Jump to content

Ask The Devs - 43 - Answers!


394 replies to this topic

#1 miSs

    Former CM

  • Staff
  • 1,556 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • YouTube: Link
  • LocationMontreal, Canada.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM

Hello MechWarriors! Here are the answers from the dev team, they answered 12 13 questions this time:




Question from Homeless Bill: How will the game at launch be different than it is currently, all aesthetic and balance features aside?

Answer from Bryan: A lot of new features are in production and will be rolling out to test servers and then production servers in the next 60 days. 12 v 12, DX 11, 3PV, First Victory of the Day, Engine Update, UI 2.0 and CW will all make debuts on test and then live servers IF they are fun and stable. UI 2.0 and CW are such large feature pushes, we have to be sure of their stability and balance before pushing live. You can expect to see these feature on the test servers shortly. Details on CW will be released slowly through August in a similar fashion as the UI threads. Where we post concepts and request feedback. The game will change dramatically through from now until the end of the year, with each of these major features coming online in stages when they are ready and thoroughly tested and balanced.








Question from Mcgral18: Is there any plan to change the current heat threshold system, and how heatsinks increase the capacity as well as the rate of cooling? If we had a hard cap of 30, as per TT (which is subject to change after testing) it would prevent excessive alphas, since only 2 ERPPCs could fire before shutting down, assuming original heat values are reinstated. With the current boating penalties, 3 standard PPCs would also put you into a shutdown state, with 10 heat per PPC.

If the heatsinks cooled faster than they currently are, and more heatsinks add to that effect I feel the excessive alphas would decrease, and that chainfire would be needed for some of the current boating loadouts.

In sum, is there going to be any change in the current heat threshold system?


Along the same lines, asked by DEMAX51: Before the introduction of HSR, PPCs were given a reduction in heat and a buff to projectile speed to offset the hit-detection problems. Can you comment as to why those buffs were not rescinded prior to the implementation of the new heat scale? Personally, I think the recent changes have helped gameplay immensely, I'm just curious to know why PPCs weren't directly nerfed. Is this something that is still being considered?


Answer from Paul: There are no current plans to change the heat threshold towards TT values. Are we hard set against it? No, just at the moment there’s no need to do this.

Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.

View PostPaul Inouye, on 26 July 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:


Sorry DEMAX51, bad edit on my part.

To directly answer your question, in the recent Creative Director Update, I mentioned that PPC/ERPPC will be going back up 1 base heat each. While this is a step in the right direction, it doesn't mean we have to stop tuning them at this point. All weapons are going to go through heavy screening from now through Launch and each patch will have some sort of update on any weapon in the game.


Answer from David: I would also like to mention that TT doesn’t really have a hard cap of 30. Yes, the TT heat scale goes from 0 to 30, but the big difference is how TT calculates heat. In TT, all heat generation and cooling is both instant and simultaneous. In TT, if you have 30 heat sinks, and fire two ER PPCs (which generate 15 heat each in TT), not only will you still be at 0 heat, but you’ll never have actually been at 30 heat (which would have forced an automatic shutdown). This is what we’re trying to simulate when heat sink increase the heat scale capacity.








SerEdvard: Are there any plans to incentivize people to pilot mediums instead of heavies and assault mechs? Some examples of possible incentives: global 10% c-bill/XP bonus for all medium mechs, double GXP rate, tonnage drop restrictions, or kill/assist award multipliers based on tonnage differential...

Mediums are currently the rarest class on the battlefield when they should be the most common. Most teams are 5-6 assaults/heavies, 1-2 lights, and 1 medium (me!). More mediums would be truer to TT lore, create more dynamic battlefields, and naturally evolve away from the current boating and high alpha meta. (Hard to boat PPCs and gauss in a 50 ton medium, plus less total armor on the battlefield to melt away)

Answer from Paul: We are currently implementing some upgrades to the way Mediums and Lights will handle on the battlefield. This comes in the form of agility buffs in their quirk systems. For example, the mediums will have their torso twist speeds increased to help them track targets faster. As for rewarding the Mediums and Lights, a global straight up % increase in bonuses is not really fair but we will be looking at all the gameplay capabilities of the Medium/Light roles and rewarding those actions. Heavies and Assaults already have their damage/kills rewards. It’s time that Mediums/Lights start getting better rewarded for their abilities of detection and frontline support.

Another thing we are looking at (as you may have heard recently), is tonnage restrictions on teams. Each team will have a minimum and maximum tonnage that their total team weight will have to adhere to. This makes Mediums and Lights highly beneficial as it allows heavier Heavies and Assaults to be fielded. The great thing about tonnage limits is that it prevents an entire team to consist of all Heavies/Assaults.








Question from Kazly: What are PGI’s plans to remove the speed cap? It was introduced because of problems, like HSR, that have been addressed (I think). I feel with collision coming (ATD42, ‘on hold till release’) speed cap is a significant factor for light/medium mechs with smaller load outs and less armor to become more viable among those in their same class, and in a game that is trending to high pinpoint alphas. Currently lights all travel about the same max speed, with the Cicada in the same group, and Trebs/Centurions right behind that number.

Answer from Paul: Medium and Light Mechs are being addressed as stated in the above response. However, when it comes to the actual top speeds, we are capable of increasing them right now. BUT! There is still the problem with hit detection and increasing speeds at this time has a high probability of exasperating the hit detection problem. That being said, we will be looking into what can be done about speeds while keeping in mind that a ) hit detection may become a bigger problem and b ) MASC is still on the horizon and pushing base speeds to high may end up being a bigger issue when it comes to how fast MASC actually affects speed.









Question from JDH4mm3r: When will you give us more game modes to play around with? I mean it's getting boring playing only 2 modes and having something fresh and new and challenging might really perk the game up in some ways. One of the ideas behind it was to somehow make a mission mode where you have to actually complete the mission, as an an individual or as a team. There'd be two different scenarios on how to go about doing that, but thats just me throwing out ideas. Of course, you gotta actually complete the mission objectives and each level gets harder as you go.

Answer from Bryan: Missions modes are awesome, and something we’d look to add as a PVE component to MWO. PVE is a long term goal for MWO. Once we’ve got launch, CW, and Clans out of the way, our we’ll most likely look at PVE then. We have tons of great ideas, along with a huge amount of creative community ideas.









Question from sdfvnre: What is the timeline for adding new game modes, like Dropship?

Answer from Paul: Game modes are in the queue. The delay at the moment is making sure the new modes will work with the changing landscapes of each of the new maps. To be efficient, we need to make sure that game modes work on as many (if not all) maps as possible. We are looking at ways of enhancing current game modes and possibly including weaponization of certain assets in the game. Sorry to be vague on this but I really don’t want to overpromise on what to expect before Launch.

Dropship has taken on the role of the pre-match lobby system that is on the horizon. Players will be able to bring up 4 (planned 4 for now, might have more) Mechs of a chosen weight class. Since the match has already been paired with the two teams involved, you would then be able to choose your ‘cool running Mech’ for the hot maps and your ‘more heat dependant Mech’ for the cooler maps. Further down the road we really want to give players the ability to choose cross weight class Mechs to bring on their dropship. That is a far stretch goal at the moment, but will always remain on the table for implementation pending time and resources.










Question from Scarcer: Dear PGI, What are you planning, and doing to make the MWO experience more immersive?

Some good opportunities to make the game more immersive and competitive on the market are for example:
  • Ejection,
  • 1PV on foot experience of the Mech-lab, walking around the mech, going up the lift,
  • 1PV experience of getting into the cockpit; long term objective? (mechlab, dropship mode, attack defense mode.)
  • 1PV experience as part of the pre-match lobby where you can move around the control room of a hangar, jump-ship, or drop-ship, (Think Mechassault 2)
  • A cinematic and drama driven experience for attack/defend mission types, etc, (Introductory scenes to drive emotion, to motivate the pilot so it feels real.)
  • Operable mechbays and hangers, where you spawn, re-arm or repair,
  • Since chassis' and parts have different manufacturers (And supposedly you're going to play weapon quirks off of this fact.) You could play out the whole service with the companies/retailers; the whole act of test driving a loaner model in the Testing Grounds, making the purchase with an e-signature linked to your c-bill account with a detailed invoice delivered to the in-box. The chassi should go through a shipping & delivery animation/cinematic with a brief wait time for the sake of in-game depth and realism. Shipping can be insta-rushed with a very minute c-bill cost for the sake of convenience.
  • PvE,
  • Castle/Commander experience via client, or tablets,
  • Extra special goodies for enthusiast level gaming computers,
  • A minimal, primitive form of melee,
  • Display collisions, knockdowns, and engine blow-outs from 1PV in hardcore, rather than from 3rd person view, to make for a very dramatic experience.
  • Music (In production?), perhaps also contract Jeehun Hwang for his proven emotional and nostalgic work from MW2.

Answer from Bryan: All of the above ideas are great immersive concepts, however there are some basic realities about what we are trying to accomplish with MWO. Walking around MechLab is a very cinematic and interactive experience, but has almost no bearing on making the game more functional. Eventually, once we a redone with the larger core features, our team can take time out to expand on the non-gameplay experiences, offering up more immersive concepts mentioned above. Most of the ideas presented here are in a wish list backlog that may see the light of day. But only once we are happy with a rich gameplay feature set.
  • A cinematic and drama driven experience for attack/defend mission types, etc, (Introductory scenes to drive emotion, to motivate the pilot so it feels real.)
[Bryan] Some of this would be part of a PVE experience, however I don’t want to get people’s hopes up. MWO is a multiplayer game first, and we’re focused on a solid multiplayer experience before offering any non-MP content.
  • Operable mechbays and hangers, where you spawn, re-arm or repair,
[Bryan] These ideas are part of potential new game modes we have in design
  • Since chassis' and parts have different manufacturers (And supposedly you're going to play weapon quirks off of this fact.) You could play out the whole service with the companies/retailers; the whole act of test driving a loaner model in the Testing Grounds, making the purchase with an e-signature linked to your c-bill account with a detailed invoice delivered to the in-box. The chassi should go through a shipping & delivery animation/cinematic with a brief wait time for the sake of in-game depth and realism. Shipping can be insta-rushed with a very minute c-bill cost for the sake of convenience.
  • PvE,
[Bryan] See Paul's reply to sdfvnre's question above.
  • Castle/Commander experience via client, or tablets,
[Bryan] We are limited to Microsoft platforms. If this ever happened, it would be for a Windows platform device only.
  • Extra special goodies for enthusiast level gaming computers,
  • A minimal, primitive form of melee,
[Bryan] Long term goal.
  • Display collisions, knockdowns, and engine blow-outs from 1PV in hardcore, rather than from 3rd person view, to make for a very dramatic experience.
[Bryan] Long term goal.
  • Music (In production?), perhaps also contract Jeehun Hwang for his proven emotional and nostalgic work from MW2.
[Bryan] In production.











Question from Sybreed: What are you plans to promote mech character and personality? As of now, mechs feel like a number of hardpoints on 2 legs with no real distinctions between them, the quirk system did not work in that regard. Why would someone pick the Awesome 8Q or 9M when all Stalker variants do the same thing but better? Even with tonnage limits, the 5 tons difference between them is negligible. Also, the incoming Shadow Hawk will possibly obsolete the Hunchback 4G, having the ability to put an AC/20 where an AC/5 currently is.
edit: Battlemaster will also make the Awesome obsolete.
What are you planning to do to make each mechs more distinct between them?

Answer from David: Due to the nature of what makes up a Mech, as we add more and more of them to the game there is always a risk of one of them ending up to similar to another one. This is, obviously, something that we would like to avoid. We do our best to try and keep the hardpoints and quirks of similar tonnage Mechs different from each other. In fact, the hardpoint combinations of the Hunchback and the Shadow Hawk are quite different from each other, with the Hunchback capable of loadouts that the Shadow Hawk can’t handle (and vice versa).

I would like to investigate if there is more that we can add to differentiate Mechs, as we’re only ever going to be adding more Mechs to the game, but this is unlikely to happen before launch.










Question from mint frog: Why aren't we seeing weekly challenges/achievements to retain players?

Answer from Bryan: The achievement system is coming with UI 2.0. We have a very expansive meta game in development right now that requires a large refactoring of our backend systems. Once complete, we will be able to add challenges/achievements, bundles, and all kinds of other reward goodies. In the short term players will be able to earn double XP for the first victory of the day on each owned `Mech.










Question from zhajin: Can we get some clarification on the plans for missile tubes? And how they match to launchers?

Currently the newer models have complicated tube to launcher setups, such as the VTR-9S that has 3 lauchers, but tube configurations of 6, 4 and 2 (12 total). thus to get 12 missiles in all one volley you need to use a srm6, srm4 and srm2, rather than just 2 srm6s or 3 srm4s.

However the older models still use the old system, such as the CN9-A that has a similar layout of 3 launchers and 10 tubes, but can fire 3 srm6s all in one volley.

I understand that tubes are a way to limit the fire power, but this gives older models an advantage and newer models and overly complex system. why not just a system where you have x tubes available for all launchers? That should work for balancing all models.

Answer from David: Throughout the history of the game, our process of making Mechs has constantly evolved. In the beginning, all the weapons were modeled as part of the Mech’s chassis. That is, there was no way to show, say, the left torso without also showing the missile rack integrated into it. We also didn’t make any alternate weapons in either the default weapon locations or in any additional hardpoints the Mech may have beyond its default loadout. This is because some of the earliest design decisions, under which these Mechs were built, involved no swapping of weapons.

So this leads to the CN9-A which, as you say, can fire 3 SRM 6’s in one volley, but you also have the AWS-9M which is currently limited to firing all of its missile weapons out of two-tube launchers.

As we progressed, we began to make more and more alternate weapon pieces for each Mech, to better reflect customized loadouts. (Due to the resources required to keep making new Mechs, we’ve had little time to retrofit older Mechs, but we haven’t forgotten about them.) As we began to produce more and more pieces for each Mech we started to butt against two limitations.

The first problem is manpower. Each piece takes time to concept, model, texture, etc, and this was dramatically increasing the amount of time the art team spent making each Mech. The second problem is technical. Each piece requires space on the texture sheet. If we have too many pieces we end up having to either increase the size of the texture sheet, which impacts performance, or to lower the texture density/resolution, which lowers the visual standard of the game.

Design wise, we’ve been continually trying to make do as best as possible under whatever the current constraints are while putting a Mech together. There are also a number of stylistic choices that are a mix of art and design. With the Victor, we didn’t want to bulk up its torso with additional missile boxes attached to the side, so all the missile launchers were embedded in the torso. But there’s only so much real estate to place them all. And there’s the fact that the focus of the Victor models is the big ballistic weapon in the right arm. None of them, by default, come with more than one missile weapon. So, within the universe of the game, modifying them to fit two or even three would require a fair degree of hard work and best fit solutions.










Chronojam: How come we always fail to find a match in the 8-man queue, has PGI realized why we fail to find a match so often, and is there a plan to rectify this problem?

Answer from Paul: 8-man matches fail approximately 25-30% of the time.

We’ve known why the 8-man queue is suffering for quite a while. The number of teams lining up for 8-man games isn’t high enough for consistent match making. What’s causing that? Team imbalance in terms of weight and over use of the “sniper/longrange” meta.

Due to time constraints caused by the development of key features that have been steadily pushed out, certain other features took higher priority over addressing the issue. This is slowly starting to change as you should be able to surmise by the information trickle about lobbies and tonnage limits. It’s going to take a combination of fairly significant new features to get 8-man queues back into play. Once we get tonnage restrictions working properly in game, along with the current heatscale mechanism cutting back on the cookie cutter ‘cheeze’ builds, 8-man games should become a very organized experience with both in and out of match strategies making a difference.










Question from StalaggtIKE: Information warfare

InnerSphereNews said:

At its heart, Information Warfare is about controlling the flow of information on the battlefield.
  • Knowing where your enemy is.
  • Knowing the current status of your enemy.
  • Understanding your enemy’s intentions.
  • Sharing information between units.
We have not heard much about IW for a while now. Currently most of all the IW tools we have ingame are passive, or require very little input from the user:
  • ECM decreases radar range
  • BAP negates ECM and extends radar range
  • UAV gathers intel for set time
  • seismic pick up nearby enemies
All of these tools involves a user simply equipping and turning on for the duration of battle.


Q: Will we be seeing tools that require more proactive usage, such as active and passive radar? Where a user reaps benefits because he is a better/smarter player, and not by simply equipping a better tool? What kind of improvements and/or changes can we expect in the future for IW?
Source: DEV BLOG 2 - INFORMATION WARFARE

Answer from David: I would like to think that the UAV requires the knowledge and skill of when and where to place it, as well as the potential risk involved in travelling to the location where you want to launch it, but Information Warfare could probably stand to have a new design pass. This wouldn’t necessarily be to make sweeping changes, but to add the sort of features that reward the skilled scout/spy. We have ideas for some changes along those lines, including (potentially) active and passive radar. But there is no timetable for them at the moment.

Edited by miSs, 26 July 2013 - 03:42 PM.
added Paul's reply


#2 DEMAX51

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationThe cockpit of my Jenner

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:45 PM

Thanks for listing my question, but not actually speaking to it at all. ;) Way to get my hopes up!

#3 Gwaihir

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 352 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:55 PM

View PostmiSs, on 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:


Question from Sybreed: What are you plans to promote mech character and personality? As of now, mechs feel like a number of hardpoints on 2 legs with no real distinctions between them, the quirk system did not work in that regard. Why would someone pick the Awesome 8Q or 9M when all Stalker variants do the same thing but better? Even with tonnage limits, the 5 tons difference between them is negligible. Also, the incoming Shadow Hawk will possibly obsolete the Hunchback 4G, having the ability to put an AC/20 where an AC/5 currently is.
edit: Battlemaster will also make the Awesome obsolete.
What are you planning to do to make each mechs more distinct between them?

Answer from David: Due to the nature of what makes up a Mech, as we add more and more of them to the game there is always a risk of one of them ending up to similar to another one. This is, obviously, something that we would like to avoid. We do our best to try and keep the hardpoints and quirks of similar tonnage Mechs different from each other. In fact, the hardpoint combinations of the Hunchback and the Shadow Hawk are quite different from each other, with the Hunchback capable of loadouts that the Shadow Hawk can’t handle (and vice versa).

I would like to investigate if there is more that we can add to differentiate Mechs, as we’re only ever going to be adding more Mechs to the game, but this is unlikely to happen before launch.




The Stalker-4N (aka the only mech in the game with literally no reason to exist) and it's wonderful hardpoints say hi ;)

Edited by Gwaihir, 26 July 2013 - 12:57 PM.


#4 Tennex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,171 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:55 PM

oh yay i forogt these were coming out today nice suprise

#5 Gwaihir

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 352 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

Yea, a decent amount of meat in this one. However, really, this answer jumps out:

View PostmiSs, on 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Question from Mcgral18: Is there any plan to change the current heat threshold system, and how heatsinks increase the capacity as well as the rate of cooling? If we had a hard cap of 30, as per TT (which is subject to change after testing) it would prevent excessive alphas, since only 2 ERPPCs could fire before shutting down, assuming original heat values are reinstated. With the current boating penalties, 3 standard PPCs would also put you into a shutdown state, with 10 heat per PPC.

If the heatsinks cooled faster than they currently are, and more heatsinks add to that effect I feel the excessive alphas would decrease, and that chainfire would be needed for some of the current boating loadouts.

In sum, is there going to be any change in the current heat threshold system?


Along the same lines, asked by DEMAX51: Before the introduction of HSR, PPCs were given a reduction in heat and a buff to projectile speed to offset the hit-detection problems. Can you comment as to why those buffs were not rescinded prior to the implementation of the new heat scale? Personally, I think the recent changes have helped gameplay immensely, I'm just curious to know why PPCs weren't directly nerfed. Is this something that is still being considered?


Answer from Paul: There are no current plans to change the heat threshold towards TT values. Are we hard set against it? No, just at the moment there’s no need to do this.

Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.



This answer.. Yes, lowering total heat capacity (and potentially raising dissipation) would be a very large nerf to snipers. Snipers rely on having enough heat capacity to burst down their target before it can close in and stick on them.

Indirectly buffing more heat efficient weapons by lowering total capacity, and then having players take advantage of it by using more heat efficient builds is not something that qualifies as "highly exploited". That's called the process of balancing the game and has to be done with the expectation that players will take advantage of and fully utilize whatever mechanics and systems are out there. You can't balance a game around assuming players have no idea how to build mechs, it just doesn't work that way.

Edited by Gwaihir, 26 July 2013 - 01:11 PM.


#6 mint frog

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 630 posts
  • LocationSouth Korea

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

I don't understand the response to my question. We've already had two challenges without UI2.0. Why do we have to wait for UI2.0 to run a third?

People like to play for a reason, even if it's as superficial as a little check box on your account saying you completed something. I am just astonished that you can't see the value in doing even simple things in order to retain your player base.

#7 FupDup

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 8,952 posts
  • LocationNowhere.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostmiSs, on 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Answer from Paul: There are no current plans to change the heat threshold towards TT values. Are we hard set against it? No, just at the moment there’s no need to do this.

Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.


Oh noes, people with knowledge would be able to build powerful robots? Who would've thought of such a silly thing?

Edited by FupDup, 27 July 2013 - 07:32 PM.


#8 Dracol

    Member

  • Veteran Founder
  • The Steadfast
  • The Steadfast
  • 1,777 posts
  • LocationSW Florida

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:00 PM

Except for lack of any insight into new game modes outside of pve long ways down the road, a very meaty response. Ty

Edited by Dracol, 26 July 2013 - 01:02 PM.


#9 stjobe

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 7,320 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:01 PM

View PostmiSs, on 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Answer from Paul: We are currently implementing some upgrades to the way Mediums and Lights will handle on the battlefield. This comes in the form of agility buffs in their quirk systems. For example, the mediums will have their torso twist speeds increased to help them track targets faster. As for rewarding the Mediums and Lights, a global straight up % increase in bonuses is not really fair but we will be looking at all the gameplay capabilities of the Medium/Light roles and rewarding those actions. Heavies and Assaults already have their damage/kills rewards. It’s time that Mediums/Lights start getting better rewarded for their abilities of detection and frontline support.

Please, as you implement this, consider that lights and mediums cannot really compete with heavies and assaults in the damage/kill rewards, so please don't make the heavies and assaults able to compete with lights and mediums in their reward areas - like it is currently with e.g. spotting rewards.

Also, I don't think just improving torso twist speeds will make much of a difference, but any improvement is welcome.

#10 BINDLETORC

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 137 posts
  • Locationhaliburton, ON. CANADA

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:07 PM

thank you so much for the answers. i wish i had an opportunity to ask a question but the 10 second window of opportunity past me by.

so. just because i don't really give a crap anymore and expect no answers, perhaps these questions will get the community talking:

when are you going to fix the terrain issue?

when are you going to fix HSR? (makes the game a rubberbanding joke for those in the eastern hemisphere)

when are you going to fix textures?

when are you going to fix hit boxes?

when are you going to fix LRMs?

when are you going to stop rolling out new toys and fix the damn broken ones?

when is this going to be about a vision and gaming and not about F2P crowd financing?

i used to love this game now i just play to waste your resources the way you wasted my money.

#11 Coolwhoami

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:07 PM

Quote

Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.


So to confirm, Paul, you believe that trying to optimize mechs is a bad thing and that we shouldn't do it?

Edited by Coolwhoami, 26 July 2013 - 01:07 PM.


#12 Stalkerr

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 395 posts
  • LocationTikonov

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:07 PM

Nice.

#13 3rdworld

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,458 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:10 PM

7th in votes.

Cool you skipped my question.

Guess a little snark and you people turn your back to obvious idiocy.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 July 2013 - 01:11 PM.


#14 Monsoon

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 1,622 posts
  • LocationToronto, On aka Kathil

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:12 PM

Mmmmm More answers to read through.


Oh and look another Troll reply from a member of the Lowtax squad. Because yes, that's exactly what Paul meant....yeesh.

#15 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 2,185 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:13 PM

View PostDEMAX51, on 26 July 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Thanks for listing my question, but not actually speaking to it at all. ;) Way to get my hopes up!



Sorry DEMAX51, bad edit on my part.

To directly answer your question, in the recent Creative Director Update, I mentioned that PPC/ERPPC will be going back up 1 base heat each. While this is a step in the right direction, it doesn't mean we have to stop tuning them at this point. All weapons are going to go through heavy screening from now through Launch and each patch will have some sort of update on any weapon in the game.

#16 ATM87

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • LocationSolaris 7

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:13 PM

It sounds like the majority of the information we've been given this time is "please be patient"

Well, back to grinding, waiting for tuesday, and the new features supposedly coming next month...

#17 Deathlike

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bold
  • The Bold
  • 14,030 posts
  • LocationWherever Badges of Shame Exist

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:18 PM

Quote

Answer from Paul: There are no current plans to change the heat threshold towards TT values. Are we hard set against it? No, just at the moment there’s no need to do this.
Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.
Answer from David: I would also like to mention that TT doesn’t really have a hard cap of 30. Yes, the TT heat scale goes from 0 to 30, but the big difference is how TT calculates heat. In TT, all heat generation and cooling is both instant and simultaneous. In TT, if you have 30 heat sinks, and fire two ER PPCs (which generate 15 heat each in TT), not only will you still be at 0 heat, but you’ll never have actually been at 30 heat (which would have forced an automatic shutdown). This is what we’re trying to simulate when heat sink increase the heat scale capacity.


People will always find a way to optimize how mechs are build and function. So, it's moot point to try to "skip" discussion of it. Making certain builds not function optimally is one choice, but you have to look for the worst case scenario before you just cite "people will find ways around it". Well no kidding?

Quote

Question from JDH4mm3r: When will you give us more game modes to play around with? I mean it's getting boring playing only 2 modes and having something fresh and new and challenging might really perk the game up in some ways. One of the ideas behind it was to somehow make a mission mode where you have to actually complete the mission, as an an individual or as a team. There'd be two different scenarios on how to go about doing that, but thats just me throwing out ideas. Of course, you gotta actually complete the mission objectives and each level gets harder as you go.

Answer from Bryan: Missions modes are awesome, and something we’d look to add as a PVE component to MWO. PVE is a long term goal for MWO. Once we’ve got launch, CW, and Clans out of the way, our we’ll most likely look at PVE then. We have tons of great ideas, along with a huge amount of creative community ideas.


So.. more Assault and Conquest.. things that I've played for... a while. This is not sustainable longterm... having more than 2 modes is good for the health of the game. Even stock, which some are clamoring for, I wouldn't mind this for people that wish to do something different from the current norm.

Quote

Question from sdfvnre: What is the timeline for adding new game modes, like Dropship?
Answer from Paul: Game modes are in the queue. The delay at the moment is making sure the new modes will work with the changing landscapes of each of the new maps. To be efficient, we need to make sure that game modes work on as many (if not all) maps as possible. We are looking at ways of enhancing current game modes and possibly including weaponization of certain assets in the game. Sorry to be vague on this but I really don’t want to overpromise on what to expect before Launch.

Dropship has taken on the role of the pre-match lobby system that is on the horizon. Players will be able to bring up 4 (planned 4 for now, might have more) Mechs of a chosen weight class. Since the match has already been paired with the two teams involved, you would then be able to choose your ‘cool running Mech’ for the hot maps and your ‘more heat dependant Mech’ for the cooler maps. Further down the road we really want to give players the ability to choose cross weight class Mechs to bring on their dropship. That is a far stretch goal at the moment, but will always remain on the table for implementation pending time and resources.


Shouldn't this be what the test server was for? Even if the match were less than optimal, it wouldn't be that hard to get the feedback you need. It shouldn't take 2 hours to point out the obvious problems in a mode...

Quote

Answer from David: Throughout the history of the game, our process of making Mechs has constantly evolved. In the beginning, all the weapons were modeled as part of the Mech’s chassis. That is, there was no way to show, say, the left torso without also showing the missile rack integrated into it. We also didn’t make any alternate weapons in either the default weapon locations or in any additional hardpoints the Mech may have beyond its default loadout. This is because some of the earliest design decisions, under which these Mechs were built, involved no swapping of weapons.


The question itself however was probably more about why certain missiles go into the non-optimal tubes... and less to do with the artistic side of the matter. If players had finer control over say something like the Stalker-5M's NARC tube slot (is that still a problem?), we would actually appreciate that level of detail.

Otherwise... UI 2.0 seems to have an overwhelming control on too much on what's needed in this game...

Edited by Deathlike, 26 July 2013 - 01:22 PM.


#18 rdmx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:20 PM

Quote

Paul: Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.


Wasn't that the point of his question? He wanted to see the meta shift from front-loaded alpha damage to consistent DPS being more important.

Edited by rdmx, 26 July 2013 - 01:21 PM.


#19 Graufalk

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 33 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:22 PM

View PostmiSs, on 26 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.


And what exactly is wrong with this?

#20 Gwaihir

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 352 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:25 PM

View Postrdmx, on 26 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Wasn't that the point of his question? He wanted to see the meta shift from front-loaded alpha damage to consistent DPS being more important.


Yea, this ^^ The entire point of lowering capacity lowers potential burst and buffs heat efficient weapons. It's certainly a tool that could be used to shift away from snipers, although I personally wouldn't do it. It has too many other repercussions compared to just actually balancing the weapons in question.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users