Jump to content

Ask The Devs - 44 - Answers!


483 replies to this topic

#41 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:14 PM

View PostTabrias07, on 12 August 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

None of these answers make me feel any better about the future of the game.

The questions you decided not to acknowledge make me feel worse.

View PostTabrias07, on 12 August 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

None of these answers make me feel any better about the future of the game.

The questions you decided not to acknowledge make me feel worse.

The real take away from this should be the questions they avoided. That is an answer in and of itself.

#42 BP Raven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:14 PM

Quote

Answer from David: [color=#959595]The Awesome is a Mech that we need to take a look at. Recently, we’ve started a new pass looking at improving the balance between the Mechs. (Look for improvements to Medium Mechs coming in the August 20[/color][color=#959595]th[/color][color=#959595] patch.) As we do this, we’ll be sure to take a look at the Awesome. This will involve, first of all, making sure that there’s nothing weird or buggy about the hit boxes, and then seeing what we can do to improve the Mech. Exactly what form those improvements come in will remain to be seen.[/color]


Thanks for the answer ... cautiously optimistic.

#43 Screech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,290 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:17 PM

Like the part about them finally fixing the matchmaker and getting rid of the arbitrary group limit. Looks like they will balance by tonnage. Though not great still better then a player limit. Just wish they could get it down before launch.

#44 Sarsaparilla Kid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 660 posts
  • LocationGold Country

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:17 PM

Seems like at the end of the day, any further attempt to nerf PPCs/Gauss is trying to compensate for the skill of the person firing them at great distances or while coming down from a jump-jet maneuver. Kudos for those that have mastered the skill. I've also spectated more than a few mechs chain-firing multiple PPCs and missing slow-moving mechs that were less than 200m away. In the end, there is balance and variety because of differing skill levels, not because of game mechanics.

Edited by Sarsaparilla Kid, 12 August 2013 - 02:20 PM.


#45 Donnie Silveray

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 321 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:18 PM

Looks like the crunch to get the major features through is really putting a cap to whatever quick short term maintenance they can do. It's just as I thought, hit detection is making it impossible for PGI to reliably balance. Wish you guys luck on resolving that nagging issue.

The desyncing of the Gauss and PPC sounds more like adjusting cooldowns/projectile velocity than adding an artificial block. Maybe something to make alpha striking all at once slightly less reliable.

#46 ObsidianSpectre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:19 PM

I'm disappointed that they once again avoided talking to the community at all about the much maligned ghost heat.

View PostNiko Snow, on 12 August 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

We have looked at what we can do with the build in question and have come up with a plan to de-sync the firing times of PPC and Gauss and keeping the Gauss as a primary long-range weapon. More information on this will be made available as soon as we get the feature ready to test.


Are you serious? More convoluted solutions to problems that can be dealt with in the existing framework? :\

#47 Lemming

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:22 PM

They did some pretty creative question dodging this time, so you have to give them some credit. Intentionally picking two similar questions, then answering one of them by saying "We're answering this question in an answer to another question" to reduce the number of questions you have to weasel out of giving real answers to was really smart. Good work PGI.

#48 Tennex

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:23 PM

PGI's idea of PPC desync.

Posted Image

Edited by Tennex, 12 August 2013 - 02:23 PM.


#49 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:23 PM

View PostHRR Mary, on 12 August 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Read this on July 18th, on Twitter :


45]



Posted ImageRuss Bullock ‏[color=#BBBBBB]@[/color]russ_bullock19 Juil
[color=#66B5D2]@[/color]Livewyr7 [color=#66B5D2]@[/color]Paul_Inouye that's some constructive feedback, I like the though of at least slightly de syncing them with ppc's





Guess we know now where they are picking their ideas.


Thing is you can already see what is going to happen.

Increase Recycle, Slow Projectile speed down.

Both combined, will make it defunct and stupid as a range weapon.
One or the other not so bad.

When you consider they still have such low HP....We're just shifting to Lasers instead.

#50 saq

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 24 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:24 PM

View PostDonnie Silveray, on 12 August 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Looks like the crunch to get the major features through is really putting a cap to whatever quick short term maintenance they can do. It's just as I thought, hit detection is making it impossible for PGI to reliably balance. Wish you guys luck on resolving that nagging issue.

I wish I could agree with this but they clearly had time to invent a whole new, convoluted game mechanic that makes so little sense they had to explain it twice so its not a question of having the desire but not the time, its a question of not having competent people making decisions and suffering an inconsistent vision for the game.

#51 Tennex

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostDV McKenna, on 12 August 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:


Thing is you can already see what is going to happen.

Increase Recycle, Slow Projectile speed down.

Both combined, will make it defunct and stupid as a range weapon.
One or the other not so bad.

When you consider they still have such low HP....We're just shifting to Lasers instead.


well if Gauss is going to be the sniper weapon its gotta have the longer cooldown.

but if they mean desyncing by changing cooldown times. they've tried that before, PPC used to be 3s. Gauss use to be 4s.

it didn't do that much. (i'm not saying it won't hinder 2ppc gauss, but it didn't do THAT much)

so i'm assuming they mean some kind of fire delay for PPCs like before HSR

Edited by Tennex, 12 August 2013 - 02:29 PM.


#52 Gwaihir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:28 PM

"Firing your gauss rifle causes the magnetic field to destabilize your PPC's focusing coils"
"Firing your PPC also drains your gauss rifle's charging capacitors"

Deep down you know it's going to be something dumb like that, and not smart like changing projectile speeds and recycle times.

#53 Lonestar1771

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:29 PM

View Postsaq, on 12 August 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I wish I could agree with this but they clearly had time to invent a whole new, convoluted game mechanic that makes so little sense they had to explain it twice so its not a question of having the desire but not the time, its a question of not having competent people making decisions and suffering an inconsistent vision for the game.


Assuming there was a vision in the first place. For all we know they created the dev blogs from what smith and tinker had. Hell, they were using the old trailer as advertisement like a year after announcing MWO.

#54 MisterFiveSeven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 290 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:33 PM

View PostDV McKenna, on 12 August 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

When you consider they still have such low HP....We're just shifting to Lasers instead.


Too close for gauss, switching to lasers!

#55 PoLaR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 620 posts
  • LocationEast Bay

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:34 PM

Woo looking forward to the new maps!

#56 Big Giant Head

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Locationingalaxyfarfaraway

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:34 PM

View PostLemming, on 12 August 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:


Come on man, use your head. Without Ghost Fire: The Magnum Opus 2: The Double Down, how else could you balance it? By tweaking values that are already in the game? How could that possibly make any sense?


Increase PPCs crit size

#57 Varrin Coursca

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationMid-Atlantic, USA

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:36 PM

View PostStormwolf, on 12 August 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

i'm somewhat disappointed, I was hoping for answers for these questions:

Quote

Question# 4- 174 votes
Destructicus: Dear PGI, do you plan to address the points made in the #saveMWO open letter to Russ, Paul, Bryan and the rest of the studio staff?
Points that the community feels negatively impact the game
Very slow iteration of simple gameplay balance
  • Decisions made contrary to constructive community feedback
  • Segregation of 8 man and 4 man player queues in a social online game, a system made obsolete by implementation of Elo ranking
  • Design decisions often failing to account for high level gameplay
  • Using canon Battletech systems despite their unsuitability for PC games
The point that most echos my own concerns is that I strongly feel that the community's feedback is being ignored. Why does it feel that our feedback means virtually nothing?

For example
3rd PPOV
Why are you so intent on forcing a feature such as this on us?
Why are people against the game's direction dismissed as a "vocal minority"?
Why are you ignoring your promise made to the founders and why have you not acknowledged this?
Can we expect your response (if at all) to the letter in command chair post or something else?

tl;dr Why is PGI intent on taking a game we want to support and see succeed in a direction nobody wants to go?


Along the same lines, with 100 votes
101011: Are you (PGI) going to make an official response to the #savemwo event that occurred a while back? It seems kind of strange that a group of players (what, 700+?) can all go out of their way to discuss the game without being acknowledged at all.



Devs, you really need to address this question.

Also, your Gauss/PPC desynchronization solution sounds very cumbersome. Just change the PPC projectile speed back to what it was before and increase the cooldown. Boom, problem solved. Heat's fine, damage is fine, range is fine. Just reduce the projectile speed and increase the cooldown.

Glad I stocked up on the last of the 'Mechs I intended to use. Won't be buying any MechBays anytime soon.

#58 East Indy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 970 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:37 PM

Ridiculing an extremely simple and reasonable change like cycle time is just another example of how biased and unthinking a large portion of posters can be.

View PostHomeless Bill, on 12 August 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Bill's Thoughts: What the hell? If this is just recycle time, it'll have no effect.

It'll have a significant effect on alphas if a so-armed 'Mech is forced into direct exchanges, especially if the cycle results in 30- to 45-second delays before natural re-sync if PPCs and Gauss are fired continously (or lowered DPS if the player waits for alternate cooldowns).

But as you seem to have kind of picked up on, it preserves the value of sniping by only slightly affecting 'Mechs that fire, take cover and re-aim in intervals far longer than current cycles.

#59 Parduke

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 84 posts
  • LocationIredell, TX

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:40 PM

well color me impressed.... honest answers!! yep we screwed up, don't have time for that, we know we want to...etc keep the truth alive. It's OK if you fall behind, you are still a small studio, but leaving us out in the snow asking if Garth can come out to play is no bueno. A disappointing answer that is the truth will convince me to spend money on your game. People that own up to failures/set backs impress me a hell of a lot more than anyone who waffles on an answer and never comes clean. Just have a plan to fix them and let us know every now and then that you ain't forgot and I will keep paying for premium time

#60 keith

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:43 PM

View PostEast Indy, on 12 August 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Ridiculing an extremely simple and reasonable change like cycle time is just another example of how biased and unthinking a large portion of posters can be.


It'll have a significant effect on alphas if a so-armed 'Mech is forced into direct exchanges, especially if the cycle results in 30- to 45-second delays before natural re-sync if PPCs and Gauss are fired continously (or lowered DPS if the player waits for alternate cooldowns).

But as you seem to have kind of picked up on, it preserves the value of sniping by only slightly affecting 'Mechs that fire, take cover and re-aim in intervals far longer than current cycles.


no becasue if u change travel by ALOT say make ppc near insta hit say 2750m/s and make guass 750m/s right there de syncs its. without taking away the skill of a pilot. yes if u get in close it will skill alpha 1 point. same will happen if u put a .25 sec delay on it. putting a huge different speed delay on it will show more skill in a pilot then a delay on firing. PGI thought process is all wrong





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users