1911 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 09 October 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Also, what is the maximum damage done in any one arty or air strike?

Maximum possible, or top ever successfully done in a match?

[Featherwood]

Greetings Mr. Berg,
this is kind of a kind reminder about one very small, but very well infused problem. Earlier, in May, you have mentioned that it will take some time to add user controllable variable related to cockpit lighting level:

Karl Berg, on 26 May 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

- I've looked into whether or not there is a user controllable cvar for default cockpit light levels. Currently there is not, but it doesn't appear to be too difficult to add one. I'll look into quickly adding this, but it takes a while for changes to trickle onto production.
...

Is five months sufficient for a single cvar to trickle into production <build>? Could you look into it one more time, if you please? Cheers!

[Cimarb]

Featherwood, on 09 October 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

Greetings Mr. Berg,
this is kind of a kind reminder about one very small, but very well infused problem. Earlier, in May, you have mentioned that it will take some time to add user controllable variable related to cockpit lighting level:

Is five months sufficient for a single cvar to trickle into production <build>? Could you look into it one more time, if you please? Cheers!

You can change the lighting level with the decimal (.) button, if that is what you mean.

[Featherwood]

Cimarb, on 09 October 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

You can change the lighting level with the decimal (.) button, if that is what you mean.

No, my request was to add cvar into client to set it permanently in user.cfg. I want light in my Mechs cockpits to be permanently turned off to prevent distracting reflection.

[Cimarb]

Featherwood, on 09 October 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

No, my request was to add cvar into client to set it permanently in user.cfg. I want light in my Mechs cockpits to be permanently turned off to prevent distracting reflection.

Ah, gotcha. <o

[Dimento Graven]

Hoax415, on 08 October 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

There is 0 chance that the vote change is staying in the solo queue and it looks like it'll be stripped from the group queue before people have a chance to settle down, quit crying and notice games have gotten a bit more even.

Well honestly it's just too much lack of control.

We already can't control what map we play on, who the MM will stick us with (unless dropping with a full 12 man), how long it will take the MM to stick us in it...

For god's sake man, GIVE US SOME CONTROL to avoid having to play with all those other uncontrolled random factors and help us avoid game modes we absolutely detest.

Or do you believe in facist dictatorships?

[Wintersdark]

Dimento Graven, on 09 October 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

Well honestly it's just too much lack of control.

We already can't control what map we play on, who the MM will stick us with (unless dropping with a full 12 man), how long it will take the MM to stick us in it...

For god's sake man, GIVE US SOME CONTROL to avoid having to play with all those other uncontrolled random factors and help us avoid game modes we absolutely detest.

Or do you believe in facist dictatorships?

I don't think we should have actual map choice in public matches (non-CW); but I WOULD love to see the game mode voting system applied to map choice, so at least we could influence it.

[p4r4g0n]

Karl,

Looking at the leaderboards, it looks like the total cumulative scores are generally pretty close (i.e. within 10%) between the IS and Clan weight classes. Would you be able to share whether this difference persisted at all levels or only among the top players? If the differences changed significantly, was it towards IS or Clan?

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

p4r4g0n, on 09 October 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

Karl,

Looking at the leaderboards, it looks like the total cumulative scores are generally pretty close (i.e. within 10%) between the IS and Clan weight classes. Would you be able to share whether this difference persisted at all levels or only among the top players? If the differences changed significantly, was it towards IS or Clan?

I'd love to see graphs that compare IS vs Clan by weight class out to the top 500 or 1000 scores.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 09 October 2014 - 10:53 PM.

[Goose]

Ever notice how little commentary there is on why Player X hates Game Mode Y?

Remember when there was talk about how the maps where supposed to promote "balanced" builds?

Yeah …

[Void Angel]

I like all the game modes - I just like c-bills too, which disinclines me to play Conquest, as I did comment. =)

[Bilbo]

Void Angel, on 10 October 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

I like all the game modes - I just like c-bills too, which disinclines me to play Conquest, as I did comment. =)

This might be of interest to you.
http://mwomercs.com/...u-didnt-notice/

[Void Angel]

Not as much as This Is.

I mean, I do try the game mode every so often, but last time I did, my feeling was that the c-bills/time wasn't up to par.

[Wintersdark]

Void Angel, on 10 October 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Not as much as This Is.

I mean, I do try the game mode every so often, but last time I did, my feeling was that the c-bills/time wasn't up to par.

cbills per hour should be higher overall now.

Most conquest matches still end via kills, and Conquest's combat rewards are equal to assault and skirmish now. The difference is the resource bonus is extra with Conquest: this means, unlike in the case of Assault or Skirmish, if a game drags on you earn more money to offset that. This doesn't happen in Assault or Skirmish.

[Void Angel]

Hrm; I missed Russ's followup comments - since his post was rather vauge. Thanks for the correction; however, Bilbo, actually giving me the information, instead of rudely linking me to a post that actually didn't tell me what I wanted to know without sifting through a bunch of replies, would have been the correct thing to do.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 10 October 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

Hrm; I missed Russ's followup comments - since his post was rather vauge. Thanks for the correction; however, Bilbo, actually giving me the information, instead of rudely linking me to a post that actually didn't tell me what I wanted to know without sifting through a bunch of replies, would have been the correct thing to do.

He could have summarized it, I agree, but pointing you to the answer rather than just stating something without a source to back it up is preferable, imo.

[Void Angel]

Sourcing is generally required for this kind of claim - but neither incorrect response is, er, correct.

I still want to know how Conquest stacks up by cbills/time rather than /match, however.

[Wintersdark]

Void Angel, on 12 October 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Sourcing is generally required for this kind of claim - but neither incorrect response is, er, correct.

I still want to know how Conquest stacks up by cbills/time rather than /match, however.

Well, my experience (yay, anecdotal!) playing all three modes with regularity is that most matches in any mode tend to last roughly 7-8 minutes. All can drag out - Skirmish is the worst for this, with hiding players and no release valve (basecap). Assault can tend to slightly longer matches in the cases where players are exceptionally passive and everyone wants to stay in their base. Conquest is virtually never (again, anecdotally - this is just my experience) a circle-race of non-combat. Not ever. People talk about that, but I've never seen it happen. Resource generation in Conquest ensures fewer really drawn out matches, too: Most Conquest games are still decided by combat, but as after the very early moments of each match all points generally remain controlled by someone teams tick constantly closer to victory. As such, few Conquest matches really last a long time.

If anything, then, Conquest games wrap up the same or faster on average than Skirmish or Assault. As per match earnings are substantially higher (15k on average) they'd have to be quite a bit slower to not generate greater cbill/hour returns.

[Deathlike]

Is there any current logic or something to the "unnecessary" splitting up of a lance, particularly if it is a 4-man? I can understand players filling a 3-man with a solo member of 5-man, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to this occurrence in various cases. It would be preferable to keep members of the same unit in the same lance as much as possible, unless it cannot be helped. Random movement of a "complete" 4-man lance seems unnecessary...

I'm just wondering why this change was made really and if this could be reverted somehow.

[Cimarb]

Deathlike, on 15 October 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

Is there any current logic or something to the &quot;unnecessary&quot; splitting up of a lance, particularly if it is a 4-man? I can understand players filling a 3-man with a solo member of 5-man, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to this occurrence in various cases. It would be preferable to keep members of the same unit in the same lance as much as possible, unless it cannot be helped. Random movement of a &quot;complete&quot; 4-man lance seems unnecessary...

I'm just wondering why this change was made really and if this could be reverted somehow.

I am pretty sure someone from PGI said that it fills the largest group first, then fills in gaps from there, which is why the smaller groups get split up. I honestly think it does it randomly by the looks of it, but...