66 replies to this topic

[CynicalSaint]

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

"working as intended"

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

Like the Mars Rover!!!! I would but it. Once again sorry for the tangent, I am slightly intoxicated and highly over due on sleep. Nasty combination for my creative mind...

[Soulscour]

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

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

Had this bug without any FPS issues. Played several matches with it with inability to find base locations. Game still playable

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

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

Never encountered this bug. Have had crosshair disappear. game still playable.

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

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

Never encountered this bug. Did encounter one issue serverside since latest patch that caused everyone to crash. FPS issues very minimal for me since like 3-4 patches ago since they fixed another common bug that causes FPS issues.

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

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

Game still playable.

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

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

Game still playable

l4Dl, on 06 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

All the above, just from playing 5 games today.

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.

I'm not saying the game is flawless. I get crashes too. But I have not had a hud related bug that has prevented me from playing the game since the yellow screen bug on loadup which apparently was fixed a couple patches ago.

[Fastfire]

Having ramming back in as a valid way to disable mechs below your weight class would be cool.

I mean i *hated* it when it was in and i was a newb, but even then i could see its merrits.

having it back would add a lot.

About the equal Weight on each team, nah, i dont think we need that,
first of all, nearly each time the team with LESS weight wins anyway, its possible to simply outplay those 5 Assault 3 heavy teams, even if you are in all lights.

I would rather see the following:

Each 100 Tons of weight difference, the lighter Team gets an added Bonus to Cbills and XP after the match, for example 10% for each started 100 Tons in difference,

that would still allow for fast matchmaking, but would motivate people more to try and go for that win, and even if you loose to
the difference in weight (lets say 8 commandos v.s. 8 Atlas [to take an extreme example] = 200 Tons v.s. 800 Tons
would result in an 60% boost to XP and C-bills at the end of the match, win OR loss)

This would even make sense from an pure "realistic" point of view, as no commander would send 8 lights vs 8 Assaults and ask them to Destroy them all, it would rather be a mission to stall the Assault mechs for as long as possible, so back up forced could be re-routed to intercept and destroy the Assault lances.

Thats why it makes sense that you even get the Bonus if you "loose" with the light team, you maybe loose the match, but from a broader point of view, your team archieved what is would be supposed to do, buying time.

[CynicalSaint]

We always referred to knocking light mechs over as H.U.G.S. Aka: Heavier Unfriendly Guy Strategy. "Somebody go hug that effin Jenner!!!!!" or "Hey I just hugged Alpha!!!" that way everyone with LOS knew to light up the guy that was dumb enough to get himself into a position where he was defenseless.

And if you want a way to make over/under tonned worth while make it a GXP bonus because "Generally" it would take more "eXPerienced" pilots to over come something like a tonnage difference and is not at all chassis specific. Not only would it make GXP a little easier to get but it just seems like a reasonable trade-off imo...

Edited by CynicalSaint, 06 April 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Drenzul]

They won't make GXP any easier to get, selling XP -> GXP conversions is almost certainly going to be one of Pgi's main money makers and its one that the players don't mind so adding bonuses to that is probably not a good thing in the long run, as much as I might like it

I'm looking forward to collisions coming back as well, just be patient.

[CynicalSaint]

Drenzul, on 06 April 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

They won't make GXP any easier to get, selling XP -> GXP conversions is almost certainly going to be one of Pgi's main money makers and its one that the players don't mind so adding bonuses to that is probably not a good thing in the long run, as much as I might like it

I'm looking forward to collisions coming back as well, just be patient.

Technically it wouldn't be any easier to get. How often have you been on the light side of a HEAVILY out tonned match and won? I am not saying its not possible, it's just never easy. If you don't reward the skilled players with things you can buy with money then this might as well go P2W. It just takes general pilot skill to overcome. I not saying the reward has to be outrageously high but at least something since it has nothing to do with chassis specific XP, GXP should be awarded for team based reasons not as a fractional part of you chassis XP.

[Frosty Thundertrod]

Just collision damage and detection would be enough. right now a enemy mech can push its way threw you. but friendly's can't. if more is needed how bout a good screen shake and mech stager. so you pay a price for colliding but it is not a instant death.

[Zylo]

CynicalSaint, on 06 April 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

But then again I would also love to see (this will never happen but it is funny to imagine) when I shoot a jump-jetting mech with a mass based weapon that the kenitic energy be transferred to the targeted mech and effect its trajectory. I can't help but imagine dual AC-20ing a Spider in mid flight and watching it barrel off into the distance as the force of the projectiles transfer the target. Lol.

I think this is actually planned, at least for the AC/20.

I'll see if I can find the post, I think it was by the same dev that posted the vid of the Artemis changes to missile flight path.

Edit - here's the link - http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1708988

Edited by Zylo, 06 April 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[River Walker]

Zylo, on 06 April 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

I'm normally Assault or Light pilot (sometimes heavy and medium as well) and I want to see collision knockdowns returned. Since I always operate in a group I can't wait for knockdowns to speed up the light fights where 1 light knocks down the enemy light and the other blasts it while it's face down on the ground.

Thats funny Zylo You stop playing The game and your unit is off to other thing because you don't have the time to play but do have the time to log on to forum to complain about the game.
I do like you bud but if you want to spew on the forum then start playing the game Zylo.

[Zylo]

River Walker, on 06 April 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Thats funny Zylo You stop playing The game and your unit is off to other thing because you don't have the time to play but do have the time to log on to forum to complain about the game.
I do like you bud but if you want to spew on the forum then start playing the game Zylo.

If you want to start this sort of **** as an ex-member get good first River.

We do still play, late at night pacific time.

[NocturnalBeast]

CynicalSaint, on 06 April 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

I (and many pilots that I have played with) really think that collisions/knockdowns and equal(ish) tonnage drops need to be reintroduced (I understand that you dropped collisions in fear of turning away new players but that is not an excuse in my mind to sully the reputation/execution of a "skill-based" game).

My 1st point being that there are too many light pilots that take super speed for granted and bringing back collisions (in my opinion) would return balance to the light (primarily the 3L) chassis. By having collisions it would separate the skilled light pilots (you have said on many occasions that you want this to be a skill based game) from the speed happy irresponsible pilots. This is obviously just my opinion and you (PGI) will do as you please but there are MANY of us old school (closed beta and realism striving (if I wanted to play an arcade style mech game I would play Hawken, not going to EVER happen by the way) players that learned how to actually pilot light mechs because of those (not so fond) memories of running lights and getting face-rolled when we got knocked over, learned to take heed of our movements so we didn't put ourselves in a position to be/get knocked over.

Secondly, on the matter of equal tonnage drops. I have experienced too many drops where we have been on one side or the other of a ridiculously out-tonned match-up. I do however understand that lance composition has/could/will vary depending on the deployment strategy of the said unit but when there is a tonnage difference of over 200 tons it gets a little ridiculous when I pug and there is some type of expectations that we are suppose to melt 3 times our sides weight in armor off an opposing team before it is even roughly fair on a firepower to armor level (let's not even get into the "ELO" factor witch hasn't been fully explained let alone illegitimately (aka: no way to refer to what your ELO actually is) implemented).

Now in your defense I am sure that all of the issues I have voiced my opinion about are being addressed but I have dumped a boat-load of money into this game and all I have seen is catering to the rookie pilots while removing what us hardcore (fanboy, if you must use that term) Mechwarrior pilots expect after 10 years of waiting... I by no means have no intention to quit playing this gem of a game (unless you put a 3rd person view in) but until certain issues are addressed I will be abusing the free-to-play model and you will see no more of my hard earned money (something I say with the utmost sorrow in my heart because I know you all work your a$$es off to do your best to provide an epic and balanced experience to those of us that have been eagerly awaiting our "big, stompy robot" game).

Needless to say I am sure there will be some that will agree with me and some that will have valid arguments against what I have said but I ask anyone who posts a rebuttal/agreement uses some tact with well thought out responses and not just flame it up. So fellow Mechwarriors, how do you feel about the opinions that have I have brought up and what are yours? PGI listens to us so now is you time for input. I am eager to see what the pilots outside of who I usually play with feel about this.

I wholeheartedly support collisions being reintroduced to the game. Also, matchmaking based on tonnage is a better way to balance games than ELO, especially since tonnage based matchmaking is how it working in tabletop Battletech. Not all new players want a dumbed down game and most "veteran" MWO players do not want it, so catering to inept, players is not the way to go.

[River Walker]

Zylo, on 06 April 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

If you want to start this sort of **** as an ex-member get good first River.

We do still play, late at night pacific time.

Not starting any thing my friend just stating you Complain more about the game than playing And yes I Suck as will my friend.
But i am working on that as will as playing.

[Zylo]

Edward Steiner, on 06 April 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

I wholeheartedly support collisions being reintroduced to the game. Also, matchmaking based on tonnage is a better way to balance games than ELO, especially since tonnage based matchmaking is how it working in tabletop Battletech. Not all new players want a dumbed down game and most "veteran" MWO players do not want it, so catering to inept, players is not the way to go.

Something else to consider is that new players may not have any idea matches are being balanced by Elo. All they see is the enemy team getting 3 lights and they get 0, or the enemy getting 4 assaults while they get a single assault. Elo may be a good concept for balancing on player skill but currently it seems more battles are decided by the type of mechs in the fight when equal skill players are on each team.

Making weight class balance the top priority and Elo the second priority would probably result in more balanced matches and would be showing that the most visible part of matchmaking (weight class matching) was actually producing a fair and balanced match.

[TehSBGX]

Dragon Moshing. That is all.

[FupDup]

So much skill.

[Dirk Le Daring]

Adridos, on 06 April 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

Yep, but they are supposed to be coming back with the real Highlander, so...

Can you please quote source. I would be very happy indeed for this to happen.

[Taemien]

Why do you all keep asking for something that is coming? Here's what would happen if they implemented collisions now:

You would click launch and immediately crash to desktop. Its not done being coded or tested. So if you want collisions right now, you can't play. So just wait till they are done and its in the patch notes.

[RobinSage]

I am RobinSage....the Leader of HARD Corp.

And I approve this message.....

[Victor Morson]

I think knock downs should be added to the Pilot Tree or Module system for rams, otherwise it could result in both 'mechs being knocked down.

That would sure fix tackling, unless you were spec'ed into it (and hoping the other guy wasn't as well, or you're back at square 1), and is close to the original things they showed us for the pilot tree.

Damage knockdowns would be nice to see again (for the first time, in MW:O), though.

[OpCentar]

Kiiyor, on 06 April 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

The devs have hinted that collisions and in particular knockdowns may be limited to an assault mech 'charge' skill. I love the idea.

Bad idea.

Lights would continue to troll anything as there is no chance an assault will knockdown a light unless the light mech crashes into him. And any decent light pilot knows how to evade.

Collisions for everyone, knockdowns determined by impact force - speed and weight being the primary variables. Ratios and fine tuning subject to game balance.