124 replies to this topic

[grayson marik]

Quote

grayson marik: Will we be able to match one premade group of any size against an other specific premade group of same size any time soon to prevent the frustration of being forced to syncdrop multiple 4 men groups just to play together with our friends and without not needed nor wanted pug fillers in our match?
A: See previous answer (up a few).

You noticed the SPECIFIC in the question? Not only groups other than 4 or 12 but also ... ah come on, You know!

[TheCaptainJZ]

Archwright, on 17 May 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Re: Elo and new 'mechs
I see your point, I really do. I kitted out my 4SP (my 3rd Hunchback) before I launched it into a single match, and that worked decently well for me. However, when I tried the same thing for my 1st Spider, I got my backside handed to me. That's because it was a whole new chassis, not just a variant. I felt like I was being punished for branching out. By the time I picked up my 2nd Spider, it was less of an issue, but basicing out my 1st Spider was a chore.

What I'm saying is, the system seems an awful lot like a penalty for purchasing wholly new 'mech chassis. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what you want?

That's because ELO is tracked separately for each weight class. Your elo from the hunchback doesn't affect your elo from your spider.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Deathlike, on 17 May 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

So, 32% makes up 2 or less deaths... that's a tad too high.

No, it doesn't add up that way... For instance, those numbers don't add up to 100% and furthermore, we know that 100% of assault matches don't end up in captures. Also, the number of matches is not equal between the lines of how many were killed. There could be twice as many games with only 1 death as 2 for example. You have to take it one line at a time. You could state that about 10% of matches end in captures when there are 1, 2, or 3 deaths. Not 40%

[TheCaptainJZ]

foreversense, on 17 May 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

I am sorry...but the last 3 games i wanted to play it made me crash.it was something about only 128 bites readed from 0.i also crash a lot of times so i hope admins will se this and wont consider it game start farming and exiting.Its a verry big difference.

ok il write the error exactly:

CryEngine Error

FRead did not read expected number of byte from file, only 128 of 0 byteas read


Same bug 5 in a row....even if i made the graphics setup all to medium as it was before.Note: Graphics that i set previously worked for 6-7 games or more


this is the 6 time now

Have you contacted support@mwomercs.com?

[Deathlike]

Koniving, on 17 May 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

I had 2 kills in my first match with one. I play stock rigs every time I buy a new mech, and earn a minimum of 8,000 XP before I start unlocking the basics or changing the loadout (for the PB I went up to 24,000 because the stock build was just right up my alley). It's called play the role. You are ranged direct fire support. Personally I spent my time using friendly stalkers as bullet sponges. That helps.

Of course, a lot of mechs when used incorrectly will suck. The problem is that for the average newbie, the thinking becomes something like this:

Why is my mech dying so fast?
Why does my mech overheat so fast?

There isn't really a tutorial or even much of a hint as to how you use the mech. If we simply go by the stock/paper specs, a newbie would/should probably be scared off from using it altogether.

By comparison, the Jagermech-A is the least "painful" of the stock Jager builds (the DD has an XL engine) and I'd still not recommend for newbies...

[Deathlike]

TheCaptainJZ, on 18 May 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

No, it doesn't add up that way... For instance, those numbers don't add up to 100% and furthermore, we know that 100% of assault matches don't end up in captures. Also, the number of matches is not equal between the lines of how many were killed. There could be twice as many games with only 1 death as 2 for example. You have to take it one line at a time. You could state that about 10% of matches end in captures when there are 1, 2, or 3 deaths. Not 40%

It's a subset (specific distribution of deaths in an cap win) of a subset (win by cap), which obviously makes it much less on the surface. It should still be reduced though, but in the grand scheme of things, it should have a lot more context by map and time.

[Asmudius Heng]

Thank you for answering my question. I understand its probably low priority but its good to see it has been thought about (well thats the jist of the answer i think) but cannot be done yet.

[Cubivorre]

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Cubivorre: Is there a confirmed date for DX11, or at least a 'good chance' ETA?
A: Between now and launch.

Yay, my question was answered. Very vague, but at least I know within a few months now! I'm assuming it's not a high priority at the moment.

[Koniving]

Deathlike, on 18 May 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Of course, a lot of mechs when used incorrectly will suck. The problem is that for the average newbie, the thinking becomes something like this:

Why is my mech dying so fast?
Why does my mech overheat so fast?

There isn't really a tutorial or even much of a hint as to how you use the mech. If we simply go by the stock/paper specs, a newbie would/should probably be scared off from using it altogether.

By comparison, the Jagermech-A is the least "painful" of the stock Jager builds (the DD has an XL engine) and I'd still not recommend for newbies...

With UI 2.0 and the upcoming in-game tutorial, "the need for trial mechs will be eliminated altogether. The player will go through a step by step training and by the completion of it the player will have enough cbills to buy their first mech and a little bit of experience with each class."

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

Thontor, on 17 May 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Yeah, cause obviously you know better than him how many active players there are playing MWO.

I'd be pleased if they could share this knowledge with us. But they don't want to do it, so educated guess is all we can do.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Ever since i started reading the Q7A threads, and evne asked a few questions that have yet ot be answere, when i read the answeres i always end up feeling less and less confident MWO will be a worty game to play when its released.

I mean come on ..really ?

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Sparkymarkyp: Are more damage textures going to be added to mech in the future? i.e. dents, bullet holes, armour panels blown away, sparking internals fires etc
A: For performance reasons, we have opted to reduce the amount of detail currently available. As time goes one, and players update their equipment, we can explore adding back in more fidelity.

Featherwood: On all maps I regularly see 'terra-morphing miracle', landscape geometry flexes and changes - that's really annoying at times. Is there ETA for fix or any workaround how to stop it?
A: This is intended behavior and part of the Level of Detail (LOD) terrain system inside the CryEngine. Popping/clipping/missing geometry on the other hand are either rendering bugs, or video card driver issues.

You seriosly telling me that your ok with the level of fidelity in the game currently? The terrain morphing issue is appauling, the texture overlays of damage are amaturish and very basic. And the general level of detail at max settings is woefull.
As for performance, honestly its perfectly fine atm, only those with ancient or non gaming computers are having an issue, and if u continue to use them as ur benchmark point then this game is going to continue to look like a game from 2005 for ever

CryEngine 3 came out in 2009 IIRC, it has massive potential. And yet your nerfing it to hell land back, why ? i suspect ur doign it for money reaosns, u want every1 to be able to play even if they are running a comptuer from back in 2005. it makes me sad that even the companies who put themselve forward as 'we are gamers like you and want a great game' are instead screwing it over just so they can get the numbers of peope playing up and thus their income for microtransactions.

[Phoenix Branson]

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Maverick01: Would you consider adding Mech Biographies to the Mechlab for UI 2.0? Basically, the Mech Bio would give a description of the BattleMech, along with history, role, and capabilities. The Mech Bio would also show the lore behind Hero Mechs. This would be a great addition for new players and veterans alike!
A: Yes, we plan to add a lot more descriptive lore about each BattleMech and Item in the game.

Not many people like to ask questions about fluff, so I did. I'm glad they are adding descriptive lore at some point.

[hammerreborn]

TheCaptainJZ, on 18 May 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

No, it doesn't add up that way... For instance, those numbers don't add up to 100% and furthermore, we know that 100% of assault matches don't end up in captures. Also, the number of matches is not equal between the lines of how many were killed. There could be twice as many games with only 1 death as 2 for example. You have to take it one line at a time. You could state that about 10% of matches end in captures when there are 1, 2, or 3 deaths. Not 40%

Quote

19% of all games end in capture.

Oh those, those are the percentages of how many people are dead before a capture is made (i.e. the great majority of captures happen with more than 3 deaths on the losing).

It's unclear which side has the deaths, going to guess the losing, but it's clear its based on one team because 10% of 19% is 1.9%, and only 1.2% of all matches end in 0 deaths total. I also assume it's loser team because one of Bryan's earlier tweets stated that most of the capture games end with 7 deaths on the losing team, and 26% is by far the largest number in that list (and nearly twice as common as if there was an even distribution overall).

It's also clear it's a single team because it only goes up to 7 deaths.


EDIT: IT's loser

Quote

Interesting stat - 19% of Assault wins come from Base Caps. 81% of Assault victories come from destroying the opposition.

Quote

[color="#0066cc"]Bryan Ekman‏@bryanekman25 Apr[/color]
@mishagale 26% of win cap matches end with the losing team having 7 deaths.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

ArmageddonKnight, on 18 May 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Ever since i started reading the Q7A threads, and evne asked a few questions that have yet ot be answere, when i read the answeres i always end up feeling less and less confident MWO will be a worty game to play when its released.

I mean come on ..really ?

You seriosly telling me that your ok with the level of fidelity in the game currently? The terrain morphing issue is appauling, the texture overlays of damage are amaturish and very basic. And the general level of detail at max settings is woefull.
As for performance, honestly its perfectly fine atm, only those with ancient or non gaming computers are having an issue, and if u continue to use them as ur benchmark point then this game is going to continue to look like a game from 2005 for ever

CryEngine 3 came out in 2009 IIRC, it has massive potential. And yet your nerfing it to hell land back, why ? i suspect ur doign it for money reaosns, u want every1 to be able to play even if they are running a comptuer from back in 2005. it makes me sad that even the companies who put themselve forward as 'we are gamers like you and want a great game' are instead screwing it over just so they can get the numbers of peope playing up and thus their income for microtransactions.

LOD changes 100m from you. Do they really WANT it to work like this? And the damage textures - adding one or two to choose from to show different effects from laser, ballistics and missiles impact wouldn't affect performace that much (if at all).

Every time a game dev says "working as intended" I understand he says "**** off".

[Kaeb Odellas]

nonononononoNONONONONONOOONOOOOOOOOO

With BAP buffs in the next patch without a corresponding SSRM fix, that's ******* two weeks of Streakwarrior: Online.

This is terrible

[Zaptruder]

If I forget to ask this question in the next "Ask the Devs", can you guys copy paste it for me? I missed this one by like a few hours.

Question:
In the weapon grouping list, why are arm weapons listed as right arm first and left arm second, while torso mounted weapons seem to be listed CT, LT and then RT? Would it be possible to have the weapons listed from left to right, top to bottom? Or even better yet, have the weapon locations identifiably marked on the weapon list, so that you're in no doubt as to what weapons are located where.

[Corvus Antaka]

Some of you have way to much rage. Yeah, some of the damage textures are weak right now, but for a cryengine game the game runs really well on both old AND new hardware. Myself with ultra high settings I find the game very very pretty graphically, maybe you just aren't doing it right

My only gripe is lack of deformable terrain & destroyable buildings/trees, something that hopefully in the future we will see.

[Ngamok]

Featherwood, on 17 May 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Exceptionally interesting AtD session, one of the best withing my recollection. Lot of questions which I longed to be answered. Good job, gentlemen, separate thanks for selecting my question.

P.S.
Few sad conclusions I draw out of AtD38:

• We won't see King Crab in the future, that leaves only few suitable choices for 5th assault (Zeus?)
  
• No options to stop tetra-morphing except user.cfg modification (I'm still working to figure out the best way to do it)
  
• No PPC-boating and poptarts balance at least for one more month

As far as Assaults go, I was hoping he would answer my question with what the 5th assault was. But besides the Zeus, there is the Victor, Thug, Cyclops, Banshee as well and the Hatamoto-Chi which is based off the Thug.

[BlueSanta]

aniviron, on 17 May 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

As much as I liked RnR as a balancing mechanic at low-level play, it becomes obsolete as players progress through the game. DHS vs SHS has the same problem- if there is no choice to be made, why are both options in the game? It's an engaging mechanic for a while, but a better game mechanic is engaging forever.

It's in game from a historical prospective. DHS didn't become widespread until the recovered LostTech did. After that followed Clan DHS.

[Deathlike]

Koniving, on 18 May 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

With UI 2.0 and the upcoming in-game tutorial, "the need for trial mechs will be eliminated altogether. The player will go through a step by step training and by the completion of it the player will have enough cbills to buy their first mech and a little bit of experience with each class."

I worry about now, not just the foreseeable future. Anything that continues to hurts the newbies, will continue to resonate in the future until THINGS ACTUALLY CHANGE. It's kinda like how some people/groups/whatever have a bad reputation.. and despite their efforts to try to change their image, the lingering effects of bad pub can continue to haunt them. Not all newbies ragequit, but I cannot help think that we could have had a bigger and better playerbase had some of these issues had been addressed long before the major disaster of a system known as the trial mechs.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 May 2013 - 01:56 PM.