283 replies to this topic

[Billygoat]

Quote

Prosperity Park: Will the Heat mechanism be changed in the future such that Overheating to greater than, lets say 150%, would result in inescapable, guaranteed Heat Damage regardless if your Mech is Powered Down?
A: We’re happy with the existing system, so I don’t see this being added anytime soon.

Bryan drives a Stalker PPC boat.

[stjobe]

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

CCQ2 (as described by stjobe):
Q: Would you please reconsider buffing the MG's damage?
A: We are always looking at weapons. No plans to buff damage specifically.

I can't tell you how disappointed this makes me.

We have a machine gun balance thread combining 46 threads and almost 5,000 posts telling you that the damage is too low.

You have made several 'mechs (SDR-5K, RVN-4X, CDA-3C) that are dependant on ballistic hardpoints. Why did you bother if you're going to keep the MG useless?

Have you even *tried* playing a SDR-5K? Any of you?

Especially whoever is in charge of weapon balance should be forced to run a 4 MG SDR-5K for at least two weeks. Maybe then you'll finally get it.

[Deathlike]

stjobe, on 19 April 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

I can't tell you how disappointed this makes me.

We have a machine gun balance thread combining 46 threads and almost 5,000 posts telling you that the damage is too low.

You have made several 'mechs (SDR-5K, RVN-4X, CDA-3C) that are dependant on ballistic hardpoints. Why did you bother if you're going to keep the MG useless?

Have you even *tried* playing a SDR-5K? Any of you?

Especially whoever is in charge of weapon balance should be forced to run a 4 MG SDR-5K for at least two weeks. Maybe then you'll finally get it.

I hate to say this, but ECM fits into their meta-game, not the 5K Spider but the Spider-5D.

The only way PGI would ever reconsider is if they actually bothered to troll us with the mythical 6MG spider and see the their MG pewpew become fail QQ.

Edited by Deathlike, 19 April 2013 - 11:05 PM.

[Adridos]

ryoma, on 19 April 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad to see you guys ignoring this issue.
http://mwomercs.com/...ll-side-torsos/

http://mwomercs.com/...46#entry2220446

Jenner hit Boxes are currently very borked.

That's technical support/ bug reporting material, not something fit for a Q&A.

[Reno Blade]

Quote

Prosperity Park: Will the Heat mechanism be changed in the future such that Overheating to greater than, lets say 150%, would result in inescapable, guaranteed Heat Damage regardless if your Mech is Powered Down?
A: We’re happy with the existing system, so I don’t see this being added anytime soon.

I guess that answers my questions for a heatscale closer to TT with all the penalties (slower movement speed and aiming speed)...
Realy disappointing for the alphastrike-shutdown playstyle.

[Purplefluffybunny]

grayson marik, on 19 April 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Sir, we do not need the support from IGP /PGI on this! ( while it would be nice to have it later on as you describe it).
All we need is to be able to drop one group of any size against a SPECIFIC other group of any size together.
No XP no Cbills no rewards at all required.
This simple little ability would make the day for a lot of your customers. And certainly for a lot of the newbies coming in to this game as they can be thought by vets who brought them in in a "save" environment.


And as for the impact on matchmaking or other components... I can see none. because there is none. And well, consider hiring Multitallented for a week to implement this little thingy ^^ ( ok, the last one was a tiny bitter joke at your expense, could not resist) ( Multi, I hope you can forgive me for using you here^^)

I think you make some very valid points and cut to the heart of what a significant number of our community members want.

That said, I don't think they are going to allow us to do this and my reasons for thinking this, extend beyond the idea of creating competition for themselves.

One reason is that you can get a sense of direction and intent by acknowledging that PGI may split the player base into national and supra-national groupings. This is very much contrary to any type of 'private match' system that allows players to choose who they want to play with.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 20 April 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[TheJs]

Jetfire, on 19 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Even in a closed beta you test stuff before you release it to the servers. A PTR just helps cycle testing faster. Do you really want them live tuning the servers throwing bugs in and out all the time making the game unplayable for a lot of people? They are different animals, neither makes this a finished game.

The point here is: If PGI considers the current servers we are playing on to be in a stage where they are not comfortable releasing tunings/testings/tweaks on, then the 'Oh, MWO is in beta' excuse, so commonly used by Beta-apologists, is no longer valid. PGI themselves do not accept the current play servers as suitable for test releases.

The fact that there should be a Public Test Server means there cannot be any excuse for releasing buggy and imbalanced content into the current servers, no hiding behind the giant 'BETA' sign.

.
.
.
I guess PGI are implementing the Public Test Servers because they themselves recognise that despite what is says on the banners and logo, the current played servers for whatever reason is not fit for test/.tweaks/messing about and a more pliable and tunable environment is needed to run their community assisted quality checks.

[Purplefluffybunny]

TheJs, on 20 April 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

The point here is: If PGI considers the current servers we are playing on to be in a stage where they are not comfortable releasing tunings/testings/tweaks on, then the 'Oh, MWO is in beta' excuse, so commonly used by Beta-apologists, is no longer valid. PGI themselves do not accept the current play servers as suitable for test releases.

The fact that there should be a Public Test Server means there cannot be any excuse for releasing buggy and imbalanced content into the current servers, no hiding behind the giant 'BETA' sign.

.
.
.
I guess PGI are implementing the Public Test Servers because they themselves recognise that despite what is says on the banners and logo, the current played servers for whatever reason is not fit for test/.tweaks/messing about and a more pliable and tunable environment is needed to run their community assisted quality checks.

Here, here!

[Geistmd]

I am depply disappointed with most of the answers. Especially i dont undestand how ur able to ignore the community on the MG problem. i'm schocked that u did nothing about this despite all the posts in Forum.

In my eyes u do really bad work here.

[Devil Fox]

Geistmd, on 20 April 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

I am depply disappointed with most of the answers. Especially i dont undestand how ur able to ignore the community on the MG problem. i'm schocked that u did nothing about this despite all the posts in Forum.

In my eyes u do really bad work here.

You know why... they only react to a problem if it looks like it's creating multiple threads and has alot of feedback, they get around it by getting mod's to merge it all into an out of the way combined thread. Therefore the thread get's killed, the combined thread gets a few posts and nothing emerges as a result... oh and "working as intended"...

[ArmageddonKnight]

aww none of my 4 questions were answered

Owell was my 1st time positng in the Questions thread so guess ill try agian next time.

[Gremlich Johns]

I appreciate the answers to all those questions, however,...

The one question I asked that did not get answered was:

When community warfare is implemented, will it be 1st Person View only

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 20 April 2013 - 05:54 AM.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

ArmageddonKnight, on 20 April 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

aww none of my 4 questions were answered

Owell was my 1st time positng in the Questions thread so guess ill try agian next time.

I've been postining in ATD since... I don't remember when, and they didn't answer any of my questions. Guess I make them to hard.

[Duncan Aravain]

Just wish that in one of these sessions the answers that PGI gives would be longer and more informative than the questions asked.

[pesco]

Naitsirch, on 19 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Collisions were mentioned by a dev, weren't they?

Found it, ATD 32 - and the 180 is in ATD 35...

Ahahah, that made me laugh out loud. Bad show!

Reno Blade, on 20 April 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I guess that answers my questions for a heatscale closer to TT with all the penalties (slower movement speed and aiming speed)...
Realy disappointing for the alphastrike-shutdown playstyle.

That they are absolutely ignorant about this has been obvious for a very long time, sadly.

[pesco]

BlueSanta, on 19 April 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

It is AMAZING that you still care so little about voice comms, a STAPLE of multiplayer games, and prefer to say the new player experience sucks because they don't have third person. Seriously, I just have no idea how that is your logical thought process.

I just find it amusing that they felt the need to go through the trouble of adding completely worthless C3 integration only to ignore it for a year afterwards. Talk about wasted resources. When in fact it would be pretty easy to make it useful and solve another problem (socialization, player bonding) by letting random drops stay with the same team over multiple matches. Simple and straight-forward extension of the current system, no grand rewrite required, big benefit. Alas, the time for that would have been months ago, now it's probably moot. Too bad they were so busy papering over all the other crap that wasn't finished because they had spent all their energy on building a Mechlab which does nothing but encourage freak builds and balance breakers. Ah, I'll stop ranting, it gets exhausting.

Quote

I guess Valve had no idea what they were doing with Counter-Strike...10 years ago.

Now you hold it there, youngster. We just got lag compensation, so be thankful.

[pesco]

Purplefluffybunny, on 19 April 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

I know I may get a warning from the mods for saying this but the continued deceptions are really going to come back and bite both PGI and IGP in the arse. A lot of us that play this game are not stupid and can easily see through PR and marketing spin.

I agree completely with the sentiment, but I don't agree with it in the specific instance of providing an unstable test server. You can't run an open beta, or alpha for that matter, paid or otherwise, and horrendously break stuff at every corner. That just doesn't fly and that's okay.

With all the breakage and unfinishedness in this game they should have been calling it a paid alpha from the get-go (think the Minecraft model) AND have a separate test server. The problem is that they pretend this game is essentially finished and only needs the wrinkles ironed out before it's ready for prime time. And that's just BS and everybody sees it. Vis. your comment here.

Edited by pesco, 20 April 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[Arcaist]

Kairae, on 19 April 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

The biggest think from a Public Test server is it allows the community to abuse bugs before they hit the live community and majority of players.

Agreed!

Sure, we are in open beta. But well, the economic system has to be tested as well. Everyone crying about that the game has been released...well, why did you pay for stuff then if you dont like the game or its current state of development?
No one forced you to do so. I for my part did it in order to support the game, like many other projects to it the same way via kickstarter or other crowdfunding projects.

On a PTR, everything might be FREE to get, so we can play around with it, even the mc stuff or skills that usually require tons of GXP. And major bugs can be found before the great outcry of the player majority takes place...

Looking forward to it


And I LOVE the answer I got: Defensive Turrets for the capture spots are on their list.
After release of course, but well..this is an online game, there will ALWAYS be new stuff implemented, the game CANT be totally finished, when its released. T´would be no difference to an offline game then.

[shintakie]

Arcaist, on 20 April 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

Agreed!

Sure, we are in open beta. But well, the economic system has to be tested as well. Everyone crying about that the game has been released...well, why did you pay for stuff then if you dont like the game or its current state of development?
No one forced you to do so. I for my part did it in order to support the game, like many other projects to it the same way via kickstarter or other crowdfunding projects.

On a PTR, everything might be FREE to get, so we can play around with it, even the mc stuff or skills that usually require tons of GXP. And major bugs can be found before the great outcry of the player majority takes place...

Looking forward to it


And I LOVE the answer I got: Defensive Turrets for the capture spots are on their list.
After release of course, but well..this is an online game, there will ALWAYS be new stuff implemented, the game CANT be totally finished, when its released. T´would be no difference to an offline game then.

We're in a friggin BETA.

BETA!

They should be testin things. They should be breakin things and then fixin things. They should be adding to the game and if what they added doesn't work out, take them out. Its the exact reason you're allowed to call it a BETA in the first place. A BETA does not need a Public Test Server unless the point of that test server is to test incredibly radical ideas like third person view or a return of repair and rearm, but even then you're battlin against people not wantin to bother to load up a public test server for a game thats supposed to already be a public test for the release of the game.

[pesco]

Purplefluffybunny, on 19 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

I would say that some features and other limitations have been beyond PGI's technical capacity to solve. Perhaps this is why we have seen a series of recruitment drives.

PGI is what I call an "SDK studio". They are a mod maker (Nakatomi Plaza) turned gamedev.

What it seems we see with MWO is that every time something isn't part of the SDK it ends up "no plans" or throws them off track for months.