339 replies to this topic

[AceTimberwolf]

HellJumper, on 06 June 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

nice to hear some E3 coverage..

By any chance are we going to see some gameplay footage??

would be nice if you guys live stream/ record a match and upload it for us to have a look at it

I'll let Piranha deal with that. didn't want to overstep my bounds. Also i would have asked Russ or Bryan if it was ok.

[FactorlanP]

eldragon, on 06 June 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

So weapons don't hit where you are aiming? Gameplay videos/screenshots seemed to show a fairly precise crosshair... seems like a disconnect... like a giant circle would be more apropriate. Does using chain-fire make a difference? Or will players have to dial in their own weapon convergence range?

The way I read it is, there are multiple crosshairs... One for each arm, and one for torso mounted weapons, and they aren't necessarily all pointed in the same place at the same time.

I didn't get the impression that the weapons were missing because they didn't hit where they were aimed. The way I read it, the guy may not have realized that the aim points for arm weapons are different then torso weapons.

[AceTimberwolf]

eldragon, on 06 June 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

So weapons don't hit where you are aiming? Gameplay videos/screenshots seemed to show a fairly precise crosshair... seems like a disconnect... like a giant circle would be more apropriate. Does using chain-fire make a difference? Or will players have to dial in their own weapon convergence range?

Again, its beta. Watched the gameplay videos again, and those weapons are hitting where the crosshairs (both of them) are aiming. So perhaps something has changed... or we just need to play it to get the feel for it.

Thinking about it now I should have shot my AC solo instead of with my laser. Cross hairs help as there is a leading circle apart from your Arm Circle reticule. There was some lag and it played its part too but yea. Hopefully It'll be more clear once we get some time on it in a more controlled environment(ie: Razer laptops=ewww). It feels though that you have to compensate a bit for the "uniqueness" which I'm totally for.

vettie, on 06 June 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Thanx Ace for the report. Nice to hear something from a real guy like most of us, lol (no offense to the Devs).

I know people are loading up on questions to you, oh, wth, me too, lol

Did you notice much about the electronics in mech, such as the radar systems and ecm and or bap or whatever else they might have introduced to the video version? Any info would be interesting and I realize its still early beta.

Thanx again!

Electronics were disabled. No passive radar and such. and I didn't jump into a light. Russ was saying that internally they were doing 12v12 but right now in closed beta its 8v8.

Argh I might have to go play tomorrow one last time... damn lol. Gotta try to get all my meetings out of the way today! (My meetings have something to do with Tsutaya... Stay tuned to your local economic forcast!)

Well maybe not local but you might be surprised if it all goes well

Edited by AceTimberwolf, 06 June 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[AceTimberwolf]

FactorlanP, on 06 June 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

The way I read it is, there are multiple crosshairs... One for each arm, and one for torso mounted weapons, and they aren't necessarily all pointed in the same place at the same time.

I didn't get the impression that the weapons were missing because they didn't hit where they were aimed. The way I read it, the guy may not have realized that the aim points for arm weapons are different then torso weapons.

Correct, I just didn't realize at the time how it worked. Obviously now i have a better sense of how it works. I didn't mean to say that the Aiming was bugged tho. But yea Center Has its own crosshair as opposed to the arms with the smaller cross hair. I can't see yellow very well so i lost it a couple of times cause its so small but I think that was just the Razer Laptops ::Buy Sager = P:: But I hope they keep it the way it is.

[Keizer]

Dose anyone know how well its going to support stereoscopic 3d ?

[Frostiken]

TheRulesLawyer, on 06 June 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

That is 12 average damage that is spread around the mech too. LRMs aren't supposed to be mech killers.

Incorrect, they actually do both.

LRMs do 1 damage each. However, damage is grouped into 5-damage 'blocks'. An LRM-20 will hit an enemy mech in up to 4 locations for 5 damage each. Hitting with 12 missiles will hurt a mech in three places, two for 5 damage each, one for 2.

It's a brilliant way to limit their power while still not being terribly strong.

[Bakarn]

i want VULTURE

[Sky1]

AceTimberwolf, on 06 June 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Exactly, The Scenario was a Jenner to the lower left of me and my AC5 on my Right Arm. as I turned and Shot my Med Laser in my arm hit almost dead on where I pointed and my AC5 including travel time was wide to the right. If i had compensated to the left a smidge to the left i would have hit with my AC5 and my Med laser would probably still have hit. If I had lead a bit more I would have been fine. Just in my head it was "point and it will be done" which dind't happen. Still killed the Jenner tho. All was good.

So Alpha strikes some of your weapons will mis if too close right?

[AceTimberwolf]

Sky1, on 06 June 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

So Alpha strikes some of your weapons will mis if too close right?

Yea if your angle is off from your Mechs setup point of view you can totally miss. Hopefully you don't miss with your torso weapons...that would just be sad

[FactorlanP]

Hey AceTimberwolf... Any confirmation on head tracking gear? And if so, any sign that the arms could be linked to said head tracking software so that the arm crosshairs follow (with some lag) your line of sight?

That would be soooooo cool!

[Frostiken]

FactorlanP, on 06 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Hey AceTimberwolf... Any confirmation on head tracking gear? And if so, any sign that the arms could be linked to said head tracking software so that the arm crosshairs follow (with some lag) your line of sight?

That would be soooooo cool!

And useless.

Have you ever used any head tracking software? It'd be so hard to aim precisely with it that it wouldn't be worth the effort.

[oohawkoo]

thinking about it logicaly the catapult isnt ment to run support on its own anyways =3 two or even three mechs with lrms would ease the ammo problem a lot and theres the option of tweaking ur load out to get more ammo ... tho maybe the damage the missles do needs a little tweaking still dunno =X .... its gonna be a case where supports really do need to support each other a lot maybe the game needs an "attack my target key" and we might find there are other ways of getting more missle accuracy .... and theres the streak missle system thatll improve things a lot later on =3

main thing well have to get used to tho is rembering CONVERGANCE ..(i mean the op already stated what happend when he didnt know and the hunchback vid show what happens when we forget).. getting out of the habbit of just point the center curser at middle mass and fireing will take some time i bet =3... and rembering you can use ur arms seperatly =3

thanks for the info tho and damn the jenner really does sound quite fun =3

[AceTimberwolf]

FactorlanP, on 06 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Hey AceTimberwolf... Any confirmation on head tracking gear? And if so, any sign that the arms could be linked to said head tracking software so that the arm crosshairs follow (with some lag) your line of sight?

That would be soooooo cool!

naw, not from what i remember. i was too worked up going "pewpew" lol. if i go tomorrow I'll let you kno.

[FactorlanP]

Frostiken, on 06 June 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

And useless.

Have you ever used any head tracking software? It'd be so hard to aim precisely with it that it wouldn't be worth the effort.

I'm not so sure. I use TrackIR5 for several games. I think you might be able to build a TrackIR profile that would be useful. In most flight sims, you build your TrackIR profile to be very aggressive so you can get that check 6 view the best. For this application in MWO, you might actually want a much much less aggressive profile, with a good amount of center dead band.

I'm just speculating, but I do think it might be useful.

[Frostiken]

PirateNixon, on 06 June 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

Welp... guess I'm not getting a Catapult for my founder's mech then...

This make me happy.

1) A disproportionate number of people said they were going to use the Catapult over any other. LRM spam is bad, mmkay?

2) LRMs are not and should not be 'destroyer' weapons. I just played a couple quick games with Megamek, and the experience is the same - LRMs can do a lot of damage to a mech, but aren't good at actually destroying it, because they spread damage around and all over the place. A fire support mech's lethality should be limited, because nobody likes a game where a guy half the map away is behind a hillside, waiting for a reticule to turn red, and pushing one button to win.

The fire support of the Catapult should be merited because it's fire support. That you can deal this damage from so far away, and the enemy can do little to stop it is what the virtue of LRMs are.


FYI: I played two Catapults against two Centurions, and the Catapults toasted both Centurions, but not before expending almost all of their LRM ammo. I wouldn't expect anything less (only hit with lasers like three times).

Edited by Frostiken, 06 June 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[AceTimberwolf]

oohawkoo, on 06 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

thinking about it logicaly the catapult isnt ment to run support on its own anyways =3 two or even three mechs with lrms would ease the ammo problem a lot and theres the option of tweaking ur load out to get more ammo ... tho maybe the damage the missles do needs a little tweaking still dunno =X .... its gonna be a case where supports really do need to support each other a lot maybe the game needs an "attack my target key" and we might find there are other ways of getting more missle accuracy .... and theres the streak missle system thatll improve things a lot later on =3

main thing well have to get used to tho is rembering CONVERGANCE ..(i mean the op already stated what happend when he didnt know and the hunchback vid show what happens when we forget).. getting out of the habbit of just point the center curser at middle mass and fireing will take some time i bet =3... and rembering you can use ur arms seperatly =3

thanks for the info tho and damn the jenner really does sound quite fun =3

Yea, if the Jenner was further out from me i would have hit him.

[Kobold]

Frostiken, on 06 June 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

This make me happy.

1) A disproportionate number of people said they were going to use the Catapult over any other. LRM spam is bad, mmkay?

2) LRMs are not and should not be 'destroyer' weapons. I just played a couple quick games with Megamek, and the experience is the same - LRMs can do a lot of damage to a mech, but aren't good at actually destroying it, because they spread damage around and all over the place. A fire support mech's lethality should be limited, because nobody likes a game where a guy half the map away is behind a hillside, waiting for a reticule to turn red, and pushing one button to win.

The fire support of the Catapult should be merited because it's fire support. That you can deal this damage from so far away, and the enemy can do little to stop it is what the virtue of LRMs are.


FYI: I played two Catapults against two Centurions, and the Catapults toasted both Centurions, but not before expending almost all of their LRM ammo. I wouldn't expect anything less (only hit with lasers like three times).

1) Why is "lrm spam" bad? In fact, what exactly is "lrm spam" and how is it different than "large laser/PPC spam"

2) Why shouldn't LRMs be used to destroy things? Where is this normative approach to weapon usage coming from?

3) I would be shocked if two CPLT-C1s could not defeat two CN9-As with equal skill pilots. You've got 50% more weight, and significantly more firepower at every range.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 June 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

However I disagree with the rest of your statement. LRM-20's /used/ to be very good at killing mech's. At least in the table top rules. If I fire two LRM-20's then that's on average 24 damage in 6 groups of damage, which makes it an excellent crit seeker as well as an armor destroyer. That double volley of LRM-20's would strip off somewhere in the neighborhood of two tons of armor. A salvo of LRM-20's is supposed to be damaging and only the heaviest armor is supposed to weather the storm safely and nobody should just let volley after volley rain on them without care.

I do admit that they shouldn't be the best weapon out there, but it's clearly a case where there threat was /substantially/ reduced compared to the TT.

You can kill some eventually with a MG too. That doesn't make it a mech killer. Packet damage weapons spread the damage around. That means they have to remove far more armor than regular weapons before they start causing serious damage. LRM 20's are absolutely dangerous but someone is far more likely to create a hole first with a gauss rifle.

[Alpha Six]

Hey Ace, thanks for the report.

I was wondering what was the control layout for targeting with the arms? The mouse controls the torso twist, but how do you position are mounted weapons?

[Frostiken]

1) Because campy weapons bring game pacing to a standstill.

2) "nobody likes a game where a guy half the map away is behind a hillside, waiting for a reticule to turn red, and pushing one button to win."

3) That they won wasn't the point. That it takes like 10 LRM salvos each to destroy them is.