22 replies to this topic

[saKhan Steiner Lawl Kerensky]

Long story short.

I'm new, and am considering buying Clan Mechs.

I can't really find any information on how they're going to incorporate them into the current gameplay, so my questions are...

Will the game be exactly as it is now? Such as, I have all of my mechs IS/Clan in one window, I just pick which one I want to play, and jump into a randomized 12 vs. 12 match of IS/Clan mixed opponents?

I guess a better question would be, "Where do I find all the answers for how PG plants on implimenting the Clan Mechs with the game, metagame, ect." I've looked around and haven't found an description of what's going to go on. So any help would be greatly appreciated.

[luxebo]

I believe they have said they will make 12v12 Clan vs IS. These will be quite different, and I say you may want to hold maybe the 30$ slot for the monthly bonuses and then decide whether to upgrade or not. But, nevertheless, wait for more info. The latest post on the clans is this: http://mwomercs.com/...d-construction/ Hope I helped.

[Mycrus]

Check command chair forum...

Now don't forget that pgi is comstar...

And like comstar is infiltrated by blakists... You are supposed to accept and believe that they will deliver and implement clan mechs according to their vision on faith...

If that answer suffices, the collection platter icon is visible for you to show your "support"...
Please don't forget to check out the highly affordable golden mech package

[BLOOD WOLF]

They said they might make IS omni-mechs, wont that be dandy

[Modo44]

Very little about Clan tech and Community Warfare is clearly defined at this moment. Given the weak rewards for preordering early, it makes sense to wait until June, and base any purchase on the actual state of MWO at that point.

[Bront]

Untill CW, or at least till right before it launches, I would expect the drops to still be non-faction specific. That said, once drops are faction specific, you'll still be able to use IS mechs as a clanner, and Clan mechs as an ISer. Silly for lore? Maybe, but if you limit folks to one or the other, you cut off purchases they can make, in many cases make stuff they purchased obsolete, and start with a ton of IS players and few clan players (Since you'll only have folks who paid for the mechs using clan mechs for many, many months).

Honestly, they need to release 4 clan mechs for CBills on day 1 when the clans are released, so that when CW drops, folks have had some time to play/master them. Sadly, that's not the plan.

[Koniving]

What they "plan" to do with the game eventually. While not as ambitious as the original plan, it still seems a little far fetched (or at least beyond their abilities) so take it with a grain of salt.



What is known for certain.

Clan mechs cannot be used for Inner Sphere teams.
Inner Sphere mechs cannot be used for Clan teams.
Tech cannot be mixed.
Because Inner Sphere mechs kinda work like clan mechs... Clan mechs work like Front Mission / Armored Core mechs in that body parts can be swapped to get different hardpoints and traits.
Clan weapons will "work differently" than Inner Sphere weapons. The exact meaning of that? I don't know.
Clan Targeting computers "will be functional."

Command Console will continue to be useless well past July.

Edited by Koniving, 20 March 2014 - 10:05 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Modo44, on 20 March 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

Very little about Clan tech and Community Warfare is clearly defined at this moment. Given the weak rewards for preordering early, it makes sense to wait until June, and base any purchase on the actual state of MWO at that point.

i don't think the rewards were weak, u get 30 days premium+16 days, colors that would cost 500-1000 mc and some other stuff, for as less as 55 for 1 mech pack, or 30 for the lowest pack. Rome 2 pre-order only gave me 3 Greek states with the per-order and that was over 6 dollars. So you gotta compare values.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Koniving, why do you say take it with a grain of salt? not only does it mean to take things with skepticism it also means not to take something literally. being skeptical is fine, as we don't know how they will actually be able to do this. When you say its way beyond their abilities i think that is not validated. Can you make something like UI 2.0? if you cant then retract that statement, if you know it will be hard work then retract that statement.

I guess they didn't reveal yet how clans weapons will have a unique flavor as they put it but we do know how they will work.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 March 2014 - 10:20 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Koniving, on 20 March 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

What is known for certain.

Clan mechs cannot be used for Inner Sphere teams.
Inner Sphere mechs cannot be used for Clan teams.
Tech cannot be mixed.
Because Inner Sphere mechs kinda work like clan mechs... Clan mechs work like Front Mission / Armored Core mechs in that body parts can be swapped to get different hardpoints and traits.
Clan weapons will "work differently" than Inner Sphere weapons. The exact meaning of that? I don't know.
Clan Targeting computers "will be functional."

Actually, Koniving, you need to listen to the newest NGNG Podcast.

For public matches, anybody will be able to use any 'Mech they want. You can have 11 Clan 'Mechs and 1 I.S. 'Mech versus 11 I.S. 'Mechs and 1 Clan 'Mech in a public match. The faction choice of the players doesn't matter in these.

For Faction matches, you will be able to use whichever 'Mechs your Faction uses (I.S. 'Mechs for I.S. factions/units or Clan 'Mechs for Clan units).

For Private matches, whoever is setting up the matches will be able to set the rules.

And it looks like they will release two Clan 'Mechs per month to get them out quicker.

[Koniving]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 March 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

I guess they didn't reveal yet how clans weapons will have a unique flavor as they put it but we do know how they will work.

Given PGI's history of game development, technical issues, and having missed every technical-side deadline they ever set it's not unreasonable to take things with a grain of salt. Two of the core design pillars of the game were abandoned a little more than 1 year ago. The community warfare described there isn't anything like what was originally described, and PGI is quick to remind us that design plans change based on what they can and cannot realistically make happen.

In this game design, without random maps the ability to make custom "bases" of any meaningful sort is pretty impossible to expect when randomized turrets are impossible without creating "multiple copies of the same map." And random maps are not feasible in a server authoritative environment.

With a 'match maker' and without repair and rearm reinstated, what general purpose would logistics and dropships provide? Match maker is forcing the 3/3/3/3 weightclass system. The purpose of having the dropships to support higher weight capacity in your drops is lost. Without repair and rearm, why would the logistics of establishing your supply lines matter? Or is it going to charge us for going from match to match?

My point is some of the intentions, no matter how good, cannot realistically be met without completely redesigning how the game will work. They won't redesign core mechanics but will bandage them. The few times they tried, they abandoned the attempt (splash damage for PPCs, removing or modifying the splash mechanic for missiles -- attempts to modify these core scripts in CryEngine led to some nasty failures and attempts were abandoned). If it says anything the time line they gave basically said we'd have the start of community warfare by this month.

Some mechanics they mention cannot work without repair and rearm.
Some cannot work with the current game design.
Some cannot work with a server authoritative environment.
Some cannot work without "making multiple copies of a map."
Some elements are incompatible with the Launch Module design shared with us or with the new drop restrictions.

Design elements change. "Color may vary from display on packaging."

An old example, heat above 80% caused damage to all internal systems, melting weapons and heatsinks and cooking ammo just by being hot. Actuators used to cause movement and aim miscalibrations. The game in general was much more simulator-like. But that alienated casual players and new players as nothing told them what was going on, and so those simulation aspects were cut out.

Durant Carlyle, on 20 March 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

For public matches, anybody will be able to use any 'Mech they want. You can have 11 Clan 'Mechs and 1 I.S. 'Mech versus 11 I.S. 'Mechs and 1 Clan 'Mech in a public match. The faction choice of the players doesn't matter in these.

For Faction matches, you will be able to use whichever 'Mechs your Faction uses (I.S. 'Mechs for I.S. factions/units or Clan 'Mechs for Clan units).

On my point about design changes, there's an example right there. That didn't use to be the case.

[Modo44]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 March 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

So you gotta compare values.

The value of no CW actually in the game, a broken matchmaker, multiple long-reported bugs going ignored, constant release schedule mishaps, and multiple unfinished features convinces me to not preorder until the last day, if at all.

[BLOOD WOLF]

[
you need to be more specific, technical-side deadline? and you created an argument against yourself and voided it. You cannot make a statement against missed deadlines without addressing the deadlines they did hit. otherwise its Biasm and i already told you i will not consider 1 sided thoughts. I mean no disrespect but, i spent the last 5 years studying different philosophy's especially Greek and the Strong force behind rational arguments, not to mention i did extremely well in college English especially when it came to argumentative essays. I do love a good argument but that doesn't mean i have to only acknowledge my views and strong-points. Sorry i got off topic. as for core designs, you still need to be more specific, as i don't know what you are talking about. R&R isn't a core mechanic and is not needed for anything. How was CW originally described? Once again you need to elaborate, Because if you don't the only people who will end up agreeing are the people who share the same feeling and not viewpoints

Koniving, on 20 March 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

In this game design, without random maps the ability to make custom "bases" of any meaningful sort is pretty impossible to expect when randomized turrets are impossible without creating "multiple copies of the same map." And random maps are not feasible in a server authoritative environment.

hmm, about this one, im not too sure you understand the engineering behind this. As the ability to create random maps doesn't have much to do with the other points your trying to make+its a little hard to understand you. My best example of what your talking about is how Bethesda created their dungeons of OB IV instead of making them by hand they used multiple of the same design but had a random map generator or some sort, excuse me its been three years since i read up on Oblivion's technical layout.

Koniving, on 20 March 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

With a 'match maker' and without repair and rearm reinstated, what general purpose would logistics and dropships provide? Match maker is forcing the 3/3/3/3 weightclass system. The purpose of having the dropships to support higher weight capacity in your drops is lost. Without repair and rearm, why would the logistics of establishing your supply lines matter? Or is it going to charge us for going from match to match?

I dont know what you mean by forcing? and the 3/3/3/3 is a pretty sound system. I think its better than the one that we have now. Its not forcing anyone to pick anything except premade lances but as i said before, nobody really ever brings 4 assaults as flexibility is key. For solo players they can drop with what they want to drop with but the matchmaker will find a place for the players mech and fill any missing slots. say i drop by myself and i'm bringing a banshee. the matchmaker will just try to find me a match that has 1 slot left for a assault or if there is still 4 slots left withing the /3 for assaults ill just be put in proper place. I think a lot of people misunderstand watch the matchmaker will do, and there is a post by Roadbeer on twitter in which he completely got it all wrong and made a false assumption. People who don't have a understanding once again will drift towards players who share similar feelings. I cannot understand that because i Will always come to my own conclusions after much analysis. I must agree with the concern for R&R, supply lines does sound like a cool idea, If my mech is busted on the front and out of ammo i will have to bring it back to base but what if i'm cut off? I'm sure tho, its an easy feature to implement back, since they already have the concept of it. I don't think they will have to start from the ground up,

Koniving, on 20 March 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

My point is some of the intentions, no matter how good, cannot realistically be met without completely redesigning how the game will work. They won't redesign core mechanics but will bandage them. The few times they tried, they abandoned the attempt (splash damage for PPCs, removing or modifying the splash mechanic for missiles -- attempts to modify these core scripts in CryEngine led to some nasty failures and attempts were abandoned). If it says anything the time line they gave basically said we'd have the start of community warfare by this month.

Some mechanics they mention cannot work without repair and rearm.
Some cannot work with the current game design.
Some cannot work with a server authoritative environment.
Some cannot work without "making multiple copies of a map."
Some elements are incompatible with the Launch Module design shared with us or with the new drop restrictions.

Design elements change. "Color may vary from display on packaging."

An old example, heat above 80% caused damage to all internal systems, melting weapons and heatsinks and cooking ammo just by being hot. Actuators used to cause movement and aim miscalibrations. The game in general was much more simulator-like. But that alienated casual players and new players as nothing told them what was going on, and so those simulation aspects were cut out.



On my point about design changes, there's an example right there. That didn't use to be the case.

again i say, no they will not have to completely redesign, that is a failure to understand the programming/not knowing enough about what the details of the work entail. Nasty failures as in?>i would have loved examples, without them you leave me hanging. As for your 5 accounts of how they will not work, again i will say that is a failure to understand the programming. Aslo you failed to specify the challenges of implementation or how they will not work. I believe these can be implemented back into the game/ or they could be.

As for making the game more favorable to some players and easier we lost some things. I would prefer if they did attempt to put more simulation aspects back into the game.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Modo44, on 20 March 2014 - 11:07 PM, said:

The value of no CW actually in the game, a broken matchmaker, multiple long-reported bugs going ignored, constant release schedule mishaps, and multiple unfinished features convinces me to not preorder until the last day, if at all.

im getting a little tired of this repeated. The matchmaker is going to be made better and they are working on it. so why did you feel the need to post about the current matchmaker and neglect the new one coming into place. I don't like going into a match with just 2 assaults but i like the 3/3/3/3 for reasons i stated above.

CW is on the way, We all know its not here and whining isn't gonna make it come much faster. Do me a favor, go look at the State of the IS post, they cant implement CW without the clans. If they did, the clanners would be just as made as you are.

Once again, you cannot use the words missed deadlines against them without addressing the deadlines they did hit and then weigh the outcome. as for the bugs, they have been working on them and we have had patches so i don't know where you have been. They fix one problem another occurs, don't you just love technology.

Modo, you dont need to buy the packs, The clans will be out for C-Bills soon after so, its really just a personal choice.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 March 2014 - 11:52 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

http://www.nogutsnog...et/podcasts.php

[Koniving]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 March 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

Technical Deadlines

Spoiler

you need to be more specific, technical-side deadline? and you created an argument against yourself and voided it. You cannot make a statement against missed deadlines without addressing the deadlines they did hit. otherwise its Biasm and i already told you i will not consider 1 sided thoughts. I mean no disrespect but, i spent the last 5 years studying different philosophy's especially Greek and the Strong force behind rational arguments, not to mention i did extremely well in college English especially when it came to argumentative essays. I do love a good argument but that doesn't mean i have to only acknowledge my views and strong-points. Sorry i got off topic. as for core designs, you still need to be more specific, as i don't know what you are talking about. R&R isn't a core mechanic and is not needed for anything. How was CW originally described? Once again you need to elaborate, Because if you don't the only people who will end up agreeing are the people who share the same feeling and not viewpoints

Random maps.

Spoiler

hmm, about this one, im not too sure you understand the engineering behind this. As the ability to create random maps doesn't have much to do with the other points your trying to make+its a little hard to understand you. My best example of what your talking about is how Bethesda created their dungeons of OB IV instead of making them by hand they used multiple of the same design but had a random map generator or some sort, excuse me its been three years since i read up on Oblivion's technical layout.

Forcing and supply lines.

Spoiler

I dont know what you mean by forcing? and the 3/3/3/3 is a pretty sound system. I think its better than the one that we have now. Its not forcing anyone to pick anything except premade lances but as i said before, nobody really ever brings 4 assaults as flexibility is key. For solo players they can drop with what they want to drop with but the matchmaker will find a place for the players mech and fill any missing slots. say i drop by myself and i'm bringing a banshee. the matchmaker will just try to find me a match that has 1 slot left for a assault or if there is still 4 slots left withing the /3 for assaults ill just be put in proper place. I think a lot of people misunderstand watch the matchmaker will do, and there is a post by Roadbeer on twitter in which he completely got it all wrong and made a false assumption. People who don't have a understanding once again will drift towards players who share similar feelings. I cannot understand that because i Will always come to my own conclusions after much analysis. I must agree with the concern for R&R, supply lines does sound like a cool idea, If my mech is busted on the front and out of ammo i will have to bring it back to base but what if i'm cut off? I'm sure tho, its an easy feature to implement back, since they already have the concept of it. I don't think they will have to start from the ground up,

Nasty Failures

Spoiler

again i say, no they will not have to completely redesign, that is a failure to understand the programming/not knowing enough about what the details of the work entail. Nasty failures as in?>i would have loved examples, without them you leave me hanging. As for your 5 accounts of how they will not work, again i will say that is a failure to understand the programming. Aslo you failed to specify the challenges of implementation or how they will not work. I believe these can be implemented back into the game/ or they could be.

As for making the game more favorable to some players and easier we lost some things. I would prefer if they did attempt to put more simulation aspects back into the game.

Technical deadlines.

Spoiler

Deadline: Knockdowns originally summer 2013. Hasn't happened; changed to after Community Warfare.
Deadline: Computer console screens, December 2013. Hasn't happened; changed to after Knockdowns.
Both stated in October 2012. Changed in December 2012.

Deadline: Third person. This was late, too. But I'm the only one who complains about that.

Deadline: Ghost heat. Late.

Deadline: November 2013 through March 2014 Hitboxes. Some mentioned elements were Late -- person doing it on vacation so it doesn't count. But it's never been resumed...?

Deadline: DX 11 support and high end optimizations and increase in texture resolution in January 2013. Never happened. Actual date of DX 11 support, March 2014. High end optimizations still do not exist beyond MSAA and TXAA support and both are severely lacking. Texture resolution has dropped (been lowered) yet again in the 1.5 months.

Deadline. UI 2.0 December 2012. Deadline, UI 2.0, Early Summer, 2013. Deadline, UI 2.0, October 15th, "November in the worst case scenario." Actual timeline, February 2014.

Deadline: Community Warfare. Similar to above. First stage 6 weeks after UI 2.0 (which was to be November latest). Currently March almost April. First stage isn't here.

Deadline: Second stage within six months so if they made the October one we'd be at Second stage this month. The November one, next month.

Deadline: All three stages by the time the clans release -- June 2014. Do you honestly think they will make it?

Deadline: PPC splash damage promised in NGNG 37 or 38. Never happened. Reasoning: Same reason splash damage can't be removed; it tears apart other scripts and causes unintended effects. We're at NGNG 100+ now and they are released once every two weeks? Once a month?

Deadlines they did hit? October 15th release of the Phoenix mechs. Release of the Sabre reinforcement pack. Any deadline that involves a purchasable product. But those are not technical deadlines. Those are product deadlines.

You're welcome to name a deadline they did hit on the technical side.

Creating random maps.

Spoiler

At first I read this wrong so sub-spoilered is what I originally said below.

Time-Splitters has the best example of what you're referring to. It's a simple thing to do. But PGI will not do it because they spend "between 100,000 and 500,000 dollars per map" and supposedly costs about half as much to tweak it. That and "We believe our maps are high quality and do not believe random map generation could compare." Which is fairly true. However, in non-urban environments for random stage-holders, the 'quality' or 'detail' of a map doesn't matter much. Desert plains? Does it matter how prestinely detailed it is? Not to me. What matters is that it won't be like the others I have already played.

The problem there is the server needs its own version of the map, in a non-graphical form of data, and they have to be synonymous to work. There's a lot of potential for things to go wrong and technical limitations behind it. Let's put it this way if you were to take the server and put a 3D graphic to it, you'd have Mechwarrior 2. All objects on it have 1/8th the polygons; which is why your shots will stop on air around the pillars on Tourmaline Desert and on any ledges. It hits a 'wall' on the server. For an example of the mechs, the Locust's legs are actually twin rectangular prisms on a cube (the foot). The arms are also rectangular prisms and the body is a somewhat distorted rhombus at its simplest explanation. It's actually several of them, each representing the hittable area of a torso with a flat rectangle representing the cockpit.

(The original) Creating random elements on maps.

Spoiler

Trust me, I know a bit about creating random elements on maps. I'm in college for game art and design and have been doing it amateurishly since I was 14 years old. I'm almost 29. It's actually incredibly easy. It's as simple as placing an element or class (depending on what the CryEngine calls it) that is set to spawn something. It could also be set as pre-placed items that either exist or don't exist depending on an FRand script call at the start of a match deciding which group of turrets will be used.

But when Paul Inouye himself says having a random assortment of turrets cannot be done without creating multiple copies of each map, then no matter how unlikely, no matter how incompetent that response may seem, no matter how much anyone who knows anything about random elements on rival game engines (myself with Unreal Engine) can call bull on it... it must be true, because not only did a developer say so it was the lead designer who said it. Who am I, or you, to dispute that?

Forcing and Supply Lines.

Spoiler

The 3/3/3/3 system as originally stated would result in 3 100 ton mechs, 3 75 ton mechs, 3 55 ton mechs and 3 35 mechs. If you brought anything lighter you'd be ruining your own team. It was later changed to the 3/3/3/3 + tonnage matching concept, but "if that tonnage is not available it will try to get the next closest thing in that class." Meaning if one team brought a locust... and the next thing available happens to be a Firestarter, well we have that same problem don't we?

The reason I say the dropship concept is lost at that point is that supposedly the dropship could carry x amount of weight per trip. Go to attack this planet. Your dropship can carry say 450 tons. I don't remember the exact number so we're using that. Which meant you could go with only 4 Atlases, a Hunchback and no one else. Or you could go with 12 players in Firestarters, a more diverse array of lights and mediums. Sounds pretty cool right? You never know what the other side has to defend that base with. If they have a garrison they have mechs already stationed there for defense and cannot rush other mechs to it when you attack. But they might have a bigger assortment of mechs. Supposedly, they could have 24 mechs to defend with.

Thus, the next stage of the plan is that we could spend 18,000,000 cbills * 12 ( = 216,000,000) to get a second dropship (after having done it for the first) and thus allow more weight to be carried at once or more than one attack at the same time (say strike another planet). So let's say we have 2 dropships that can carry 450 tons. Well that could be 8 Atlases and 2 Hunchbacks (10 players) or a more intelligent team might make a mix of tonnage to create a reinforcement wave (thus perhaps allowing 24 or more mechs of much lighter classes).

But, with the 3/3/3/3 system all attempts at role warfare, scouting, finding out what the enemy has, etc. is all gone. It's out the window, destroyed, lost along with any diversity and strategy involved there-in.

It's great for public matches, sure. But supposedly community warfare will be public matches. So... anything cool about the merc side of community warfare has just been lost along with many of the concepts therein described relating to logistics.

(I don't pay attention to twitter, half the time either the players or the devs show their ugly sides and rarely if ever is anything said there true).

I know what the matchmaker will do. It will essentially be as you said. But I also see the larger picture in how it will affect future plans as well as what was proposed in that video about community warfare. The concept of the dropships is to allow diversity in mech usage based on weights available. That diversity promised with the dropship concept is likely to be lost.

Thus if we go in expecting to see what we hope for, what we were told we could see, we may find ourselves disappointed. If you compare this game to closed beta, the CB was closer to MW3, and the current is closer to World of Tanks mixed with Hawken. It wasn't what I was enthralled about when I started. It's nothing like the near-simulator it started out as. If you compare very early closed beta with now... you wouldn't even recognize it as the same game. It's like the difference between Mobile Suit Squad 08 and Gundam. It might be the same setup, but one's realistic and the other... It'd be as close to say a comparison of Steel Battalion to Armored Core, with closed beta being like Steel Battallion and Armored Core being what we have now.

Now, far as the repair and rearm. That's the other part of the logistics. Managing supplies. After all if your mechs are Garrisoned on a planet you have -- that means they are stationed there, isolated. For a description that I gathered:

Spoiler

"Imagine if you will that the mech and the pilot are put on defense duty for that planet. You have a base with defenses in a Battlefield Style Rush campaign as a defender. You can assign one or more mechs for your 'pilots' and what part they will be defending.

Now let's say you successfully thwarted off a raid of mechs. You lost an arm, got some damage, broke a weapon. The base has these supplies. But it's tapped out of endo-steel and didn't have enough ferro. Your body cannot be fully re-armored, and there wasn't enough endo-steel left to replace the arm. Maybe there wasn't any ammo or a spare weapon to use and you'd go into the match without them. If no further attacks come within a cooldown period, you will be fine. You get your supplies and are fixed at either your personal expense or at the unit's bank pool expense depending on the decision of your unit's leader.

But let's say they had a second wave, there is no time to repair or rearm; you're on your own. Thankfully you have the base's defense to reinforce you. Of course you will need team members to defend the turret control center. To defend the gate controls. To defend the power station. To defend the gates and other accesses themselves.

Let's say they didn't have a second wave right away. But you catch wind that another unit has decided to attack you there before the standard resupply cooldown period where the factories are manufacturing and delivering regular resupplies to you. Well then, you can pay a premium on repairs ammo for a rushed resupply to get it there faster (or dig into a reserve stockpile or whatever we decide to use as the lore reasoning. We may most likely use the black market as premiums are already associated with that).

Then there's the scenario for when your supply line is cutoff entirely."

Supply line sounds pretty cool. As did the dropship system. But the supply line means nothing without repair and rearm. The dropships have lost any real meaning if the 3/3/3/3 system is forced. It'd just be an extra strain on a simple match maker. However if repair and rearm is reinstated (but with significant improvements) then the supply line concept is golden. Yet it depends on dropships. And if dropships do not follow the now seemingly separate public matchmaker's 3/3/3/3 system then it too would be awesome.

It's not a question of how easy it is to implement, but a will it be implemented when other systems they have contradict it?

Nasty Failures

Spoiler

Mentioned in deadlines. But will say it again.

PPC splash damage promised in Dev blog 37, 38 during an interview with Russ Bullock said that it would deal 75% of the damage to the area hit and splash 25% of it. But it depended on fixing the core splash mechanic.

Later, in a command chair post (by Thomas, Karl or Matt) it is explained that attempts to fix the core splash mechanic were stalled due to some nasty failures in CryEngine scripting. Specifically that SRMs, LRMs, and Streaks somehow lost all flight patterns and guidance if the core script class "Explosive; Grenade" was tampered with in any way. Why they chose grenade? Who knows. "The missiles would simply fire straight and not detonate" effectively creating bullets.

The next time we heard of it, they reduced splash damage to 0.5 meters ("effectively removing it without damaging the code") and that was it. They gave up.

Why was this a problem? The splash mechanic didn't distribute 20% of the damage to other parts. It multiplied it by 20% to every body part the explosions touched -- which used to be between 3 and 11 body parts (H, LTF, LTR, LA, RTF, RTR, RA, CTF, CTR, LL, RL). So instead of doing 2 damage per missile as LRMs once did, it actually did in the right conditions between 17 damage to 25 officially reported by either Thomas or Paul in the thread that discovered the bug.

Without fixing the core splash mechanic the PPC might go from the intended 7 damage to area of impact and 3 damage splashed out to other body parts, to 7 damage at area of impact * bodyparts splashed * 25% (assuming 2 body parts splashed) = 49 damage for 1 PPC. Bit of a problem isn't it?

Thus after the splash reduction all attempts have stopped. And the splash PPC will never come to play.

I would like the simulation elements to return as well. If they do, it will be after the planned Pilot Skill tree redux, the rebalancing of all mechs, knockdowns if they ever do return, and so on.

My point on the grain of salt is that

• 1) They are perpetually late compared to the extremely unrealistic deadlines being stated and likely pushed on them by either the CEO (Russ) or the publisher (IGP) and
  
• 2) Various elements in what was put out in that version of community warfare have changed drastically from the original version. As new decision come in, it becomes clear that certain elements of this version of CW must be changed to fit and thus this version of CW will likely be different from what was announced.

As a specific example, originally it was PGI's intention to keep Clan versus Inner Sphere battles to only Clan mechs and Inner Sphere mechs. That Clan can fight Clan. Inner Sphere can fight Inner Sphere. But Clan mechs cannot mix with Inner Sphere mechs on one team.
Then the one dude here says that NGNG 102 or whatever says "Nope, we changed our minds. You can play whatever you want in public matches and mix Clan with Inner Sphere mechs."

Things change. If you expect exactly what you are told, you will get burned. Take them with a grain of salt.

[Mycrus]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 March 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Koniving, why do you say take it with a grain of salt? not only does it mean to take things with skepticism it also means not to take something literally. being skeptical is fine, as we don't know how they will actually be able to do this. When you say its way beyond their abilities i think that is not validated. Can you make something like UI 2.0? if you cant then retract that statement, if you know it will be hard work then retract that statement.

I guess they didn't reveal yet how clans weapons will have a unique flavor as they put it but we do know how they will work.

Knightie, I'd like to take you with a grain of salt too...

kon has done a lot for the newbs and noobs alike... while you are some schmuck on the interwebs that asks for evidence every other post...

[Shijunai]

Koniving, on 21 March 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Technical deadlines.

Spoiler

Deadline: Knockdowns originally summer 2013. Hasn't happened; changed to after Community Warfare.
Deadline: Computer console screens, December 2013. Hasn't happened; changed to after Knockdowns.
Both stated in October 2012. Changed in December 2012.

Deadline: Third person. This was late, too. But I'm the only one who complains about that.

Deadline: Ghost heat. Late.

Deadline: November 2013 through March 2014 Hitboxes. Some mentioned elements were Late -- person doing it on vacation so it doesn't count. But it's never been resumed...?

Deadline: DX 11 support and high end optimizations and increase in texture resolution in January 2013. Never happened. Actual date of DX 11 support, March 2014. High end optimizations still do not exist beyond MSAA and TXAA support and both are severely lacking. Texture resolution has dropped (been lowered) yet again in the 1.5 months.

Deadline. UI 2.0 December 2012. Deadline, UI 2.0, Early Summer, 2013. Deadline, UI 2.0, October 15th, "November in the worst case scenario." Actual timeline, February 2014.

Deadline: Community Warfare. Similar to above. First stage 6 weeks after UI 2.0 (which was to be November latest). Currently March almost April. First stage isn't here.

Deadline: Second stage within six months so if they made the October one we'd be at Second stage this month. The November one, next month.

Deadline: All three stages by the time the clans release -- June 2014. Do you honestly think they will make it?

Deadline: PPC splash damage promised in NGNG 37 or 38. Never happened. Reasoning: Same reason splash damage can't be removed; it tears apart other scripts and causes unintended effects. We're at NGNG 100+ now and they are released once every two weeks? Once a month?

Deadlines they did hit? October 15th release of the Phoenix mechs. Release of the Sabre reinforcement pack. Any deadline that involves a purchasable product. But those are not technical deadlines. Those are product deadlines.

You're welcome to name a deadline they did hit on the technical side.

Creating random maps.

Spoiler

At first I read this wrong so sub-spoilered is what I originally said below.

Time-Splitters has the best example of what you're referring to. It's a simple thing to do. But PGI will not do it because they spend "between 100,000 and 500,000 dollars per map" and supposedly costs about half as much to tweak it. That and "We believe our maps are high quality and do not believe random map generation could compare." Which is fairly true. However, in non-urban environments for random stage-holders, the 'quality' or 'detail' of a map doesn't matter much. Desert plains? Does it matter how prestinely detailed it is? Not to me. What matters is that it won't be like the others I have already played.

The problem there is the server needs its own version of the map, in a non-graphical form of data, and they have to be synonymous to work. There's a lot of potential for things to go wrong and technical limitations behind it. Let's put it this way if you were to take the server and put a 3D graphic to it, you'd have Mechwarrior 2. All objects on it have 1/8th the polygons; which is why your shots will stop on air around the pillars on Tourmaline Desert and on any ledges. It hits a 'wall' on the server. For an example of the mechs, the Locust's legs are actually twin rectangular prisms on a cube (the foot). The arms are also rectangular prisms and the body is a somewhat distorted rhombus at its simplest explanation. It's actually several of them, each representing the hittable area of a torso with a flat rectangle representing the cockpit.

(The original) Creating random elements on maps.

Spoiler

Trust me, I know a bit about creating random elements on maps. I'm in college for game art and design and have been doing it amateurishly since I was 14 years old. I'm almost 29. It's actually incredibly easy. It's as simple as placing an element or class (depending on what the CryEngine calls it) that is set to spawn something. It could also be set as pre-placed items that either exist or don't exist depending on an FRand script call at the start of a match deciding which group of turrets will be used.

But when Paul Inouye himself says having a random assortment of turrets cannot be done without creating multiple copies of each map, then no matter how unlikely, no matter how incompetent that response may seem, no matter how much anyone who knows anything about random elements on rival game engines (myself with Unreal Engine) can call bull on it... it must be true, because not only did a developer say so it was the lead designer who said it. Who am I, or you, to dispute that?

Forcing and Supply Lines.

Spoiler

The 3/3/3/3 system as originally stated would result in 3 100 ton mechs, 3 75 ton mechs, 3 55 ton mechs and 3 35 mechs. If you brought anything lighter you'd be ruining your own team. It was later changed to the 3/3/3/3 + tonnage matching concept, but "if that tonnage is not available it will try to get the next closest thing in that class." Meaning if one team brought a locust... and the next thing available happens to be a Firestarter, well we have that same problem don't we?

The reason I say the dropship concept is lost at that point is that supposedly the dropship could carry x amount of weight per trip. Go to attack this planet. Your dropship can carry say 450 tons. I don't remember the exact number so we're using that. Which meant you could go with only 4 Atlases, a Hunchback and no one else. Or you could go with 12 players in Firestarters, a more diverse array of lights and mediums. Sounds pretty cool right? You never know what the other side has to defend that base with. If they have a garrison they have mechs already stationed there for defense and cannot rush other mechs to it when you attack. But they might have a bigger assortment of mechs. Supposedly, they could have 24 mechs to defend with.

Thus, the next stage of the plan is that we could spend 18,000,000 cbills * 12 ( = 216,000,000) to get a second dropship (after having done it for the first) and thus allow more weight to be carried at once or more than one attack at the same time (say strike another planet). So let's say we have 2 dropships that can carry 450 tons. Well that could be 8 Atlases and 2 Hunchbacks (10 players) or a more intelligent team might make a mix of tonnage to create a reinforcement wave (thus perhaps allowing 24 or more mechs of much lighter classes).

But, with the 3/3/3/3 system all attempts at role warfare, scouting, finding out what the enemy has, etc. is all gone. It's out the window, destroyed, lost along with any diversity and strategy involved there-in.

It's great for public matches, sure. But supposedly community warfare will be public matches. So... anything cool about the merc side of community warfare has just been lost along with many of the concepts therein described relating to logistics.

(I don't pay attention to twitter, half the time either the players or the devs show their ugly sides and rarely if ever is anything said there true).

I know what the matchmaker will do. It will essentially be as you said. But I also see the larger picture in how it will affect future plans as well as what was proposed in that video about community warfare. The concept of the dropships is to allow diversity in mech usage based on weights available. That diversity promised with the dropship concept is likely to be lost.

Thus if we go in expecting to see what we hope for, what we were told we could see, we may find ourselves disappointed. If you compare this game to closed beta, the CB was closer to MW3, and the current is closer to World of Tanks mixed with Hawken. It wasn't what I was enthralled about when I started. It's nothing like the near-simulator it started out as. If you compare very early closed beta with now... you wouldn't even recognize it as the same game. It's like the difference between Mobile Suit Squad 08 and Gundam. It might be the same setup, but one's realistic and the other... It'd be as close to say a comparison of Steel Battalion to Armored Core, with closed beta being like Steel Battallion and Armored Core being what we have now.

Now, far as the repair and rearm. That's the other part of the logistics. Managing supplies. After all if your mechs are Garrisoned on a planet you have -- that means they are stationed there, isolated. For a description that I gathered:

Spoiler

"Imagine if you will that the mech and the pilot are put on defense duty for that planet. You have a base with defenses in a Battlefield Style Rush campaign as a defender. You can assign one or more mechs for your 'pilots' and what part they will be defending.

Now let's say you successfully thwarted off a raid of mechs. You lost an arm, got some damage, broke a weapon. The base has these supplies. But it's tapped out of endo-steel and didn't have enough ferro. Your body cannot be fully re-armored, and there wasn't enough endo-steel left to replace the arm. Maybe there wasn't any ammo or a spare weapon to use and you'd go into the match without them. If no further attacks come within a cooldown period, you will be fine. You get your supplies and are fixed at either your personal expense or at the unit's bank pool expense depending on the decision of your unit's leader.

But let's say they had a second wave, there is no time to repair or rearm; you're on your own. Thankfully you have the base's defense to reinforce you. Of course you will need team members to defend the turret control center. To defend the gate controls. To defend the power station. To defend the gates and other accesses themselves.

Let's say they didn't have a second wave right away. But you catch wind that another unit has decided to attack you there before the standard resupply cooldown period where the factories are manufacturing and delivering regular resupplies to you. Well then, you can pay a premium on repairs ammo for a rushed resupply to get it there faster (or dig into a reserve stockpile or whatever we decide to use as the lore reasoning. We may most likely use the black market as premiums are already associated with that).

Then there's the scenario for when your supply line is cutoff entirely."

Supply line sounds pretty cool. As did the dropship system. But the supply line means nothing without repair and rearm. The dropships have lost any real meaning if the 3/3/3/3 system is forced. It'd just be an extra strain on a simple match maker. However if repair and rearm is reinstated (but with significant improvements) then the supply line concept is golden. Yet it depends on dropships. And if dropships do not follow the now seemingly separate public matchmaker's 3/3/3/3 system then it too would be awesome.

It's not a question of how easy it is to implement, but a will it be implemented when other systems they have contradict it?

Nasty Failures

Spoiler

Mentioned in deadlines. But will say it again.

PPC splash damage promised in Dev blog 37, 38 during an interview with Russ Bullock said that it would deal 75% of the damage to the area hit and splash 25% of it. But it depended on fixing the core splash mechanic.

Later, in a command chair post (by Thomas, Karl or Matt) it is explained that attempts to fix the core splash mechanic were stalled due to some nasty failures in CryEngine scripting. Specifically that SRMs, LRMs, and Streaks somehow lost all flight patterns and guidance if the core script class "Explosive; Grenade" was tampered with in any way. Why they chose grenade? Who knows. "The missiles would simply fire straight and not detonate" effectively creating bullets.

The next time we heard of it, they reduced splash damage to 0.5 meters ("effectively removing it without damaging the code") and that was it. They gave up.

Why was this a problem? The splash mechanic didn't distribute 20% of the damage to other parts. It multiplied it by 20% to every body part the explosions touched -- which used to be between 3 and 11 body parts (H, LTF, LTR, LA, RTF, RTR, RA, CTF, CTR, LL, RL). So instead of doing 2 damage per missile as LRMs once did, it actually did in the right conditions between 17 damage to 25 officially reported by either Thomas or Paul in the thread that discovered the bug.

Without fixing the core splash mechanic the PPC might go from the intended 7 damage to area of impact and 3 damage splashed out to other body parts, to 7 damage at area of impact * bodyparts splashed * 25% (assuming 2 body parts splashed) = 49 damage for 1 PPC. Bit of a problem isn't it?

Thus after the splash reduction all attempts have stopped. And the splash PPC will never come to play.

I would like the simulation elements to return as well. If they do, it will be after the planned Pilot Skill tree redux, the rebalancing of all mechs, knockdowns if they ever do return, and so on.

My point on the grain of salt is that

• 1) They are perpetually late compared to the extremely unrealistic deadlines being stated and likely pushed on them by either the CEO (Russ) or the publisher (IGP) and
  
• 2) Various elements in what was put out in that version of community warfare have changed drastically from the original version. As new decision come in, it becomes clear that certain elements of this version of CW must be changed to fit and thus this version of CW will likely be different from what was announced.

As a specific example, originally it was PGI's intention to keep Clan versus Inner Sphere battles to only Clan mechs and Inner Sphere mechs. That Clan can fight Clan. Inner Sphere can fight Inner Sphere. But Clan mechs cannot mix with Inner Sphere mechs on one team.

Then the one dude here says that NGNG 102 or whatever says "Nope, we changed our minds. You can play whatever you want in public matches and mix Clan with Inner Sphere mechs."

Things change. If you expect exactly what you are told, you will get burned. Take them with a grain of salt.

The things I just read about, in this post, make me very sad about their loss. This game could have been epic.

[MisterPlanetarian]

Mycrus, on 22 March 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Knightie, I'd like to take you with a grain of salt too...

kon has done a lot for the newbs and noobs alike... while you are some schmuck on the interwebs that asks for evidence every other post...

He has every right to "take it with a grain of salt" Since Kon is not a PGI employee. Skepticism is fine and I'm sure thats not the issue here. There is no need to bring it down to a slapfight.

On topic:

In the Public Queue you can play whatever you want and it does not matter what your friends bring if you drop in a group. Same for private matches.


With CW though you can play in Faction mode where mechs are locked as far as I know.

[Mycrus]

MisterPlanetarian, on 23 March 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

He has every right to "take it with a grain of salt" Since Kon is not a PGI employee. Skepticism is fine and I'm sure thats not the issue here. There is no need to bring it down to a slapfight.

On topic:

In the Public Queue you can play whatever you want and it does not matter what your friends bring if you drop in a group. Same for private matches.


With CW though you can play in Faction mode where mechs are locked as far as I know.

Wrong quote... Your comments should have referred to blood Wolfie... I'm all for skepticism and mysticism too if that floats your boat...