1911 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

PGI fox would be a good thread to start. Web related questions and the like.

Mike Forst has a thread as well, but enter that at your own risk.

[Mark of Caine]

Normally, I've agreed with pretty much everything Koniving has posted on these forums, whether I hit the Like button or made a comment or two. He has a true wealth of information and ideas on how to better this game.

However, I for one am quite prone to motion sickness, and the fact that there is no reticule shake in 1PV makes MWO one of the few shooter games I can play. (I can't play in 3PV for this very reason.) Just watching his video and manually shaking the mouse gave me a small headache. (Yes, I'm very susceptible to motion sickness.) That also includes the reticule shake when using jump jets. Because of that, I can't use JJ mechs for long, as the reticule shake really bothers me a lot. I don't do the jump-sniping meta because it forces me to fixate on the reticule, even when it shakes. When I'm using JJs to jump around the map for mobility, then I don't fixate on the reticule and I'm often fine. But still, I tend to use JJs sparingly.

It may not be realistic, but then again the cockpit seat probably has motion dampeners to soften the head movement and allow the pilot to aim better. That's how I see it. I know it sounds corny, but that's how I justify it.

But more seriously though, if MWO introduced "head bobbing" via the reticule, I would ask for an immediate refund, as I would not be able to play this game anymore.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Caine2112, on 09 June 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

...motion sickness...

That's a very good argument against a moving crosshair. I would be ok with a small aim deviation, i.e. the shot drifts slightly from your aim. With lasers, this could move as the beam fires so it doesn't actually fire completely in a straight line but nearly so. Apparently, there are too many variables that complicate this with the server-authoritative archetecture though. I would still be ok with this system though.

Edit: also this could improve brawling as more sniper shots could miss easier depending on how bad the drift might be.

Edited by TheCaptainJZ, 09 June 2014 - 03:15 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

TheCaptainJZ, on 09 June 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yes, Paul is the lead designer

Technically that puts him being the one we "should" be asking the questions we keep asking Karl though - so not very helpful.

Heffay, on 09 June 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

PGI fox would be a good thread to start. Web related questions and the like.

Mike Forst has a thread as well, but enter that at your own risk.

Mike Forst's Posting Shack if I recall - don't remember where that one is at though.

[Gizmoh]

Caine2112, on 09 June 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Normally, I've agreed with pretty much everything Koniving has posted on these forums, whether I hit the Like button or made a comment or two. He has a true wealth of information and ideas on how to better this game.

However, I for one am quite prone to motion sickness, and the fact that there is no reticule shake in 1PV makes MWO one of the few shooter games I can play. (I can't play in 3PV for this very reason.) Just watching his video and manually shaking the mouse gave me a small headache. (Yes, I'm very susceptible to motion sickness.) That also includes the reticule shake when using jump jets. Because of that, I can't use JJ mechs for long, as the reticule shake really bothers me a lot. I don't do the jump-sniping meta because it forces me to fixate on the reticule, even when it shakes. When I'm using JJs to jump around the map for mobility, then I don't fixate on the reticule and I'm often fine. But still, I tend to use JJs sparingly.

It may not be realistic, but then again the cockpit seat probably has motion dampeners to soften the head movement and allow the pilot to aim better. That's how I see it. I know it sounds corny, but that's how I justify it.

But more seriously though, if MWO introduced "head bobbing" via the reticule, I would ask for an immediate refund, as I would not be able to play this game anymore.

I just rationalized it as having a stabilized cockpit, so when you are piloting the drone you see the real, non-stabilized movement.

[Cimarb]

Shar Wolf, on 09 June 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Do we know who to ask then? (edit: I keep forgetting)

Cause we could stat up a "Paging So-and-so" thread for them as well - which Karl actually suggested for those questions.

From a very reliable source:

Buckton is best for front-end and gameplay related topics.
Fox for all things web and public API related.
Russ is the best for design-related questions.

I didn't tell you that, though.

[Wintersdark]

Caine2112, on 09 June 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Normally, I've agreed with pretty much everything Koniving has posted on these forums, whether I hit the Like button or made a comment or two. He has a true wealth of information and ideas on how to better this game.

However, I for one am quite prone to motion sickness, and the fact that there is no reticule shake in 1PV makes MWO one of the few shooter games I can play. (I can't play in 3PV for this very reason.) Just watching his video and manually shaking the mouse gave me a small headache. (Yes, I'm very susceptible to motion sickness.) That also includes the reticule shake when using jump jets. Because of that, I can't use JJ mechs for long, as the reticule shake really bothers me a lot. I don't do the jump-sniping meta because it forces me to fixate on the reticule, even when it shakes. When I'm using JJs to jump around the map for mobility, then I don't fixate on the reticule and I'm often fine. But still, I tend to use JJs sparingly.

It may not be realistic, but then again the cockpit seat probably has motion dampeners to soften the head movement and allow the pilot to aim better. That's how I see it. I know it sounds corny, but that's how I justify it.

But more seriously though, if MWO introduced "head bobbing" via the reticule, I would ask for an immediate refund, as I would not be able to play this game anymore.

This.

I have issues with head bobbing, moving crosshairs and other such things in games like these. I always, without fail, disable head bob and such features whenever possible, and simply do not play the games if I cannot. I don't have motion sickness nearly as badly as some (my wife, for example, gets violently ill very quickly in almost any "3D" game. Not 3D like with glasses, but 3D like every video game in the last 10 years - she can only really play 2D games.

Now, I don't say this as a cunning way to excuse wanting pinpoint perfect targetting while running, jumping, twirling and such.

This is why I'm a huge proponent of Cone of Fire, though I know it'll never happen. I'd love to see CoF implemented, with a default of zero degrees, but certain things adding penalties. For example (don't pick at specific numbers) increasing penalties after 75% of max speed, 75% of heat, jumping, etc.

The crosshairs would remain static during this, but the + and o would grow larger to show the player the current accuracy.

Targeting computers could reduce this CoF, as well - yay for more interesting toys!

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 09 June 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

From a very reliable source:

..........


I didn't tell you that, though.

Heh

[Mawai]

Cimarb, on 09 June 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

From a very reliable source:

Buckton is best for front-end and gameplay related topics.
Fox for all things web and public API related.
Russ is the best for design-related questions.

I didn't tell you that, though.

Nooooo ....

"Russ is the best for design-related questions."

Although I don't doubt your source, this statement is worrisome. Russ is the one who stated "CW 90 days after open beta" ... he has also made enough other comments that were either mistaken or incorrect that I always take anything he states with a grain of salt. His job appears to be to sell the game .... hype what is going on ... not actually answer questions.

As an example, he made a number of optimistic comments in the latest NGNG podcast regarding the matchmaker. How there are no problems with 4x3 including tonnage matching, that everything looks good. He mentioned that the queue indicator appeared to be nicely evenly out at 25% each even though it isn't doing anything at the moment ... I don't know when he is looking but that isn't my experience. Typically the queue indcator shows 10 to 20% in each of the light and medium classes and 30 to 40% in the heavy/assault classes. This is the natural distribution for player choice of mechs. Will this change when the queues are active ... I hope so ... but I don't think it will change enough. I still think there will be enough folks wanting to play heavies and assaults that substantial queues will form over time. I hope I am wrong but if they don't have a plan in place to deal with it then this is being set up to fail.

Anyway, I am playing wait and see with the revised matchmaker with my fingers crossed ... just as I am for any design element which Russ has commented on ...

[Cimarb]

Mawai, on 10 June 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

Nooooo ....

"Russ is the best for design-related questions."

Although I don't doubt your source, this statement is worrisome.

This is a community-caused situation, though. The entire design team is snake-bitten and really wants little to nothing to do with communicating with us, because every time they do, the entire community pounces on them, both positively (with tons more questions) and even more negatively (why did you do this, why didn't you do this, why did it take so long, your moms should have returned you to sender, etc).

Karl has been, to my knowledge, the only person to only get a positive response on this forum, and that is why he keeps coming back. We, the community, have to be "better" about communicating with me if we ever want them to be "better" in return. It's like expecting your kids to be polite by yelling at them all the time.

[Rebas Kradd]

Cimarb, on 10 June 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Karl has been, to my knowledge, the only person to only get a positive response on this forum, and that is why he keeps coming back.

That's because Karl communicates 1) much more frequently and 2) better. He does not make facepalm moves like touting end-of-round screens as a major highlight for 2013 (Russ), he does not post and then run without answering any further questions (Paul), he does not make flippant jokes in the VLOGs about ignoring immersion (Paul), he does not troll people on his Twitter account (Russ), he does not vanish into oblivion and then reappear with nothing but Cicada jokes (Garth)...etc etc. Karl actually offers some insight into the development story, and it's regained the confidence of quite a few people. No other PGI employee has offered nearly that much.

While I agree that design problems would be awfully difficult to really get into the meat of, it doesn't change the fact that PGI desperately needs dialogue and openness to keep people's confidence up. Karl rides the line between shop talk and transparency very well, and he's honest in doing so. He's just a skilled communicator in an industry that doesn't have very many, though I have learned to appreciate Niko as well.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 June 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[Heffay]

Dear Mr Berg,

Aside from the autogenerated code which lead to the whole presentation and this thread, what component (or subcomponent) of MWO are you most proud of? That one tricksy problem that haunted you until at 3:00 in the morning you woke up with a Eureka! moment and found a clever solution to a vexing MWO coding problem (then had to have it happen twice more, because you forgot to write it down the first couple of times because... it's 3 AM).

Any particular thing that happened here that is your mic drop moment? The "Yeah, that just happened" and the code warriors bent a knee and swore fealty to your scripting ninja skills?

Love,
Heffay

[Cimarb]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 June 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

That's because Karl communicates 1) much more frequently and 2) better. He does not make facepalm moves like touting end-of-round screens as a major highlight for 2013 (Russ), he does not post and then run without answering any further questions (Paul), he does not make flippant jokes in the VLOGs about ignoring immersion (Paul), he does not troll people on his Twitter account (Russ), he does not vanish into oblivion and then reappear with nothing but Cicada jokes (Garth)...etc etc. Karl actually offers some insight into the development story, and it's regained the confidence of quite a few people. No other PGI employee has offered nearly that much.

While I agree that design problems would be awfully difficult to really get into the meat of, it doesn't change the fact that PGI desperately needs dialogue and openness to keep people's confidence up. Karl rides the line between shop talk and transparency very well, and he's honest in doing so. He's just a skilled communicator in an industry that doesn't have very many, though I have learned to appreciate Niko as well.

I agree 100%. I am just saying why the design team is so..... mysterious..... with communication.

[Aym]

Cimarb, on 10 June 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

I agree 100%. I am just saying why the design team is so..... mysterious..... with communication.

I have trouble accepting the answer though. If they're afraid to communicate that is itself a problem.

[Cimarb]

Aym, on 11 June 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

I have trouble accepting the answer though. If they're afraid to communicate that is itself a problem.

I don't disagree, but it is due to previous communications and the response they expect.

Think of it this way: if you swat your dog with a newspaper every time it comes near you, how long do you expect it to keep coming to you? Can you blame it for eventually avoiding you altogether? If you want it to start coming to you again, you have to take the initiative to welcome it and treat it well until you have made up for the previous abuse in its mind.

[Aym]

Think of it this way, if you swat your dog every time it pees in the house, it should learn to not pee in the house. In your example that same dog learned not to come near you. That's the problem with your analogy. Paul didn't get vitriol because he communicated. He got vitriol for poorly communicating and ignoring criticism.

Edited by Aym, 11 June 2014 - 06:59 AM.

[Cimarb]

Aym, on 11 June 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

Think of it this way, if you swat your dog every time it pees in the house, it should learn to not pee in the house. In your example that same dog learned not to come near you. That's the problem with your analogy. Paul didn't get vitriol because he communicated. He got vitriol for poorly communicating and ignoring criticism.

You are correct. If you continue to beat your dog even after it stops peeing in the house, because you are holding a grudge for the pee issue, then you have now reached the point I am talking about! In this case, the "dog" has been beaten so many times, it would rather just stay outside than come in near you/us.

[Mawai]

Hi Karl,

There is a feature request for a sound option to turn off warhorns. I think it is quite reasonable since even if I equipped one myself I would not want to have to force other players to listen to it if they were not interested.

Here is a link to the poll thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...-turn-them-off/

It has quite a lot of support. In the case that no one has made note of this, could you pass it up the line?

I don't want to play MWO surrounded by a herd of grunting cows or honking geese when these war horns go off ...

[Gizmoh]

Mawai, on 11 June 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

Hi Karl,

There is a feature request for a sound option to turn off warhorns. I think it is quite reasonable since even if I equipped one myself I would not want to have to force other players to listen to it if they were not interested.

Here is a link to the poll thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...-turn-them-off/

It has quite a lot of support. In the case that no one has made note of this, could you pass it up the line?

I don't want to play MWO surrounded by a herd of grunting cows or honking geese when these war horns go off ...

I'd also would like an option to disable the in-cockpit visual of the warhorns, some of them are quite jarring.

[Cimarb]

Why can't everyone wait until we see it in action before asking for it to be turned off?....