42 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

Bryan Eckman interview part II notes. The broadcast can be heard here: http://www.nogutsnog...opic,930.0.html

Part I notes and links can be found here: http://mwomercs.com/...y-part-1-notes/

Part III notes and links can be found here: http://mwomercs.com/...y-part-3-notes/

Disclaimer: these are the notes I've taken from the Bryan Eckman trilogy part 2. These are just the things that I wrote down, and may not be perfectly accurate, but hopefully you'll be able to get the information you're looking for. If not, listen! Please don't condemn me if I mess up a little. I'm not a professional note-taker! Don't ask me about details. LISTEN to the interview if something is unclear.

[EDIT: anything in a box like this is my personal question/comments, not part of/answered in the interview. - Peiper]

Duncan Fisher pukes.

Collisions will be back. Like MASC, needed HSRewind work completed before integration.
(Had to re-write cryengine because it's not server-side something or another, it will be a gameplay mechanic meaning viable?)

How will it work? Collision intentions: watch where you're going or you'll take damage.
Actual experience: Used as a weapon, forcing mechs to sit on the ground awhile before they stood back up, and was used as a griefing mechanism.
Might have a module or something to help you stand up faster to help alleviate the pain of crawling/sitting too long.
Technical parts of collision are done, but they're not sure how they're going to implement it yet.

"A good counter to a charge is a sidestep." - Bryan. [EDIT: but we can't strafe/sidestep yet, right? Is that a hint that sidestepping is coming?]

1PV vs. 3PV.

PGI/MWO Demographic/target audience? 'anyone who wants to play a giant robot game. Not JUST for 'sim heads.' Game is built for 'mech fans' of all types. PGI's goal is to make MWO as available and easy to get into as possible.
When asking new players that give up, why? They said: They had a hard time understanding their mech. Stats showing; new players play first 20-30 games in 3rd person, then switch to 1st! PGI goals achieved.
1 engineer putting in 3 weeks of work to make 3rd person as it is now. Looked at it, thought it didn't give a competitive edge.
Because MOST people play in 1st person, do we really need split queues? Split queues SEEMED like the solution, but they changed their mind because it split the player base/made weight times too long.

So, future solution: they 'understand' the competitive players pain, so: 1st person 12 v 12 queues is a 'first step.' [Paul's 1stPV poll.] 10 to 1 said yes, great idea!, so 1st person only in 12 v 12 queues will be in at launch.

CW leak: There's attackers and defenders in planetary conquest fight a series of pitched battles to take a planet.
Idea is: Defenders will be able to choose 1st or 3rd person or mixed to fight for it.
That part will be up for debate/not set in stone.

Other system: Private match solution. You won't get C-bills, rewards, etc... but you'll be able to choose how you fight in the match. Yes, you will be able to PICK YOUR OPPONENT. They will 'create a home for' us private lobby types.
(They will probably do a big post on this, but both of the above options will be introduced AFTER the CW presentation at the Launch Party 9/25)

Bryan had a long talk/beers with Black Widow Company at PAX, listening to the concerns of the hard core players.

Anything new for new players to learn how to aim and stuff?
More tutorials soon covering aiming, heat management, lance management, etc...
(Current problem is no way to tell new players how to find the current tutorial, UI 2.0 will have breadcrumbs for new players to follow/train up on.)

Weapon balance/theory:
Will PGI follow the timeline for new weapons like light gauss, snub nose PPC's, etc...
Devs mostly focused on Clan Tech at the moment. Still on 1/1 timeline, but looking to reset it to do the Clan Invasion properly. Might put it to community vote.
If they reset, will be reset late 3049/early 3050. Community vote will determine it.


What about 3067 tech? (MW4 stuff, think: Bushwacker, Thanatos, Fafnir, Nova Cat)
Options: maybe bring it forward as a prototype weapon before canon implimentation.
Other option is to SHARD the universe, so some people are playing in a different timeline than others!

Why does PGI change weapon stats/rebalance?
1. Community feedback/noise. Applies to pricing/c-bills, other things too supposedly. Silence often points to something that's TOO good, so they look at that too!
2. Compare to stats. Is what the community says true? Or are they freaking over a perception, also look at what is used or unused to determine useful/uselessness.
3. Pual and Dave in charge of weapons balance. Gauss idea explained: Gauss is meant to be fired seperately/like a sniper rifle with hold breath/trigger pull.

To test if it worked:
1. figure intent: make gauss a weapon for specific situations.
2. check to see if the players are using it as such, and not using it like the used to be used.
3. Usually takes a month to analyse the effect, won't kneejerk change it again.

Why does the Gauss have delayed fire instead of PPC's?
Like the Gauss, the PPC's have had their heat/speed changed as part of the balancing cycle. The current weapon balance/stats are NOT set in stone, but take a month or so of study to see if the NEW change fixes it or needs another tweek.
They'll be going back to beam weapons again soon, they cycle through ALL the weapons, then recycle the list and start over with balancing passes.

NARC? Tough weapon to use, need some love. Part of an upcoming pass, so stay tuned.

Gauss might get audio/visual queues indicators. Bryan makes wub-wub-wub-wub noises.

UAC/5's? Will they look at it again? Yes.

More funky mechanics like the Gauss? Yes. Want to improve experience. Don't want alpha builds, want a variety of weapons and weapon 'feels.' Every weapon should FEEL and ACT differently for immersion, variety, and balance purposes.

RE: macros, Bombadil (host) tried a macro for the first time: 3xUAC/5 macro. His observation: 100% no jamming.
Bryan says he'll talk to Paul about that!

Phil and Daeron compare {scrap} sizes.

Release schedule for maps? Island City and Moon are in the works, others are not so much.
One map every 2 months release schedule.
Island City intended to be released middle of this month, might make 'the tournament' but just in case its still buggy, but probably not released until first Oct. patch.
Moonbase end of November/early December. No gravity differences on moon, because it will totally mess up HSRewind stuff. Maybe down the road.
We will probably see these in public test servers before release, like terra therma.


New game modes? [think conquest/assault]
1st new one will come with CW and be an attack/defense mode. Asymetrical game mode, defender will have base, attacker may have more numbers. Thomas is working on some radical game mode options. This game mode will be both part of public queue selection and part of CW/planet capture so all can play it.
2nd mode mentioned: [untintelligable timestamp 45:47, possibly team death match?] Same as assault without the bases. [EDIT ?: Bryan says they "just TURN OFF the bases." Why can't we have that right now if it's so easy?]

CW Teaser: Planetary capture will take several battles. (teaser of his CW presentation at launch party)
Example of 3 battle planetary conquest:
1. Drop on planet will be straight up deathmatch as desribed above, whoever controls dropzone wins.
2. Assault mode: meeting engagement, like we have now.
3. Attack/Defense: taking capital/defender's base.

Turrets and Dropships are in the works. [Merc corp/regimental assets.]

FAR FUTURE idea, not on the trestleboard yet: Bryan wants to put in a scenario where base has objects like power plant, com center, etc... people have to destroy to win, but said scenario may require multiple lives/respawns to fully impliment.

More CW spoilers [timestamp 49min]: Something about a Regiment holding a planet, and players are assigned to a planet. ONLY those assigned players can defend that planet.
He wants to have a dropship involved in moving units around in planetary conquest SO: if the defenders destroy the invading dropship, it might kill their invasion same as if the defenders lose their base.
Also, these things might be assets for merc corps to build/create, and so if destroyed, have to replace/repair. Assets might be turrets/base defense as well as dropships.

Steps toward more game modes: [how they test and vet game modes]
1. Get attack/defense mission and respawn mechanics out of the way.
2. Listen to feedback/vet it. Once these obstacles out of the way, opens up a 'whole slew' of options. Tanks and AI ARE possible. [Edit: think by August 2024?]
3. Play it forward and look at more complicated match types. Example: Look at matches that absolutely require respawns like tug of war/push-pull matches, and the 'whole slew.'

Solaris VII arena?
'like the E-sports' part of the game. They need private matches first, create RULES, then create team rosters, ladder/ranking, and so YES, it will be possible.

Bryan/PGI wants to satisfy the need we have for private matches/training drops/competitive leagues. They want to see that too!

Part III preview:

Customizable weight limits.
In game events
Clan invasion
rare and unique items and much more!

Concludes with some fun heavy metal music.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=F5feqHY3344
Robot by Suicide Denial

Edited by Peiper, 07 September 2013 - 03:20 AM.

[Staplebeater]

I think the idea of private matches is my number one feature. Even if it is just some means of two team leaders being able to have their teams fight each other without traditional lobby system. This what teams (regardless of size and composition) can fight each with what ever rules they see fit. You want trial commandos you fight trial commandos. You want no PPCs you fight no PPCs. You want clan style trails of position you do trial of position. All the rules are simple gentleman's agreements and sky is the limit on what can be organized for fun, practice, and leagues

[nitra]

thanks for taking the time to do this Peiper

its appreciated

Edited by nitra, 05 September 2013 - 11:39 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

first thanks to the op for the time and effort in providing this stuff. as usuall it's the community players who update this website not igp pgi workers.

notes: a big wait and see stamp on this game, i'm sure we'll have people coming in and saying heard all this last year *groan* etc etc.

biggest puzzle of all is why have a launch date where little is happening and a little later have a launch party where stuff actually may happen. organisation between event dates and actuall in game imporvements are a total mismatch. weird.

still what igp pgi needs to understand is christmas is coming so they need FREASH features for december and i mean not tweaky game changes {weapon balancing new module stuff} and not gymicky {scrap} like 3pv or mech merchandise. this game seriously neeads some meat to go with the veg. if UI2 and CW isn't operational in some form by december some white knights will die.

and that's the doomsayer pov for now. tune in next time when we discuss the end of the world and the price of popcorn.

[van Uber]

nitra, on 05 September 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

thanks for taking the time to do this Peiper

its appreciated

Seconded. It's horrible to read vital information like this, why they can't post stuff like this on their own site is just beyond me.

Never the less, thanks Peiper for taking the time, it's appreciated.

[Mycrus]

Side stepping?!?

Won't be long until mantling will be added to the game...

[Tekadept]

Thanks OP, saves me having to listen to another NGNG podcast.

Hmm.. Commando rolls will be in next to avoid charges.. I'm cool with that so long as its a perk for... The commando

[iNemeq]

Thanks for the summary.

I also think it's pretty horrible an official transcript or summary of the information is not posted.

[MustrumRidcully]

Thanks, Peiper, great work.

Quote

Yes. Want to improve experience. Don't want alpha builds, want a variety of weapons and weapon 'feels.' Every weapon should FEEL and ACT differently for immersion, variety, and balance purposes.

This sounds mutually exclusive.

Special snowflake weapon mechanics don't mix well. Okay, you can probably change weapons so they aren't really delivering alpha strikes (Lasers are basically like that already), but you won't get people to mix weapons if every weapon behaves differently. It just becomes impractical to run such builds. This isn't a traditional FPS where you use one weapon at a time, this is a game where you basically switch your weapon 3 times in 4 seconds.

[New Day]

"1 engineer putting in 3 weeks of work to make 3rd person as it is now. Looked at it, thought it didn't give a competitive edge."
So what, 3PV only took 3 weeks or am I missing something

Staplebeater, on 05 September 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

I think the idea of private matches is my number one feature. Even if it is just some means of two team leaders being able to have their teams fight each other without traditional lobby system. This what teams (regardless of size and composition) can fight each with what ever rules they see fit. You want trial commandos you fight trial commandos. You want no PPCs you fight no PPCs. You want clan style trails of position you do trial of position. All the rules are simple gentleman's agreements and sky is the limit on what can be organized for fun, practice, and leagues

But no CB/EXP means it won't be that heavily used. More used than 3PV for sure, but still I think that other things should be a priority.

[Peiper]

iNemeq, on 06 September 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

Thanks for the summary.

I also think it's pretty horrible an official transcript or summary of the information is not posted.

Okay, you gotta be fair about this.

1. The forums were squealing for more information, that wasn't canned {Scrap}. See #saveMWO townhall stuff, as an example. They wanted transparency and candid discussions rather than troll posts and half-answers.
2. This questions answered in the interview might have been available to Bryan before the interview, but they were asked pretty much verbatum by the NGNG guys. Those questions were a bunch of questions compiled by the NGNG guys from the community in a more civil forum than this one, and whether you like the hosts or not, the two-way communication between Bryan and Phil/Daeron allowed for (the community) to make sure Bryan answered the questions. You can't stop a dev to explain further something in an ask the devs response, because the moment is gone - but Phil and Daeron could, for all of our sakes.. Every medium has it's limitations, but whether you prefer to listen or read, LISTENING to someone talk can often carry with it a different set of meanings than just reading it.
3. Phil, Daeron, Bryan and the NGNG crew took a lot of time to prep, conduct, edit, and post the interview for all of us to hear. NGNG is a Battletech podcast, and while they have merchandise, they do not get paid salaries to do this stuff for us. So, to demand a transcript from them is a bit presumptuous. They'd just answer: Hey, why don't you just LISTEN if you want to know everything that was said! They are a PODCAST after all!
4. Regarding PGI putting out the information in this interview in word form here on the forums. What do you mean nothing exciting will happen at launch! Get a rope! The MWO forums are a bit toxic right now, and it's no wonder Bryan chose to work with the NGNG people instead of meet with the foamers here on the forums.
5. There is a gold mine of information in this trilogy interview, and it answers many outstanding questions that the have whipped up on the forums. This is one of the most open and comprehensive the devs have been since maybe the beginning. I've been wondering WHY PGI has made some of their more controversial decisions. Even my questions were answered, and I never actually expected them to come clean about their thought processes. This interview has gone a long way in helping me understand what PGI has planned and why. I certainly don't agree with every decision, but it's nice and comforting to know WHY, which helps me be more reasonable in my expectations. It's far easier to trust a person to be who they are, rather than who you want them to be. If you can understand someone (Bryan/PGI), you can better trust them to be who they are, agree with them or not.

So, if you want a transcript, get to work! But listening to the podcast will convey far more information than a simple transcript. You can't HEAR Duncan Fisher puke in a transcript! And any official transcript by PGI will be dissected and burned in effigy by the community.

[mike29tw]

Peiper, on 05 September 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

What about 3067 tech? (MW4 stuff, think: Bushwacker, Thanatos, Fafnir, Nova Cat)
Options: maybe bring it forward as a prototype weapon before canon implimentation.

I smell potential P2W MC mechs. Please don't do it.

[Stormwolf]

Sidestepping has always been a ability exclusive to quad mechs, not too sure that I would want it for regular mechs.

Quote

PGI/MWO Demographic/target audience? 'anyone who wants to play a giant robot game. Not JUST for 'sim heads.' Game is built for 'mech fans' of all types. PGI's goal is to make MWO as available and easy to get into as possible.

The game is not built for the hardcore BT crowd, they should have atleast been catered to with simple things like a stock only mode.

Also, the "sim heads" got screwed over when the unwanted 3rd person view was implemented against everybody's wills.

Quote

When asking new players that give up, why? They said: They had a hard time understanding their mech. Stats showing; new players play first 20-30 games in 3rd person, then switch to 1st! PGI goals achieved.
1 engineer putting in 3 weeks of work to make 3rd person as it is now. Looked at it, thought it didn't give a competitive edge.

Putting in a tutorial earlier in the beta would have worked wonders here, they wouldn't have had to waste time on a 3rd person view to begin with.


What I can gather from the interview ist that PGI ofcourse wishes to cater to the largest audience, the old BT/MW crowds are considered too niche. Trying to cater to the more "arcade" and console crowds can backfire quite horribly, they are quite fickle in what they want to play and are quick to change to new games.

The best course would have been to keep MW a sim, not some shooter that is afraid to break from the current mold. Be original and do what other games aren't doing. It won't be everybody's cup of tea, but neither were past MW games and they did well.


Just my two cents.

[Riptor]

This shows 2 things:

First of all.. all the stuff they said 2 years ago? Big fat lies to get in the founders money.. they suckered in the battletech fan crowd with false promises so they could get their project crowdfunded... and it worked.. got 5 millions in.

After they got the 5 millions... they simply dropped the fans... after all they got their money and didnt really need to follow up on their promises now right? On to the promised land of casual gamer money! Bad thing is casual gamers dont like mechs... there was a reason this genre has been a wasteland for so long.

The second point is...

We have heard this song and dance before a year ago when they told us about their "design pillars" and all the nifty concepts they now have abadoned that sounded really awesome and everyone was really passionate about.

And it all went nowhere...

We have had one year with basically no change to the game itselfe and now suddenly we hear about all these awesome newchanges comming?

If the current progress of the game developing is any indicator we might have to wait till 2015 to see all the above mentioned features being implemented.. and yes i said 2015.

And seeing that they missed another one of their deadlines (UI 2.0 at launch wont happen) im not gonna hold my breath for any of the above since i would suffocate years before anything makes it ingame.

IGP really should bolster the ranks of devs a bit... the casual crowd cant be held in game with mere promises alone.

[z3a1ot]

Thank you for compiling this information for us!

Most interesting stuff I read is about CW. It looks like it is going to be very interesting especially for Merc Corps. If they can fulfil what they said I don't mind waiting for CW a bit longer as long as they implement it the right way. I also hope they add more game modes along with it for diversity.

[van Uber]

Peiper, on 06 September 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

So, if you want a transcript, get to work! But listening to the podcast will convey far more information than a simple transcript. You can't HEAR Duncan Fisher puke in a transcript! And any official transcript by PGI will be dissected and burned in effigy by the community.

I hear what you're saying, but if you can post a transcript on mwomercs.com then so can PGI. I understand and agree that devs replying to questions under a live interview needs the leeway to answer them to the best of ability, but is it too much to ask for them to consolidate at least some of the new information on the main site?

I get the need for gaining PR through other channels, but PGI currently lacks a lot in the communication department, starting by keeping the public informed through a primary channel would be a huge step forward for them to avoid some of the unnecessary flak plaguing them right now.

[Revorn]

Thanks for your work. +1

What i hear from this Interview, are much Big Words from PGI, what they want to do. Well we already know this, lets just sit back and Laugh about what realy comes.

[Dan Nashe]

Finally some promising news!
Sad that I have to wait at least 3-6 months for cw but at least there are some neat ideas.

"Rare/unique items" scare the heck out of me. This is the kind of content that can make me quit pvp games. Or heck, pve games if they ruin a core mechanic.

Of course, purple lightning ppcs with absolutely no in game stat differences are fine. Different but equal is a failing model though for that kind of content though. There's no way you can introduce a lot of stuff without something good leaking through!

Although I hope everyone realizes that none of these are promises.
But they've bouyed my optimism a bit.

[Aerokii]

DanNashe, on 06 September 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Although I hope everyone realizes that none of these are promises.
But they've bouyed my optimism a bit.

Not promises indeed- I think they've learned their lesson about making promises in development with the whole 3PV thing. Promises about this sort of thing is just asking for trouble.

For the rare/unique items... I'm hopeful it'll just be as you say. Perhaps stuff that function like hero mechs or cockpit items that affect the meta, but not mechs on the field themselves, unless it's harmless/cosmetic.

[Tezcatli]

I've generally tried to be positive. And these things sound great. But so far the only thing that has changed is the stability and balance of the game. With the exception of movement penalties and such.

Since the C-bill nerf. I'm inclined not to spend any more on this game until something interesting is introduced.