maybe one of Bio's Mechs can sneak under its armor plating or something... :P
Permalink
| January 19, 2012, 6:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
true, but typically a Mech twice the size of the Titan II is a very powerful and effective Mech, and hard to beat. well, maybe one of Bio's Mechs can sneak under its armor plating or something... :P

I think you've misunderstood. I meant that mechs built outside minifig scale will be considered to be built at minifig scale. Therefore their stats wont be out of proportion.
Permalink
| January 20, 2012, 3:52 pm
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
I think you've misunderstood. I meant that mechs built outside minifig scale will be considered to be built at minifig scale. Therefore their stats wont be out of proportion.

oh... well, in that case, Forte might want to start work on a bigger Mech. hmm, what if you grouped Mechs of similar sizes into individual groups to keep things fair?
Permalink
| January 20, 2012, 4:20 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
oh... well, in that case, Forte might want to start work on a bigger Mech. hmm, what if you grouped Mechs of similar sizes into individual groups to keep things fair?

Ideally, it's not going to matter as much as you think. Small light mecha are going to be fast, due to their light size, where as bigger heavier mecha are going to be much slower. I would like to build handicaps into the system so as to prevent invincible uber units.

If it catches one well, and we can get 'teams' together, we would restrict units that were fielded, like say a max of six lights versus a max of three heavies, or whatnot. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Permalink
| January 20, 2012, 5:10 pm
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
Ideally, it's not going to matter as much as you think. Small light mecha are going to be fast, due to their light size, where as bigger heavier mecha are going to be much slower. I would like to build handicaps into the system so as to prevent invincible uber units.

If it catches one well, and we can get 'teams' together, we would restrict units that were fielded, like say a max of six lights versus a max of three heavies, or whatnot. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

true. even still, I'd hate to be driving a light Mech like the Jester against the Titan II or an MBS. you can handicap the big Mechs all you want, they'll still be pretty tough to take down.
Permalink
| January 20, 2012, 5:24 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
true. even still, I'd hate to be driving a light Mech like the Jester against the Titan II or an MBS. you can handicap the big Mechs all you want, they'll still be pretty tough to take down.

You know, both sides will be handicapped. There's a reason heavy mechs have so much armor. Because they're slow and much easier to hit. Light mecha are far harder to hit, being faster, meaning they have less armor to get in the way. It's back to the "Don't matter how good your armor is, if you can't move in it." deal.
Permalink
| January 20, 2012, 5:28 pm
Quoting Rabid Goldfish
You know, both sides will be handicapped. There's a reason heavy mechs have so much armor. Because they're slow and much easier to hit. Light mecha are far harder to hit, being faster, meaning they have less armor to get in the way. It's back to the "Don't matter how good your armor is, if you can't move in it." deal.

they used that same argument for TIE fighters.
Permalink
| January 20, 2012, 5:41 pm
If we do this, I've already got an entry prepared. Most of my designs attempt to integrate weapons and features into the geometry in a complimentary fashion. This time I'm letting it all hang out Armored Core style. :D
Permalink
| January 22, 2012, 2:38 am
 Group admin 
Okay guys, time to bring this idea back from the dead.

I'll be posting an MOC with things about this in the next week or so. For the moment I'll be including some info on maps and stats. If there's anything people think I should add I'll do that too.
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 5:15 pm
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, time to bring this idea back from the dead.

I'll be posting an MOC with things about this in the next week or so. For the moment I'll be including some info on maps and stats. If there's anything people think I should add I'll do that too.

"It's... it's ALIVE!" :P
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 5:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, time to bring this idea back from the dead.

I'll be posting an MOC with things about this in the next week or so. For the moment I'll be including some info on maps and stats. If there's anything people think I should add I'll do that too.
Well you'll have some friendly competition to deal with. I'm trying to kick the TCS back up again with some new ideas and stuff.
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 5:45 pm
Quoting BiO.Andrew (APMS-1 Series in progress!)
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, time to bring this idea back from the dead.

I'll be posting an MOC with things about this in the next week or so. For the moment I'll be including some info on maps and stats. If there's anything people think I should add I'll do that too.
Well you'll have some friendly competition to deal with. I'm trying to kick the TCS back up again with some new ideas and stuff.

EFFICIENCYYY!!!!! ....Meh.
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 9:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
EFFICIENCYYY!!!!! ....Meh.
I'm workin' on it. :P
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 9:21 pm
Quoting BiO.Andrew (APMS-1 Series in progress!)
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
EFFICIENCYYY!!!!! ....Meh.
I'm workin' on it. :P

Yay! ;P
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 9:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BiO.Andrew (APMS-1 Series in progress!)
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, time to bring this idea back from the dead.

I'll be posting an MOC with things about this in the next week or so. For the moment I'll be including some info on maps and stats. If there's anything people think I should add I'll do that too.
Well you'll have some friendly competition to deal with. I'm trying to kick the TCS back up again with some new ideas and stuff.

Darn! You've sliced my market share! =D

Though they are both LDDTBS (LEGO Digital Designer Turn Based Strategy) games, the Mech Arena's more of an action RTS (like LOL or DotA) but in TBS form so the gameplay will be different enough that I think people will want to play both. (I know I do!)
Permalink
| February 11, 2012, 2:20 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Rich Collins... 257th Wolf
EFFICIENCYYY!!!!! ....Meh.

I should note Richie, that the Mech Arena isn't exactly simple, but I think only having one unit per person to deal with should hopefully cancel that enough for it to be fun.
Permalink
| February 11, 2012, 2:22 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, time to bring this idea back from the dead.

I'll be posting an MOC with things about this in the next week or so. For the moment I'll be including some info on maps and stats. If there's anything people think I should add I'll do that too.

I think certain units should have higher stats.
For example:
There are three types of units:
Heavy
Light
Sniper
Heavy can have 10/10 in defense instead of the normal 7/7 (or whatever)
Light can have 10/10 in speed instead of the normal 7/7 (or whatever)
SNiper can have 10/10 in Range instead of the normal 7/7 (or whatever)

You get my drift?
Permalink
| February 17, 2012, 1:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LTE CEO of MMWI
I think certain units should have higher stats.
For example:
There are three types of units:
Heavy
Light
Sniper
Heavy can have 10/10 in defense instead of the normal 7/7 (or whatever)
Light can have 10/10 in speed instead of the normal 7/7 (or whatever)
SNiper can have 10/10 in Range instead of the normal 7/7 (or whatever)

You get my drift?

Nice idea, but it's kinda already built into the system. I don't think we'll use classes as I can't see them adding much to the game, because is you want you could build a speed, or armour or range oriented mech anyway. And I should note that as far as I know we're separating mech and gun stats, and I haven't put range in in my draft. That's because of how I think we should do the accuracy: the accuracy is a percentage and for every five or whatever spaces the bullet must travel it has an *accuracy%* chance of staying true. So in theory you could snipe someone from accross the map, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Permalink
| February 17, 2012, 3:39 pm
 Group admin 
Okay guys, who is still (sorry about the wait) willing to join in with the first test battle? I think we should start with six people. I'm doing it (if you didn't work that out you're a derp) and my brother (he actually exists too, not like Andrew's brother =D ) can fill a space if need be.

You wont need to build any mechs, or choose any stats of anything yet. You're just going to test movement and fighting.
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 3:10 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, who is still (sorry about the wait) willing to join in with the first test battle? I think we should start with six people. I'm doing it (if you didn't work that out you're a derp) and my brother (he actually exists too, not like Andrew's brother =D ) can fill a space if need be.

You wont need to build any mechs, or choose any stats of anything yet. You're just going to test movement and fighting.


I'm still up for it. ;)
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 4:06 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okay guys, who is still (sorry about the wait) willing to join in with the first test battle? I think we should start with six people. I'm doing it (if you didn't work that out you're a derp) and my brother (he actually exists too, not like Andrew's brother =D ) can fill a space if need be.

Dibs. TOTALLY dibs.
You wont need to build any mechs, or choose any stats of anything yet. You're just going to test movement and fighting.
Permalink
| March 13, 2012, 10:29 am
 Group admin 
Okays, that's two people plus me and my brother. That's not really enough. Do the rest of you not want to do it or are just not seeing these posts?

Anyways, expect the post this week (hopefully tomorrow). For realz this time. =D
Permalink
| March 21, 2012, 5:52 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okays, that's two people plus me and my brother. That's not really enough. Do the rest of you not want to do it or are just not seeing these posts?

Anyways, expect the post this week (hopefully tomorrow). For realz this time. =D

I'll join in. do we need to make Mechs and stuff for ourselves or something?

EDIT: well, if we DO need to make some Mechs for ourselves, I've got a "little" beast of a machine in the works, something to replace the Gigaton. >;}



by the way, a possible suggestion as far as a way to compensate for the likely size difference between various Mechs, perhaps smaller units could be deployed in larger numbers than the bigger ones? sorry, but I highly doubt a mini-Mech could compete with an MBS, and it doesn't look like we're gonna have enough people involved to break up the competition into separate divisions based on size.
Permalink
| March 21, 2012, 1:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
I'll join in. do we need to make Mechs and stuff for ourselves or something?

EDIT: well, if we DO need to make some Mechs for ourselves, I've got a "little" beast of a machine in the works, something to replace the Gigaton. >;}



by the way, a possible suggestion as far as a way to compensate for the likely size difference between various Mechs, perhaps smaller units could be deployed in larger numbers than the bigger ones? sorry, but I highly doubt a mini-Mech could compete with an MBS, and it doesn't look like we're gonna have enough people involved to break up the competition into separate divisions based on size.

For the moment I'm going to give you all custom painted (in your choice of colour) LTM-Os with an assault rifle and a short sword. As for size, we'll be limiting you to minimech for the first series, which I have dubbed 'Wargames'. I think we'll have different series for different sizes, or even genre (MBS, CBMC Classic, AGEAKS) of mech.
Permalink
| March 22, 2012, 3:52 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
For the moment I'm going to give you all custom painted (in your choice of colour) LTM-Os with an assault rifle and a short sword. As for size, we'll be limiting you to minimech for the first series, which I have dubbed 'Wargames'. I think we'll have different series for different sizes, or even genre (MBS, CBMC Classic, AGEAKS) of mech.

sounds good.

out of curiosity, is it possible that you could incorporate in a small variety of different kinds of equipment for us to choose from, just to diversify it a little? though if you don't want to do that, I'm okay with it.
Permalink
| March 22, 2012, 11:14 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Okays, that's two people plus me and my brother. That's not really enough. Do the rest of you not want to do it or are just not seeing these posts?

Anyways, expect the post this week (hopefully tomorrow). For realz this time. =D

I can't WAIT!
Permalink
| March 22, 2012, 3:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
sounds good.

out of curiosity, is it possible that you could incorporate in a small variety of different kinds of equipment for us to choose from, just to diversify it a little? though if you don't want to do that, I'm okay with it.

Don't even get me started on that...
Too late =D

I hope to let you guys put pretty much anything on your mechs, but of course at a price, such as increased weight and energy usage. For now though, I've toned back the customization to 1%, which is colours (that has a U in it BTW), so we can get the basics worked out.

So then, what colours do you all want? The colour will be used for your marker (a stud) and for the decals on your mech (at least until I bring in custom mechs. To emphasize my question so everyone will see it even if they just skim over the next:

WHAT COLOURS DO YOU GUYS WANT!?

List of taken colours (updated one further down the page...):
Dark Red (ED)
Orange (Arik)
Permalink
| March 23, 2012, 6:02 am
Here's an idea since I don't believe anyone mentioned it yet. Why not use the building rules straight out of the "Battletech" universe. This way it deals with all the issues of weight, speed, firepower, etc. etc. That way no one could suddenly say they say their company/whatever came up with some ultra powered devive that makes everything else obsolete? Just a thought.
Permalink
| March 23, 2012, 7:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mike Johnson
Here's an idea since I don't believe anyone mentioned it yet. Why not use the building rules straight out of the "Battletech" universe. This way it deals with all the issues of weight, speed, firepower, etc. etc. That way no one could suddenly say they say their company/whatever came up with some ultra powered devive that makes everything else obsolete? Just a thought.

We'll be avoiding mechanized RYNOs (if you know what that is then you are epic) by moderating entered mechs, their size, weight and power will be checked so it fits the mech and any abilities will be balanced, for example someone adds a nuke that kills everyone: the balance? It uses infinite energy 'cause it does infinite damage. So yeah, hopefully OPness will be avoided.
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 12:01 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Don't even get me started on that...
Too late =D

I hope to let you guys put pretty much anything on your mechs, but of course at a price, such as increased weight and energy usage. For now though, I've toned back the customization to 1%, which is colours (that has a U in it BTW), so we can get the basics worked out.

So then, what colours do you all want? The colour will be used for your marker (a stud) and for the decals on your mech (at least until I bring in custom mechs. To emphasize my question so everyone will see it even if they just skim over the next:

WHAT COLOURS DO YOU GUYS WANT!?

List of taken colours (will be updated as colours are picked):
Dark Red (ED)

umm... do you have metallic black? if so, I'll take white with metallic black striping. if not, substitute the metallic black for earth green.
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 3:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
umm... do you have metallic black? if so, I'll take white with metallic black striping. if not, substitute the metallic black for earth green.

For this first battle all the mechs are black with a small amount of one colour. So metallic black would probably not be a good choice. Am I'm pretty sure I have metallic black as long as we're talking about the same colour. I'll put you down as metallic black anyways.
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 8:10 pm
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
For this first battle all the mechs are black with a small amount of one colour. So metallic black would probably not be a good choice. Am I'm pretty sure I have metallic black as long as we're talking about the same colour. I'll put you down as metallic black anyways.

metallic black is sorta between ordinary black, but with a slight blueish tint. but if we're having all-black... could I have orange, maybe?
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 8:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ariklego ...The Director!
metallic black is sorta between ordinary black, but with a slight blueish tint. but if we're having all-black... could I have orange, maybe?

Done...
Permalink
| March 24, 2012, 8:37 pm
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Don't even get me started on that...
Too late =D

I hope to let you guys put pretty much anything on your mechs, but of course at a price, such as increased weight and energy usage. For now though, I've toned back the customization to 1%, which is colours (that has a U in it BTW), so we can get the basics worked out.

So then, what colours do you all want? The colour will be used for your marker (a stud) and for the decals on your mech (at least until I bring in custom mechs. To emphasize my question so everyone will see it even if they just skim over the next:

WHAT COLOURS DO YOU GUYS WANT!?

List of taken colours (will be updated as colours are picked):
Dark Red (ED)
Orange (Arik)

I want Sand Yellow.
Permalink
| March 26, 2012, 10:06 am
 Group admin 
Bump...

WHAT COLOURS DO YOU GUYS WANT!?

List of taken colours (will be updated as colours are picked):
Dark Red (ED)
Orange (Arik)
Sand Yellow (LTE)
Anything but Green (Jak)
Permalink
| March 27, 2012, 4:37 am
 Group moderator 
Greengreengreengreengreengreen
Permalink
| March 28, 2012, 3:10 am
 Group admin 
Quoting JakTheMad . . . The Mechanic!
Greengreengreengreengreengreen

Notednotednotednotednotednoted
Permalink
| March 28, 2012, 4:17 am
 Group admin 
Okay, this is getting a bit long: time for a new one!
Permalink
| March 28, 2012, 4:17 am
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
« Mech Arena (WIP)



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The Elite Mechaniers (Forum now up!)Mecha


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use