Given the lack of full detail on why gameplay of the last year is now not 'normal' and given that a community split is occurring there are questions regrading the implementation that are not answered. I was mostly responding to the notion that 'all will be fine' when there are details missing from the whole story. As for my specific curiosity, I wondered if as a LW PUG I would be disadvantaged in queuing for game in Hardcore mode or (give the 'Hardcore' nature) if there is a place for the LW PUG in hardcore mode. And before an attack is leveled at me I would suggest one reviews the history of PGI communication and then fault me for wanting more explicit details.
The name "normal" means nothing. Stop thinking of it that way. It means absolutely nothing. Normal is 1st and third (assumably actually...it doesn't actually say that 1st can be used in normal), hardcore is 1st only. They play exactly the same as a LW. There is literally no difference aside from which view you prefer and which view you want to play against.
The only difference between normal and hardcore is in the very specific case of merc v merc CW fighting which HAS to be hardcore mode only. And is something a LW PUG will never have to worry or deal with.
Quote
Ghost Badger: How does PGI plan to reconcile Community Warfare matches with 3PV and 1PV? How will they reconcile matches between teams with different preferences? Or do they plan to split the CW mechanic by viewpoint? A: The plan is to have scheduled matches will be FPV only, since these will be performed between Merc. Units. Regular matches will follow the above rules (Normal/Hardcore).
The name "normal" means nothing. Stop thinking of it that way. It means absolutely nothing. Normal is 1st and third, hardcore is 1st only. They play exactly the same as a LW. There is literally no difference aside from which view you prefer and which view you want to play against.
The only difference between normal and hardcore is in the very specific case of merc v merc CW fighting which HAS to be hardcore mode only. And is something a LW PUG will never have to worry or deal with.
You should have a hand in PGI press releases moving forward.
You should have a hand in PGI press releases moving forward.
I really wish they would get ahead of the game. These ask the devs always seem to generate a firestorm for...well pretty much anything. They could have squashed all this nonsense with another update going "stop looking at the name, its a placeholder", and then any sort of minor clarification.
I mean we still have people with the 6 MG spiders or the 3 second Jenners in their sig.
I really wish they would get ahead of the game. These ask the devs always seem to generate a firestorm for...well pretty much anything. They could have squashed all this nonsense with another update going "stop looking at the name, its a placeholder", and then any sort of minor clarification.
I mean we still have people with the 6 MG spiders or the 3 second Jenners in their sig.
Admittedly I am frustrated by the overall lack of information in these and similar Dev posts. The lack of details seems to encourage entitlement on both sides (of any issue) to speculate the best and equally for others to speculate the worst. In both cases its the speculation that seems to make the rain turn to fire.
Merc Corps matches must be "scheduled" (presumably against another Merc Corps)
meaning Merc Corp "A" needs to have 12 of their players online at the same time Merc Corp "B" has 12 of their players online, presumably with each having contracts for the same world.
PGI expects that most people will be "Normal" mode players.
...which would exclude them from Merc Corps play.
Does anyone else see an issue with this?
I mean, already I'm bummed because this means that I'm probably not going to be able to support a Merc Corp with my friends, which is probably the only way we would be able to get to play together in a meaningful way since we support different houses. We only have enough to support a reinforced Lance right now, and even if we did recruit enough for a full Company, we don't always (read: hardly ever) play at the same time b/c we're spread out across the country and have our own lives, even though we all love BattleTech.
Part of the issue I see is that the model for CW has changed very little since it was first discussed in Dev Blog 1. From the beginning they've planned to separate Merc Corps from House faction players. I don't think that's necessary. I've outlined previously in this thread how we can get around having to split the playerbase from Merc and House players, and not require "scheduling" of battles:
DirePhoenix, on 16 June 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:
I was thinking that the way CW (for Mercs anyway) was going to work was this:
You select a contract.
This will determine your pay and "reputation/loyalty points" for the faction that your fighting for during the next match.
This also selects which planet your victory/loss effects on the Inner Sphere map.
You drop into a match.
The matches work pretty much like they do now. If you're in a group, you drop with a group and the rest of the players on your team fill in with:
Mercs fighting under contracts with the same House
Faction players matching the contract holder's House
Lone Wolves
Meanwhile the opposing team fills in with:
Mercs allied with the House that you're fighting against
Faction players allied with the House that you're fighting against
Lone Wolves
This way, each player is fighting for the world they selected the contract for, they don't need a full company of players online to play as a Merc Corps, and Merc Corps as a whole can work for several employers if they want (although reputation progress would go a lot faster if they concentrate on one faction at a time). Also, they wouldn't need to separate out Merc and Faction players, which would increase the pool of available players and cut down on wait times for matches). Yes, this means that not everyone on the same map is fighting for the same world, but unless PGI makes over 2000 maps to represent a portion of each inhabited planet, each map is already going to represent a tiny area on one of hundreds of planets anyway.
Additionally, we can get rid of having to segregate 1st-person and 3rd-person views and still provide something that offers what most people want a third-person view for anyway (taking screencaps and looking at themselves in action): a REPLAY MODE. As I've also said previously:
DirePhoenix, on 16 June 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:
I've been on both sides of the 3PV debate. On the one hand, I want to be able to take screenshots/video of my 'mech (in action if possible), on the other hand, I don't want to actually play from a third-person view (or be stuck in a battle with people making use of the inherent advantages just b/c I want to get some screenshots).
Can't there be a way to record the movements/actions during a match, and then replay that back after the match, like in HALO 3's multiplayer, where you can move the camera freely, take screenshots, and make video/machinima after the battle, where it doesn't effect the actual gameplay? (never got around to picking up HALO 4, not sure if they still have that feature).
Star Trek Online even has a "demorecord" feature where you can record a length of gameplay, and play it back later with a free-moving camera (not attached to your character) so you can re-watch certain moments from a different perspective or get screencaps from an angle that wouldn't normally be available to you in-game.
Here's a video describing HALO 3's replay mode.
So through this, you can ditch a third-person play mode, everyone plays in first person (which means a larger pool of players for everyone), and then if they want to replay the match, they can save a copy of the game data, and load it up afterward, and watch it again, detach the camera from the player and move it around however they want, get the screencaps or even record video, without it affecting active gameplay at all.
I'm disappointed that Bryan avoided answering the SRM question, and instead answered it with a Streak SRM reply.
Bryan, many people within the community are still frustrated that REGULAR srm's are still fairly weak, even with their spread and HSR changes. The question you answered was a great question, and we would still like an answer:
Any plans on buffing the LB10X, or SRM's (not streaks) by 0.1 or 0.2 damage per patch until they "feel" right?
Merc Corps matches must be "scheduled" (presumably against another Merc Corps)
meaning Merc Corp "A" needs to have 12 of their players online at the same time Merc Corp "B" has 12 of their players online, presumably with each having contracts for the same world.
PGI expects that most people will be "Normal" mode players.
...which would exclude them from Merc Corps play.
Does anyone else see an issue with this?
No?
Merc corps play is the guilds of WoW. To raid, you need 10, 15, 20, 25, 40 people or whatever the hell you need these days. It's league play, it's for the competitve e-sports people. It's Navi vs <insert some other DoTA2 team name>.
You want to do CW regular mode for your factions or with a few friends, you can do it in either first or third.
Making merc vs merc 1st only makes sense. As they are scheduled matches, you'd get nothing but screaming (haha j/k they're going to get it anyways) if one team wants to play in 3rd and the other in 1st. How do you compensate for that? You can't deny the battle, because that just means you always say you want the opposite view in order to never have to defend you planet. So you make it just a single default mode. Everyone plays 1st only.
I've been blaming Crytek for their engine woes from day one. They were developers who worked on the Unreal Engine before. Going into unfamiliar and weird territory has risks.
Pretty sure that they had the Cryengine shoved down their throats.
Remember that really great multiplayer game with lots of people still playing from all over the world based on it? Exactly. Again, uncharted territory.
Star Citizen is a direct competitor, when that comes out, expect to see the same freaking netcode issues. Probably worse.
Cryengine is beautiful. However, they admitted that the majority of the player base is running on sub-modern hardware, hence the screaming blue nightmare they have to deal with to optimize it.
How can you blame Crytek? It's not their fault PGI chose an engine they were unfamiliar with.
I really wish they would get ahead of the game. These ask the devs always seem to generate a firestorm for...well pretty much anything. They could have squashed all this nonsense with another update going "stop looking at the name, its a placeholder", and then any sort of minor clarification.
I mean we still have people with the 6 MG spiders or the 3 second Jenners in their sig.
Well, there's also my favorite post about Paul's personal 19 Single Heat Sink K2 that he references in his Coolant thread. You know.. the kinds of things that don't make sense in any part of the meta.
So, Now the 3rd person view that was never going in game is "normal". Nice. I sure feel like a sucker for buying MC now. Call it rainbow mode, I don't care what you call it, but if you let 3PV in game it will dominate, and your true core gamers will be gone. I have no desire to play MechAssault online..... No more MC purchases unless this changes. You guys really need to engage your community more. You have lists of who is buying MC and who is not. How about doing some polling? Easy enough to see where you win/lose. It looks like your on the wrong side of a dollar with this direction from this particular thread.
I dare a Dev to do a chalk-board stick figure de-escalation diagram of this issue.
I will do my best!
You as a player will choose one or two of these options (you can be a merc player and part of Davion or a lone wolf, technically). I'm separating merc group as EXCLUSIVELY for the Merc vs Merc part of CW.
How each "group" will operate.
Picture courtesy of my wonderful and lovely wife who is way better at making stick figure dudes than I am.
I forgot: Merc groups schedule matches against other merc groups for "planetary control"
"Hey, time to try to tell everyone about 3rd person!"
"NOBODY WANTS IT!"
"It's coming soon guys, get excited!"
"NOBODY WANTS IT!"
"Trust us, you'll love it!"
An artist attempts to capture a hard days work on 3rd Person over at PGI:
"Hey, time to try to tell everyone about 3rd person!"
"NOBODY WANTS IT!"
"It's coming soon guys, get excited!"
"NOBODY WANTS IT!"
"Trust us, you'll love it!"
An artist attempts to capture a hard days work on 3rd Person over at PGI:
I do want it; but you guys are too busy going:
"Lalalalalalalalala Every One Agrees with me Lalalalalala"
Prosperity Park, on 17 June 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:
Seriously, do you think they are designing custom cockpits for every single Mech and relegating the player-driven portion of the main campaign to 1PV-only just so they can be thrown away and convert the entire game to 3PV-only?
Is that their intention? No. Will it happen? Maybe.
I'm worried that...
::No 3PV Ever ---> 3PV is easier on new players so maybe in training grounds --> Ok some 3PV to appeal to the masses and increase the player base --> Hey most people like 3PV better --> Let's merge the players since the masses complain about the lack of 3PV in "hardcore" mode::
edit: custom cockpits are a bad example. If they're so difficult to make that they could be used in an "omg do you honestly think they would waste the time doing that" example then they should stop making them and focus on other things.
They're work to be sure, but nothing that can't be scrapped.
Is that their intention? No. Will it happen? Maybe.
I'm worried that...
::No 3PV Ever ---> 3PV is easier on new players so maybe in training grounds --> Ok some 3PV to appeal to the masses and increase the player base --> Hey most people like 3PV better --> Let's merge the players since the masses complain about the lack of 3PV in "hardcore" mode::
Except for the part where the bolded portion never happened.
You as a player will choose one or two of these options (you can be a merc player and part of Davion or a lone wolf, technically). I'm separating merc group as EXCLUSIVELY for the Merc vs Merc part of CW.
How each "group" will operate.
Picture courtesy of my wonderful and lovely wife who is way better at making stick figure dudes than I am.
I forgot: Merc groups schedule matches against other merc groups for "planetary control"
How CW will work in terms of the "modes"
I dared the devs, not you. No offense, as your effort is awesome but PGI does not have a good history of communication, sticking to their word, or implementing logical game mechanics otherwise I would likely be satisfied to hear your proxy assessment.
I dared the devs, not you. No offense, as your effort is awesome but PGI does not have a good history of communication, sticking to their word, or implementing logical game mechanics otherwise I would likely be satisfied to hear your proxy assessment.
If you aren't going to believe anything they say then why ask for anything that you're just going to shrug off and say "can't trust this, its all wrong".
I mean honestly. If you're going to go with "PGI lied, MWO died" all the time, why bother asking the devs for ANYTHING, since you're just going to take whatever they say, proclaim it as a lie, and continue doomsaying for no reason other than to start **** on the forums.
4
This topic is locked
BlackBeltJones, on 17 June 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:
