283 replies to this topic

[Loler skates]

TheMaker, on 23 April 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I don't understand, from the sreen shot what im seeing. If your trying to get a headshot off, the cockpit is basically the nose of the mech. What your hitting with the lasers Idk. I would have aimed for the joint for the upper/lower torso, but he was legged.

he is shooting the back of the antennae and hitting the front CT... it's kind of bad that hitboxes don't represent their actual locations properly.

[Deathlike]

Loler skates, on 23 April 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

It would also be great if pgi fixed their mech lab so it doesn't lie and tell people that the mgs firepower is 2 when its actually 0.04

If my math is right, that would only be true under the "optimal conditions" regarding 5 seconds of "splattering" MG fire... assuming your enemy is shutdown or clueless.

Yea.... I could do more with a lame Small Pulse Laser.

[Deathlike]

Someone finally heeded to the whines:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2281857

However, I am already disappointed on how he "coached" his comments on how much the tweakage would on be on the MGs.

[stjobe]

Deathlike, on 23 April 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Someone finally heeded to the whines:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2281857

However, I am already disappointed on how he "coached" his comments on how much the tweakage would on be on the MGs.

I wouldn't call it whines, and it's actually heartening to see the MG be "under review". At first glance, if they
* increase the range (they likely won't go to more than 90/270 though)
* increase the RoF (remember, doubling the RoF is the same effect as doubling the damage)
* lose the spread altogether (so we actually hit where we aim)
They may not need to do more than a "slight damage adjustment".

I'd love for them to do a large damage adjustment, but let's see where this train of thought can take us.

[Deathlike]

stjobe, on 23 April 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I wouldn't call it whines, and it's actually heartening to see the MG be "under review". At first glance, if they
* increase the range (they likely won't go to more than 90/270 though)

Sure, I don't expect 1000m MGs anytime soon.

Quote

* increase the RoF (remember, doubling the RoF is the same effect as doubling the damage)

This is possible... how? The game can't even produce 10 bullets/sec under the current system. It's like 8 or 9 IIRC. I don't see how you could improve it (especially after removing the delay of the AC2-AC5 dakka).

Quote

* lose the spread altogether (so we actually hit where we aim)

That should come with a duh.

Quote

They may not need to do more than a "slight damage adjustment".

I'd love for them to do a large damage adjustment, but let's see where this train of thought can take us.

My conservative guess is only increasing the DPS from .4 to .6... because they don't have any idea how underpowered the MG is.

[Jakob Knight]

stjobe, on 23 April 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I'd love for them to do a large damage adjustment, but let's see where this train of thought can take us.

Indeed. Alot will depend on how it bears out in the field. If the MG begins performing near that of the Medium Laser, then that will be conclusive proof they have gone way too far. If it comes out just below the Small Laser, then it's just right. If it turns out that two MGs don't do the same damage as a single Small Laser, then they haven't gone far enough (in all cases the damage being over the total firing and recycle spans of each weapon). What looks good on paper always needs to be field tested to find out if it's true or not.

Of course, they way they've handled ECM, it's very possible they'll just make them short-ranged, rapid-fire AC/20s and not care.

[stjobe]

Deathlike, on 23 April 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

This is possible... how? The game can't even produce 10 bullets/sec under the current system. It's like 8 or 9 IIRC. I don't see how you could improve it (especially after removing the delay of the AC2-AC5 dakka).

One way you could do it is make the MG like a laser with e.g.25 ticks/second and zero cooldown.

Deathlike, on 23 April 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

That should come with a duh.

And still, here we are. With a RNG spread MG.

Deathlike, on 23 April 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

My conservative guess is only increasing the DPS from .4 to .6...

"Slight" damage increase could be in absolute numbers - 0.04 is a "slight" number, so going to 0.08 could be construed as a "slight damage increase".

This is the MG that the numbers above would yield:
Range: 90/270
RoF: 25
Spread: 0
Damage: 0.08

And that's a 2 DPS MG.

If they only went from 0.04 to 0.06, it'd be a 1.5 DPS MG.

Edited by stjobe, 23 April 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Deathlike]

Jakob Knight, on 23 April 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Of course, they way they've handled ECM, it's very possible they'll just make them short-ranged, rapid-fire AC/20s and not care.

This is the dakka I am looking for.

[Chuckdatass]

Praslek2, on 19 April 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Another game that made the tradeoff with third person was Chivalry: Medieval Warfare.

That game is far easier to play in third person (blocking requires having the opponent's sword tip in roughly the centre of the screen.. also situational awareness is much greater), so everyone has to use it because otherwise they are at a disadvantage.

It loses most/all of the immersion that first person gave (it felt a lot more like *YOU* were swinging the sword before).

Sure, there are servers with no third person option enabled. However, the fact that third-person is "required" to compete on every other server means that only a small subpopulation of the players are any good using first-person.

Is MWO dependent on immersion to provide an enjoyable playing experience? If it is, then don't put in third person. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be affected much by third person.

I hate 3rd person just to clarify. But the best people in Chivalry use 1st person exclusively. All top players do it regardless if the server disables it or not. The main reason why though, is all competitive matches are restricted to 1st person, so its how we practice. The only advantages 3rd person really adds to that is archers peeking over cover, and shield users screens not being blocked. But overall fighting is better in first.(source: well.. Me http://www.chivalryt...wprofile&u=5369)

Having said that, I would hate for a game that has mechanics like "pop tarting" to allow someone to see over cover, then get that perfect pop shot off. Would just be dumb.

[Kmieciu]

stjobe, on 23 April 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

One way you could do it is make the MG like a laser with e.g.25 ticks/second and zero cooldown.

It already acts as a laser with 8-9 ticks/second and zero cooldown.

I tried to increase the ROF to 20 and only got 15 shots per second measured on the testing grounds. So they have to fix this bug first, before increasing the ROF.

I'm not a network engineer, but more rounds per seconds feels like more network latency being used. I would stick to increasing the damage do 0.2 with the current 10 rounds per second.

[Daneel Hazen]

I have questions that may require a long answer (although they might be enjoyable to answer). I am just wondering what the general direction of the game is going to be like. Battletech is about the mechs but mechwarrior is about the mech and the player as well. With this in mind and the game universe what is the ultimate feel of the game going to be? Are we going to see more universe storyline? Character development? What are you shooting for if the game continues to do well?

[Soy]

Jakob Knight, on 22 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

I don't see how you can say that it's bad that mechs that put aside tonnage and crits for jump jets should have some advantage over mechs that don't. In essence, you are saying it's a good thing that jump jets are worthless, which is counter-logical. Jump jets were developed and mechs designed to use them precisely because they were useful under certain terrain conditions, something not present in the game right now. Therefore, it is not a bad thing to have maps where they would confer an advantage, especially given that all maps in the game right now allow non-jumping mechs as many movement options as full jump-capable units.

Also, there is nothing in there about it being 'mandatory', but rather offering advantages. Just because there is a shortcut a jump mech can take that a normal mech cannot does not mean the normal mech cannot take a different, longer route to get to the same place, or that there will only be positions that jump jet mechs can use and none for non-jumpers. Right now, putting jump jets on a mech is little more than a thrill piece, a slight turn boost, or just a means to get to places with zero tactical value, and so there is no reason to use them or buy a mech with them except 'wow' factor. Even as recon items, they don't go high enough to enable good battlefield recon.

So, I disagree quite strongly that it would be bad for the game to have maps that offered mechs that equipped jump jets some benefits equal to the tonnage and crits spent on them. If anything, it would reward players who chose mechs that were more capable in areas other than slugfest fighting, encouraging more diversity and bringing MWO closer to the original game it is supposed to be. Note also that we are only talking a fraction of the maps in circulation, and there would not be any way to guarantee a mech with jump jets would find itself getting that map instead of one of the current ones where that capability is wasted.

My own two cents.

OMGGGGGGG does this guy even know what poptarting is?

WHAT

THE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFlksgjkljglWJG;AWJJ;2

[anonymous161]

I love how vacant the devs are in their own topic...What the F is the point in this whole ask the devs if they never want to speak to us live? Do they know so little about their own game that they cant answer simple questions they should all know even the testers?

All this has done is split the community and farther hamper any illusion this game will get any better than it is now Months and we are still facing frustrating glitches like rainbow maps, or frozen maps and my most annoying problem is buildings and mountains having no damn texture at all on the snow levels. Why haven't they made any announcements on this? I'll tell you why because they dont play their own damn game because they know it freakin sucks! They rather just see the money come in than play their awefull attempt at a successful and enjoyable mechwarrior game.

[Loler skates]

Darth Bane001, on 23 April 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

I love how vacant the devs are in their own topic...What the F is the point in this whole ask the devs if they never want to speak to us live? Do they know so little about their own game that they cant answer simple questions they should all know even the testers?

All this has done is split the community and farther hamper any illusion this game will get any better than it is now Months and we are still facing frustrating glitches like rainbow maps, or frozen maps and my most annoying problem is buildings and mountains having no damn texture at all on the snow levels. Why haven't they made any announcements on this? I'll tell you why because they dont play their own damn game because they know it freakin sucks! They rather just see the money come in than play their awefull attempt at a successful and enjoyable mechwarrior game.

They are just afraid the community will engage them with the 3 second jenners and the 6 mg spiders.

[Moromillas]

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

BitMonger505: Are there any plans to release a native 64 bit executable?
A: Possibly.

That's (possibly) good news.

Keep up the good work team.

[Jakob Knight]

Soy, on 23 April 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

OMGGGGGGG does this guy even know what poptarting is?

WHAT

THE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFlksgjkljglWJG;AWJJ;2

And do you even know the disadvantages of 'poptarting' as you call it?

Do you even bother to figure it out, or just sit there slack-jawed and then cry that it's OP?

Poptarting is a -tactic-, not an advantage, and can be removed by counter-tactics. It's also very situation-dependent. Note also that non-jumping mechs can do a form of poptarting, but no one seems to notice this.

Jump jets were always, first and foremost, supposed to be terrain-avoidance items, but there is no terrain that provides any need for this in the game. Thus, people are better off not taking jump jets 95 percent of the time, rather than it being a valuable capability in a battlemech (certainly supposed to be better than ECM, yet ECM is more useful currently).

Edited by Jakob Knight, 24 April 2013 - 02:19 AM.

[Accursed Richards]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 April 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Hey, you've read what they might consider giving MGs - the ability to shoot down missiles.
Doesn't sound like something I need 4 ballistic slots for on a Spider that can probably outrun missiles, giving how slow they are.

No more gimmicky extras, please. Just raise the damage. Simple.

[Adalas]

Hi, Devs/everyone.
I don't know if this place is still active for asking stuff, but i'll throw in just in case.

• Do you plan on adding an OST to the game? If yes, for about when?
  
• Do you plan on making high risk-high reward maps and wierd colored world in the future such as in mechwarrior 2 or magma planets, moons with no atmostphere and underwater maps?
  
• Whould you plan on making the new updates for acceleration and reticule lock-on possible to save as preference for each mech you own instead of all mechs? I mean, that whould save alot of trouble for people who have different preferences for each mech types.

Thank you.

Edited by Adalas, 24 April 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[Thomas Covenant]

Thank you. I would like if there was a substitute number I could look at. Perhaps that's what leaderboards will be.

[INSEkT L0GIC]

I tend to get more out of the NGNG interviews and Q&A than with the AtD, with a few exceptions here & there.

I think they should transcribe some of those questions & answers into these to cover the concerns of people that did not hear the answers already explained elsewhere, often repeatedly so, aka covering 98% of the responses in this thread.