Jump to content

Ask The Devs 39 - Answers!


151 replies to this topic

#101 defcon won

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 45 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:25 AM

Thanks for the answers, looking forward to the next round.
I appreciate the suggestion consideration!

#102 ryoma

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • LocationCA

Posted 03 June 2013 - 10:40 AM

Dat dodging....

The devs should open up a competitive dodgeball team and play on the ocho.

#103 Soy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,689 posts
  • Locationtrue Lord system

Posted 03 June 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 31 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

A: We have an Island Urban map in production right now. Due out late summer/early fall.


...

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkWqqK3i2w

Edited by Soy, 03 June 2013 - 01:06 PM.


#104 Sable Dove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 01:04 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 31 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

MavRCK: Some mechs seem easily to focus fire on specific areas such as the center torso more so than other mechs, ie. Awesome, Cataphract, Highlander. In the past, mechs such as the Catapult with this issue were adjusted (possibly had their hit boxes adjusted)? Would it be possible to look at the aforementioned mechs?
A: Each mech is designed to be have strengths and weaknesses. This can take the form of lager hit boxes or geometry, along with hardpoints and quirks.

So when is the Catapult going to get some strengths to make up for the weakness of having what is possibly the biggest and easiest-to-hit CT in the game, with most of them being reliant on missiles, which are worthless 95% of the time, and brutally overpowered 5% of the time?


View PostBryan Ekman, on 31 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Karl Streiger: Do you consider any changes on the armor distribution? Most players aim directly for the Center - some for the side torso - but in most cases it is cheaper (less time consuming to kill the target)
Shouldn't the gain of disarming a target first be increased over the kill shot? My Ideas were (CT 28%, Legs 13%, SideToros 15% and Arms 7% of total armor)
A: Armor values are based off the TT values.

So let's, instead of keeping shots relatively inaccurate and spread over an entire mech while keeping TT armour, we'll make it so that players can fire all weapons at once at one location with no skill required in aiming, but still keep TT armour, so now instead of the CT taking ~20% of damage, it now takes ~50-80% of the damage, with no relative increase in armour.


View PostBryan Ekman, on 31 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

jay35: Given the prolific nature of modules(resulting in an increasing inability to carry all the relevant modules for a given role, e.g., scouting), when will you be adding additional module slot unlocks to the pilot tree? Or will you be moving some of the current modules to more relevant locations outside of the module mechanic, such as Artillery & Airstrikes to Command Console functions, perhaps Seismic Sensor as an equipment item, etc,so that each role can actually mount all of the relevant modules provided they've unlocked them and purchased them?
A: We do not plan to convert modules or consumables to equipment, as they are designed to be layered and balanced on top of the standard BattleTech rules founds in MechLab. We’re looking at separating modules and consumables, giving both their own separate space rules. And yes we are adding more modules and consumables as time goes on. It is also our intention to make players make a conscious decision as to which modules/consumables to bring to the battlefield, and not necessarily bring everything but the kitchen sink.


If you made them equipment, people wouldn't be able to take "everything and the kitchen sink." However, given that there are generally only a couple modules that are useful, mechs generally run out of useful modules before running out of slots, and since your slots don't take space or tonnage, players are taking everything but the kitchen sink because why wouldn't they?

Edited by Sable Dove, 03 June 2013 - 02:41 PM.


#105 Henchman 24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 528 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:51 PM

Most of this was expected...along with this, sadly..

Quote

Often what is perceived to be an issue, say Win by Capture in Assault, is not actually as big of an issue.


Yes. It. Is.

Well let me rephrase...it is when you jump in your fully armored/armed mech, expecting a fight and end up with what amounts to wasted time...win or lose. Some of your paying players would rather fight, instead of babysitting a useless square just in case some nit wants to cap early thinking it's useful. There needs to be a ten minute restrictive ban on caps after drop. At least then we can hope for ten minutes of battle before somebody runs and caps. Or maybe put in a mechanic that wipes cap progress when receiving fire like in some other game that is modeled very similar to this.

I'd also like to point out the obvious. When CW hits, and wins and losses actually mean something in your progression forward, you will find far less players thinking this is just fine the way it stands after losing territory to fast caps.

Edited by Henchman 24, 03 June 2013 - 02:52 PM.


#106 Kraven Kor

    Member

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

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:38 PM

View PostTennex, on 01 June 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

Win by cap in assaut is not exaclty a telemetry issue.
It is a griefing issue.

It gives very few players the chance to essentially waste 15 other peoples time. The 15 people have dropped to play a heated match of MWO. While that one player drops with the intention of ruining that.

Any measures to minimize this should be taken. Like increasing cap time in proportion to map size


Pretty much my feelings.

Winning by cap is fair game but that doesn't mean it should be as simple as it is. And "guard your base" is hit or miss - guard one match, nobody shows up, your 7 get trounced by their 8 and the guard gets to decide if he wants to run into, or away from, the remaining guns when they go to hunt him down. Next match you are the hero.

#107 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,467 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:58 PM

Mobile Warfare is...well, its about mobility.
There be only 2 maps to big to counter a cap...

Edited by Thorqemada, 04 June 2013 - 04:36 AM.


#108 Major Derps

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostVictor Morson, on 01 June 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

First off, Monkey Mot - please tell me where you get your drugs. Balance builds are nice to pilot right now? The range game is "popular" because people like the ranged only game? Perhaps you were trying to really softball the question, in which case, good for you.

That said, to the answer.. it's good to know that beams will be looked at again soon, but seriously.. this man just told you the truth. Brawlers are horribly inferior right now. Why the lukewarm "We might look at lasers?" Do you guys ever play the game outside of internal matches? I know you do, we've played you before!

Where is the community re-assuring "Yes, we know brawlers are troubled right now, and that's why we plan to improve them." You don't even have to be specific. It'd be nice if you were, but seriously! You don't even sound like you realize there's an issue&#33.
A. The liquor store.

I see your point, but the balanced builds issue was more from my point of view; I love piloting my multi purpose mechs whilst pugging. For organised play however (which by your sig I gather you do a lot of), balanced builds aren't effective; this is where maxed/minimised/specialised role mechs thrive.

Yes, ranged warfare is the easier, lower risk style of play, which I believe is the basis of its popularity; this is why brawlers should be rewarded more for the risk they take, and the difficulty of the play style...there, the blunt version, happy Victor?

#109 Major Derps

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:00 PM

View PostDarth Bane001, on 02 June 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

I still dont think this small developer is able to make a truly immersive mechwarrior game. Their attitude is all wrong with this joke of a ask the devs. They are a small team...this game needs a large team to really make this game live past it's beta stage. I'm tired of playing this game anymore it's gotten stale. I like the older mechwarrior games where you could destroy trees and buildings, I miss having a single player experience.

Also why the hell are they basing this off a board game? This is a video game that uses a mouse and keyboard and um electricity? Why are they basing everything off of this? They are not doing it well if they are I mean just look at the weapon balances in this game?

Why cant we get a real developer that has a larg talented and committed team to giving us the best mechwarrior game ever made? This is a joke compared to the success of the older games.

Sorry for being so harsh but I've put more money on this game than most of the others combined and gotten nothing out of it. So far has been a waste of my time, there isn't a huge population for this game, there is no easy way to add people on your friends list as the match ends you cant go back to the screen, you cant party up with a group you just played like you can in just about any other game out there. This game has so much work to do that it's not ever going to be completed and you guys ask for premium prices on everything from little cockpit toys that dont do anything, there is no music in this game odd physics, no core explosions or eject sequences...

Sorry I'm just pretty much at my limit at what I can take from a dev that isn't cut out for making the game worth my time. Peace out.
They revived a game/genre all other developers/publishers dismissed as dead; and for such a small team, they are doing pretty well. Sorry for being harsh, but suck it up and be patient. I can guarentee I have spent more time and money on this game than you, and my frustrations are equally as high, but you are expecting too much from too little. PGI aren't very good at PR; this seems to escalate people's frustrations.

Edited by Mokey Mot, 03 June 2013 - 07:06 PM.


#110 grayson marik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • 1,436 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:28 PM

View PostMokey Mot, on 03 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

They revived a game/genre all other developers/publishers dismissed as dead; and for such a small team, they are doing pretty well. Sorry for being harsh, but suck it up and be patient. I can guarentee I have spent more time and money on this game than you, and my frustrations are equally as high, but you are expecting too much from too little. PGI aren't very good at PR; this seems to escalate people's frustrations.


If they would only provide a group vs group invite feature, so the players could play the style they want instead of this random boringness.... 8v8 or nothing....

I usually sit around on TS more time trying to syncdrop 8v8 ( or waiting for my/the other team to get 8 man online) than I actually play. And this it is for the most organized players.
Please, just a tiny group invite tool. It is so easy and raises the value of this game by at least 200%!

#111 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 5,379 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 04 June 2013 - 03:20 AM

View PostHenchman 24, on 03 June 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Most of this was expected...along with this, sadly..


Yes. It. Is.

Well let me rephrase...it is when you jump in your fully armored/armed mech, expecting a fight and end up with what amounts to wasted time...win or lose. Some of your paying players would rather fight, instead of babysitting a useless square just in case some nit wants to cap early thinking it's useful. There needs to be a ten minute restrictive ban on caps after drop. At least then we can hope for ten minutes of battle before somebody runs and caps. Or maybe put in a mechanic that wipes cap progress when receiving fire like in some other game that is modeled very similar to this.

I'd also like to point out the obvious. When CW hits, and wins and losses actually mean something in your progression forward, you will find far less players thinking this is just fine the way it stands after losing territory to fast caps.


Its really not an issue. Learn to guard your base, problem solved. If I can win by capping you, then you are doing something wrong.

#112 Cubivorre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 531 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 04 June 2013 - 07:07 AM

View PostJames DeGriz, on 02 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The Sarah mech is an extremely controversial decision, imo. I'd be fine with a commemorative cockpit item, or perhaps a statue on one of the maps, but something that represents the memory of a 5 year old little girl that can be shot at and destroyed is from some perspectives a little sick, despite the good intentions.

Whilst there was indeed plenty of support for the idea, there was an equally high question over whether it was an entirely good way of showing support. I do hope this alternative feedback was considered when this decision was made.

It is not representing the memory of a 5 year old girl - It is a tribute to the type of mech she played - lights. Therefor we would all like to see a light mech hero created for her.

#113 Cubivorre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 531 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 04 June 2013 - 07:14 AM

View PostHenchman 24, on 03 June 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Most of this was expected...along with this, sadly..


Yes. It. Is.

Well let me rephrase...it is when you jump in your fully armored/armed mech, expecting a fight and end up with what amounts to wasted time...win or lose. Some of your paying players would rather fight, instead of babysitting a useless square just in case some nit wants to cap early thinking it's useful. There needs to be a ten minute restrictive ban on caps after drop. At least then we can hope for ten minutes of battle before somebody runs and caps. Or maybe put in a mechanic that wipes cap progress when receiving fire like in some other game that is modeled very similar to this.

I'd also like to point out the obvious. When CW hits, and wins and losses actually mean something in your progression forward, you will find far less players thinking this is just fine the way it stands after losing territory to fast caps.

You should write a joke book.

#114 Fatbat

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • LocationCosta del Sol, Spain

Posted 04 June 2013 - 07:39 AM

View PostCubivorre, on 04 June 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

It is not representing the memory of a 5 year old girl - It is a tribute to the type of mech she played - lights. Therefor we would all like to see a light mech hero created for her.


People die, and in a community like this one, several people are going to die during the lifetime of the game. It's been like this in every other MMO I have played. Instead of creating a special mech for every person we lose, a more appropriate solution is to create a memorial place in the game, perhaps in the credits, or, as in the case of other games I have played, a virtual memorial somewhere in the world that can be visited.

#115 8RoundsRapid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 301 posts
  • Locationupriver

Posted 04 June 2013 - 07:56 AM

View PostAlistair Winter, on 02 June 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

Well, this is what we have. If you want bigger companies to make future games, it needs to be more popular and more profitable. The reason a small company is doing it, is because no one has made a MechWarrior game since the fall of the Berlin wall, give or take a few years.

The MechWarrior games are never going to be mainstream, I think. They've been around a long time without making it.


The main reason these games won't be mainstream is because they continue to use the same horrible game mechanics in each damn game. Poptarts, instant convergence, etc. I've been waiting for over 20 years for a mechwarrior game dev to finally, finally, drop these horrible mechanics that 90% of my BT friends absolutely hate.

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 03 June 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

I think you can take fro the question that the devs really don't know what the people in the forums talk about. This topic has come up so often, the context should be clear. They don't know about it.

Okay, so the devs don't read the forums. That's okay. But apparantly the community managers that are supposed to rely the "gist" of the forums to them, seemed to have missed this topic as well. I guess that makes it clear how useful the forum is for communicating with PGI.


Come on, man, you had to have figured this out long ago, you don't seem naive or stupid to me. PGI said as much many months ago.


View PostMokey Mot, on 03 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

They revived a game/genre all other developers/publishers dismissed as dead; and for such a small team, they are doing pretty well.


It's been dead because of horrible gameplay. Darn near everybody who ever touched a mechwarrior game went into it thinking, 'This is gonna be awesome!' and came out thinking, 'Damn, that sucked.' Seriously, the fatal flaw of the mechwarrior franchise has always been the gameplay. All the devs who've ever made a MW game have moved the game farther and farther from battletech with the justification that 'TT just won't work in a video game,' and the franchise has just gotten worse and worse. It seems obvious, but this (whatever this is) isn't working either. Why not try moving the gameplay back toward the TT? There are millions and millions of BT fans/players around the world, and MWO can only draw a few thousand of those?

And no, for a small team, they are not doing quite well.

#116 SVK Puskin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 822 posts

Posted 04 June 2013 - 08:00 AM

M0rpHeu5: Why don't you put MWO on steam?
A: We’re doing an analysis now.

Hell no! Please keep in your mind that Steam will only slow down/decrease the quality of the connection and i presonally have experience of connection drops because i was using Steam and Skype. Adding game to the Steam may **** up playing the game!!! Please do not do it!!! Many of us have low speed connection!!!

#117 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 5,379 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 04 June 2013 - 08:51 AM

View PostFatbat, on 04 June 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:


People die, and in a community like this one, several people are going to die during the lifetime of the game. It's been like this in every other MMO I have played. Instead of creating a special mech for every person we lose, a more appropriate solution is to create a memorial place in the game, perhaps in the credits, or, as in the case of other games I have played, a virtual memorial somewhere in the world that can be visited.


It can be both, it can even be both in the same game:

http://www.wowhead.c...-of-the-phoenix

http://www.wowhead.c...4727/caylee-dak

Edited by Belorion, 04 June 2013 - 08:52 AM.


#118 James DeGriz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 374 posts
  • LocationRainham, Kent UK

Posted 04 June 2013 - 09:24 AM

View PostCubivorre, on 04 June 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

It is not representing the memory of a 5 year old girl - it's a good cause to get behind to get something we want; a light mech hero created.


FTFY.

Seriously though, whilst you might want a visual reminder of a dead 5 year old child in your game, I would rather it were omitted, or at least a chance to "opt out" via cockpit item or something similar. I was by no means alone in this feeling, and I'm saddened by the fact that that voice has been ignored in favour of some free, good PR.

#119 lateforwork1000

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:41 PM

will this game ever be finish? all Im seeing is just new mechs for ridiculous prices, and no new maps or single player campaign. is there going to be more or is this game already dead ?

#120 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,467 posts

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:57 PM

View Postthatfatguyy, on 04 June 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

will this game ever be finish? all Im seeing is just new mechs for ridiculous prices, and no new maps or single player campaign. is there going to be more or is this game already dead ?


There is much more to come but it takes time.
- Testserver
- 12vs12
- Mechs
- Maps
- UI 2.0
- Community Warfare
- Clans
- Solaris VII
...

Look into this Forum section to find out more:
http://mwomercs.com/...elopers-corner/





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users