102 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Zyllos: With many discussions on convergence of weaponry, has there been any discussions on why/why not more variability should be added to weapon fire, thus spreading the damage more across a target?

A: We’ve removed randomness from weapon firing in favor of skill.

This what not quite what I was looking for. I knew you guys did this in favor of skill, I was looking for why you guys think that allowing all weapons to hit a single location across both arms and torso sections is not a game breaking decision and a balance nightmare?

Thanks for even looking at my question though.

This thread is why I am asking: Why is the Dragon Terrible?

Within that thread is reasons why the Dragon is bad. One of top issues is that the energy and ballistic hardpoints are spread across sections, thus making weapon convergence impossible or extremely difficult. This is why many of the top tier mechs are those that can converge that weaponry easily (Stalker, Cataphract, Atlas, ect) across sections with mixed weaponry.

If that same idea is added to all mechs in the game, where sections are independent of each other, thus making sections firing on a bit different location on the crosshair than others, no random mechanics, would balance this back down to the Dragon's level and idea that even with many weapons in different sections with mixed weaponry or many weapons of all the same time, your shots will have to take time to land in the same section.

This is what I am asking about, why is it ok for the Dragon to have a difficult time to converge weaponry while other mechs do not?

Edited by Zyllos, 22 March 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Gregory Owen]

why weren't either of my questions answered?? i thought all questions submitted before it's locked get answered?

[Phlyk]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Ask the Devs #34

SgtKinCaiD: Can we have a command chair post that explain CLEARLY your statement on the regional server matter ?

A: Sure, when we have a final direction. For now it’s pretty straightforward. Each region will have their own MWO server(s). Most players can create accounts on each server. Some regions will be locked and only available to players located in said region. There will most likely be no central account concept, where you are able to select the region you want to play in. That’s the super quick high level.

This is so very disappointing. No more MC purchases for me then as there is no way that I'm buying the same thing on separate accounts just to play with all my friends.

[Vasces Diablo]

All fine and good, but after saying CW content should start rolling out in May, the rest of the answers could have been horrible and I'd still be happy.

[Darknight99]

With so many questions why even answer some with just a maybe. Maybe and possible seem like just a waste when you have so many people with valid questions.

[Gregory Owen]

Vasces Diablo, on 22 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

All fine and good, but after saying CW content should start rolling out in May, the rest of the answers could have been horrible and I'd still be happy.

but he does not state if CW means "Community Warfare" or "Clan Wars"

[Monsoon]

Quote

Redshift2k5: What variants can we expect to see for the Flea, Blackjack, Orion, Highlander?

A: Our policy is not to announce details on upcoming BattleMechs until they have are very close to going live.

Except these have been answered in previous ATD-Answers!

- AtD27-Answers! - A: I only knew one variant at the time, saying something like "the only variant I know of is the HGN 732." The variants are: HGN-732, HGN-733, HGN-733C, HGN-733P.

Quote

Community Consolidated Question 5: Currently some of us are finding it difficult to determine when missile doors are open/closed. Are there plans to change this to an icon indicator instead?

A: We can look into it. No plans to change how it works currently.

From the Breakdown thread:
Yellow - Closed
Green - Open
Red - Destroyed

Isn't that simple enough?

Quote

Zeno Scarborough: Can you update/expand your features/content roadmap?

A: It’s deprecated in favor of the monthly update.

Can you please rethink this? The monthy update is great, but the roadmap was wonderful for telling us what to expect past the 30-day mark.

Edited by Monsoon, 22 March 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Butane9000]

I am finding answers with <REDACTED> less and less humorous as time goes on.

[FrostCollar]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

FrostCollar: There are a number of weapons that fit into the timeline but are not in game, including binary lasers, mech mortars, Arrow IV missiles, etc. Without having to get into details, are there currently any plans to introduce more types of Inner Sphere weaponry?
A: Yes, generally when we add a BattleMech that carries the aforementioned equipment.
...
Pando: Will we ever see "Longbow" coupled with "Arrow IV?"

A: Hmm Unseen. No comment. Arrow IV, eventually if it fits within our scope.
...
Eddrick: Will Critical Slot splitting for large weapons ever be allowed?

A: Most likely not, since it would create many balancing edge cases.

First of all, thanks for doing this and answering my question! I suppose the next step is to try and look for weaponry not currently in game on different variants that may be introduced. Anyone have any ideas on that?

I do find these two other answers a bit perplexing though, as the TT vets on the forums have told me that the Arrow IV cannot be equipped on a battlemech without critical slot splitting. Well, perhaps it would be an off-map support option. After all, it sounds like it's a long way off.

Those same TT vets also have said that the King Crab isn't possible without crit slot splitting either. That'd be a real disappointment not to see it, though to be fair it doesn't look like it has three variants that fit in the timeline.

[jay35]

Thanks Bryan, this was a very helpful ATD with some useful answers!

The regional servers answer is contentious but I'll leave that for others to discuss.

Quote

Kanajashi: Can we have the ability to go into the testing grounds with people in a group?

A: This is essentially a private match, and yes we are looking at ways to offer something along these lines.

That would be particularly interesting if players could wager c-bills on the match outcome.

Edited by jay35, 22 March 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[Peter von Danzig]

Thanks for answering my question! Prepare for the next ones with the next ATD

[Joanna Conners]

Eximar, on 22 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Naitsirch: Will there be a no-premade / solo-drop mode or not.

A: We’re looking at it. Currently most MWO players actually play in groups.

Lots of good info, but I am highly skeptical of this statement.

People making a lot of noise on the forums are seldom in the majority of anything whatsoever.

[S3dition]

Quote

Treckin: Would you consider please allowing mech selection AFTER map selection?

A: Yes, with pre-lobby system. However you will most likely be bound to a weight class. ie) 55 ton `Mechs only for the specific drop.

I take this to mean "55 tons or less." Otherwise, every single mech in the match would be exactly the same.

Quote

Butane9000: Why has no new mechs/content been announced since December?

A: Plenty of content has been announced since then. We are holding back `Mech announcements to create space for some upcoming <redacted>.

Taking a stab at decryption here:

Quote

Butane9000: Why has no new mechs/content been announced since December?

A: Plenty of content has been announced since then. We are holding back `Mech announcements to create space for some upcoming <Clan Invasion>.

Gregory Owen, on 22 March 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

but he does not state if CW means "Community Warfare" or "Clan Wars"

That would be "Clan Invasion." I don't recall a single event called "Clan Wars" in Battletech.

Edited by S3dition, 22 March 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[Treckin]

Thanks for answering my questions, I wish we could get screenies of the new UI / Lobby system!

[Loc Nar]

Seox: When will support for TrackIR be looked at?

Quote

A: It’s not used by a lot of players, so we haven’t prioritized it super high. Matt has done some work on it, no ETA on a release.

??? WAT? Your statement only holds true for MWO, and only because it's not supported by PGI. Please don't justify development shortcuts by pretending there is no want or demand for it; it's simply not true.
I do not agree with the sentiment of it not being used by a lot of players. While this may hold true as a dry statistic for the gaming population in general, the fps and sim crowd in particular really embrace this technology. It adds so much (no, seriously) to the experience of the game, and in the process generates a lot of interest by users and non users of the hardware alike. The framework is already in place. How people interface with a game doesn't merely impact the experience as some minor contributing variable, it IS the experience. Make that a good one, and there's a lot more wiggle room to get the rest of the game right. Make that experience bad and it doesn't matter how great the rest of the game is.

Quote

Oy of MidWorld: Are there any plans for an optional real Team DeathMatch gamemode, without basecapping or resource collection?
A: We’re toyed around with the idea for a while. At this point we do not feel it adds enough value and will segment the user base further.

I am truly perplexed at the disconnect here. From every poll I've seen or other mechwarrior I've talked with nearly unanimously want a deathmatch option... have you guys grown tonedeaf overnight? Segment the player base? Pfft... There have been enough demonstrations in the last few weeks over the new direction planned for MWO that would make it seem this is not a concern shared by many at the office...

edit: -tone. I would have deleted and revised this, but it's already been quoted so my poorly worded pre-coffee rant/post remains. I'm normally either constructive or silent, and will double my efforts to express my thoughts more carefully. I love this game and really want it to thrive, and like most folk here have my own ideas about what's important, chiefly among them is interface/controls which there have been excellent progress in lately, but still need much attention if MWO is to be taken seriously by people outside the bubble.

Edited by Loc Nar, 24 March 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Groutknoll]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Ask the Devs #34Zeusus: Have you considered showing % health left on any mechs surviving in the end of round screen? A: Sounds interesting and we can look into it.

I had started a poll in the suggestions forum about this not too long a go. http://mwomercs.com/...-round-summary/

[S3dition]

Loc Nar, on 22 March 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Seox: When will support for TrackIR be looked at?


??? WAT? Your statement only holds true for MWO, and only because it's not supported by PGI. Please don't justify development shortcuts by pretending there is no want or demand for it; it's simply not true.

It's not a "development shortcut." It's called prioritizing resources. Why would they add TrackIR when so few people use it when they could be fixing bugs that already exist in the interface? TrackIR would introduce new bugs on top of the existing ones and make troubleshooting harder, just so a select group of people can complain that there are bugs and that TrackIR was doesn't work as advertised.

Quote

I am truly perplexed at the disconnect here. From every poll I've seen or other mechwarrior I've talked with nearly unanimously want a deathmatch option... have you guys grown tonedeaf overnight? Segment the player base? Pfft... There have been enough demonstrations in the last few weeks over the new direction planned for MWO that would make it seem this is not a concern shared by many at the office...

Not surprised that people are missing this entirely. It's not dividing the opinion of the player base, it's fragmenting where people play on the game. In other words, the fracture is pugs/4 man/8 man and that is divided by conquest/assault. The more you split up your players, the harder it will be for those groups to find a game. Look at the current state of 8v8. Chances are, you'll play the same exact team several times in an hour. Just slapping on game modes will make this worse. Perhaps to the point of not finding a game in that mode at all. This means PGI wasted their time and resources on it.

[Grandmaster Ramrod]

Oh, screw this. That took me about an age to write, then I got logged out, then half of it was missing. Ignore this post.

Edited by Grandmaster Ramrod, 22 March 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[mirv sillyfish]

With regards to server regions:
Aside from issues such as being in the EU and wanting to play with friends in Australia, it seems reasonable to assume that people are not going to pay to have separate accounts in each "zone" just to play with friends. Nor are they going to grind away on a lesser-used account because, well, that gets kinda boring - which will lead to not playing with friends, and basically abandoning the game for probably many.
So it seems a little strange not to have a "choose your region" when starting up. I wonder about the reasoning behind that decision.

But, as for the little comment that nobody, including PGI, will care about: I won't spend any more money on a game that I very likely won't be able to play with friends in the future, though I probably will continue to play for now, just while it's briefly entertaining enough.

[James DeGriz]

Good ATD this time round. I will say too that as you are bringing in steps to ensure that I don't have to play with Americans, I will juuust about stomach having 3PV implemented. Just.