1098 replies to this topic

[New Day]

Viper69, on 20 August 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

It is toggle-able in match. You honestly think your "high elo" is going to keep you from encountering people using it to see over and around things?

Again why is 3pv not in the training grounds ONLY PGI you goof balls?

It's just incredible that there is a such an easy way to fix most 3PV problems. Either lock it for the match or make the animation last 10-15 s and be uncancelable.

[Deathlike]

Gaslight, on 20 August 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

The Awesome and Centurion both follow the established engine size rules. The Awesome's max engine is a 300 (except for the 9M variant, which can fit a 385). Both of these are within the established limit of max size for an assault being the stock engine rating times 1.2.

The Centurion's max engine is a 275 (except for the 9-D variant, which can fit a 390). Both of these are within the established limit for medium 'mechs of stock engine rating times 1.3.

The Hero variants of both the Awesome and Centurion start with larger stock engines, so they have higher max engine limits as well, but still within the established rules.

Obviously, people don't even know the engine rules as they are, so I guess it doesn't matter if they get shot to hell.

No.

I don't recall what the previous engine size of an Awesome was, but IIRC, it was something like 295 for the non-9M Awesomes (this was before the PB release, which tweaked the engine cap).

The Centurion as I came to understand HAD a engine cap, which was THE SAME AS THE HUNCHBACKS... of 260. I could probably dig up patch notes if I wanted to, but the reality is... TWO MECHS that had prior lower engine caps WERE AFFECTED and "break the rules" as you are stating.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Prosperity Park, on 20 August 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

I think some people missed the developer statements regarding how they will implement the queue splitting (regarding first- and third-person views). The queue splitting is sensitive to the context of Community Warfare, such that the entire Mercenary campaign will be first-person only, and only in the Faction/House combat scenarios will there be a queue split to offer Faction/House players a choice of fighting with or without third-person players present. Because Community Warfare hasn't launched yet, they aren't rolling the full queue-splitting functionalities yet.

When CW launches, they will work a perspective queue split into the Faction/House players' options, and anyone launching/dropping as part of, or alongside, a Mercenary Corporation will not have access to third-person view at all.

Then don't include it until the entire feature is ready.

One would think they have had their fingers burned by doing this more than enough by now.

[Tezcatli]

I'm really glad to see UAC5 get a buff. Look forward to trying it out. As well as the medium buffs. Since I run Blackjack, Centurions, and Trebuchets only at the moment.

But no C-bill gain changes? In fact a reduction in resource reward for Conquest losses?

[Guardian00]

Just kidding, the community react like this when it feel censored. maybe this do not happen is he don't say "...I will remove them"

Snowcrow, on 20 August 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

It amazes me how many people feel like pgi owes them everything, and how much **** they talk about the company.
Reporting and complaining about bugs is good, so that the developers can fix their game, but so many posters are just giant ********. I see them again and again on this forum, just writing ****. Grow the **** up.

[Kraven Kor]

Prosperity Park, on 20 August 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

I think some people missed the developer statements regarding how they will implement the queue splitting (regarding first- and third-person views). The queue splitting is sensitive to the context of Community Warfare, such that the entire Mercenary campaign will be first-person only, and only in the Faction/House combat scenarios will there be a queue split to offer Faction/House players a choice of fighting with or without third-person players present. Because Community Warfare hasn't launched yet, they aren't rolling the full queue-splitting functionalities yet.

When CW launches, they will work a perspective queue split into the Faction/House players' options, and anyone launching/dropping as part of, or alongside, a Mercenary Corporation will not have access to third-person view at all.

Then they should not have released 3PV until CW was in.

In fact, given that 3PV was a "far off thing" and CW was a freaking core pillar of MWO's game design it stands to reason that maybe CW should have had priority.

I'm done. Wait, no, I'm not done, I'm finished.

[L1f3H4ck]

STREAK-MANDO!!!
STREAK-MANDO!!!
WHOOP!!! WHOOP!!!
STREAK-MANDO!!!

[New Day]

ManDaisy, on 20 August 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

So, we're being forced to play with people cheating with 3rd person now...

Wouldn't be the first time Wallhack^TM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

So, no 8vs8 queue back, eh? PGI, I am dissapoint.

[MischiefSC]

I want to make this perfectly clear.

You flat out lied PGI. To us, to ME. I'm going to say 'to me' because it is personal and I don't want to assume what other people are thinking or feeling.

You lied to me. I voiced my objections on 3PV and you said you listened and you presented your responses. The benefits it offered to some people and some anecdotal experience from how people behaved at a convention (logically that's going to be different than how they behave when they're at home, at their computer, playing something they just downloaded but whatever). I still voiced my objections and expressed my concerns.

You addressed those concerns by saying you'd make it separate queues and largely use it for training.

Then you lied. Again. To my face. Without a blink.

So now I've got a system where I can see a blip of a UAV when someone pops into 3PV, identifies my position, movement, mech type and a bit of my loadout before they decide exactly how they're going to deal with me. Sniper dream-mode, perfect counter-ambush concept and a bullet to the forehead of most tactical play.

Not to mention that you flat out bald faced lied to me.

No. I don't care if you've utterly redesigned the very concept of 3PV, achieving what every single game developer in the history of 3PV/1PV games has failed to do and made a perfectly balanced 3rd vs 1st system, I'll never see it. You'll never see the $80 I wanted so badly to spend on Phoenix, no anything else for that matter.

I can't trust you. You're asking me for money and then lying to me about what the game I'll be playing will look like.

It's not about balance issues, PGI. I get that those can change. I can be patient for that. Lying to me though, that's a trust issue. I'm hoping there will be an update before the patch goes live about different servers and in that case I'll edit this post to say I'm eating crow. Otherwise, I want to be totally clear about this, you lied to me and I take issue with that. Broken games can be fixed. Broken trust is a whole other matter.

Edited to add this:

Quote

Bryan Ekman
<p class="author_info">

Creative Director

• 
  
• [color=red]Administrators[/color]
  
• 
  
• 982 posts

• LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:38 AM
Here are the facts.

• Yes we are currently working on a 3rd person option for MWO.
  
• There is no ETA for when 3rd person will be available.
  
• Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person.

Why add 3rd person?

• Reduces friction for non-MechWarrior players, non-core players, and expands the MWO market to a broader audience. It helps to make the game more accessible and less intimidating.
  
• Offers up a different style of gameplay and tactics.

You will have the following options as a player:

• Play against 1st and 3rd person players.
  
• Play against 3rd person players only.
  
• Play against 1st person players only.
  
• Players can set their preference in the options menu, or during the launch phase before matchmaking.

Edited by MischiefSC, 20 August 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Abaddonis]

Redoxin, on 20 August 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Why should I care about the new players? I am not dropping against them because of my higher Elo. If I should drop against 3PV players I would be happy though, because it means I will have easy opponents.

LOL, talk about short sighted. If new players don't stick around, the playerbase will dwindle to a few blowhards such as yourself. Then you'll be here crying that there aren't enough folks to play against. Wake up, chump.

[Deathlike]

Prosperity Park, on 20 August 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

I think some people missed the developer statements regarding how they will implement the queue splitting (regarding first- and third-person views). The queue splitting is sensitive to the context of Community Warfare, such that the entire Mercenary campaign will be first-person only, and only in the Faction/House combat scenarios will there be a queue split to offer Faction/House players a choice of fighting with or without third-person players present. Because Community Warfare hasn't launched yet, they aren't rolling the full queue-splitting functionalities yet.

When CW launches, they will work a perspective queue split into the Faction/House players' options, and anyone launching/dropping as part of, or alongside, a Mercenary Corporation will not have access to third-person view at all.

There is no CW to speak about, and unfortunately this is a community breaking feature at this moment. I'm not sure you grasp the immense problem with the entire change.

[New Day]

Frechdachs, on 20 August 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

STREAK-MANDO!!!
STREAK-MANDO!!!
WHOOP!!! WHOOP!!!
STREAK-MANDO!!!

I bet you will be seeing a lot of Strektaros.

[Dan Nashe]

Happy with patch. Got over 3pv months ago . HBKs yay! Ultra 5 buff is surprising. Ac 5s need lovin'. Gauss need to trigger ppc ghost heat, large lasergrouping needs to be three. But a good patch overall!

[warner2]

Prosperity Park, on 20 August 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

I think some people missed the developer statements regarding how they will implement the queue splitting (regarding first- and third-person views). The queue splitting is sensitive to the context of Community Warfare, such that the entire Mercenary campaign will be first-person only, and only in the Faction/House combat scenarios will there be a queue split to offer Faction/House players a choice of fighting with or without third-person players present. Because Community Warfare hasn't launched yet, they aren't rolling the full queue-splitting functionalities yet.

When CW launches, they will work a perspective queue split into the Faction/House players' options, and anyone launching/dropping as part of, or alongside, a Mercenary Corporation will not have access to third-person view at all.

So are you saying PGI have changed their position from "Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person" to "Players will be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person until CW comes out"?

I understood that the "hardcore mode" game type was in-place (but disabled) in the testing server.

It had better be there this patch otherwise that is quite an about turn.

[Viper69]

NamesAreStupid, on 20 August 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

It's just incredible that there is a such an easy way to fix most 3PV problems. Either lock it for the match or make the animation last 10-15 s and be uncancelable.

The problem is there was no problem in the first place to warrant 3PV. They imagined it and divined some imaginary boogie man that scared people away from this game because it was hard to control. I do not know one single person in any of my friends that has ever had an issue controlling a mech. Hell I have a handful that are too young to even remember the first few mechwarriors and just picked this up and started playing. To me it says allot about modern gamers when PGI thinks they are too dim to figure out how to pilot a mech and look left or right.

[Jman5]

Doctor Proctor, on 20 August 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

I'm not. It doesn't really help to fix the problem, which is basically that Heavies, and even sometimes and Assault, can basically keep pace with a Medium trying to circle them.

Take the classic HBK-4H build of AC/20, 3ML and STD250. Now we can raise that to a STD275, right? That's great! Wait, no it's not, because a STD275 weighs 3 tons more than the STD250. So where do you strip those 3 tons from, while keeping the iconic AC/20 that makes this build such a staple? Do you strip out the 3ML, leaving you with only 21 shots on the AC/20? Do you strip out 2 tons of ammo and an ML or a ton of armor, leaving you underpowered, underarmored and with a giant 14 ton AC that can only fire 7 times?

Sure, now you can mess around with some different builds I guess, but not really anything you couldn't do in a Centurion before. And you can forget trying an XL275 in that 4G if you want to survive for more than 5 minutes. Not to mention that Hunchies usually run with both ES and FF, which leaves no room for an XL anyway without adding an extra ton of weight back onto your mech, which reduces the weight savings of the XL from 4.5 to 3.5 tons.

Although, I guess that last bit means you probably could do the classic 4G but running an XL275 as your engine. But is a speed boost of a few kph really going to save from getting that giant hunch shot off? Probably not.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to go faster, you have to sacrifice firepower, which means potentially downgrading your AC/20. If that's a dealbreaker for you, keep in mind you're still going to benefit from all the other agility buffs.

For the 4P, 4J, and 4SP, this is a big deal. Especially because 275 opens your engine up for a double heat sink slot.

[Destructicus]

Thuzel, on 20 August 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

They just pulled up to the corner store and bought a plunger and steel wool.

Ironically using our money

[Thuzel]

Deathlike, on 20 August 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Conquest nerf, w/o a corresponding cap point capture/conversion bonus.

Yeah, I completely misread that part. So...... I guess that's the punchline then

[Middcore]

Deathlike, on 20 August 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

No.

I don't recall what the previous engine size of an Awesome was, but IIRC, it was something like 295 for the non-9M Awesomes (this was before the PB release, which tweaked the engine cap).

The Centurion as I came to understand HAD a engine cap, which was THE SAME AS THE HUNCHBACKS... of 260. I could probably dig up patch notes if I wanted to, but the reality is... TWO MECHS that had prior lower engine caps WERE AFFECTED and "break the rules" as you are stating.

I don't know why the Awesome would have ever been capped at 295, that makes no sense. I haven't played an Awesome since Closed Beta because, well, they're terrible, so I don't remember personally.

Come to think of it, a 275 engine on the non-D Centurions IS over the theoretical 1.3 limit, so you're right about that. That still doesn't mean making the system even more chaotic and nonsensical is the right way to go, though.