270 replies to this topic

[tommilator]

ROJ, on 30 June 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

[size=4]Like I said, I dont care about 3pv, I am not saying it must not exist but somebody saying the devs should dedicate alot of time and effort to integrate 3pv just because they want to admire their mech's paint job in-game.. Is not too different than those asking LRMS to be nerfed because they are not bothered to take cover behind a hill..

I'm afraid its a done deal with development time already spent and so be it. Personally I would have liked the hours going towards functioning cockpit monitors, flickering and cracking as my mech take damage and heat levels rise. Maybe down the road after launch?

I'm also convinced that pugs will eventually be mixed only and 1pv only is an option for private/league matches and Solaris arena combat.

Comparison with weapon nerfs went straight over my head.. Pretty sure its feedback from some focus group on how to lure in more paying customers, without whom we'll find ourselves back in another mechless decade

[anonymous161]

They are really making it hard to want to play this game any longer. So far I have had more fun with mechassault than this...That's saying a lot. At least mechassault had a decent story, at least a story whatsoever. Too many things could make this game be really cool and unique but we will never ever ever see them in this game. I think I will just wait for the next gen to bring out some cool mech titles. This one has lasted long enough for my interest.

Thanks for the attempt but I'm just gonna move on. There is no more point in grinding out for points. I haven't liked any of the mechs released, and there is no ranking system to show how good you are. No party system, no mic system, there just isn't a real point in winning or losing.

[BlackBeltJones]

Just think all PGI would have to do is release a short video of their internal 3PV gameplay and the truth of the statements would be known and no valid argument against it could occur - that is unless your video shows what we already (likely) know.

[Inconspicuous]

Coolant, on 28 June 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

Rejoiced at the mention that MWO will have 3PV. Look at the 3rd Person threads and I think all the 1st Person only players have wedgies...and yes, I did say all...

Complaining about other people having other opinions. Maybe you should get out more...

Edited by Inconspicuous, 30 June 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Bryan Ekman, on 28 June 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Slide: Are the continual delays and lack of fixes to net code for example, caused by deep seated issues within the Cryengine architecture? If so, why is there no support from the Cryengine developers the same as any other paying customer would get from a supplier?
A: I’m not sure exactly what net code delays you are speaking of. We’ve introduce a series of major changes over the last 4 months that fall all contributed to better performance all around. There can/will always be edge cases where performance may suffer. A lot of them are out of our control, player hardware, state of the global network, weather, etc..

I suppose the question could have been worded a bit differently, but it remains unanswered.

The question is: Are the problems that were identified many months ago and still are not fixed yet (the netcode issue**, for example) caused by deep-seated issues in the CryEngine architecture? If so, why aren't you getting support from the CryEngine devs like any other paying customer does?

** The netcode issue being when 'Mechs go too fast and cause targeting issues for anyone trying to hit them. You know ... the reason why there's a (tonnage x 8.5) engine rating limitation when there shouldn't be.

I really would like this resolved as well, since it severely limits the speeds of the light 'Mechs I like to pilot. The Jenner should be able to go around 151 kph without speed tweak, and the Spider should be able to go around 185 kph without speed tweak. The Locust definitely should be able to have an engine that's bigger than 170 rating. The role-based engine limits are fine, but that netcode-enforced limit sucks.

[Corvus Antaka]

best answer

A: Ideal balance would be a middle ground where most weapons, mechs, and equipment are very useful in specific situations, and weak in others. We need to tweak a lot of aspects still, so we’re definitely not there yet, but as you said, we’re getting closer and we continue to chart a course to a nice balance.

nice Q/A

[NocturnalBeast]

BlackBeltJones, on 30 June 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Just think all PGI would have to do is release a short video of their internal 3PV gameplay and the truth of the statements would be known and no valid argument against it could occur - that is unless your video shows what we already (likely) know.

This is a great idea. With one informational Star Citizen style video (yes, I know they hate to be compared to other games) PGI could make people stop complaining about lack of communication; make people who want 3PV happy and maybe sway some of us who don't want 3PV.

[Devil Fox]

Edward Steiner, on 30 June 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

This is a great idea. With one informational Star Citizen style video (yes, I know they hate to be compared to other games) PGI could make people stop complaining about lack of communication; make people who want 3PV happy and maybe sway some of us who don't want 3PV.

But that would be logical... that would be sensible... and that would mean some communication on these boards in the areas that require the attention (you know those forums they don't even enter). If they did, it wouldn't be advertised but through other media, first we need PGI actually COMMUNICATING with their forum community instead of around it, because we know we ain't going anywhere, but PGI's current path will lead them somewhere early...

[Tekadept]

Hmm wow this thread is only up to page 8.. most other ask the devs have had more responses up to around 20pages at least by now.. Hmmmm...

[Devil Fox]

Yea but then Tek, they tend to actually have material in them that's controversial, new, not as described, or generally talkable... like the survey question last one...

This AtD is all 'after launch', 'under consideration' and really just a wall of bolded questions with no-answer one liners to old dated information all of which could've been answered in their appropriate threads on these forums instead of picked by come community mod to be given to the intern...

I think people are slowly just giving up on anything coming from PGI's lips...

[Farix]

Edward Steiner, on 30 June 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

This is a great idea. With one informational Star Citizen style video (yes, I know they hate to be compared to other games) PGI could make people stop complaining about lack of communication; make people who want 3PV happy and maybe sway some of us who don't want 3PV.

I seriously doubt a video will do anything to settle the storm. In fact, it may make all the QQing worse. Players who vehemently hate the inclusion of 3PV will continue to hate 3PV and all the video will do is give them more ammunition to vent their hatred.

[RedDragon]

BlackBeltJones, on 30 June 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Just think all PGI would have to do is release a short video of their internal 3PV gameplay and the truth of the statements would be known and no valid argument against it could occur - that is unless your video shows what we already (likely) know.

The problem with this is that it doesn't fit with the way PGI handle's difficult situations.
The logical way to do it:
1) Observe what the community wants to have in the game
2) Announce that you have a feature you'd like to implement, provide the community with details and ask for their feedback
3) Listen to the feedback and make changes accordingly
4) Profit

The way PGI does it:
1) Find something the community doesn't want
2) Say that you'll never implement it
3) Say that you'll maybe implement it
4) Say that you'll implement it
5) Ignore any feedback and don't provide any details after it's implemented
6) Implement it and ride out the wave of negative feedback by ignoring it
7) Lose customers

This may be a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point. The only thing such a video would accomplish now is that the community would have hard evidence why it's a bad idea to implement 3PV (and it is – I and most other people here can't imagine any way to add 3PV without adding some kind of advantage, even PGI told us there would at least be some minor advantages by using it). So they could either publish a video, listen to all the feedback and overhaul the complete system or just scrap it.
Or they could push 3PV through and as most of the time ignore any feedback and wait until the storm has settled.

[Blood78]

Thank you for answering my question. Hurray ladders! Can't wait till it is in.

[Bagheera]

Durant Carlyle, on 30 June 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

I suppose the question could have been worded a bit differently, but it remains unanswered.

The question is: Are the problems that were identified many months ago and still are not fixed yet (the netcode issue**, for example) caused by deep-seated issues in the CryEngine architecture? If so, why aren't you getting support from the CryEngine devs like any other paying customer does?

** The netcode issue being when 'Mechs go too fast and cause targeting issues for anyone trying to hit them. You know ... the reason why there's a (tonnage x 8.5) engine rating limitation when there shouldn't be.

I really would like this resolved as well, since it severely limits the speeds of the light 'Mechs I like to pilot. The Jenner should be able to go around 151 kph without speed tweak, and the Spider should be able to go around 185 kph without speed tweak. The Locust definitely should be able to have an engine that's bigger than 170 rating. The role-based engine limits are fine, but that netcode-enforced limit sucks.

I support this message and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

So, PGI, what say you?

[carl kerensky]

MegaZordTrololo: You have mentioned in several recent "Ask the Devs" sessions that battle damage effects have been scaled back to improve game performance. Do you plan on adding a slider for individual users to adjust the fidelity/complexity of battle damage effects? This way people with high end machines can get the full intended experience and everyone is happy.
A: I would expect the rendering team will look into adding this functionality back, especially when we get the new UI out the door.



I do hope PGI makes this a priority. You raised the bar in early beta with fantastic graphical fidelity better than any Mech game to date. One of the reasons I invested in the game as a founder. To have it degraded is disheartening. Its just not the same play experience for me. Also I feel the art direction is going down IMO the wrong path to almost a cartoon like palate. I feel realism within the context of the game will win more players as much as gameplay balance. I want to see jaws drop again as we did during the first video seen of MWO gameplay. Thanks for listening

Ck

[BVRCWolf]

Well with the lack of any real answers from ask the dev again, I do not feel the need to spend any more money on this game. They have pushed back 12v12 for so long with no answer of when it will come in. They have done the same with Community Warfare. I do not like the idea of a 3pv, I think it will give to many advantages to people using it. They keep trying to give content like the Project Phoenix to try to make some of us forget about the things they have already planned and not delivered on time. I would not be surprised to see them push back the mechs in Project Phoenix like they have done with so many others for what ever reason they can think of. I have no faith in what is being said by the Dev's.

I like so many others before me, almost ready to pull the plug on a game that is NOT living up to what was promised by PGI!

JMO

[James DeGriz]

Bryan Ekman, on 28 June 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Ask the Devs #41

3PV
Vasces Diablo: Is it possible to rename the view modes? Specifically "Training" for 3PV and "Normal" for 1PV. It's semantics, true, but a portion of the community feels it's an important distinction. 1st person has been the "normal" view in earlier titles and it would create an indication to new players to that effect.
A: If you are referring to Normal and Hardcore descriptors for the matchmaking buckets, these are not final yet. Training and Normal would not work as this would imply an offline mode for 3PV which is not the case. 3PV is not only a great way for new players to learn to play the game, it’s actually a really fun way to play the game! Our early play tests have resulted in some interesting observations as hardcore 1PV proponents have taken a step back and seen the value and fun in 3PV. I expect once the 3PV view mode hits the Test Servers in the next 30 days, players will find it not as powerful as feared or as intrusive into the existing experience, rather accept it as an extension. Of course as promised out of the gates players will be able to choose 1PV and 3PV mixed or just 1PV.

This really does sound like the wicked witch from Snow White saying, "G'waan take a bite of this lovely juicy apple. You'll like it. Honest."

Completely missed the point of the question there Bryan. Some of us who are essentially against 3PV, are at least willing to try it from a balance point of view. I get some people prefer that view, even though it's not my preferred style of play.

The real problem I and many others have though, is nothing to do with its balance and everything to do with the way you appear to be marketing it. MechWarrior is and always has been primarily an FPV pseudo sim. Yes, have 3PV as an option for a "well rounded experience", but for the love of everything don't send out the message that it's the "normal" setting and that 1PV is only really for "simheads", like they're some oddball weirdos who like to intentionally gimp themselves for that "extra challenge".

THAT is why people will assume "3PV = MechAssault" and THAT is why you will get an awful lot of flack from the people who thought you were making an online MechWarrior game true to the original titles, rather than some watered down arcade game using the BattleTech IP.

[Tripwire]

RedDragon, on 01 July 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

The problem with this is that it doesn't fit with the way PGI handle's difficult situations.
The logical way to do it:
1) Observe what the community wants to have in the game
2) Announce that you have a feature you'd like to implement, provide the community with details and ask for their feedback
3) Listen to the feedback and make changes accordingly
4) Profit

The way PGI does it:
1) Find something the community doesn't want
2) Say that you'll never implement it
3) Say that you'll maybe implement it
4) Say that you'll implement it
5) Ignore any feedback and don't provide any details after it's implemented
6) Implement it and ride out the wave of negative feedback by ignoring it
7) Lose customers

This may be a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point. The only thing such a video would accomplish now is that the community would have hard evidence why it's a bad idea to implement 3PV (and it is – I and most other people here can't imagine any way to add 3PV without adding some kind of advantage, even PGI told us there would at least be some minor advantages by using it). So they could either publish a video, listen to all the feedback and overhaul the complete system or just scrap it.
Or they could push 3PV through and as most of the time ignore any feedback and wait until the storm has settled.

The PGI way of doing things sounds pretty much like the way CCP did take with Eve-Online, and that went... eh.. well, pretty much south only.

[Mechteric]

People really need to get over the third person thing. There's plenty of other topics to drone on about, but this one really isn't an issue since they have declared that force first person will be an option. Additionally, every previous Mechwarrior has had 3rd person as well so its not exactly something they're doing new here.


Also look at it this way, people complain about how many low Elo players are messing up their games, well maybe once those players have their 3rd person then what remains in the force first person queue will be generally the higher Elo players only. Does that not sound like it could be a potential benefit of this?

[Deathlike]

CapperDeluxe, on 01 July 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Also look at it this way, people complain about how many low Elo players are messing up their games, well maybe once those players have their 3rd person then what remains in the force first person queue will be generally the higher Elo players only. Does that not sound like it could be a potential benefit of this?

Short answer is no.

If 3rd person has advantages that most think will have, then a portion of the 1PV base will play 3PV and excel at it...

So no.

There will still people 1PV players wandering into the mixed queue (both modes being allowed) and biggest fear (that can easily be realized by smaller queues due to lower player activity) would be the merge the queues altogether...

Edited by Deathlike, 01 July 2013 - 09:26 AM.