102 replies to this topic

[Team Leader]

Glad they got to me this time, even if its not what I wanted to hear. Oh well.

James DeGriz, on 22 March 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

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.

Man, I'm glad I don't have bigoted statements to say about players from another country. Life must be hard for you.

[James DeGriz]

Team Leader, on 22 March 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Glad they got to me this time, even if its not what I wanted to hear. Oh well.


Man, I'm glad I don't have bigoted statements to say about players from another country. Life must be hard for you.

It isn't. And it's getting better

[Naitsirch]

Thank you for your answer.

Maybe my logic fools me, but is there any reason to make solo-players who dislike premades suffer and quit, since the pugs filling the missing 8-x as a reason is now obsolete? Imagine a MWO where both groups of players are happy and free of the others influence.... free at last.

On a related note: Take that, all who ramble about "rare premades / premades are only in every tenth game", there you have it.

Edited by Naitsirch, 22 March 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[Jabilo]

Nice one.

You gave much more expanded answers compared to last time.

Much appreciated.

[Gasman 1220]

S3dition, on 22 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

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.

And exactly what do you think will happen to the player base when they implement 3rd person perspective? You can't force people in 1st-person to play against people in 3rd-person because it's an uneven playing field. So it will absolutely split the player base. But that's all fine and dandy for some god awful reason.

I don't really care about TDM, but using "we don't want to split the community" as an excuse while simulaneously splitting the community with a feature the vast majority of the player base, at best don't want and at worse actively hate, is enraging.

Edited by Gasman 1220, 22 March 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[Zakie Chan]

Much more thorough answers than usual. Much appreciated! Looking forward to UI 2.0 and CW

[SteelJaws]

Not to keen on the 3 variant rule, I'd say make the 1 variant cost more to master.

Or to be honest, as your already making your own Hero Mechs, why not just whip up 2 more variants to bring some of the other 1 variant mechs into the game.

But that can be for later I guess, takes long enough to get out a mech as is.

Some good questions, but I thought the whole point of these longer ATD's was to get more than a one-liner for an answer?

[Keltaris Bathana]

Very disappointed to see my question skipped over.

[TELEFORCE]

Not a fan of the answer to the Longbow question. I think the person answering the question isn't aware of reseen designs (or reimagining the designs). Seems weird to me since they've done a good job with the other classics.

Edited by TELEFORCE, 22 March 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[Slater01]

Thanks Bryan!

[Eddrick]

Thankyou for the answer. I'm thankfull that it wasn't just a flat NO answer.

FrostCollar, on 22 March 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

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.

I'm no TT vet. But, I do have a firm understanding of the TT construction rules.

I mentiond about the King Crab BattleMech, all Artillery Weapons exclubing the Sniper Artillery Cannon and the Thinper Artillery Cannon in another paragraph in the same post. The biggest reason I asked my question is that I would like to be able to mount my own Artillery Weapons (Specificly, the Sniper Artillery Piece).

[Beadhanger]

Thanks for answering

[Monsoon]

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

Ask the Devs #34

Community Consolidated Question 6: What point in the timeline will CW be implemented? Will time be rolled back?

A: CW will begin rolling out in May and through to the fall. We do not plan to roll back the timeline.

Zweistein: Are there plans to freeze or rollback the timeline by a year to allow more time to properly incorporate clan mechs?

A: None.

Two questions answered on the same subject, but my question from AtD33 about rolling the time forward, particularly Oct/3050 to Nov.3051 was ignored. It's a conspiracy I tell you, a C.O.N.....spiracy!

[Thorqemada]

Thx for the answers.

Not that happy about the "No Global Account" thing but as long as i am not forced to migrate to another region its...ok and i will take that - i would not tolerate a forced migration for whatever reason.

[Tekadept]

Retracted

Edited by Tekadept, 23 March 2013 - 07:23 AM.

[Eddrick]

Tekadept, on 22 March 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Priceless! I can see this getting a lot of quotes. Great to finally have that argument put to bed.

Right. Two parts that the forum users don't get or get to poll are the players that don't visit the forums and the ones that don't use american language.

[SilentSooYun]

Quote

HugoStiglitz: Last Ask the Devs mentioned purchasable kits that effected the model of mechs. So when will I be able to put a top hat on my Atlas so I can kill in style?

A: No ETA yet. No work has been done to support this feature at this time.

If this particular example were to ever make it into game, that would be the day I quit completely because it would be clear at that point that the Devs have no more respect for the BattleTech universe.

Quote

Irvine: HI, any ETA on integrated comms? Haven't heard alot about it in a while.

A: I would hope to see it around Community Warfare. However, we find most players still prefer to use their own VOIP solutions.

Could it possibly be because the current state of "integration" is so poorly implemented to the point of being counter-intuitive? Perhaps if coms were properly integrated (ie. connecting all players even in a PUG drop), people would use it more.

[Forestal]

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

Gameplay/Game modes/Issues

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.

Ouch, you're breaking the fps-ers' hearts... someone even created a poll/thread saying they will pay for a "Deathmatch" Game Mode!

I wonder if the vocal minority will go back to playing Hawken now that they know that they are not a priority in MWO... or if there'll still be advice/rants against specializing or "boating" (vs "balanced" builds), even after 12 x 12 or Community Warfare is implemented.

Edited by Forestal, 22 March 2013 - 08:21 PM.

[Oy of MidWorld]

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

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.

Thanks for answering the question. I kind of figured that when you brought that abhorrent conquest mode. Now at least we know. Sad though. The promise that we won't see AirMechs/LAM's can't make up for that, although it is apprechiated.

On a second thought, you're willing to segment the player base for 3rd person, but not for an actual real MechWarrior gamemode? I feel i really have to evaluate the amount of money i spend for this game. It's just doesn't seem to be going in any direction i like.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 22 March 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[Forestal]

SilentSooYun, on 22 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

If this particular example were to ever make it into game, that would be the day I quit completely because it would be clear at that point that the Devs have no more respect for the BattleTech universe.

Not if the Devs maintain the simulation nature of MWO and allow me to shoot/blast those silly top-hats off those mechs trying to "kill with style"... I will leave if only if MWO turns into a cartoon like TF2, cos I was over Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers a LONG, LONG time ago.

Oh, and make those top-hats consumables (it only stands to reason that they will be obliterated in every match) if they ever get popular-- cos you know you gotta pay for "style"...

Edited by Forestal, 22 March 2013 - 08:30 PM.