Jump to content

Ask The Devs 40 - Answered!


659 replies to this topic

#21 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:53 PM

I'm glad that 3rd person view won't have any effect on the Mercenary side of Community Warfare. Adding that into a system of contract bidding could have been a logistical nightmare, and now I can call myself Hardcore ;) YEAH!!! B)

Prosperity Hardcore Park.

#22 Ellen Ripley

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 200 posts
  • LocationLV-426

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:53 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

3PV
There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. ...



#23 Glory

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,478 posts
  • LocationTartarus

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:54 PM

Nearly every bit of this is horribly disappointing.

But what can we really expect at this point?

Also, when the answers are shorter than the questions... stop being lazy.

#24 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:02 PM

Remember the days when an ask the devs would come out and it would be 50 pages in minutes?

#25 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:03 PM

Mostly disappointing, but at least you're keeping us informed. I'm really hoping that the difference between "hardcore" and regular is only the view. If there are more differences, I will be unbelievably sad.

#26 Krzysztof z Bagien

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 710 posts
  • LocationUć, Poland

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:04 PM

View PostBoyWonder, on 14 June 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:


Hahahahahahahaha

Yeah, I lol'd too ;)

View PostBryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Hammerfinn: Have you thought about individualizing the "Pilot efficiencies" for each mech? IE: having a different bonus for mechs without arm-mounted weapons? If so, what were your ideas, with no pressure on actualization?
A: The core mech

Now that's a good answer!

#27 OvenRude

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 72 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:06 PM

Dev Question: Does it hurt to see your playbase dwindling to "sensitive data" numbers due to poor choices on part of the developers?

#28 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:07 PM

View PostHomeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

Mostly disappointing, but at least you're keeping us informed. I'm really hoping that the difference between "hardcore" and regular is only the view. If there are more differences, I will be unbelievably sad.


I'm wondering why he thinks the player base would play more third person than first person after the response third person got?

#29 Thomas Covenant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,186 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationOn an adventure.

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:07 PM

Quote

Colonel Pada Vinson: Are jumpjets going to undergo tuning for DFA, collisions & better gameplay to bring them inline with battletech values and make them viable for jumping instead of wall-climbing? Jetfire: Right now a Trebuchet with max jumpjets can just barely clear an atlas head - how does PGI invision DFA working with such mediocre jump heights? I am thinking something that could fill a sizeable radius, 200+ meters with smoke for 10-30 seconds.
A: When collisions come back into the game we’ll take a look at each mech and the JJ system to make sure we get the desired results. TT is just a guideline and not really applicable to a realtime simulation.


Would be interesting to see TT powerful jumpjets, that then have a 10 second delay before usable.

#30 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:08 PM

View PostGlory, on 14 June 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Nearly every bit of this is horribly disappointing.


I don't understand why you are disappointed about:
  • 3PV being excluded from Mercenary Warfare
  • Additional Info added to Item Descriptions in UI 2
  • The fact that Lone Wolves will have their own Meta Game rewards, without having to swear loyalty a Faction
  • The fact that a Large Mercenary Corp won't automatically be able to steamroll through the IS
  • They plan on making manufacturer-specific weapon tweaks
  • More significant bases to capture
  • Base defenses
  • Introduction of Tonnage Limits for certain gametypes
  • Headshot notifications
  • Adding the ability to see friendly loadouts
  • Reduction of JJ Screen Shake to more acceptable levels
  • Added Training Grounds functionalities
  • and more upcoming changes with tournaments, Drop Modes, and info on the Test Server
I mean, if everything I just listed above causes you disappointment, then I am very sorry...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 June 2013 - 05:09 PM.


#31 Vulkan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:08 PM

A wild pointlessaskthedevsdontgetanyactualanswersthread appeared!

#32 Tennex

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:12 PM

so 360 radar is end game content?

weird

Edited by Tennex, 14 June 2013 - 05:17 PM.


#33 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:15 PM

View PostOvenRude, on 14 June 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Dev Question: Does it hurt to see your playbase dwindling to "sensitive data" numbers due to poor choices on part of the developers?

Public Response: I think it was a perfectly reasonable business decision to remove the Player Count; just look at how many people are judging the game's "viability" based on the player counter, alone.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 June 2013 - 05:15 PM.


#34 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:18 PM

View PostDocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

I'm wondering why he thinks the player base would play more third person than first person after the response third person got?

Personally, I don't really care about 3PV one way or the other. I think that most people who know MechWarrior oppose it, while anyone trying this game out for the first time would definitely have an easier time getting adapted using third person. Because of the need to attract more than the minuscule community we have now, I understand their decision. Not a fan, but business is business.

I would buy his guess that most people will play the "don't give a ****" queue. Again, my only big concern is that either "hardcore" gets additional problems to deal with or "regular" attempts to make other systems easier on new players.

Whatever, man. I'm just here for the show.

#35 Tennex

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:22 PM

please don't put convergence back in.

Its a very vague and ambiguous/inconsistent mechanic (depending on where ur cursor is before the hit). that doesn't bring a whole lot to the table for the effort.

it wont be fun to always have to remember to put cursors at the ground near the enemy before hitting. will just be a pain in the ***

Its just not a transparent mechanic, and it adds nothing to player skill

Edited by Tennex, 15 June 2013 - 06:38 AM.


#36 OvenRude

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 72 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:22 PM

Well given that this game relies on players to pay the bills, player count is a pretty valid rough estimator of how well the game is doing. More players online = more potential item sales for PGI = more money for PGI. How is that invalid? I run e-commerce sites for a living, and trust me, how many people visit your website is a valid way of telling how well you're doing. More visitors at a rough conversion rate of 2-10% whatever the case may be....more people....more sales....more mooohhlllaah.

If the player counts were super high, they would be publishing those numbers all over the place.

I should note, that when you as a business are not transparent, people begin to not trust you.

Edited by OvenRude, 14 June 2013 - 05:25 PM.


#37 Waking One

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 427 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

How the hell is this disappointing? Lots of good info, especially the stuff about future CW game modes, that was great.

View PostOvenRude, on 14 June 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Well given that this game relies on players to pay the bills, player count is a pretty valid rough estimator of how well the game is doing. More players online = more potential item sales for PGI = more money for PGI. How is that invalid? I run e-commerce sites for a living, and trust me, how many people visit your website is a valid way of telling how well you're doing. More visitors at a rough conversion rate of 2-10% whatever the case may be....more people....more sales....more mooohhlllaah.

If the player counts were super high, they would be publishing those numbers all over the place.

I should note, that when you as a business are not transparent, people begin to not trust you.


Or, just maybe, as soon as the numebrs would go down a little people would be like "HA YOURE LOSING PLAYERS, YOUR GAME SUX" making it even worse.

#38 Tennex

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:42 PM

Posted Image

Edited by Tennex, 14 June 2013 - 05:42 PM.


#39 Vassago Rain

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:43 PM

I'm starting to question your decision to go with cryengine. If you're gonna lower all graphics forever, why didn't you go unreal in the first place?

#40 Tennex

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:43 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 14 June 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:


I don't understand why you are disappointed about:
  • They plan on making manufacturer-specific weapon tweaks




This times a billion. so excited...

i want to see a red large laser like in previous MW games.
(though manufactor specific colors could make lasers confusing for new players. but i don't care i just want my red LL)

Edited by Tennex, 14 June 2013 - 05:44 PM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users