Jump to content

Ask The Devs 37 - Answers!


148 replies to this topic

#21 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:28 PM

View PostJoker Two, on 03 May 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:


I'm not sure how to feel about this. The first three sentences sound like a denial of the bug's existence, especially since splash damage was supposed to be disabled and so shouldn't be affecting anything. On the other hand, you say they are being tuned. I'm going to reserve judgment and continue posting armor paperdolls.


Splash damage range and amount was reduced; it wasn't turned off entirely - or that was my understanding. The answer confused me as well, but I think it was just poor wording rather than an actual denial or anything.

View PostBlackBeltJones, on 03 May 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

I really wanted this answered and I feel he dodged this one completely.

WardenWolf: Is hiding in 'soft' cover, like trees, intended to be a viable way to hide from enemy view? If so, are you aware that draw distance settings affected by the low <-> high quality sliders can result in mechs appearing to be in thick cover when in the trees, but being completely out in the open and visible from a long distance?
[color=#959595]A: Trees which are destructible (but not turned on currently), do not block targeting.[/color]

http://mwomercs.com/...l-cover-or-not/


I am not sure that he dodged it, but I don't exactly understand the answer either.

#22 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:29 PM

>If you want to know more about military weapons, you will not go on a food site.

So does this mean I can expect a subforum mechs/barracks/atlas/atlas-K/ballistic builds/gauss rifle/master tier/no BAP pr0 headshot?

Sounds a lot like warseer to me. Why would you want to have a common FORUM for people to discuss things, when you can split them into many smaller places? Oh, wait - they had to go back to a general format, because the split killed any and all attempts to keep a community going.

#23 BlueSanta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 373 posts
  • LocationUS

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

Bryan, thank you for finally answering one of my questions, but please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that SSRMs were always hitting the CT, I said they were almost always damaging it. I understand how they randomly target one of five points on a mech, but those five points are the CT, shoulders, and thighs. Splash damage is almost always affecting the CT because of this.

#24 BlueSanta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 373 posts
  • LocationUS

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:38 PM

View PostJoker Two, on 03 May 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:


I'm not sure how to feel about this. The first three sentences sound like a denial of the bug's existence, especially since splash damage was supposed to be disabled and so shouldn't be affecting anything. On the other hand, you say they are being tuned. I'm going to reserve judgment and continue posting armor paperdolls.


It was never fully disabled. Splash damage radius was reduced, along with a missile damage reduction and a multiplier to help reduce the overall effect. However, the hotfix did something to Streaks to make them do what they've been doing since, which is disproportionately damage the CT through splash or whatever the problem actually is.

#25 Geist Null

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 2,619 posts
  • LocationNE PA USA

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:39 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 03 May 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Ask the Devs #37



Pinselborste: Bryan said that UI 2.0 will reduce the need for trialmechs for new players, what does that mean?
A: With the new UI we have the ability to funnel players through a specific training phase, which teaches the player how to play the game, use Mech and Pilot Labs, etc. UI 2.0 + Achievements allow us to reward the players for completing specific key goals. Once the player completes the beginner tutorial, we can gift a `Mech to them, removing the need to use Trial `Mechs as starter `Mechs..

will we be able to go thru the training too and get the free mech?

#26 WardenWolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostBlackBeltJones, on 03 May 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

I really wanted this answered and I feel he dodged this one completely.

WardenWolf: Is hiding in 'soft' cover, like trees, intended to be a viable way to hide from enemy view? If so, are you aware that draw distance settings affected by the low <-> high quality sliders can result in mechs appearing to be in thick cover when in the trees, but being completely out in the open and visible from a long distance?

http://mwomercs.com/...l-cover-or-not/

I think he misunderstood the question :/

We've known for a long time that trees aren't affecting targeting - your Mech's ability to get a lock, etc. However, they affect your visual line of sight if you are in them... but if the enemy is far enough away they won't be drawn for him, so he'll see you as if you were standing in the open.

Maybe I could have phrased it better...

#27 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostJoker Two, on 03 May 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:


I'm not sure how to feel about this. The first three sentences sound like a denial of the bug's existence, especially since splash damage was supposed to be disabled and so shouldn't be affecting anything. On the other hand, you say they are being tuned. I'm going to reserve judgment and continue posting armor paperdolls.


SSRM's don't always hit CT, but they almost always damage the CT(and on some mechs more than others) so it appears that way due to the splash bug. The splash bug has existed all along (and was worsened during the lurmpocalypse), and still exists. They couldn't disable splash entirely because missiles either did too little damage( or would core mechs extremely quickly. Paul explained it in more detail when they nerfed missiles.

Once the splash damage/missile pathing issues are addressed, this will be resolved.

#28 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,363 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:46 PM

View PostTerran123rd, on 03 May 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Allowing 3rd in CW could be a source of a lot of rage. You may want to re-think it.

From what was said: it's essentially "everyone uses it for the match or no one uses it."

#29 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:47 PM

View PostKraven Kor, on 03 May 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I am not sure that he dodged it, but I don't exactly understand the answer either.

I suspect he misunderstood the question.

The problem isn't that you can't target enemies in cover, the issue is that you can't SEE enemies in cover. In this world of ECM and sensor ranges, often eyeballs are required to pick out potential targets.

If you drop draw distances, your ability to fire at targets doesn't change but your ability to simply put eyeballs on them does.

#30 BIix

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 95 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:47 PM

Still no mention of PGI's stance on the state of jump sniping and jump jets in general?

How has this question not been answered by them yet?

The question is, "Is PGI happy with the current meta game where jumpsniping is king?"

The answer should be, "No". As the gameplay is turning off players.

#31 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,363 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:49 PM

View PostRashhaverak, on 03 May 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

What Yoseful said. The catapult head hitbox is huge compared to all other mechs, and in no way is similar in treatment to other mechs with similar visible cockpits on other mechs, except for the centurion and raven. These three mechs have large side areas that are part of the head hitbox.

The difference in head hitbox size is easy to see in the mechlab. The head hitbox in the catapult becomes selected when the cursor touches any glass. By comparision, to select the head hitbox on the cataphract is actually somewhat difficult and only works on the center pane of class, along with the cicada, and along with nearly every other mech. Some like the jenner or stalker side glass can select the head hitbox, but the side glass on those mechs is so small as to make the difference minimal.

The best example of this might be the trebuchet. Click on the side glass panels of the head, and you get center torso. The head on the trebuchet is visibly similar to the centurion, but the two mechs' hitboxes are very different.

I don't know that it's a bad thing that different mechs have differing headbox strengths and weaknesses, but they are definitely not "similar".


Catapult head hitbox is only the top (upper) window pane.
Posted Image
In comparison, how is it not similar in size? If you want a hitbox to complain about, whine about the Centurion. The entire Mohawk counts as the cockpit!

Take a closer look at the Catapult.
Posted Image
See how there are lower, upper, and side panels? Only the upper panel counts.

Posted Image

Yes, it looks big. But you described with the Trebuchet, only part of it counts. It just happens that everyone knows where to aim by now due to the testing grounds. Honestly I rarely get headshots.
Posted Image

------

In this playful fight, numerous times I hit the lower panel and it counts as CT damage. Since I kept accidentally hitting the upper panel as we both bounced, I had to deliberately aim over the upper panel to get a good CT shot to finish him.
http://www.youtube.c...Jxpan1GE#t=384s
Enjoy!

Edited by Koniving, 03 May 2013 - 03:57 PM.


#32 Terran123rd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 406 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:53 PM

View PostKoniving, on 03 May 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

From what was said: it's essentially "everyone uses it for the match or no one uses it."


I can live with that.

#33 Felix Reynolds

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:54 PM

View PostWintersdark, on 03 May 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:


SSRM's don't always hit CT, but they almost always damage the CT(and on some mechs more than others) so it appears that way due to the splash bug. The splash bug has existed all along (and was worsened during the lurmpocalypse), and still exists. They couldn't disable splash entirely because missiles either did too little damage( or would core mechs extremely quickly. Paul explained it in more detail when they nerfed missiles.

Once the splash damage/missile pathing issues are addressed, this will be resolved.


The issue is that regardless of where the missiles *appear* to hit, the main damage allocation for the 'impact' (ie, the 1.5 damage value that Paul spoke of in the hotfix notes) is applied to the CT- if it was merely an issue of the impact locations being so clustered around the CT that the splash damage always spilled over, you still wouldn't end up with the current coring effect as the splash was tweaked down to 40% of main damage *max*. At those values, the side torsos of mechs should be getting far more torn up than they are currently as each 'direct' hit is doing 2.5x the damage of the max splash value- especially when considering most CT values are 30-40% higher than LT/RT armor values.

Also, had a bit of a chuckle at the 'only around 300 people' responding to the forum and HUD bug polls- last I checked, the HUD bug survey (which is rather absurdly detailed) was pushing 500 individual responses, with only around 10% of those saying they had 'no issues at all'.

A lot less 'no plans/no ETA' though, so that's good.

#34 Fenris Krinkovich

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • LocationWestfall, OK

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:00 PM

View PostYoseful Mallad, on 03 May 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Iron War: What is the official reason to why the catipults cockpit is so large, when most other mechs had theirs reduced?
A: If you are meaning hitbox - the head hitbox is similar to other Mechs.

I'm sorry, but the catapult's head hit box is no where near similar to other mechs guys. The catapult is the only mech that has a hit box where you can hit the head hit box from the front, top and sides. The Cataphract has as many cockpit windows as the catapult, yet you still have to hit the center window in the center of THAT window. The atlas and commando have to be hit in an eye and all the other mechs have much smaller cockpit areas of which their hit boxes are even smaller.

So yeah... The over sized, multi windowed hotbox of the catapult is in no way similar ;)

If its hit box was just that center window... Than it would be similar.


My Hunchback would like to have a word with you. As would its right torso.

#35 jay35

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,597 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:09 PM

Bryan gets a gold star for an informative and interesting ATD Answers!
He also gets a ;) for the Hero Mech repainting announcement.

#36 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:13 PM

good to hear their new stance on P2P P2W

seems like they went with a really lame approach for faction community warfare. Basically what we have now. except we can vaguely randomly effect a faction front.

doesn't seem like they will even give us an option of who to attack
This doesn't exactly sound like engaging gameplay

i hope they are open to going back to the drawing board if it doesnt work out.

Edited by Tennex, 03 May 2013 - 04:26 PM.


#37 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,363 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:18 PM

View PostThontor, on 03 May 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

I think this entire post was just an excuse to show off those awesome screenshots ;)


Well, most of those Catapults are me. Why not? ^_^

But seriously though in the vid you can clearly see only the upper panel counts. In the group shot, you can compare those cockpits. The only one with a problem is actually the Centurion (Cataphract only has the top middle panel counting as the cockpit). The Centurion's upper panel counts as the cockpit, this is true. Lower does not count. But here's the problem. The Fin / Mohawk counts as the cockpit and can be destroyed from any angle. This unfortunately makes it the easiest mech to destroy out of all of them.

Edited by Koniving, 03 May 2013 - 04:22 PM.


#38 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:22 PM

View PostTennex, on 03 May 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

good to hear their new stance on P2P P2W

I didn't read anything about that... Bryan's older post HERE kind of summed their thoughts on Premium Time and Merc Corps/Community Events. I did see this in today's ATD answers:

Quote

Broad5ide: If anything in CW requires premium time to unlock will you still be able to access that unlock without premium time?
A: Currently there are no pay-only unlocks, and no plans to add them, other than existing concepts like Hero Mechs.
... but that isn't exactly new info.

However was glad to hear about the Public Test Server coming online soon. I love to bug hunt. I thought it might be invite-only and closed, but if it's open then it'll be a hoot.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 03 May 2013 - 04:23 PM.


#39 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:22 PM

View PostFelix Reynolds, on 03 May 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:


The issue is that regardless of where the missiles *appear* to hit, the main damage allocation for the 'impact' (ie, the 1.5 damage value that Paul spoke of in the hotfix notes) is applied to the CT- if it was merely an issue of the impact locations being so clustered around the CT that the splash damage always spilled over, you still wouldn't end up with the current coring effect as the splash was tweaked down to 40% of main damage *max*. At those values, the side torsos of mechs should be getting far more torn up than they are currently as each 'direct' hit is doing 2.5x the damage of the max splash value- especially when considering most CT values are 30-40% higher than LT/RT armor values.

Also, had a bit of a chuckle at the 'only around 300 people' responding to the forum and HUD bug polls- last I checked, the HUD bug survey (which is rather absurdly detailed) was pushing 500 individual responses, with only around 10% of those saying they had 'no issues at all'.

A lot less 'no plans/no ETA' though, so that's good.

The problem is that SSRM'***** all around the torso, generally. They can hit arms, but only if those arms are interposed into their flight paths.

This is absolutely testable and works fine in the testing grounds, and certainly plays though in my testing.

The missiles hit what they hit, but *EVERY* missile damages the CT. Add in that the missiles seem to actually hit the CT roughly 50% of the time (this varies dramatically based on the chassis and firing angle), 50% of those missiles are hitting the CT, 25% the LT, and 25% the RT. Every impact, however, is damaging the CT but not necessarily damaging the side torsos due to size differences and splash ranges - the missiles that hit the side torsos are still somewhat close to the center, while some center-hits are only damaging the center.

Take a streakcat into the training grounds, fire vollies of SSRM's at various mechs from various angles, and watch carefully where the missiles impact and how many sections they damage.

There ARE pathing issues - this is, in fact, why LRM's where such a problem with the splash bug, and is why the pathing issues matter less with SRM's, but more with LRM's and SSRM's. The higher the damage and tighter the splash (to hit fewer components) the more mechs get centerpunched. The lower the damage and wider/higher the splash the more inconsistent missile damage is as missiles start splashing onto too many components and, in some cases, splashing some components multiple times also resulting in center-punching, as practically all the missiles damage the center in addition to whatever else.

The current work is on getting the missile spread wider, so missiles can impact different locations better without causing too many missiles to miss. That allows splash to be reduced so we don't get the geometry issues we had, without resulting in missiles centerpunching everyone.


TLDR: Missiles are broken, it's not an SSRM problem, it's a missile problem. It'll get fixed when missile pathing gets fixed.

#40 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:35 PM

Dissed on 4 in a row
;)
Sad Llama.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users