483 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Aym, on 14 August 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Yeah, it really could just mean that the cool downs will be tweaked, and maybe damage, and travel speed, to make them less of a great combo for alpha-striking at range.

I will be you $5 it'll be some weird arbitrary firing rule that prevents them from being group fired.

Because people keep pointing out to PGI that it breaks Ghost Heat. So instead of getting rid of Ghost Heat, full speed ahead!

NOTHING STOPS THIS TRAIN!

EDIT: After reading this entire thread I will be honest to God shocked if Ask the Devs isn't entirely canceled in a month.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 August 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[101011]

Mike Getsome, on 13 August 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

I don't know where have you been, but since the start of closed beta it was a thing that assault hugely benefit from a medium mech defending it from lights.

Yes, Assaults do benefit from another 'mech watching their backs. But it does make more sense for that other 'mech to be similar in speed profile as well. Combine that with the common PUG tactic of blob movement with outlying flankers, and its a non-issue in PUGs.

[Kunae]

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Stating where one is coming from - in this case a competitive background - is useful context for the discussion and for the developer's who read our discussions. Turning provided context into an attack on someone you don't know and a game-play style you evidently hold no respect for was uncalled for.

Way to make assumptions there, bud. It's not the game-play style I have no respect for, it's people who follow a false meta and think that's the only way things can be done, as you proclaimed with your "argument from authority" statement.

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Smart players in organized drops (i.e. 8-man teams) would simply recognize the build and pick it off from a distance. I've played in the top ELO bracket ever since ELO came out, and I've seldom seen any of them

----

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

As to the issues at hand, in complete fairness, we need to see and test changes before decrying or lauding them.

With some things, yes. But the majority of the time, a half-brain-dead parakeet can see that what is being proposed is stupid.

We don't need to test, for example, whether a proposed change to Russian Roulette, where you put bullets in every chamber instead of just one, is a good idea or not.

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

I appreciate the developer's efforts to give some outline to their future balance changes, but specifics are lacking... of course, that's probably because specifics don't exist yet, so I'm not sure we can fault them for that.

The specifics don't exist yet, primarily because they're foolishly using a software development methodology(Agile) which is totally inappropriate for making MMO's.

[Jakob Knight]

RENZOKUKEN, on 14 August 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but since when is firing sniping weapons a problem?

When it's a player who thinks they should be able to charge right at the enemy and not have any chance of being downed. In other words, players who believe MWO should be brawling, and not require smart fighting as well as hard fighting. Having long-ranged weapons capable of killing them before they can rush into blind combat prevents them from feeling good, so it must be broken.

And I've managed to get my YLW into effective AC/20 range almost any time I've played on Alpine, so I know its not a problem with the maps.

[IceSerpent]

Iron Harlequin, on 14 August 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

On the lines of heat, why the hell is the mech generating so much heat when using its jump-jets..... jump-jets are using vented exhaust from the battlemech's reactor, it should technically not be generating heat to vent what is basically "heat" out the *** end of my mech.

Same reason why flamethrowers and acetylene torches get hot despite "venting what's basically heat"...

[CSPshala]

hkk, on 14 August 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:07 PM
No amount of rational argument, or open letters with thousands of signatures will change any minds. You guys want change? then do the only thing that will get their attention, vote with your wallets, or lack thereof.
Posted 12 August 2013 - 09:41 PM
I'm sure i play on the same servers and against the same players as everyone else and with the right tactics i love bagging snipers and especially LRM boats. Harden up adapt to the game don'y make the game adapt to you.
Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:36 PM
I said that you need to be more tactical in your approach.
Posted Yesterday, 01:07 AM
Personally, after seeing this same type of "concern" all over the LoL boards years back it's really hard to take most of you "critics" seriously.
Posted Yesterday, 01:26 AM
People love - LOVE - to doom and gloom. There's something innate in the human condition that delights in being right about something (or somebody) being 'bad'. We see a lot of that here.

Any light bulbs coming on over there in the angry people town hall?

People with experience out at the pointy end of the stick often say
"if the troops ain't bitching about something, then somethings wrong"

What the hell is this rambling madness?

[Sug]

Victor Morson, on 14 August 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

They really have absolutely no idea how the game is played beyond the very, very basic level

That would explain why PGI premades get creamed in every fraps of them I've seen.

Victor Morson, on 14 August 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

It is, however, a shame the LBX is now out-LBX'ed by a missile.

Now? It's always been worst than SRMs.

[Solidussnake]

Pgi ruining Ip's since they started making games lol.

[Sug]

Victor Morson, on 14 August 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

After reading this entire thread I will be honest to God shocked if Ask the Devs isn't entirely canceled in a month.

Lol this is how it always looks.

The devs post the ATD answers like how people throw a grenade. Right now they're ducked behind a wall covering their ears waiting for the smoke to settle.

Edited by Sug, 14 August 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[Ozric]

At 2.33 in this Cryengine 3 video from GDC there is an example of how PGI could fix the zoom module while still using pip, kind of. It's basically a bordered window that looks pip'ish without the need for rendering a second perspective, fuzzy or not.

http://youtu.be/G8T3pe9G4Pc?t=2m32s

Edited by Ozric, 14 August 2013 - 07:54 AM.

[N a p e s]

Arrachtas, on 14 August 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

It's statistics that in any MMO, the forums are indeed a vocal minority; the game has had over one million registered accounts. Even if only a fraction of those ever played the game, and a fraction of that fraction is still around... how many people are posting here? How many have truly good ideas? How many are just ranting and foaming at the mouth? These are not just rhetorical questions, they are fair ones.

This game is PGI's livelihood; for us, it's for fun. For them, it's about putting food on the table and paying a mortgage. The suggestion that they don't care about the game or what people think is therefore absolutely incredible. PGI not implementing what a certain forum demographic argues is the right idea (until they are blue in the face) does not mean that they are not reading and understanding what is being said; they are electing to do something else. Yes, we can disagree with what they do, have every right to do so, and should do so if we disagree, but is it not also, perhaps, just slightly arrogant for a niche of forum-goers to presume that they always know best? We don't have access to even 1/100th of the statistics and data that PGI does; all we have is play experience. They have play experience AND statistics. Who is therefore the more informed party?

We should be critical. We should seek to propose solutions, or critique ideas we don't like. The suggestions that PGI 'doesn't care' are rubbish, though. No game developer 'doesn't care'. At the end of our day, we can take our money elsewhere. At the end of their day, they either can pay their bills or they can't. Who do you think is more invested?

One of the best "perspective" posts regarding issues with PGI.

[Molossian Dog]

I made it to page 9 bfore giving up.

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

...
Question From Maxx Blue: What does PGI consider to be the top three problems with the game right now?...

Answer From Paul:

Hit Detection...

The only good news. You know we can argue about weapon balancing, hitboxes, ghost delay, SRMs and the current meta as long as we like. As long as it is almost completely random which weapon does do damage, despite hitting the target, any such discussions are moot.
I see it as a positive sign that PGI understood the importance of hit registration.

Don´t get me wrong. I hate the PPC/Gauss supremacy just like the next guy. And I am irritated that lots of wonderful ideas (some from PGI itself) still await implementation and look like they get postponed to judgement day. And I outright fear how the eventual implementation of Clan stuff might create first and second rate gamers if done wrong. (And I bet it will be done wrong = pay for better stuff)
And the rest of the answers are just dissapointing, evasive and empty corporate speak. Not to adress a consensus by hundreds of players is ... well let´s say unwise.

But without proper hit registration there can be no balancing. Without proper hit registration there can be no launch. Without proper hit registration there can be no MWO.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 14 August 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[CSPshala]

Napes339, on 14 August 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

One of the best "perspective" posts regarding issues with PGI.

Yes, PGI has play experience and the stats.

So why is the game in the state it's in, and has been in for awhile now?

To think that PGI has some illuminati-esque plan for this game that we "mere" beta testers can't fathom is foolish.

At the end of the day they are creating a product for us, their customers, and they're failing that. Not to mention doing a disservice to Mechwarrior, since if this tanks we won't see another Big Stompy Robot Simulator game for another decade most likely.

How's that for a perspective post?

[Aym]

Thariel, on 13 August 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

Who considers the awesome a bad assault? who even wasted a question for that. Imho one of the top notch assaults, if you can do better than jumptarting

Ok, so we have... The Atlas, the Highlander, the Stalker, the Awesome and the Victor for assaults. So "one of the top notch assaults" really means very little, and is also just wrong. Look at your qualifying statements and then look at the assault leaderboards for verification.

[DirePhoenix]

Morang, on 14 August 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

FuzzyLog1c, on 13 August 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Lack of familiarity with CryEngine 3 does not make that a true statement.

Even if you can't implement it properly, you could do the OPPOSITE of the present implementation and make everything AROUND YOU blurry, instead of the stuff in the scope.



Genius!

Current blur of PIP zoom have different nature from the out-of-scope blur you've shown. Here there are still two scenes actually rendered with two different zoom levels (what PGI wants to avoid), then zoomed-out picture is blurred deliberately to simulate eye focusing on the near plane (of image in the scope). So it's not a solution and adding blur to peripheral part of picture here doesn't remove double strain from GPU. PGI's PIP zoom is blurred because they are not rendering zoomed part for the second time, they just take a piece of x1 render and increase it in size by four, so each one pixel of your unzoomed view turns to 4x4 square.

Purposes are different too. The purpose of a picture shown by you is to imitate the behaviour of a human eye looking through the scope. PGI's purpose is to grant an advantage by combining zoomed window for long-range accuracy (in which they fail) with unzoomed periphery for situational awareness (in which they succeed). All that while rendering the whole scene on the same level (to avoid GPU stress), then only rescaling already rendered parts. And they can render whole scene in 4x scale and then "squeese" out-of-window part (instead of rendering in 1x and then stretching the window part as it is now) because that would mean rendering in 4x resolution (again overstressing GPU).

I suggest that they can mate this technique with full-screen zoom to temporarily fix the problem. Let PIP part be increased not four, but two times, but make it work together with normal zoom (re-rendering whole screen to another zoom level). Currently with PIP zoom we have our peripheral vision at 1x and our central window at 4x. Perhaps they should switch to other modes, for example with PIP zoom peripheral vision should be at 2x (still not as narrow as default 3x max zoom) and central window at 4x as it is now (but in this case 4x is done by rescaling 2x, not 1x view, it will be 2 times sharper than now). Or other combinations - 1.5x periphery with 3x window, for example, maybe even 3x/6x variant.

The image shown actually looks like both the view inside the scope and outside the scope are at the same zoom level, based on the tree on the left, and the view outside the scope area is just blurred out because the focus is supposed to be inside the scope. I will agree that the purposes of the FarCry scope zoom and the MWO PiP zoom are different though.

Ozric, on 14 August 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

At 2.33 in this Cryengine 3 video from GDC there is an example of how PGI could fix the zoom module while still using pip, kind of. It's basically a bordered window that looks pip'ish without the need for rendering a second perspective, fuzzy or not.

http://youtu.be/G8T3pe9G4Pc?t=2m32s

That looks identical to the image shown above, and also not accomplishing what is supposed to be with a PiP zoom. Since a MW3 style PiP zoom (which was smaller and would actually follow the cursor) doesn't seem to be able to be accomplished in CryEngine, maybe they should instead just make the advanced zoom module a scope-style zoom where the entire view is zoomed to the correct (advanced) level, show the area inside the window clearly and blur everything outside the window?

That should also fix the issues with the targeting HUD, because it's being rendered on the same level as the base view. In the current Advanced Zoom, while the PiP shows a (highly pixelated) 4x zoom, the targeting HUD is still being rendered at 1x because that's what the area outside the PiP is being rendered at.

[Ozric]

DirePhoenix, on 14 August 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

That looks identical to the image shown above, and also not accomplishing what is supposed to be with a PiP zoom.

There was an issue with the blur around the sight that was under discussion, that I probably should have quoted first. My point was that there was no need render twice at all, and you could still maintain the illusion of pip

[Bilbo]

Ozric, on 14 August 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

There was an issue with the blur around the sight that was under discussion, that I probably should have quoted first. My point was that there was no need render twice at all, and you could still maintain the illusion of pip

The illusion of PiP does little to no good. The advantage of a PiP zoom is that you don't loose FOV as you would in normal zoom modes. If you blur or black out the area surrounding the PiP, you might as well not have it at all.

[Lostdragon]

Vote with your wallet, folks. I would like to buy some more mech bays but a couple of months ago I resolved I would not spend any more money until the game was in a much better state. I think there has been some progress but so far it is not enough to convince me to drop more cash, especially when it seems like each step forward also results in two steps back.

If you are unhappy with the game just stop supporting it financially. At this point I think it is clear that is the only thing we as players can do to make our opinions matter.

[CutterWolf]

Bilbo, on 14 August 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

The illusion of PiP does little to no good. The advantage of a PiP zoom is that you don't loose FOV as you would in normal zoom modes. If you blur or black out the area surrounding the PiP, you might as well not have it at all.

LOL! Really? No Really?? Have you ever fired a rifle? Ever? I would have to say you have not or you would know that your statement is total BS. When your "zoomed in" on a target your not looking around to see what else is moving around you, your only concern at the time is hitting what your zoomed in on and hitting it where you want. Loosing FOV is what "zoomed in" is all about. Just wow......................

[Lostdragon]

CutterWolf, on 14 August 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

LOL! Really? No Really?? Have you ever fired a rifle? Ever? I would have to say you have not or you would know that your statement is total BS. When your "zoomed in" on a target your not looking around to see what else is moving around you, your only concern at the time is hitting what your zoomed in on and hitting it where you want. Loosing FOV is what "zoomed in" is all about. Just wow......................

You are right about firing a rifle, but the module is supposed to work like Bilbo indicated. That is what is supposed to make it worth the GXP and Cbills. When I was new this was the first module I bought and boy was I disappointed when it did not work as advertised. Months later it is still in the exact same state.