66 replies to this topic

[Soulscour]

First, they removed collisions because they were buggy as hell. Not to cater to noob pilots. They have said that it is coming back and it is. It will come back when its ready and not before then. I hope soon as well however.

Secondly, I do not understand the elo matchmaking. I personally want them to publicize elo. My stats have been going down so I think its working but I want to see it for myself. I want to know that the my stats haven't just been going down because of weight mismatches as stated and instead because of higher elo. Im sure a lot of other players that follow thier stats feel the same way. At the very least the players I'm playing with can tell the difference between where they're facing and where they're aiming but I question some decisions and aiming ability on thier part. Show us whats going on PGI or are you hiding something!!!

[l4Dl]

Soulscour, on 06 April 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

First, they removed collisions because they were buggy as hell. Not to cater to noob pilots. They have said that it is coming back and it is. It will come back when its ready and not before then. I hope soon as well however.

Maybe its time they removed the HUD, because, thats buggy as hell, and, doesn't really cater for any pilot when its broken?

I look forward to seeing the new implementation of collisions, should be "<insert joke regarding current stability of game here> and fun!".

[CynicalSaint]

Drenzul, on 06 April 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

No, collisions where removed because they were bugged to hell and back.

The slightest touch on a mech was enough to knock it over, then when knocked over, the mech would warp about like crazy.

They have already said it is coming back when it is fixed.

The whole point of DFA is that you put your foot straight through the enemy cockpit, killing the pilot and stopping any chance of ejection, hence the 'death' part of DFA.

With there being no "ejection" mechanic in the game (yet) I really think a damage/knockdown mechanic would be rather balanced. If I happen to inflict more damage to your cockpit than its threshold can withstand death would unquestionably be the outcome. I only draw my opinions off what has already been exercised within the game engine. (I.E: We have a rough collision damage and there was a knockdown mechanic in the game already) I do quite a but of computer software design and understand how hard it can be to make a virtual actualization of what us as gamers would love to see.

[ShadowDarter]

as a future FLE- pilot i want collisions back, and i want them as fast as possible..

[CynicalSaint]

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

I think it would benefit a few people (not just me) if you added paragraphs to your original post.
Once its in that form, you wouldn't need to break it down, paragraphs can do that for you.

I wasn't trying to flame on you earlier but I just wasn't tracking your thought process. Post has been edited and I hope it reads a little easier.

[Soulscour]

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

[/size]
Maybe its time they removed the HUD, because, thats buggy as hell, and, doesn't really cater for any pilot when its broken?

I look forward to seeing the new implementation of collisions, should be "<insert joke regarding current stability of game here> and fun!".

Yes the hud is buggy as hell. No hud bugs have not caused huge latency issues or stopped pilots from continueing to play the game. So I don't take that "analogy" to having any similarity for comparison to collisions and why they were removed. Therefore I completely disregard your opinion for that reason but if you have some point that actually makes sense I would take that into consideration.

[CynicalSaint]

ShadowDarter, on 06 April 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

as a future FLE- pilot i want collisions back, and i want them as fast as possible..

Love the FLE. Personally I think if an CTP-A1 can take a dual AC-20 shot to the ear without it falling off I should be able to have a FLE chiilin on each ear as I roam around the battlefield. Once again, way harder to make happen then it is to imagine about...

Edited by CynicalSaint, 06 April 2013 - 04:02 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

El Bandito, on 06 April 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

I'm an Assault pilot and I approve collisions.

I'm an Assault Pilot I approve of equalized tonnage & Collision. The tonnage is not really needed, it would just be nice to have. It's kinda weak when my side has 3 assaults and a heavy and the OpFor has a Cataphract as their biggest Mech.

[On1m]

Xenroth, on 06 April 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Wall of text hits you critical

If you can't read five paragraphs please go back and repeat the 4th grade.

[Kiiyor]

El Bandito, on 06 April 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

At last, Awesomes will be useful!

Heck yes! 9m especially! It'll be like yesteryear when jenners played as offensive tacklers.

[Satan n stuff]

I'm an everything pilot and I approve of collisions.

[Merit Lef]

Cynical Saint, Thanks for being professional in your responses, it's refreshing to see. In addition to collision and DFA I would like to see PGI expand on the idea of mass based weapons. A light (or any class) running at top speed should be susceptible to knock down from kinetic weapons. A pair of AC/10s or equivalent should wreak havoc on light mechs running/TURNNING at top speeds. Not only lights would be effected, any mech moving in excess of 90 or 100kphs is susceptible. But the effects are diminish the heavier you are. Equally, a light tonnage mech firing mass based weapons at high speed can be vulnerable to knock down or something like “off course correction.” Where the pilot would have to fully focus on piloting the mech (Can even create a small cockpit animation of the pilot saving the mech from falling). PGI could create a Pilot Skill to help curb both these effects in the Pilot Tree.

And don’t remember who posted about the consequence of operating a mech at high heat over length of time but love the idea.

[CynicalSaint]

On1m, on 06 April 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

If you can't read five paragraphs please go back and repeat the 4th grade.

If you can't read all the posts and payed attention to the fact that it was edited by me to make it easier to read you can go somewhere else to find your self-gratification. S#it, had you have read my entire post you would have seen that it was edited and you wouldn't be wasting all of our time...

[l4Dl]

Soulscour, on 06 April 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

Therefore I completely disregard your opinion for that reason but if you have some point that actually makes sense I would take that into consideration.

Rainbow Map bug:
- Results in lower FPS when zooming, down to 1fps. Inability to play game.

Arms HUD crosshair stuck at full left of screen:
- Results in inability to play the game

Constant FPS stuttering since latest "hotfix"
- 10-25 fps (at a stuttering rate) Results in poor game experience

Inability to chat:
- Cant even engage in "teamplay"

No Mini-Map, loss of player locations:
- Inability to play the game

All the above, just from playing 5 games today.

[Error] <Flash> ActionScript Memory leaks in movie 'Libs/UI/HUD\Common\HUDMain.gfx', including 284 string nodes [Libs/UI/HUD\Common\HUDMain.gfx]
[Error] <Flash> Leaked string content: 'a_iSpdPer', 'SetMapRot', 'SetCommanderState', 'CheckStop', 'BGCloseTween', 'StartCloseBGTween', 'BGOpenTween', 'StartOpenBGTween', 'StopAllBGTweens', 'ResetDetailedInfo', 'SetDetailedInfoComponentStrings', 'SetDetailedInfoDamage', 'SetDetailedInfoType', 'ShowDetialedInfo', 'UpdateDistanceCache', 'UpdateStatusesCache' [Libs/UI/HUD\Common\HUDMain.gfx]
[Error] Runaway thread // x50
[Error] Error: CTexMan::ImagePreprocessing: Scaling of 'textures/particles/weapons/ppc_beam_b.dds' compressed texture is dangerous (only single mip) [File=textures/particles/weapons/ppc_beam_b.dds]

Regardless of the ignorance to current errors above (how clear does a error need to be for a dev team?).
I would like to see collisions, but based on current game state, i feel my opinion/expectations is self explanatory.

Quote

Cynical Saint, Thanks for being professional in your responses, it's refreshing to see

Aye, thanks for sorting the paragraphs out, makes it much easier to read

[CynicalSaint]

Merit Lef, on 06 April 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

Cynical Saint, Thanks for being professional in your responses, it's refreshing to see. In addition to collision and DFA I would like to see PGI expand on the idea of mass based weapons. A light (or any class) running at top speed should be susceptible to knock down from kinetic weapons. A pair of AC/10s or equivalent should wreak havoc on light mechs running/TURNNING at top speeds. Not only lights would be effected, any mech moving in excess of 90 or 100kphs is susceptible. But the effects are diminish the heavier you are. Equally, a light tonnage mech firing mass based weapons at high speed can be vulnerable to knock down or something like “off course correction.” Where the pilot would have to fully focus on piloting the mech (Can even create a small cockpit animation of the pilot saving the mech from falling). PGI could create a Pilot Skill to help curb both these effects in the Pilot Tree.

And don’t remember who posted about the consequence of operating a mech at high heat over length of time but love the idea.

Thank you for the appreciation, it's actually refreshing to see people that take this seriously. We are all beta testers, not beta flamers. It's just sad to see how many "testers" take this for granted (Taking the beta open didn't help but I understand why PGI made that choice($$$). It really makes me miss the days of the decently self-moderated closed beta forums. Where passionate professionals came to point out issues and discuss solutions to problems (a lot of witch PGI really listened to) not just flame on about how OP this or that feels. This is what most of the whining on the forums can be summed up as.... Good pilots are OP!!!! Lol. QQ some more noobs. Reality check-----> If there is something that is unbalanced become a better pilot and play outside of it's advantages, don't effin cry about it. Adapt and overcome or become a red misty stain on some salvage....

OH LOOK.... A SplatCat!!! I think I am just going to run right up to it!!!

SMH, ID10t, lol. You deserve the face-roll you just got.

Edited by CynicalSaint, 06 April 2013 - 04:53 AM.

[ShadowDarter]

CynicalSaint, on 06 April 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Love the FLE. Personally I think if an CTP-A1 can take a dual AC-20 shot to the ear without it falling off I should be able to have a FLE chiilin on each ear as I roam around the battlefield. Once again, way harder to make happen then it is to imagine about...

the more i think about this the more i want to try it out....

thanks this mental image will be with me for a long while...

Edit: Typo

Edited by ShadowDarter, 06 April 2013 - 04:51 AM.

[That Dawg]

"working as intended"

I suspect a reintroduction of collision damage models and an "airbag" consumable for a mere 150,000 credits

[ShadowDarter]

ThatDawg, on 06 April 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

a "airbag" consumable for a mere 150,000 credits

first rule of MMO,s

Dont give them ideas...

[CynicalSaint]

ShadowDarter, on 06 April 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

the more i think about this the more i want to try it out....

thanks this mental image will be with me for a long while...

Edit: Typo

I got another one the guys and I at the Merc Corp talked about a long time back. Just jokingly btw. Ultra AC-FLE launcher on an Atlas but that whole line of shananagins came from my buddy Brvno and the "Cockpit mounted Lemming Launcher". Sorry for the tangent all....

[ShadowDarter]

CynicalSaint, on 06 April 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

I got another one the guys and I at the Merc Corp talked about a long time back. Just jokingly btw. Ultra AC-FLE launcher on an Atlas but that whole line of shananagins came from my buddy Brvno and the "Cockpit mounted Lemming Launcher". Sorry for the tangent all....

Dont be sorry, im honestly trying to figure out how to pull a double FLE- Carry on Cat...