234 replies to this topic

[Critical Fumble]

Dr Killinger, on 08 April 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

If we can learn anything from WoW, it's that daily and weekly objectives keep people coming back for more. The more daily and weekly objectives we see in the future, the better!

It'll probably be like what they use in WoT. Each vehicle has a "first win of the day" bonus each day that adds on a percent to your cash and XP earnings for that one round. It keeps people logging in, but it also encourages storage slot purchases as well.

It would be great it it were more than just that, though.

[Deathlike]

Critical Fumble, on 08 April 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

It'll probably be like what they use in WoT. Each vehicle has a "first win of the day" bonus each day that adds on a percent to your cash and XP earnings for that one round. It keeps people logging in, but it also encourages storage slot purchases as well.

It would be great it it were more than just that, though.

I think that's the only positive thing that has come out from these answers...

[Alilua]

hmm
If it's "working as intended", why does it not work at all?

[MustrumRidcully]

Zyllos, on 08 April 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

You know why Machine Guns are not dangerous? Because ammo has freaking 10 HP! And it's only a 10% chance to cause an explosion when they do take 10 HP.

That t hey have 10 hit points is just consistent with all the other items. That the explosion chance is only 10 %... less so. But hey, I am fine with it, I suspect that if they made them more explosive, people would just stop using missiles and ballistics.

The Table Top game had way too many random, unpredictable deaths by through armour criticals and ammo hits. This might work for some people in a table top game, but I don't think it will work in a Mechwarrior title.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 April 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I don't know why you guys bother. MG's are in the same boat as ECM. Some dev has a hard on for what they do and has no plans to change it.

Kinda feels like it.

They love their ECM. They love their critical hit system. The Machine Gun being this "ultra-cool" crit-seeker is naturally an idea to fall in love with, even if it's impractical/irrelevant in actual play.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 April 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[Alternate22]

Deathlike, on 08 April 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

I should've been specific. I meant a 6 MG Jager video.

I have a few videos of the 6mg j-dd in the 'wild' so to speak. I'll upload it when I have the capability, pribably later today. 6 mgs are actually very close to the threshold to being useful but not quiet there yet. Is there any specific type of video/Shots you are looking for with the mgs in particular?

[grayson marik]

Oh, just an update for the PUG players here:
Once the 12v12 is live, it will even get harder for groups to sync play together as it is a lot more difficult to get 12 people together than 8 (and you need 24 for one match).

What will happen?
Goups will split into 2x4 + 1x 3 or 1x2 and try to syncdrop in the normal queue.

Why so?
Simply because PGI does not allow drops of groupsizes other than 4 or 12 then.

Sollution?
Simple:
- group fight invitations, lobby what ever. BEVORE 12v12!
- allowing drops of any group size against a same sized other group ( preferably a SPECIFIC other group of same size)

Point is:
Once again, a half baked feature is thrown out to the players, knowingly f.u**ing up both PUG play as well as organized group play for a time period that is not predictable but foreseeable long!

for reference:

Bryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Ask the Devs #35

Community Consolidated Questions/Concerns


Taemien: Is there any plans to allow for units and/or groups of players to drop into a practice match against each other?
A: This would be a private match. It’s in review.



Asaru: Will we be seeing the return soon of the ability to drop in premade groups of various sizes and have pugs fill out the remainder of the team like it was in closed beta? Or has there been a conscious decision to not bring this back at all?
A: This is conscious to help balance out matches. The max team size in a public match is 4 and we continue to improve the matchmaker to create a more balanced experience. When 12 v 12 rolls out, 8 player teams will be replaced by 12 player teams.

Gregory Owen: How long till we see 12v12? (not asking for exact dates by any means, just a general idea ie : 1month,3month.6 months)
A: In the next 60 days~.

ROPh03n1x: Any eta on the lobby where we could possibly choose/vote for the map that we want as well as the mech for that map?
A: Early to late summer.

As you can see, 12v12 will be in far before any kind of lobby.
And as far as I could make out from various statements on PGI/IGP side, the lobby will SPECIFICALLY NOT have the function to enable any kind of organized group play.
So the people that currently make up a large portion of the so called premades on voice, almost all organized players in guilds, clans, units, tems -or whatever you call them- will be left out in the rain once again for a long time.

And those same people will further ruin your PUG games experience, because they simply don't have any FU**ING choice to get a satisfying match out of MWO any other way.

And by satisfying i mean a successful sync drop against an SPECIFIC opponent team.

The problem will get worse with 12v12 before any private matches. Not better.

Please dear PUG players consider this, when you jump to the forums do voice up for a feature next time.
Private matches or a lobby that works like one would expect a lobby to work, would benefit you much more than any nerf, buff new camo, mech or cheap weekend sale PGI/IGP could offer!



P.S: this is not meant as a flame but a strong reminder of what is an absolutely predictable outcome of the current priority and release plan as noted in the current ATD answers.

Edited by grayson marik, 08 April 2013 - 11:51 PM.

[SgtMagor]

was really hoping they answered my question on Melee,at least if its being considered or not...

[grayson marik]

SgtMagor, on 09 April 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

was really hoping they answered my question on Melee,at least if its being considered or not...

They did some time ago already, stating that they would like to bring such things in, as soon as they have 1. found a feasible solution and 2. have the current big milestones 12v12, CW, netcode finished

[Thorn Hallis]

The cries about an anti-infantry weapon are highly amusing. Not that the game has any other problems.

[Jetfire]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Sigh.

Picture of your problem. OH NO MY STRIPE IS PINK! HOW DO I GET IT BACK!? Note save is grayed out. This has been saved.


Now. This is your SOLUTION. See the double square where there's pink and the OLD COLOR sitting there? It comes up every time just like it's green on every other mech. Watch this! We click that "behind" square!



Now I can save it with my default color restored.

Fix the cause, not the symptom.

Yes, I am not stupid thank you. BUT that does not work. Maybe it is a bug, but my DEFAULT color yellow does not pull in when I click the square. It retains the previous color.

IE I click green, save, reopen camo, click default yellow behindy block, mech stays green, save, mech still green, relog, yellow default block is in front, mech still green, change to red, save, mech now red, reopen camo, click behindy yellow default, mech still red... etc.

I know this works with the default green on other mechs, but on the founders Jenner at least on my install, it does not work.

[FupDup]

Thorn Hallis, on 09 April 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

The cries about an anti-infantry weapon are highly amusing.

Common misconception.

Being extremely good at mass-slaughtering infantry does not instantly mean that it is the only thing the weapon is capable of.

[Devil Fox]

I like how they mention that collisions would come around same time for Highlander... now it's suddenly after launch... it's a balance mechanism needed now, just like it kept light's to the scout role back in CB... not the hunter killer role they ful-fill in most cases now.

Overall another disappointing waste of answers on repetitive questions... like seriously why answer over 3 questions on MG if they all have the same gist and the typical copy/paste reply of "working as intended"...

[Jetfire]

Apostal, on 09 April 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

I like how they mention that collisions would come around same time for Highlander... now it's suddenly after launch... it's a balance mechanism needed now, just like it kept light's to the scout role back in CB... not the hunter killer role they ful-fill in most cases now. Overall another disappointing waste of answers on repetitive questions... like seriously why answer over 3 questions on MG if they all have the same gist and the typical copy/paste reply of "working as intended"...

DFA/Collision post launch is really disappointing I agree... it is a core feature and it is not comforting to know it will take at least until October for them to possibly implement it. This also gives me little hope for MASC or a better engine distribution for fast lights to give the Flea some possible use.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Well with collision taking a back seat, I have a hard time believing they are going to up the speed cap.

Whole thing is a cluster.

[Genewen]

FupDup, on 09 April 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

Common misconception.

Being extremely good at mass-slaughtering infantry does not instantly mean that it is the only thing the weapon is capable of.

The MG is an anti-infantry/anti-unarmored target weapon, the military numbskulls from FASA writing into the rules that it can also damage Battlemechs is just another stupid idea on their side that should not be followed by anyone who can count to three and has enough brain cells to breathe autonomously.

[FupDup]

Genewen, on 09 April 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

The MG is an anti-infantry/anti-unarmored target weapon, the military numbskulls from FASA writing into the rules that it can also damage Battlemechs is just another stupid idea on their side that should not be followed by anyone who can count to three and has enough brain cells to breathe autonomously.

The issue we seem to have here is over the semantics of what the term "Machine Gun" means. I'm guessing that you are under the assumption that it means something no larger than 50 cal.


The actual meaning is just a blanket term for anything with a very fast rate-of-fire, regardless of size. Even autocannons themselves are considered a sub-division of MGs, and in their case they are classified by their use of very large rounds (i.e. 20mm+) and/or explosive shells.

Also, we really need to consider that our in-game MG weighs 500 kilograms...a lot bigger than the AK-47 that it is assumed to be. We can also gather straight from the fluff that it ain't .50 cal...the only model with a specified calibre is the 20mm Gatling. We're also firing against ablative armor, which is designed specifically to flake off its outer layers when hit hard enough to reduce the damage dealt to the unit (at the cost of losing a bit of armor each time).

And if we really want to get into realism, we're driving giant robots for Pete's sake. That makes realism invalid by nature because walkers are impractical in the majority of environments (with a few exceptions like narrow city streets and cluttered forests/jungles).

Edited by FupDup, 09 April 2013 - 06:32 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

This is very simple.

It doesn't matter what it's called.

If it's in the game it should do something meaningful based on it's weight compared to other weapons.

So it's 1.5 tons. Which means that it should do damage similar to a small laser at a minimum. Since it weighs more than a medium laser it's advantage is no heat and rate of fire.

[FupDup]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 April 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

This is very simple.

It doesn't matter what it's called.

If it's in the game it should do something meaningful based on it's weight compared to other weapons.

So it's 1.5 tons. Which means that it should do damage similar to a small laser at a minimum. Since it weighs more than a medium laser it's advantage is no heat and rate of fire.

RoF isn't actually an advantage, because that means the damage gets spread out all over the place and you can't twist to spread damage without losing out on your DPS. But you are right about the weight comparisons.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

FupDup, on 09 April 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

RoF isn't actually an advantage, because that means the damage gets spread out all over the place and you can't twist to spread damage without losing out on your DPS. But you are right about the weight comparisons.

Whatever! You got the drift of my post.

I type fast and angry when I'm at work!

[Koniving]

Jade Kitsune, on 08 April 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

3rd person does not make the game more accessible.

CoD Modern Warfare 2 and on have a 3rd person gamemode, do you know what the LEAST PLAYED GAME MODE IN COD IS!?! It's the 3rd person view, with maybe 500 players using it at maximum.

My god every time I see the devs mention that there's some accessibility issue that 3rd person will solve, I find myself banging my head against my desk because this is not only flat out wrong, but it's not a thing... 3rd person view is in no way an accessibility thing, it doesn't solve any problems, it doesn't add to the game experience. And it causes more issues than it's worth.

The fact that there's even any considering going into it at that point baffles me.

You are aware that in the interview with Russ Bullock, he wasn't talking about third person being in the actual game but "in the training environment." "You can tell a player it's like a tank all day long, but unless that player can actually see it, it may never register."

"So you want to do third person for training, to allow the player to see the difference between torso twisting and turning and not put it into the actual game."

"Yes."

It's the interviewers who suggested ways to implement third person into the actual game, by using "Maybe an over the shoulder or hip cam; something that wouldn't give an all out advantage by having the mech block a substantial portion of your view."

Edited by Koniving, 09 April 2013 - 06:51 AM.