Jump to content

Ask The Devs 32 - Answered!


117 replies to this topic

#41 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:52 AM

View PostTennex, on 22 February 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

always good stuff

but was hoping to see some changes to ECM/ sSRM or at least the interaction of the two. of the ECM capable chassis. 3/4 of them are the ECM variant. The 2 non ECM raven variants are not even played.

I guess we will not be getting that promised ECM command chair post. It would seem that the mentality is, if we close our eyes it will go away.

#42 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:12 AM

First off lots of great info in here. Some points of contention could do with far more explanation.

Quote

While I know you can not say much about CW, can you tell us if a territory can be completely taken over or will each House have a core number of planets that can not be conquered?
A: No. A territory cannot be completely taken over. Players will only be able to fight over a select number of border planets.


This one i think has me the most concerned, we'e known for some time Mercs will fight over border worlds, factions will compete over planets based on some sort of influence system, and story important planets would be locked out.

However from this, what your actually saying is it won't be community warfare, it'll PGI warfare, it's a dicey one and i don't envy you guy's having to design it, but if its not engaging and there is no house wide grand tactic led by the players you will lose out to third party leagues, where players and teams get to make their own history.

#43 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,112 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:58 AM

Just a bit of feedback from me regarding the answers given. Everything is just based on what I know from other games and such that I play. None of it is meant to be offensive or to say that game (x) is better due to having (y) feature. We all know that is not the case. :D

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Intothefray: Is there every going to be a match type where you lose your mech or components that are destroyed? I'd love to see something a little more high risk and somewhat of a money sink (optional of course).
A: Hardcore modes are always a possibility. Not in the queue yet.


Hardcore modes can be temporary leagues or ladders that players play. Tweaking game mechanics just to allow for different ladder styles is being tested in Path of Exile (probably a good game to study regarding ladders because they are all about ladders).

An alternative 'hardcore' permanent league can be made but a surrender or escape option would be needed to save a person's mech from exploding because this is a little different from ARPGs that usually have this style of gameplay.

You can simply have a hardcore league that has to deal with R&R (with forced repairs if needed to bypass the undesired effect of people going in with heavily damaged mechs) though it would technically be splitting the playerbase. This would make the option of a temporary event league more feasable.

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

TheForce: Are there any plans to add a hard core game mode that would limit customization and/or force the use of stock mechs only?
A: See previous answer.


Again this could be the base restrictions of another temporary race/ladder league that can be included to spice up the game. More backend coding would be required to support things like this because ideally most if not all functions should be built-in and automated by the game.

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Fastidious: On NGNG Mechs Devs and Beer #8 Paul mentions replays. Can you provide any more details or vague implementation dates about replays and spectating? Specifically it would be great to be able to spectate before dying (perhaps spectator slots).
A: It’s a reach goal. No firm plans. Better/more camera options for spectacting is a possibility. We’re always sensitive to dead players giving an unfair advantage to those living.


DOTA 2 and League of Legends deal with observers by delaying what they see by 30 seconds (LOL I think? Not sure here) to two minutes or more (DOTA 2). At the time a player dies, he could be locked into his dead mech for 30 seconds or so before he is allowed to spectate and what he sees from then on would be 30 seconds in the past to prevent cheating. It's not ideal for MWO but it's an option you can look into.

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Servers – EU :

Seth: Could you clarify the answer last week concerning the split of US and UK players on different servers? I ask because a number of units have members from all around the world and it would be rough if we couldn't interact with them in the game.
A: For most regions, players will get to choose which servers to play on. So if you have a friend in the UK that want to play with US players, they can log into NA servers. This holds true for NA players, who can log into EU servers and play with friends there. Final details are still evolving, so this information is subject to change.


Path of Exile allows players to log into 'gateways' meaning I can log in through Singapore, EU, or US. My ping changes depending on where I log in from, but my characters and items are maintained through all these servers. I can play in Singapore and then move to US and trade items there and so on. It might be another option for you to look into unless you are getting a 3rd party to publish for you in EU in exchange for the usual 70/30, in which case this won't work.

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

It would be nice to have the ability to utilize a free roaming or flying camera after death. Perhaps one that starts in a random location facing a random direction, and with out a HUD of any kind. I know this can be used in a manor conducive to exploitation, however if implemented well I could not see this being a overly troublesome issue.
Would this be something the team would consider? or Is it some thing that is currently being worked on?
A: Some of this functionality will be available offline with Testing Grounds. In live matches, we're examining the risk/reward of having more than 1st person spectate (for obvious reasons). :lol:


Again, see above regarding delayed observer feed. When someone dies, the game can possibly 'rewind' one minute prior to the user's death and play it out from there and anything the user watches from then on would be 1 minute in the past to minimize cheating.

#44 DirtyShr00mZ

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:15 AM

When are we going to see some clan mechs??? IS mechs are slow and cant pack alot of firepower. I wanna see some Clan mechs with firepower and speed.

#45 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,459 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:37 AM

I am glad you work out how to enable most regions to play together at will. :D

#46 Faydeaway

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 37 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:58 AM

Night Rider: Are there any plans on adding an icon next to the player name indicating who did that player joined the game with ?
A: Most likely not. A team is a team, no matter the composition. Knowing how many groups there are, might lead to griefing, player drops, abuse etc..

A team is a team except when it's a pre-made 4 mech group vs a pure PUG group. They know they're dropping in as team but that info isn't shared with the other team. That gives them a huge advantage.

As for griefing, you've already got people complaining in chat about crap teammates. It'd help tamp some of that down if EVERYBODY knew the player balance for that match.

#47 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,578 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:27 AM

Very Thanks Dev`s :D Sounds very good :lol: like it

#48 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:48 AM

Thank you!

#49 Faydeaway

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 37 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:02 AM

View PostThontor, on 23 February 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

how does knowing the other team has a premade on it change the results in any way? How does it give them advantage that the fact they are a premade is hidden? explain that to me because that doesnt make sense

Bryan is right.. some people would rage quit upon first sight of a premade, not to mention the hate that would be spewed out against premades like they are some kinda evil entity.

Exposing a group as a premade is just asking for trouble..


Let me ask you this. If the main argument for NOT displaying pre-mades is because PUG players would rage quit, grief, and/or drop from the match CLEARLY indicate there's some issue with PUGs playing against pre-mades? I mean, why would PUGs care if they played against pre-mades if it didn't affect the balance of the match? Perhaps it does affect the balance of the match? Perhaps getting rolled over by a coordinated 4 mech heavy/assault pre-made lance in every other match is not enjoyable? Perhaps knowing your PUG team is about to engage a pre-made group will prompt the PUG team to organize a little?

I've played other MMOs where teams are identified (Most recently WoT) and you didn't see rage quitting, griefing, or other bad behavior because of it. But somehow it's going to be a problem in MWO? That's a pretty thin argument.

Edited by Faydeaway, 23 February 2013 - 09:18 AM.


#50 Butane9000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,788 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:39 AM

You guys chose the cheap answer to my question, I am disappoint. You also didn't answer the much liked 'Where is Battlemech #20?" which was the first post, so I know you saw it!

#51 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 8,273 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:10 AM

DOTA 2 and League of Legends deal with observers by delaying what they see by 30 seconds (LOL I think? Not sure here) to two minutes or more (DOTA 2). At the time a player dies, he could be locked into his dead mech for 30 seconds or so before he is allowed to spectate and what he sees from then on would be 30 seconds in the past to prevent cheating. It's not ideal for MWO but it's an option you can look into.

I love this idea. Great way to solve the issues of teamspeak/cheating and still let us do awesome stuff with 3rd person & watching a match.

#52 Stormwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,950 posts
  • LocationCW Dire Wolf

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:51 AM

Quote

Intothefray: Is there every going to be a match type where you lose your mech or components that are destroyed? I'd love to see something a little more high risk and somewhat of a money sink (optional of course).
A: Hardcore modes are always a possibility. Not in the queue yet.

TheForce: Are there any plans to add a hard core game mode that would limit customization and/or force the use of stock mechs only?
A: See previous answer.


Well this sounds somewhat hopeful.

#53 Marchant Consadine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:


Game Play:
Most of us have seen the screen shots of people using things like 'AimBot'; What steps are being taken to keep players "Honest", and not use client side mods/cheats?
A: We are tracking most of the common hacks and cheats, suspending or banning those caught. Some of the more complex hacks are very difficult to completely remove or block, so we are taking a different approach. We are working towards having more CR and social tools for players to help us track down and eliminate these offenders.


View Postshintakie, on 22 February 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

They didnt answer my question about better reporting tools :D . I know its not something that comes up a lot on the forums, but I thought it was important to ask since I honestly don't think I've seen it asked before.


Not a direct answer to your question but I think it covers it.

Edited by Marchant Consadine, 23 February 2013 - 12:55 PM.


#54 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 23 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:


Alvor: Map of the universe which can be traveled by players to various missions & Solaris?
A: PVE is not currently in the queue, and may never reach the light of day. Solaris is possible, but not for at least 12-18 months. An interstellar map is coming with Community Warfare.


Ouch, PvE may never reach the light of day?

That's.... not good, at all.

I'm more of a PvE person, more specifically a solo player. I really, dislike PvP.

"Well Ryvucz, your play schedule doesn't match your dislike"

Yeah, I know. I was putting up with it to support for the greater good. XD

But if it's buried in a planet's core in a galaxy far far away, this is a serious mood dampener.

I still plan to play, but... it is something I was hoping for since I heard the announcement that PGI was picking up the franchise from it's long exile.

Thanks for the answers as always.

#55 PoLaR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 620 posts
  • LocationEast Bay

Posted 23 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

View PostRyvucz, on 23 February 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:


Ouch, PvE may never reach the light of day?

That's.... not good, at all.

I'm more of a PvE person, more specifically a solo player. I really, dislike PvP.

"Well Ryvucz, your play schedule doesn't match your dislike"

Yeah, I know. I was putting up with it to support for the greater good. XD

But if it's buried in a planet's core in a galaxy far far away, this is a serious mood dampener.

I still plan to play, but... it is something I was hoping for since I heard the announcement that PGI was picking up the franchise from it's long exile.

Thanks for the answers as always.


A PVE mode would have been pretty great. I was also hoping this In the future. PGI did say that there will be turrets and tanks and such at some point. It would be cool to have a team of 12 Mechs and a small unit of vehicles to fight along side you, even If you can't control them directly.

#56 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,112 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:15 PM

View PostRyvucz, on 23 February 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:


Ouch, PvE may never reach the light of day?

That's.... not good, at all.

I'm more of a PvE person, more specifically a solo player. I really, dislike PvP.

"Well Ryvucz, your play schedule doesn't match your dislike"

Yeah, I know. I was putting up with it to support for the greater good. XD

But if it's buried in a planet's core in a galaxy far far away, this is a serious mood dampener.

I still plan to play, but... it is something I was hoping for since I heard the announcement that PGI was picking up the franchise from it's long exile.

Thanks for the answers as always.


PvE would be better off as a separate project and that will only happen if MWO can prove that the franchise is profitable enough to justify more investment.

#57 GilgameshXII

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:29 PM

you can ask questions here right?
So if the scale of the battles is growing larger and larger, i was wondering if we will ever see playable planes and armored soldiers( dont know the exact english translation of both), becouse they are a big part of the books and have weapons like a mech.

#58 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

View PostGilgameshXII, on 23 February 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

you can ask questions here right?
So if the scale of the battles is growing larger and larger, i was wondering if we will ever see playable planes and armored soldiers( dont know the exact english translation of both), becouse they are a big part of the books and have weapons like a mech.


Quote

Battlefield Assets:
You made mention at one time about the ability to call in artillery support and/or air strikes. At any point can we see players piloting Tanks or Vtols?

A: No. Player will only be able to pilot BattleMechs.


Your question was already answered. We will only be able to use BattleMechs. Everything else will be AI controled.

Edited by Eddrick, 23 February 2013 - 06:19 PM.


#59 ExAstris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:41 PM

View PostStalaggtIKE, on 23 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

I guess we will not be getting that promised ECM command chair post. It would seem that the mentality is, if we close our eyes it will go away.


I think I'm going to join the contingent of would-be-players who just check the patch notes every couple of weeks to see if ECM finally got fixed. The majority of the community doesn't like it. And despite the logic and evidence, we haven't even been afforded an official position on the subject.

Edited by ExAstris, 23 February 2013 - 07:45 PM.


#60 KahnRa

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 55 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:46 PM

I thought the deal was that they were supposed to be answering all questions now. Seems to be a fair few unanswered, including mine...





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users