2
Link to podcast: http://www.nogutsnog...opic,999.0.html
Disclaimer and personal notes/observations: I paraphrased. Take nothing as a direct quote. I added timestamps at the beginning of each section of the interview. I also editorialized a little bit, and argued with Phil a little here.
Mostly the interview bored me, so you'll have to forgive my having a little fun in the notes. I made these notes by request of the community. There's not really any new information (at least as of the end of part 1) which is why I listened (and why the Eckman interview was more interesting to most of us). However, this interview does contain much of the train of thought/reason for how the heat scale was developed and all the problems in balancing out Mechwarrior into the game we have today vs. the imbalanced, alpha-heavy, assault heavy versions of mechwarrior games in the past. For newer forum users who haven't trolled the forums or been around through closed beta/early open beta, this is a good place to get an idea of the history behind the development that those who have been around so long had the privilege (and pain) of experiencing. With this so-called game launch, I'm sure we'll see many new faces! -Peiper____________________________________________
Interview start time: 5:20
How did MWO come to being? Tells story.
Russ talks to Jordan Weisman, secures rights to create the game, then looks for publishers.
9:21 Reason Mechwarrior is a challenging game to create historically is: it wasn't a modern game design, left behind in time, it was a great game BUT... Publishers were concerned about: The were arms races to get the best assault and cream everything, and horror stories of the endless legging of mechs. 3/4 of the content invalidated by assault mechs.
11:00 Phil tries to tell us that previous MW games were direct translations from tabletop.
Russ: Pub. concerned also about boating, and so were MWO early beta testers.
13:30 Phil: Talked about some sort of leaked footage of MW concept stuff, and creaming on himself in excitement. Daeron gets religious.
15:00 Russ: trailers designed to drum up support from fans and publishers, and proved to the publishers that this game was going to be modern, little things in trailer showed how the game would be updated and not the same-ole MW game. Like the UAV drone, the Jenner showed role warfare as a scout?... Said there were issues, Daeron asks if there were 'console' issues. [I think he was wondering about the Microsoft/Playstation licensing conflict.-Peiper]
17:30 Russ talks about how publishers required that there was a good guarantee that a certain number of units would sell before they supported MWO, in a time {2000} when console games were the ONLY viable option [PC games are gaining ground again, but not so 5 years ago]. So, publishers wouldn't sponsor PGI's development of a console MW game because 1. they couldn't own the brand, and 2. Microsoft vs. Playstation conflict, so 3rd party publishers weren't interested.
18:30 Why free to play model? Publishers are the gatekeepers of titles, so free-to-play is the way to bypass publishers hangups. Unfortunately, this comes with the death of single player. Single player games cost LOTS of money, so only a very few huge titles get published and at a cost of $100,000,000 a pop. [Star Citizen has been crowdfunded up to around $20M, MWO got 4.5M, I think, from founders. -Peiper] So, Free-to-Play is our salvation. PC's are coming back because of FtP. Before many markets were closed to PC's because non-Western countries would just pirate the release software = much lost profits. Non-Western countries can't pirate FtP [evolving content prevents piracy. -Peiper]
22:00 If successful enough, there MAY be a stand alone/first person version of Mechwarrior/Russ would love to make it.
22:20 Phil points out the console games are behind in tech even before the platform is released. [Dx9, C++?? -Peiper]
23:30 timeline: Warhammer trailer 2009, spring 2010 PGI does some side jobs like Duke Nukem to keep the company busy, but it's not a steady gig. At this point, PGI has the MW brand but it takes awhile for Russ and friends to understand how free-to-play PC games were both successful and possibly AAA quality stuff. Bryan and Russ convinced themselves that MWO really could be free to play, and that it was the best idea ever! He gives thanks to the people he initially laughed at for the idea. [Similar to resistance by PGI vs. beta tester suggestions? Is this how PGI works? Laugh at our ideas until they finally convince themselves? -Peiper]
27:00 Phil asks: How did PGI have to change or adapt from the nostalgic paradigms of MW to what we have/are going to get with MWO?
27:30 Russ: The conflict of chasing perfection vs. realities. 1. A great success is that players bring a Jenner (by choice) into a match and expect to make some kills/dominate a match. Unlike previous titles which were assault heavy. 1.5. Challenge of matchmaker in the past and going forward is setting up matches where all tonnages are represented. 2. Legging: big difference, knocking a leg off doesn't kill/knock down a mech. 3. Visual ID necessary for targeting vs. the past where it was not necessary to see a target to smash it like the past MW titles. [not sure what he means - perhaps lock ons, limited target sharing, ecm, film grain, information warfare, no free camera/rear view/hat-POV switch - Peiper] 4. Alpha Striking: Alpha Striking should be a major tradeoff/desperate move, not every shot. Talks about his CBT experience, only using stock mechs, and all the heat problems. He never frankenmeched/created his own heat neutral mechs. [Russ never piloted a stock Awesome 8Q, I guess... -Peiper] Russ acknowledges that the community has made several suggestions on how to work with heat/heat scales.
34:50 Russ explains why they chose the current heat model over other ideas. 1. The mandate from closed beta players had a lot of fun playing trying all the different weapon types/loadouts, including little differences like streak SRM 2 vs. SRM2 vs. SRM2 w/artemis. The players wanted to ensure that battlemechs had not only a wide variety of viable weapon loadouts and builds but ALSO to have the immersive battlemech experience where mechs would take a good pounding before they went down. So, how do you 1. have a mechlab that allows for frankenmeching and boating/finding ways to deal massive pinpoint damage and 2. prevent the experience of coming over the hill and getting a single alphastrike/death? Well, the current MWO balance says you can have boats, but similar to EVE where stacking modules has diminishing returns, there is a consequence in MWO for doing so. MWO is designed to encourage people to take balanced builds with some variety of HOW you make those builds, but with constraints to prevent you from making TOO good a build. [Observation: Russ played stock mechs in CBT, but prefers frankenmeching in MWO. Perhaps if he'd played frankenmechs in CBT he'd prefer stock mechs in MWO? -Peiper]
Russ is trying to build the heat scale around a 30 point pinpoint damage scale, with ghost heat penalties for more. This translates to more fun for all.
40:10 Phil explains alpha striking in CBT vs. MWO. In CBT, he can build a mech to consistently fire all his weapons without heating up (heat neutral), or he can pack more weapons/less heat sinks and either alternate firing weapon groups or overheating. Then he talks about how in MWO you can pinpoint damage and that's not so in CBT. He then asks if it's reasonable for tossing parts of CBT mechanics in order to make MWO more enjoyable/balanced out, and states that everyone across the board agrees it's necessary. There are many ideas of HOW this should be done, but all agree that MWO and CBT are two different games. [I disagree, Phil. -Peiper] New stuff like UAV's are cool and help modernize/bring Battletech up to date. [Part of the charm of Battletech is similar to the idea of steampunk. Even in the 80's, much of a battlemech's systems were outdated. Our military hardware already had much more sophisticated hardware/targeting computers/IFF indicators etc . than battlemechs which successor states could hardly keep functioning, let alone make NEW battlemechs. It was a dark age of human development and technology. So, I actually don't agree at all with you, Phil, and I guess I don't like it when you say we all agree across the board about something when we don't.
There are VTOL's in CBT. The UAV could have been a VTOL or Aerospace flyby instead. I'm not against progress, but I am against things that go against canon/lore. -Peiper]44:30 Russ explains why so many weapons are pinpoint accurate vs. randomness/the CBT 'roll the dice to see where you're hit.' Because people like to aim/hit/perfect their skills in the game and know that they're doing something. At the same time, people don't want to die in one shot. The balance they've worked toward and achieved is that typically, no single shot will core out a mech, and a player can roll/spin/twist their mech to present fresh armor and stay in the fight longer, despite his opponent being able to hit exactly where he aims. So, the battle of attrition PLUS skilled play is a good thing versus the 'ha ha, I got you, fool!' of getting headshot from 1k away. He thinks the vast majority of the player base agrees.
Phil points out that 8 mechs on a team firing on a called target will still destroy them quickly, and Russ responds by saying that the best players in the game, the ones that were dominating with the 2PPC/Gauss combos - maybe some hid behind the notion of gameplay and they were good at that and nothing else - but most of them are damned good players, and they'll be damn good players this way too (the current version of the game). [I don't know what he means by 'hide behind the notion of gameplay.' -Peiper]
End of Part I
NGNG Russ Bullock Interview Part II notes.
Podcast: http://www.nogutsnog...pic,1021.0.html
Where MWO is now and where it is headed. (This interview was made post Sept 3rd patch, but before the so-called launch of the game.)
2:00 How is the Sept 3rd patch being received? Russ says the best in maybe 6 months. People responded very positively to the balancing changes. The Gauss was changed, advanced zoom fixed, and PPC heat adjustment (+1) [Says the PPCs are at CBT values now, but it’s obvious the heat numbers don’t ACTUALLY relate to canon levels and/or in relation to heat sink values. -Peiper] He describes how PPC’s were originally in MWO, and also in previous MW games. He says that now more weapons are becoming viable in the wake of the sniper weapon nerfs/tweaks.
Daeron agrees with all of the above. LBX10’s are neato. Movement tutorial added.
Russ says: New user retention is up consistently, and going higher rapidly. Says new players have a very hard time learning the game. But it’s only been a week, so not sure how the movement tutorial is effecting player retention/new player experience. Future tutorials planned are movement, heat management, weapon groups.
Phil talks about a new player experience, and how the tutorial helped, and pointed out that so many of us vets take it for granted that this game is many-layered and complicated and don’t think twice about it. Blah, blah, blah… steep learning curve. Some people spend HOURS in the mechlab. [Really, but they say so, so it must be. Maybe people are confusing idle time with mechbuilding…-Peiper]
Phil did make a good point that bares repeating: when people ask questions about the game, take them seriously, and respectfully answer their questions. We were all new once, and we don’t have a manual and tutorials to reference yet. [Even players that have mastered mechs sometimes don’t even realize that hitting R to target lock mechs helps OTHER people too! -Peiper]
12:50 Russ is excited about going to San Francisco (launch event). So, why launch without UI2.0, CW, Dx11, etc? Because of business reasons, you know, the unfun side. Business, blah, blah, blah. To quote a PAX speaker from SOE (planetside) “There is no finished product.” and Russ kind-of agrees with that. PGI doesn’t think that they’re going to get a whole bunch of new players at launch, and know there’s no big-bang happening with launch. It’s just a benchmark, and an indication that it’s okay to review the game. The game runs/works now, however, there is no end in sight for the development of the game with all the new stuff we all wanted. [No end in sight? He he… -Peiper]
Phil interprets it as: there is a window of opportunity that must be taken with all the competition out there, business, blah, blah, blah….
15:50 Russ agrees. 25 press will be at the launch event. He’s counting on that to make a favorable impression more directly (opposed to reading the promises vs. the foamers on the MWO forums/reddit vs. dropping cold as a new player/reviewer). [He’s gonna wow them with CW descriptions and UI2.0 powerpoints like they did the fans a year ago! -Peiper]
17:30 Phil’s fiancé is happy and excited that he gets to meet Daeron and PGI people in San Francisco. He asks if, because Randall Bills (Catalyst) will be there, if there will be an Classic Battletech (Tabletop) being played?
18:40 Russ believes there will be a table set up, plus some sort of 3D printer thing going on. [Perhaps making patterns available to 3d printer owners to make their own TT battlemechs? -Peiper]
19:00 Russ goes back to press spin at the launch event. Some players are afraid the game has launched too soon because they want the game to be as successful as possible/perfect for the reviewers. A. Sit back and remember we’ve been playing for a year, and we’ve forgotten what fun it is to just play the game. Some asked how much PGI paid PC gamer to drool over MWO, but that’s an insult to the journalists. They had no idea that the article was coming out (that put MWO in the top 25 shooters of all time, and they’re STILL in open BETA!) He says UI2.0 and CW are what the core community wants, but in perspective, the reviewers won’t delve into that side of MWO. They’ll hop into the game, try out some mechs, blow stuff up, mess around in the mechlab, and review it from that perspective. They won’t put the time/effort necessary into the game to really know/understand CW and UI2.0 (stuff like leagues/lobbies/private matches) anyway. [First he says, don’t disparage the journalists, then says they won’t do a deep look into the game when reviewing it… lol -Peiper]
21:00 Daeron describes a new player experience that backs up what Russ says. New players look at the game and see the WOW factor of dropping into a battle and being immersed in such a novel game. [Novel to non-MW vets, that is. And, when I first dropped into closed Beta on frozen city and saw all my teammates lined up on a the ridge, shooting like it’s the civil war down into the valley - yes, this was before the dropship was there and it was just a snowy ridge - it was an amazing, exciting image worthy of a fully animated game-trailer for MW4, but SO MUCH CRISPER and detailed. Russ does have a point, that new players/reviewers will consistently be blown away by this game. -Peiper]
Like Russ says: we are TOO CLOSE to the game to see it. (Us guys who read Battletech novels while waiting for a patch to launch, and read SARNA while we wait for our bros to ready up for a drop.)
23:00 Phil gushes over Russ’s visit to the pod cast, and the potential of having a cocktail with the smoking hot PGI nerds in San Francisco. [my words -Peiper]
24:00 Russ says he’s seen some of the fan-made (3d printouts) of MWO battlemechs. He likes them a lot. Here’s what he’s talking about:
http://mwomercs.com/...commando-model/
http://mwomercs.com/...in-raven-model/
Phil talks about the future, and mentions the clans will not be OP. They will be different from what we know historically as the OP clans vs. the inferior IS mechs.
27:00 Russ thinks double (1.4) heat sinks are still too powerful even as they are now, because for only a few c-bills, you can change the way the entire mech functions. But if you went further and made them into true double heat sinks, you’d have to go into Battle Value (BV)* to do serious matchmaking. He gives the example of how that might be abused by a high elo player dropping into a new, unmodified stock mech and owning all the newbs (because ELO is rated by player per mech, and a very experienced player could really take advantage with such a disparity in technologies/loadouts). The goal is to balance the content so such measures don’t have to be put into place. He mentions sharding** the community to allow for some different things to happen like an all clan-tech binary vs. an all inner sphere company.
*Battle Value is a tabletop term where mechs were given a value number based upon the tonnage, type and amount of equipment they had. For example, a stock clan Mad Cat would be maybe double the battle value of a stock inner sphere Orion of the same tonnage because of the disparity of the gear. When setting up a CBT game, you might have to take 8 Orions to match 4 Mad Cats for a fair game. Imagine the problems this would cause in setting up matches! [Many CBT players would argue this is EXACTLY what MWO needs: to use battle value instead of elo scores and just tonnage to determine what are even match-ups.]
** Splitting the player base into groups based on particular interests or canon time periods, or perhaps by whether players play stock only mechs instead of allowing for changes in the mechlab, or having a shard just for new players so no veterans can even go in and pugstomp them. For more, see the NGNG Bryan Eckman interviews.
30:00 Russ and Phil go on about the difference between lore, CBT and MW iterations of Clan vs. Inner Sphere tech/pilots/story. In novels, it’s easily explained with the clan pilots being more skilled, the mechs vastly superior, and the inner sphere relying on gorilla tactics, swarming, using vehicles to harass and infantry to ambush clan mechs, etc… In tabletop, there’s battle value, charts, and dice modifiers. In MW, there’s no way to account for skill, because all players could attain a similar skill level, and if some players have super-mechs and others don’t, it just doesn’t make for a fun, fair game.
Phil goes on and on…
32:00 Russ explains that by default of everyone using them, the game has been balanced around double (1.4) heat sinks, so when using those, the game feels good that way. It sucks to have single heat sinks.
[In setting up my ill-fated stock league, I actually modified (with smurfy links) nearly every stock mech with upgrades of double heat sinks and a little more ammo, usually by using weight saved through endo-steel. I kept the stock weapon load out, armor, and engines. But really, what mech is viable using single heat sinks? -Peiper]
Repair and rearm, player-run economies are debated a bit. Example of how to make something like DHSinks costing more.
Will repair and rearm be brought back for CW, supply lines, Clan and IS economy, black market? Russ: Thinks about his experience with WoTanks and how tech was ‘gated’* and he wonders if MWO should have incorporated that more. For example, should upgrades like double heat sinks, endo steel, artemis been something that had to be unlocked through something other than just C-Bills [like pilot tree/module unlocks, or player/score benchmarks], but then matchmaker would have to be adjusted to take into account upgraded mechs [which would divide the players between haves and have-nots.] Let’s put it this way: MechWarrior has always been and may always be the most complicated PC game to balance, due to tabletop vs. lore vs. 1st person shooter/electronic gaming.
*Gated: content/tech/upgrades unlocked through play, story, experience, real money, and/or bought with in game loot.
Phil agrees and points out that even weapons are mounted in different places, and mechs are different shapes, and the player chooses and changes it all up and so on, and when you get all that sorted out Daeron points out ‘then you add the clans!’
Thank yous. Russ speculates that there may be a future in MWO as a completive game, because the game is so much fun to spectate.
The end.
Edited by Peiper, 25 September 2013 - 08:55 AM.
