1139 replies to this topic

[TheSteelRhino]

Thanks for the update. Hopefully the schedule doesnt slip to much

While I was looking forward to the Orion, I think its better to have a mech that is ready to go. I assume there was a problem with the Orion

But, when can we get a 55 tonner? (Please, no hoplite)

[shellashock]

I wonder how many people thought that 3rd person view meant world of tanks style 3rd person view compared to the number of people who thought that 3rd person view meant a fixed mw4 style view with the camera close behind the mech, but the camera is fixed to legs, not torso twist. The camera is locked to the legs, so torso twisting is useless for looking around a corner without actually turning the corner. I think that it is possible for third person view to be done correctly and not be overpowered, but i find it unlikely that PGI could pull it off; due to their track record. Still, it is coming out to a test server, not a live server. This means they will want lots of community feedback after implementing it on the test server. There is no point in saying that 3rd person view is op and won't work unless you see how it will be implemented, so I will reserve judgement until I can see what it will turn out like. All I can say now is that PGI better make perfectly sure that 3rd person view is balanced on the test server before even thinking about pushing it to the live servers.

Edited by shellashock, 13 June 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[BFett]

shellashock, on 13 June 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

I wonder how many people thought that 3rd person view meant world of tanks style 3rd person view compared to the number of people who thought that 3rd person view meant a fixed mw4 style view with the camera close behind the mech, ... I think that it is possible for third person view to be done correctly and not be overpowered, but i find it unlikely that PGI could pull it off; due to their track record. Still, it is coming out to a test server, not a live server. This means they will want lots of community feedback after implementing it on the test server.

One can only hope that we get a 3rd person view such as those in the Mech Commander series where enemy location is not given without direct line of site. I fear that we will indeed get a MW4 style 3rd person which could make exploits possible if rendering is done incorrectly.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Adridos, on 04 June 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

Sure, it's on the near top of my "Looking Forward To:" list... right under armageddon and nuclear winter.

Edited by mwhighlander, 16 June 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[TICAL]

Sweet - Sarah's Mech - Respect to PGI for listening to their community and caring..

[Chemie]

"test servers in June"??? really? The June updated misses what they can even implement that month?

[Kunae]

Chemie, on 19 June 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

"test servers in June"??? really? The June updated misses what they can even implement that month?

Pft...

They obviously need more testing...

[Henree]

do the test servers have community warfare?

[RandomHotguy]

Sybreed, on 04 June 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I don't want to be a smartass here, but playing balanced builds (okay, playing an Awesome on Caustic sucks no matter what) solves most of your problems Just don't boat stuff and you'll be fine in most scenarios.

I completely agree with you Sir, if people can't build mechs that can fight under any condition then thats their problem. The day I have to play opponents that have specialized mechs for every map, is the day I quit this game. I'm sick and tired of beeing killed by fucktards in "extreme" builds on maps that favours those builds, so much that I don't feel the slightest sorry for them when they get dropped on a map in the other end of the scale. 6x PPC Stalker shreddin' on Frozen City, then QQ when dropped on Caustic or Desert?, well FFFUUU. Slow-azz dual AC20 Jaeger shreddin' in River City, then QQ when dropped on Alpine?, well FFFUUU. 5x15 LRMs Stalker ripping people apart on any slightly open map, then QQ when you struggle to get a lock on Canyons?, well FFFUUU !!! As a sidenote here I will add that I find ASSAULT-mechs doing sniping or firesupport, whilst their medium and heavy teammates soak damage doing the closeup fighting, completely ridiculous. Thank you for taking the time to read my rant, now please go build a mech that makes sense, and can fight anywhere, provided the pilot is sufficiently skilled ofcourse !

[MWHawke]

FeuerFrei, on 20 June 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

I completely agree with you Sir, if people can't build mechs that can fight under any condition then thats their problem. The day I have to play opponents that have specialized mechs for every map, is the day I quit this game. I'm sick and tired of beeing killed by fucktards in "extreme" builds on maps that favours those builds, so much that I don't feel the slightest sorry for them when they get dropped on a map in the other end of the scale. 6x PPC Stalker shreddin' on Frozen City, then QQ when dropped on Caustic or Desert?, well FFFUUU. Slow-azz dual AC20 Jaeger shreddin' in River City, then QQ when dropped on Alpine?, well FFFUUU. 5x15 LRMs Stalker ripping people apart on any slightly open map, then QQ when you struggle to get a lock on Canyons?, well FFFUUU !!! As a sidenote here I will add that I find ASSAULT-mechs doing sniping or firesupport, whilst their medium and heavy teammates soak damage doing the closeup fighting, completely ridiculous. Thank you for taking the time to read my rant, now please go build a mech that makes sense, and can fight anywhere, provided the pilot is sufficiently skilled ofcourse !

Actually, I don't think it's a rant. It's actually a good post in logic..

[Grendel408]

evlkenevl, on 12 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

The first five pages of this thread contain only one post expressing any desire to see 3rd-person view. The majority of posts in those same pages voice a strong dislike for it. I didn't read through the entire thread, but I'm guessing it's about the same. Why in the world is this being forced on us? It really is like Smedley all over again. (Don't know? Look up Smedley and SWG.)

When something this unwanted and unnecessary is still being crammed down our throats, darn right we're going to be upset.

Issue is... not everyone enjoys being in 1st person perspective... and a lot of fans here most likely came from games of 3rd person perspective... or were fans of Mechassault, and I can't blame those who were in the MA and MA2... I know I was, but it took a lot of adjustment to pry my brain away from 1st person into 3rd... Initially I remember 3rd person being looked down on by the Devs, while it was still "in the works" of discussion well before closed-Beta days... Gotta cater to the masses... some things will never happen due to the complexity of integrating too many things into one server... let's hope they separate servers from 1st person and 3rd person perspectives...

[ICEFANG13]

No building balanced mechs is dumb, unless you count PPC+Gauss doing great damage up close and far away as balanced. Its far better to simply shoot people with long range weapons, and because those weapons are so efficient, even at close range, you just continue to use them. By the time a balanced mech gets close enough, if they survived, you would have taken a fraction of the damage, and then they are just equal to you in power now that they are close enough.

Maps are also small, and/or poorly designed (that's not to say I don't enjoy a few but). Most maps will favor you bringing the correct load out in max, and the larger ones, which long range weapons can do well in (assuming that everything is balanced) would dominate. Making complex maps that are easy to understand is key for short range mechs being able to get close, while having a large map (both realistically, its a large map, or just the way it plays, kinda like River City, which ends up being big because of its complex design, but isn't really big) lets long range weapons do well.

[The Reaper Beckons]

evlkenevl, on 12 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

The first five pages of this thread contain only one post expressing any desire to see 3rd-person view. The majority of posts in those same pages voice a strong dislike for it. I didn't read through the entire thread, but I'm guessing it's about the same. Why in the world is this being forced on us? It really is like Smedley all over again. (Don't know? Look up Smedley and SWG.)

When something this unwanted and unnecessary is still being crammed down our throats, darn right we're going to be upset.

I clearly don't post much. This topic however draws me out.
3rd person point of view? BAD idea

[repete]

Hammertrial, on 05 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

You know, I'll take that apology now.

Aren't you supposed to be proving me wrong about the devs confirming the Orion?

Right. I'll post this here, and send you a PM...

Firstly I'll outline the process I have used:

1) I asked Syllogy what information he based the Orion release as the next heavy on as being "Confirmed" and his response was:

"The statement was made in one of last month's [NGNG] podcasts"

2) I had the following conversation with Bryan Ekman via Twitter:

https://twitter.com/...461734386270208

Me - "Hey Bryan. Do you think it inaccurate or unfair of players to have been under the impression the Orion was next?"

Bryan - "if we had said x mech is being released in y month, and then changed it without notice, sure. That's not the case here though."

...Note this does not answer the question. The question wasn't "Did you specify a date for the release of the Orion?". The question was effectively "[Was it fair to believe the Orion was next?]" so I tried to clarify:

Me - "Thnx 4 reply. Given level/nature of info available 2date, do U find it reasonable sum had impression/expectation Orion was next?"

...Bryan did not reply. Many possible reasons, but my interpretation of the lack of an answer is, because the answer is "Yes".

I have not had the time or ability to search through prior episodes of NGNG (Yet!). However, in listening to NGNG #74 today, at 42:00 Brandon from NGNG states:

"...June we confirmed for the Orion, cause that's when Bryan was on the show and he said it was going to be Blackjack, Orion and then it was kind of up in the air..."

...Is this enough? I'll take the apology now. However, IF you're going to require me to actually cite Bryan's comment on the NGNG podcast (Which will take time I don't have available), I'll add the requirement that when I cite that, YOU then have to permanently link your apology post on your forum profile. Do you agree to that, or are you willing to capitulate now, and follow the prior details of the agreement?

Edited by repete, 23 June 2013 - 06:56 PM.

[Zeus X]

repete, on 23 June 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Right. I'll post this here, and send you a PM...

Firstly I'll outline the process I have used:

1) I asked Syllogy what information he based the Orion release as the next heavy on as being "Confirmed" and his response was:

"The statement was made in one of last month's [NGNG] podcasts"

2) I had the following conversation with Bryan Ekman via Twitter:

https://twitter.com/...461734386270208

Me - "Hey Bryan. Do you think it inaccurate or unfair of players to have been under the impression the Orion was next?"

Bryan - "if we had said x mech is being released in y month, and then changed it without notice, sure. That's not the case here though."

...Note this does not answer the question. The question wasn't "Did you specify a date for the release of the Orion?". The question was effectively "[Was it fair to believe the Orion was next?]" so I tried to clarify:

Me - "Thnx 4 reply. Given level/nature of info available 2date, do U find it reasonable sum had impression/expectation Orion was next?"

...Bryan did not reply. Many possible reasons, but my interpretation of the lack of an answer is, because the answer is "Yes".

I have not had the time or ability to search through prior episodes of NGNG (Yet!). However, in listening to NGNG #74 today, at 42:00 Brandon from NGNG states:

"...June we confirmed for the Orion, cause that's when Bryan was on the show and he said it was going to be Blackjack, Orion and then it was kind of up in the air..."

...Is this enough? I'll take the apology now. However, IF you're going to require me to actually cite Bryan's comment on the NGNG podcast (Which will take time I don't have available), I'll add the requirement that when I cite that, YOU then have to permanently link your apology post on your forum profile. Do you agree to that, or are you willing to capitulate now, and follow the prior details of the agreement?

PGI did this {Shazbot} with 3PV, saying 3PV will never happen and look what we have now.

PGI has lied on multiple occasions and they don't give a rats a$$ about the community anymore, it has been further proven by the mass amount of censorship on the forums.

[Alabaster Black]

DCM Zeus, on 25 June 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

PGI did this {Shazbot} with 3PV, saying 3PV will never happen and look what we have now.

PGI has lied on multiple occasions and they don't give a rats a$$ about the community anymore, it has been further proven by the mass amount of censorship on the forums.

It may be more of a communications/resource issue. As this is seems to be a crowd funded project, perhaps they are strethched a little thin. Anyway, I am enjoying the game and look forward to todays patch.

[Evax]

no patch today sir

[Wieland]

Evax, on 25 June 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

no patch today sir

Sarah mech.

And while we are at it, Bryan dont forget the July CDU.

[Evax]

umm....ok sure..any "issues" being patched....not a patch

[stjobe]

Evax, on 25 June 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

no patch today sir

Wieland, on 25 June 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Sarah mech.

And while we are at it, Bryan dont forget the July CDU.

It's ten minutes to the usual patch time and there's no announcement of any patch. Either the patch isn't coming, or the communication has fallen to a new low.