519 replies to this topic

[L Y N X]

Jacob Knight does not speak for me... I think ECM is fine, it has counters... MM however should try to place ECM mechs on both sides and not 3 on one side and none on the other.

It does however baffle me that the Devs would place 3PV ahead of CW in the priority queue of development and implementation.

I measure integrity simply as "do you do what you said you would do?" July was supposed to be this BIG month, I thought the plan was to bring in UI 2.0, then phase in CW in Aug and September... present reality is proving me wrong and I am not entirely sure where I have these expectations from... maybe past ATD and PGI updates...? I understand that plans change, but those changes to plan/schedule should also be shared with those who invested time and money into your beta project. It's just part of basic standards of respect and dignity... don't you think?

[Tolkien]

7ynx, on 26 July 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Jacob Knight does not speak for me... I think ECM is fine, it has counters... MM however should try to place ECM mechs on both sides and not 3 on one side and none on the other.

It does however baffle me that the Devs would place 3PV ahead of CW in the priority queue of development and implementation.

I measure integrity simply as "do you do what you said you would do?" July was supposed to be this BIG month, I thought the plan was to bring in UI 2.0, then phase in CW in Aug and September... present reality is proving me wrong and I am not entirely sure where I have these expectations from... maybe past ATD and PGI updates...? I understand that plans change, but those changes to plan/schedule should also be shared with those who invested time and money into your beta project. It's just part of basic standards of respect and dignity... don't you think?

Back prior to the transition from closed beta to open beta there was a statement that we could expect CW within 90 days of open beta (I am paraphrasing from memory so I could be slightly misstating this). In point of fact the intervening 210+ days have seen improvements in the form of more maps and mechs, while also tackling nasty bugs but has been nearly a bait and switch in terms of core gameplay. I still think the game should have stayed closed beta much longer since many of the casuals who have come, played 10 hours or less on average, then left won't be coming back.

[Belorion]

Tolkien, on 26 July 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Back prior to the transition from closed beta to open beta there was a statement that we could expect CW within 90 days of open beta (I am paraphrasing from memory so I could be slightly misstating this). In point of fact the intervening 210+ days have seen improvements in the form of more maps and mechs, while also tackling nasty bugs but has been nearly a bait and switch in terms of core gameplay. I still think the game should have stayed closed beta much longer since many of the casuals who have come, played 10 hours or less on average, then left won't be coming back.

They would probably have left anyway. I always think its funny when all of these arm chair game designers just know what would retain the most players.

There is always player churn. Of course they want to minimize it, but that doesn't mean it will be as greatly effected as some would believe.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

no one needs 3pv here so stop wasting resources on it, and +1 heat on ppc? what next? -5 dmg on gauss? make every weapon deal one damage to mech's paint so little carebears can stop whining about being one shotted while they adore paintwork on their mech in 3pv

[L Y N X]

ATD43 provides a vague update on PGI's implementation plans... sad that UI2.0 and CW are at the tail end of them... I suppose I can understand why they want 12v12 out first, but I am baffled why the other features should take priority. Yes I am assuming the order listed is a rough order of importance and all things equal the intended order of implementation, so I might be wrong in this assumption.

as an aside, I think it is interesting that dropship mode became the pre-match lobby and we will be able to select upto 4 mechs of a given weight class, thought the original concept was for 3 variants of a particular chassis, but like what PGI posted today, it is still subject to change, and might become 5 even. we will adjust our expectation based on the information provided. I still think PGI should share the changes to schedule/plan when they become aware, and not wait until it is obviously apparent to the player base by events being overtaken.

Thanks for the update PGI even if it is sour news.

Edited by 7ynx, 26 July 2013 - 01:56 PM.

[Cantatta]

Again, PGI I can't thank you enough for giving us all this information. It is appreciated by a great many players, just not always those with the loudest voices. I enjoy this game tremendously and look forward to seeing it grow and change, much as it has since open beta started. August looks like it will be a good month for MWO, as does September.
On a different note, I would like to ask that all the negative nancys stop clumping me into their droll arguments. I am part of the community and have been for seven+ months. However, I do not agree with your vitriolic comments bashing the game, the devs and then claiming "everyone in the community" wants this or that, simply because you want it. I doubt very seriously that the malcontents on this forum make up the majority of the MWO community. I happen to like the game a lot, I play regularly and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, as will most of my friends. I will also continue to invest money in the game as long as it suits me to do so, nor do I see a reason to stop doing so at this time. Patience is my ally.

In the future, please speak for yourself... you might not seem so egotistical and self-entitled.

Edited by Cantatta, 26 July 2013 - 02:31 PM.

[L Y N X]

Cantatta,

I've been and still am an enthusiastic fan and supporter of MWO ref: founder tag. I have always only spoke for myself. But you seem to be directing your Vitriolic monologue at me, if not then just use the quote feature to remove the ambiguity. If you are trolling, then add a point to your tally, got me. Ive been a part of this community almost twice as long as you and the only significant change for the past 12 months is a new map once every 2-3 months and a new mech chassis with variants once a month. The rest have been fine tuning and bug fixes some of which were added during open beta. Most of the significant improvements and features now depend on UI2.0 which is now officiall pushed out to the next 60 days if it is stable and fun. MWO is Stable and Fun. so I don't think that will be much of a problem. My biggest issue is that I want PGI to be successful with MWO as it has been a long time since a MW title has been introduced on the market. IF I still seem so egotistical and self-entitled, then maybe you should change your filters.

[Belorion]

@ 7ynx...

I think he just meant in general (in response to the negativity in the thread). That was my take anyway.

[Joachim Viltry]

Belorion, on 26 July 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

Its ridiculous to think that there wouldn't be some sort of aiming with torso mounted weapons. These are mechs not bi-plains.

Moreover...

People aren't going to want to play a game where their shots don't go where they aim them. Seriously.

See, I read this as "oh noes, my ppc hit 1 meter above my AC2! it's the end of the world !!!111!"

It is ridiculous to see weapons being fired at 45 degrees off the center-line to their barrel!

The reality is that as things stand it's the same rehashed shooter concept all over again. Previous iterations were technologically deficient, but with modern tech we can actually simulate the difficulties that would be encountered with this type of war machine.

Instead the need to see shots always land where you intended them too seems to trump basic reasoning or immersion. God forbid it take a little planning or skill to fire weapons clearly mounted in parallel to each-other!

Why on earth should we have a challenging immerse game with unique attributes (which can further delineate differences between chassis), when we can just recycle the same tired stuff as before? What I see here is a fear of actually difficult skill based play, rather than the current point and click gameplay.

I should not be able to consistently hit an opponents damaged torso section at over 100meters while running... and yet, I can; the mech doesn't judder as it runs, it doesn't have trouble tracking when it's hot, it is a perfectly stable firing platform.

I would rather have a challenge beyond that, I would rather have a feeling of movement and immersion.

[3Xtr3m3]

7ynx, on 26 July 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

ATD43 provides a vague update on PGI's implementation plans... sad that UI2.0 and CW are at the tail end of them... I suppose I can understand why they want 12v12 out first, but I am baffled why the other features should take priority. Yes I am assuming the order listed is a rough order of importance and all things equal the intended order of implementation, so I might be wrong in this assumption.

as an aside, I think it is interesting that dropship mode became the pre-match lobby and we will be able to select upto 4 mechs of a given weight class, thought the original concept was for 3 variants of a particular chassis, but like what PGI posted today, it is still subject to change, and might become 5 even. we will adjust our expectation based on the information provided. I still think PGI should share the changes to schedule/plan when they become aware, and not wait until it is obviously apparent to the player base by events being overtaken.

Thanks for the update PGI even if it is sour news.

sad that UI2.0 and CW are at the tail end of them

I read the ATD as UI2.0 and then CW are the major focus of their efforts.


I suppose I can understand why they want 12v12 out first, but I am baffled why the other features should take priority

As I understand it, 12v12 is Ingame functionality, the actual match. UI2.0 and CW are what happen before and after the actual match.
Apples and oranges. Though integrating into one hopefully pleasant game experience.
So please understand I am a little unclear here as to what is the issue.

[Trev Firestorm]

When 3pv gets pushed to the test server the community should just boycott the test rounds, maybe then they will get the message.

[tayhimself]

hammerreborn, on 26 July 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

If anyone actually important actually used xfire it would be something. But even with the most generous of assumptions in your favor puts xfire users at barely 1% of the total population (and real reasoning would put them at far far far less, as there were certainly more players in december than there was in closed beta), in which case your numbers become even less significant.

And seeing PGI has said the numbers have only grown and we just hit over a million players who have played at least a single game, your 40 person anecdote doesn't mean anything (.004%) that you can't even say without a doubt actually stopped playing MWO and didn't just quit xfire instead.

Let's just even go with the numbers you said. 200k people on xfire (if you trust their numbers), 1 million people have played MWO. So, even if every single person on xfire has played MWO they wouldn't even account for 20% of the population that has ever logged a single game.

It's a useless meaningless statistic that has no real correlection to the game and absolutely no proof that the players have actually quit instead of using an archaic and outdated gaming tool.

I put more stock in peoples "I used to have 10 people in my group but now its just 2" than I do xfire.

You are clearly uneducated in statistics and unaware of your ignorance to boot. If Xfire is a random sample, which may not be a reasonable assumption, then the hours played have dropped by 25%. You can't dismiss statistics because of sampling. The only problem with the Xfire numbers are that they may not be a random sample (could be older gamers only or a thin segment of hardcore gamers).

The numbers PGI quotes is users that have ever logged on. As more users log on, this number "grows", but it is unrelated to the number of active users even if we use a very loose definition of active such as logs in and plays a game once a month. So PGIs account numbers are certainly more misleading than the Xfire numbers, but you forgot that in your eagerness to cheerlead.

[StandingCow]

I have to make a slight apology to PGI... in the townhall meeting I called this Creative Dev update "pathetic"... and that was the wrong term in the heat of the moment...

I really do appreciate all that PGI did to bring us this game, and that they take the time to give us these updates. And while I do think there is a lot of room for improvement on communication with the community, I do appreciate the time they took to write this up.

So, sorry about that.

[Elric von Rabenfels]

Deathlike, on 25 July 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

I wouldn't take this as a sure thing, but it's a realistic expectation when numbers are given out.

This quote stood out for me.

We know exactly what happens when we make realistic assumptions on when content is going to be deployed.

Just one word:
Orion.

Edited by Elric von Rabenfels, 27 July 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[Elizander]

While the heat increase with the PPC/ER PPC is good, I would still like to see the PPC projectile speed slowed down a little to separate it from the ER PPC.

I've been trying out some ER Large Lasers recently and they appear to be in a good place, at least for me. I even use a pair on my Jenner with a 280XL and that allows for several alpha strikes with a sustain of switching to firing just 1 ER Large laser once I near the heat cap.

I would have to say that the range on the Large Pulse Lasers are the main disadvantage. They barely reach further than a Medium Laser which is quite terrible. Other than damage options (front loading more damage to the initial ticks, etc), lowering the beam duration, and heat adjustments, please consider looking into a range increase for the Large Pulse Laser because that is where it loses out the most to the PPC (same weight, same damage roughly, non-pinpoint, and abysmal range).

Medium Pulse Lasers are not my 'go to' weapon of choice. I will only switch to them if I have extra tonnage and not enough critical slots on some builds. Again, the damage to heat ratio and the minor beam duration decrease doesn't justify the heat and weight of the weapon. They are fun to use and I like chasing lights on it, but if we are looking at an Alpha perspective, they drive up your heat too much leaving you little chance to fire your other weapons. Unlike the Large Pulse Laser, I don't think a simple range increase will help the Medium Pulse Lasers. I might turn to them more if the beam duration is as short as the Small Pulse Laser.

As for the Light/Medium Tasks:

Medium Mech Tasks (Achievement style). Note that these are just off the top of my head for the bonuses and the mechanics can probably be adjusted as needed for balance and tech limitations (but I hate the term tech limitations because Blizzard CMs spam the hell out of this term).

These rewards will encourage team play ( hopefully ). C-bill and XP rewards should be given to achieving these within a game:

• Number 2 - Each assists you do in a match gets you slightly more C-bills and XP.
  
• Wingman - Get 4 or more assists in one game while dealing at least 100 damage (to prevent people from running around and 'tagging' then dying).
  
• I will survive - Survive a match while dealing at least 200 damage.
  
• The Last Boy Scout - Survive a match while getting at least 4 Spotting Assists.
  
• Flyswatter - Shoot down at least (x) number of missiles with AMS while within (x) meters of at least one ally.
  
• Check Mate - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when you have 3 or less surviving members on your team (all other survivors get a slight bonus as well if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Don't bother running - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when there are 2 or less surviving members on the enemy team (all other surviving members of your team get a slight bonus if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Wolf Pack - In Conquest, help cap a node that was held by the enemy team (as long as you stand on it while it is not neutral or on your team, this counts).
  
• Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Survive and win a match while dealing 600 damage.
  
• Medium-sized Atlas - Survive and win a match while dealing 800 damage.
  
• Medium Mechs are OP Nerf Pls - Survive and win a match while dealing 1,000 damage

Light Mech Tasks

• Eye in the Sky - Opponents have received (x) amount of damage from your allies while under the range of your UAV.
  
• Forward Scout - Get a slight bonus to each spotting assist.
  
• One Eye Each - Get 2 spotting assists in one match.
  
• I'm Watching You - Get 4 spotting assists in one match and deal at least 100 damage.
  
• I Will Survive - Survive a match while dealing at least 150 damage.
  
• Check Mate - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when you have 3 or less surviving members on your team (all other survivors get a slight bonus as well if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Don't bother running - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when there are 2 or less surviving members on the enemy team (all other surviving members of your team get a slight bonus if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Lone Ranger - In Conquest, solo cap a neutral node.
  
• Wolf Pack - In Conquest, help cap a node that was held by the enemy team (as long as you stand on it while it is not neutral or on your team, this counts).
  
• Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Survive and win a match while dealing 400 damage.
  
• Baby Awesome - Survive and win a match while dealing 600 damage.
  
• OMG Light Mechs OP - Survive and win a match while dealing 800 damage.
  
• I got your back! - Deal 100 damage worth of back armor.

Just general ideas that can be worked on! Hopefully the new bonuses for lights and mediums will turn out to be fun.

Edited by Elizander, 27 July 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Clideb50]

Elizander, on 27 July 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

While the heat increase with the PPC/ER PPC is good, I would still like to see the PPC projectile speed slowed down a little to separate it from the ER PPC.

I've been trying out some ER Large Lasers recently and they appear to be in a good place, at least for me. I even use a pair on my Jenner with a 280XL and that allows for several alpha strikes with a sustain of switching to firing just 1 ER Large laser once I near the heat cap.

I would have to say that the range on the Large Pulse Lasers are the main disadvantage. They barely reach further than a Medium Laser which is quite terrible. Other than damage options (front loading more damage to the initial ticks, etc), lowering the beam duration, and heat adjustments, please consider looking into a range increase for the Large Pulse Laser because that is where it loses out the most to the PPC (same weight, same damage roughly, non-pinpoint, and abysmal range).

Medium Pulse Lasers are not my 'go to' weapon of choice. I will only switch to them if I have extra tonnage and not enough critical slots on some builds. Again, the damage to heat ratio and the minor beam duration decrease doesn't justify the heat and weight of the weapon. They are fun to use and I like chasing lights on it, but if we are looking at an Alpha perspective, they drive up your heat too much leaving you little chance to fire your other weapons. Unlike the Large Pulse Laser, I don't think a simple range increase will help the Medium Pulse Lasers. I might turn to them more if the beam duration is as short as the Small Pulse Laser.

As for the Light/Medium Tasks:

Medium Mech Tasks (Achievement style). Note that these are just off the top of my head for the bonuses and the mechanics can probably be adjusted as needed for balance and tech limitations (but I hate the term tech limitations because Blizzard CMs spam the hell out of this term).

These rewards will encourage team play ( hopefully ). C-bill and XP rewards should be given to achieving these within a game:

• Number 2 - Each assists you do in a match gets you slightly more C-bills and XP.
  
• Wingman - Get 4 or more assists in one game while dealing at least 100 damage (to prevent people from running around and 'tagging' then dying).
  
• I will survive - Survive a match while dealing at least 200 damage.
  
• The Last Boy Scout - Survive a match while getting at least 4 Spotting Assists.
  
• Flyswatter - Shoot down at least (x) number of missiles with AMS while within (x) meters of at least one ally.
  
• Check Mate - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when you have 3 or less surviving members on your team (all other survivors get a slight bonus as well if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Don't bother running - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when there are 2 or less surviving members on the enemy team (all other surviving members of your team get a slight bonus if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Wolf Pack - In Conquest, help cap a node that was held by the enemy team (as long as you stand on it while it is not neutral or on your team, this counts).
  
• Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Survive and win a match while dealing 600 damage.
  
• Medium-sized Atlas - Survive and win a match while dealing 800 damage.
  
• Medium Mechs are OP Nerf Pls - Survive and win a match while dealing 1,000 damage

Light Mech Tasks

• Eye in the Sky - Opponents receive (x) amount of damage while under the range of your UAV.
  
• Forward Scout - Get a slight bonus to each spotting assist.
  
• One Eye Each - Get 2 spotting assists in one match.
  
• I'm Watching You - Get 4 spotting assists in one match and deal at least 100 damage.
  
• I Will Survive - Survive a match while dealing at least 150 damage.
  
• Check Mate - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when you have 3 or less surviving members on your team (all other survivors get a slight bonus as well if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Don't bother running - In Assault mode, cap the enemy base when there are 2 or less surviving members on the enemy team (all other surviving members of your team get a slight bonus if they are not part of the cap team)
  
• Lone Ranger - In Conquest, solo cap a neutral node.
  
• Wolf Pack - In Conquest, help cap a node that was held by the enemy team (as long as you stand on it while it is not neutral or on your team, this counts).
  
• Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Survive and win a match while dealing 400 damage.
  
• Baby Awesome - Survive and win a match while dealing 600 damage.
  
• OMG Light Mechs OP - Survive and win a match while dealing 800 damage.
  
• I got your back! - Deal 100 damage worth of back armor.

Just general ideas that can be worked on! Hopefully the new bonuses for lights and mediums will turn out to be fun.

These sound awesome. I would recommend putting these in a suggestion forum. Hopefully PGI will see these.

[Fenris Krinkovich]

I'm worried that tonnage limits alone aren't going to "fix" the state of mediums; nearly every MMO (and I know this isn't an MMO, bear with me) out there has a group composition limit in the form of "you may bring up to five players, of which at least two must be a tank and a healer, and the rest can be whatever you want but we really recommend wicked DPS." Arbitrary numbers. Anyway, these same MMO's often suffer from the lack of said tank and healer because of the increased responsibility and amount of work required to play those roles well, besides which they are just apparently not interesting for the majority of players. My concern is that tonnage limits will wind up forcing players into mediums primarily so that the rest of the drop (who may either be the best players or just a good old boy's club) can bring the "real" mechs. I love the idea and it's certainly fitting for the pseudo-simulation that MWO is going for, but ultimately it's an artificial restriction where medium mechs are concerned. The solution to the medium mech problem condition is to make them interesting to play, not to make them filler. The reason that mediums are the runts of the game right now is that they are overwhelmingly considered to be inferior to every other class of mech for any given role, and tonnage limits alone is only going to increase their number because it's going to force guilds (clans, corps, whatever we're calling them) into pressuring some of their players into playing mediums to round out the tonnage and open space for the bigs.

PS: I am biased, as I play almost exclusively Hunchbacks.

PPS: Yes, I read that PGI is going to tweak mediums, I'm just responding to the idea that tonnage limits is a magic AC/20.

Edited by Fenris Krinkovich, 27 July 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Tolkien]

Fenris Krinkovich, on 27 July 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

I'm worried that tonnage limits alone aren't going to "fix" the state of mediums; nearly every MMO (and I know this isn't an MMO, bear with me) out there has a group composition limit in the form of "you may bring up to five players, of which at least two must be a tank and a healer, and the rest can be whatever you want but we really recommend wicked DPS." Arbitrary numbers. Anyway, these same MMO's often suffer from the lack of said tank and healer because of the increased responsibility and amount of work required to play those roles well, besides which they are just apparently not interesting for the majority of players. My concern is that tonnage limits will wind up forcing players into mediums primarily so that the rest of the drop (who may either be the best players or just a good old boy's club) can bring the "real" mechs. I love the idea and it's certainly fitting for the pseudo-simulation that MWO is going for, but ultimately it's an artificial restriction where medium mechs are concerned. The solution to the medium mech problem condition is to make them interesting to play, not to make them filler. The reason that mediums are the runts of the game right now is that they are overwhelmingly considered to be inferior to every other class of mech for any given role, and tonnage limits alone is only going to increase their number because it's going to force guilds (clans, corps, whatever we're calling them) into pressuring some of their players into playing mediums to round out the tonnage and open space for the bigs.

PS: I am biased, as I play almost exclusively Hunchbacks.

PPS: Yes, I read that PGI is going to tweak mediums, I'm just responding to the idea that tonnage limits is a magic AC/20.

I too have made the poor decision to master hunchbacks, and I grind my teeth every drop.

That said, part of the problem PGI is caught in is that they decided early on that they wanted to use 'role warfare' to give every tonnage range a place on the battlefield. Unfortunately this is not turning out quite right and mechs like the awesome and hunchback are suffering from artwork making them vulnerable targets while engine caps prevent the hunchback from even being an effective light hunter. During closed beta there were 120kph hunchbacks but no more. Hunchbacks were never meant to be sprinters, but being a fast mover really helps when trying to rip the tail off a squirrel (light mech).

On paper mediums should be very effective light hunters, but slow mediums are incapable of keeping up and are either mediocre fire support (blackjack) or mediocre brawlers (hunchbacks).

The game also suffers from a lack of any sort of meaningful end game or progression. End game is supposed to be modules and while they do take a hell of a long time to grind out, a hellishly long grind isn't really a good substitute for depth. Progression is supposed to be mastering mechs but other than speed tweak they are hard to notice in game, and the whole process is extremely repetitive. These decisions are both proxies of depth and progression that In past mechwarrior games was always covered by a natural progression from lighter mechs through to assault that this game is missing. Here your first owned mech can be an assault - a trap a lot of new players seem to fall into then get frustrated by how they handle like a waterbed in a shopping cart.

In MPBT3025 for example everyone had to be a great light pilot since border territories could only support supply lines to drop lights. As you got closer and closer to core worlds meidums, then heavies, then assaults became available. Even if you only owned a light mech you could still drop close to a core world so long as you found a lobby on that world that had an enemy in a light (all matchmaking was player driven, so you only dropped when you found a fair match).

It wasn't a perfect game, and the graphics were from 2001, but it was a tight and focused gameplay experience.

Edited by Tolkien, 27 July 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[JeremyCrow]

Really glad about the medium mech buff and I'm really excited about the possibility of PVE in the future. I do agree that there's lot of work to be done before that but it's nice to see it somewhere in the horizon.
Looking forward to CW news in August!

[Orkdung]

Here's a fix for roles.

Simply ( ) code bonuses to chassis. If you're a Light or Medium and you cap then you will get bonuses. If you are an Atlas, with 6 other friendly mechs on the field, and you're capping, negative points are awarded.
Heavies and Assaults should not be capping, unless desperate. i.e. know your role.
The simple fact that a light gets no extra bonus for doing it's job and has a pitiful score at the end of a conquest game is extremely disheartening.


.