Jump to content

Creative Developer Update – Summer Edition With Special Guest Paul Inouye


520 replies to this topic

#61 Rush2112

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 23 posts
  • LocationWoodland< CA

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

Sound's like its moving forward. Looking forward to the next few months.

#62 Gallowglas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,690 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:15 PM

View PostVagGR, on 25 July 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

lights and mediums dont need any quirks and agility buffs. fix your game modes. as long as the only objective is kill the enemy players will always go for bigger=better. and unfortunately this is the truth, mwo is turning into an arms race and when the game promotes that mentality no matter what quirks you come up with nothing will change. once again, please do NOT go after the symptom go after the cause


I would contend that the lack of truly distinguishing features to compensate for the lack of firepower and armor IS the cause. Improving on twist/turn/movement speed is, I think, exactly what we need. Mind you, I think we need a broader overall range of speeds to better distinguish the weight classes in general, but I think their proposal has merit. That certainly doesn't preclude weight limits, but assuming these adjustments make it to live, I'm happy to see them being proactive in making all weight classes viable and distinct.

#63 Hubis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:16 PM

View PostVagGR, on 25 July 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:


please stop making things even more complicated. lights and mediums dont need any quirks and agility buffs. fix your game modes. as long as the only objective is kill the enemy players will always go for bigger=better. and unfortunately this is the truth, mwo is turning into an arms race and when the game promotes that mentality no matter what quirks you come up with nothing will change. once again, please do NOT go after the symptom go after the cause



This is very true, however I will say that I do think that with the game as it currently is, lights and mediums do need some kind of mechanical buff as well as tactical incentive -- something like a structure HP increase would go a long way in making them not complete paper bags in the current high-alpha meta. In general, though, I think PGI has tended towards the "Stick" instead of the "Carrot" when it comes to guiding player behavior, and the problem is that if that gets taken too far then the game just becomes an unenjoyable railroad. Changing the game mode to encourage teams to occupy multiple areas at the same time (either for combat reasons or because of objectives) would inherently make these mechs better, due to their mobility, while weakening immobile sniper builds because they cannot simply clump together anymore and be effective.

#64 PropagandaWar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,495 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:19 PM

View PostJman5, on 25 July 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Great to hear. Btw, if you're reading this I hope you look at the maximum engine speed of the Hunchback. Currently it is the slowest mech under 61 tons. Furthermore 10 of the 22 heavy mech variants can actually move faster. I think a 275 engine might be a good conservative upgrade for the Hunchback.

The one mech I will never consider putting a xl engine in and 39-44 alpha with great heat eff is great. Running 89 after speed tweek in a hunch is fast enough imo, but I could see where some people may want to go 100 and blow or overheat constantly because they are running a 275 with the normal loadout and overheating like dogs. Get a BJ xl 8 small pulses and a base speed of 106kph with a 1.35 heat eff and there's your new swayback.

#65 Zakerystrife

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 42 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:21 PM

I really like seeing these updates, and excited for the new map! The ER/PPC heat nerf is needed for sure, and generally I like where this is going for lights and mediums. Keep up the good work guys! To whomever seems to think capping is a bad thing, why don't you just defend your cap points?

NOW FOR THE RANT - I'm getting sick of people only complaining that stuff isn't getting out fast enough. You guys really think its as simple as "1+1 = 2" YAY!!!!!...? NO, it doesn't work that way. They need to change game code constantly with each and every single update, and its not like it just magically works. You put in new code that can conflict with existing code which then causes a bug, THEN they need to try to fix before it hits our client. People really need to understand how a development process WORKS, before just nagging and complaining about it. I think we all just need to calm down and enjoy the game!

-The Ginger Overlord, Zakerystrife

#66 Chronojam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,185 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:22 PM

View PostKitK, on 25 July 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:


Why trot this dead horse out again? It's year old. Their position has changed and they have explained it more than once. So, why? People are saying Bryan and Paul told us nothing new, but your's is really old news.


I'm trotting it out because right in the URL it says 3rd-person-mwo-link-to-this-when-needed and quite frankly it's needed. They've lost sight of what's important.

When I say they've lost sight of what's important, I don't strictly mean in terms of player perspective. And when I say player perspective, I don't strictly mean the camera in-game.

#67 Kanajashi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 314 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:24 PM

The TL;DR
  • First batch of Sarah’s Mechs coming this Friday
  • Terra Therma (Volcano Map) next Tuesday
  • 3rd person public test next week, with planned release for August
  • Tutorials coming in August, on test server “shortly”
  • Direct X11 coming in August, on test server “shortly”
  • Heat increase of +1 on PPC/ERPPC
  • Buffs for Large Pulse and Medium Pulse
  • Buffs to Medium mech agility
  • Weight balancing to restrict the numbers of Heavies and Assaults
  • Increase player rewards for completing specific objectives (example: capping in conquest)


#68 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:24 PM

I see a lot of complaining, what did you guys expect anyway?

The next 5 mechs?

That's the only thing I didn't see them talk about.

#69 Jabilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:26 PM

Thanks for the update I enjoyed it.

#70 BlazeOn

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 30 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:26 PM

Thanks for the update, looking forward to getting my Jenner much sooner than anticipated, also the new map. I just wish other guys would quit bitchin and let you guys do your thing(at least till after launch.)

Keep up the good work.

#71 VagGR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 581 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:27 PM

View PostVeranova, on 25 July 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I just want to be one of what seems the few, who is actually grateful for this communication.
Thanks for communicating PGI.
Even if the entire first page are hate posts.

Seriously why even bother posting or coming here at-all if that's all you're gonna do?

being grateful for the communication is one thing, agreeing or liking what they said is another. im against haters as well but not against criticism

View PostGallowglas, on 25 July 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:


I would contend that the lack of truly distinguishing features to compensate for the lack of firepower and armor IS the cause. Improving on twist/turn/movement speed is, I think, exactly what we need. Mind you, I think we need a broader overall range of speeds to better distinguish the weight classes in general, but I think their proposal has merit. That certainly doesn't preclude weight limits, but assuming these adjustments make it to live, I'm happy to see them being proactive in making all weight classes viable and distinct.

lights and mediums already ARE more agile than heavies/ assaults. this is somethin g that its obvious in game even now, when you see mediums and lights doing 2+ kills and 400+dmg. you think that a 5% faster turning rate will make any difference? i believe classes are distinct enough. but why an average player go for medium that requires arguably more effort and tense playing to get those kills when its so much easier on a gauss/ppc assault or heavy. what if killing the enemy was mot the only objective? (conquest with its current impolementation is really no different, kill first cap later).. on the other hand, with the current state of hit registration im really worried that this change could lead to even more untouchable mechs and thus leading to other more frustrating issues.

Edited by VagGR, 25 July 2013 - 02:29 PM.


#72 Zakerystrife

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 42 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:30 PM

View PostRyvucz, on 25 July 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I see a lot of complaining, what did you guys expect anyway?

The next 5 mechs?

That's the only thing I didn't see them talk about.



To be fair, we already have the next 6 mechs already announced, don't we? Orion, Flea, Locust, Shadowhawk, Thunderbolt, Battlemaster....

#73 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:32 PM

View PostKitK, on 25 July 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:


Why trot this dead horse out again? It's year old. Their position has changed and they have explained it more than once. So, why? People are saying Bryan and Paul told us nothing new, but your's is really old news.


It's not even changed for anyone with even a modicum of reading ability. And seeing who we are talking too, we know thats not the case.

3rd person will be investigated in the future (note, this is the future).

MWO will be first person out the gate (it's been over a year since this post) and in the near future (once again, it's been over a year).

Whalah, we now have 3rd person. As it said we would over a year ago.

But that requires reading comprehension and not being biased as all hell, and once again I point to who we're responding too.

#74 Archon Adam Steiner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • 344 posts
  • LocationVancouver, Canada

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:33 PM

Speaking as a competitive player (and having played so for a year in this game!), I must remark that it is weight balancing that will make the largest difference in competitive matches. Other than a couple of fast scouts, and perhaps some Heavy chassis that have slightly more optimal hard-points, there are almost no incentives (or even logical reasons) to bring smaller 'mechs to a battle in high ELO or tournament play.

Pick a number, compel 8-man drops to fit in it, go. It really is that simple. Adjust said number as required.

#75 VagGR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 581 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:34 PM

View PostHubis, on 25 July 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:


This is very true, however I will say that I do think that with the game as it currently is, lights and mediums do need some kind of mechanical buff as well as tactical incentive -- something like a structure HP increase would go a long way in making them not complete paper bags in the current high-alpha meta. In general, though, I think PGI has tended towards the "Stick" instead of the "Carrot" when it comes to guiding player behavior, and the problem is that if that gets taken too far then the game just becomes an unenjoyable railroad. Changing the game mode to encourage teams to occupy multiple areas at the same time (either for combat reasons or because of objectives) would inherently make these mechs better, due to their mobility, while weakening immobile sniper builds because they cannot simply clump together anymore and be effective.

tactical inceptive i totaly agree with, thats what im saying.

#76 VanillaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,115 posts
  • LocationIn my parent's basement

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:34 PM

View PostZyllos, on 25 July 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

I find these two statements at odds with each other.

Why go through the trouble of attempting to fix the Light/Medium roles when tonnage limits are what is needed and already being developed?

The problem right now is rewards are largely based off the amount of damage that you do. Adding additional ways to get CB/XP without having to do damage opens up the play styles for smaller mechs. The one time capture bonus and spotting bonuses are almost meaningless compared to do any amount of damage to 1 or more mechs. Especially when you add in savior and defensive kill bonuses.

#77 z3a1ot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:36 PM

So much negativity here. Lighten up people, take a break if you must and stop spreading so much negative emotions around here :).

#78 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

View PostZakerystrife, on 25 July 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:



To be fair, we already have the next 6 mechs already announced, don't we? Orion, Flea, Locust, Shadowhawk, Thunderbolt, Battlemaster....


Exactly! BLAM!

Unless they forgot what brand of microwave Garth uses, maybe he can repost that.

#79 KitK

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 292 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

View PostChronojam, on 25 July 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:


I'm trotting it out because right in the URL it says 3rd-person-mwo-link-to-this-when-needed and quite frankly it's needed. They've lost sight of what's important.

When I say they've lost sight of what's important, I don't strictly mean in terms of player perspective. And when I say player perspective, I don't strictly mean the camera in-game.



Oh, yes, of course they've lost that. How silly of me.
Umm...what is it that is important again? I believe they claimed player experience, in particular new player learning. The flip side is game integrity/avoiding camera abuse, correct? I don't suppose it would be possible that both of those could be important, and one addressed without jeoprodizing the other. Either way reposting Paul's so called "promise" is like calling the fire department after they'be put the fire out (let's face it, that bridge has burned).

#80 Tezcatli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 1,494 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:39 PM

View PostTurboChickenMan, on 25 July 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:


What effort?


The effort that it takes to come onto these forums with all the bile and vitriol that the "forum community" spits every time they even try to do something.

I have poured over threads on my slow days at work. Threads about mediums being under represented and weak. (They addressed that hear, no details, but they let us know they're working on it.) Threads on pulse weapons not being worth using. (Once more they address it, granted no details, but that could because they're working on it). They even let us know they're working on weight balancing. Something I've seen multiple threads on.

So I guess it's hardly a super human effort. But they could have just tight lipped the whole thing. Gone for the "We'll announce it when it's ready". Frankly I browse the forums and hope for some kind of an update. And here it is. So I am thanking them for the effort.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users