27 replies to this topic

[TheCaptainJZ]

I personally don't read any actual reviews or guides. I look at builds on the battlefield and read some common recommendations here and do my own thing

[Appogee]

Two reasons:

1. There's no money in documentation*.

2. The developer is mostly graphic artists, and graphic artists draw, not write.






* Well actually, an enlightened developer would realise that there is money in enabling new players to get up to speed with their game. However, we're not dealing with an enlightened developer here.

[Koniving]

Turist0AT, on 03 April 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

We should have more mech reviewers. Like weapon reviews/guides for planetside, or plane reviews/guides for WT etc

Truth be told, within every 2 to 6 months every review would become worthless and have to be redone. And when I originally thought of that, we had changes every 2 weeks. I was like "Pfft, screw this I'll wait." It's why I never did new tutorials between 2012 and now and part of why I waited so long on the mech introduction series; every time I'd get to it they'd change something that obsoleted everything I was working on.

Turist0AT, on 03 April 2014 - 02:29 AM, said:

Yeah, he should be our voice to the Devs, like a community manager but who actually does his job.

I genuinely believe the one we had did what he could with what he had; but everything you can honestly do is entirely dictated to you. It's like being a spokesperson in China. "Here's the script, here's our goals, these are your views. Make it happen."

Dramborleg, on 03 April 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

Honestly IGP should be paying Koniving for providing services that they have no interest in providing.

Thank you.
I'm pleasantly surprised you got which company is behind that task correct, too. Most people think PGI is behind forum-related things. Most truth be told almost everything having to do with the public image of PGI is handled through IGP. Except twitter.

What's interesting is that NGNG is an 'independant' affiliate of IGP. NGNG, and thus by extension IGP, has provided numerous tutorials in very obscure locations. So I do find it unfair to say that IGP isn't interested in providing them.

They did provide the original tutorial series -- which seriously needs an update. They provided the quick battle overview tutorial that plays when you go to install the game. They provided a very conversational and disorganized "UI 2.0 overview and howto" video which I found to be too chaotic for someone wanting a quick reference. They churn out build ideas and videos quite often and hand-hold reviewers like TotalBiscuit and Angry Joe to kind of guide them.

It may be more fair to say they aren't interested in updating tutorials every time something changes.

Now IGP hasn't got anything to do with the in-game content (so far as I can tell). PGI developed the in-game tutorial, and I gave my personal review of it some time ago. There's even a youtube video I made playing a competitor's mechanized game where I'm outright flabberghasted, because every single aspect of what was in my suggestions to PGI for a tutorial went there, right down to the morphing VR simulation environment (which I felt an MW-2 style low-quality environment would be dirt cheap, could be a mock VR simulation, and morph to fit the needs of the tutorial). Shame I'm not a fan of that competitor's game itself.

I once got asked to be a moderator way back in 2013. I wasn't quite interested 'cause then I could only say positive things and be a bit more politically correct. And honestly any time you see a moderator comment on a new player thread it instantly dies. (I'm serious! Even helpful comments often kill the thread.) Though some side effects are there, I can see deleted threads, posts, etc. Sometimes I wish I couldn't, it can get depressing.

At another point I got offered the possibility of a forum title and asked who else would be deserving of it, with a need to get higher up permission and a joking yet serious soon™ too. I am quite happy with the idea. But get the feeling it may be a long while.

Could definitely use a job right now. Sadly as with any job you can no longer express both sides of the coin out in the open. Meanwhile I'm in college for game art and design. I really wish I began college much sooner.

Truth be told I love and hate this game in so many ways. On its own it's a pretty good game. I genuinely loved it with an amazing passion back closed beta when the game was as close to simulation as it ever was but then the game took a direction shift I didn't like. Compared to Mechwarrior 3, the balance on this game is so bad that there's times when I feel the entire thing needs to be thrown out the window and completely redone from the ground up.

Spoiler

I've been doing that on paper on the side, and I've got concepts where lasers are not only part of the meta but laser + AC combinations, yet PPCs and Gauss are also meta, and SRMs, Streaks that require some skill, and LRMs that are slightly more powerful (in damage over time), just as fast as they were in the LuRMArmageddon that just passed and yet 1) not spam-worthy [fire half as often] and 2) can be used in brawls [like TT LRMs], do not lock without line of sight even with the help of spotters yet give spotters something to do and do not become wasted due to lack of line of sight...

(Think BF3 mortars, as reading about LRMs has literally given me the impression that without line of sight the "ballistic launch" at "general locations" called out by a "spotter" has reminded me of my artillery days. LRMs are self-guided missiles that are given an area and search for the target on their own. ECM proximity to missiles will screw that guidance and either make them fall dead or go wild.)

There's TAG-enabled LRM ammo and NARC-enabled LRM ammo. In both cases the missiles are supposed to be drawn to them on their own. I'm working out ideas.

There's computer networks. C3 is supposed to link lance mates but isn't standard. Been working out ideas.

From source: LRMs do 1 damage. SRMs do 2 damage. Right now LRMs do 1.7 damage. Thus by all rights SRMs should be doing 3.4 damage. Fact kinda is... with 2.0 armor, LRMs aren't doing enough damage anyway. If you scale armor up, you scale damage up accordingly or you keep the damage identical. Problem is this can't be done with upfront damage weapons that fire so frequently.

With SRMs in MWO's implementation though, there's absolutely no reason for MRMs to exist. SRMs are larger missiles that have basic guidance (tech manual says lock, lore says non-locked thermal; to separate from streaks go with lore). Lore says they are thermal-guided. I'm thinking soft-lock (select a target with R) and then fire, if the target's in view the missile will chase within realistic physics. (No MWO-style streak b.s.).

Of course there's ammo types. Like Artemis enabled SRMs. Artemis is, in fact, a combination tag-style laser with a computer-controlled remote adjustment system. Basically it corrects the destination to the missiles much more frequently than the missiles themselves can do on their own (similar to MWO Artemis LRMs). The crucial thing is that unlike regular SRMs (using the lore definition), it overrides the thermal guidance entirely. But Artemis requires you to focus on the target for most of the duration of their flight (line of sight) and ECM at proximity can cut off the Artemis from communicating with the missile or the missile's ability to receive Artemis's commands. When this happens, the missiles immediately revert to thermal guidance. (Basically, ECM mech interferes either at the source or along the path of the missiles and the missiles become regular albeit expensive SRMs).

NARC-enabled SRMs in the only book I found them has a training pilot describing it to another one in a bar. The SRMs were described as turning from lifeless drones to (what essentially sounds like rabid piranhas) that literally bumped and slammed into each other trying to be first to hit the NARC-beacon. (This is, in fact, the very reason why the Kintaro carries NARC and NARC-enabled SRM ammo). ECM ruins NARC or cuts off communication between NARC and SRMs.

Streaks are simply glorified SRMs that won't fire unless the computer is 100% convinced it will hit. They are not super missiles, they do not perform 6 orbits around the enemy and then drive right up the mech's rear end. Streaks have the thermal guidance completely removed in place of a genuine computer-handled remote control system. Not adjustment, but genuine remote control Johnny Five style. Thus when fired in ideal conditions (that the computer chooses), they should always hit. From what I read they do not fire if Angel ECM (not Guardian ECM) is detected (which can only be detected [not countered] with a BAP), and if they did fire with Angel ECM present the missiles would instantly become "stupid" rockets upon contact. This is also the only condition where they would miss in otherwise ideal conditions. Simulating this is nearly impossible with user-controlled missiles though. Note: Guardian ECM has zero effect on Streaks.
I'm still running through ideas but the best one I've got is that streaks are fired at the game's choice not on the player's command.

MRMs are essentially MWO's SRMs. Nothing special there.

But Kon, what about ECM? You basically wiped out all the hard counters! This is heresy, it'll be OP!
Actually no, because ECM would also get redesigned from the ground up. First off there's Electronic Warfare Equipment, Guardian ECM Suite, and Angel ECM.

ECM only makes you 'invisible' to sensors when coupled with the very expensive to repair "Stealth Armor" which takes 2 crit slots in each leg, each arm, each side torso (12 slots; non-dynamic).

Electronic Warfare Equipment mimics Beagle Active Probe and Guardian ECM (minus the ghost targets; it's strictly a missile [within proximity of itself] and mech sensor [within proximity of enemy sensors] scrambler), cannot benefit from stealth armor, and weighs 7.5 tons with 4 critical slots consumed. While expensive to repair and incredibly inferior, I've been pondering a way to make this available to anyone.

Guardian ECM Suite is 1.5 tons, 2 slots, and "affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons. A Guardian can jam a Beagle Active Probe (or its Clan equivalent), but the probe-equipped unit will be aware of the jamming." (From that I conclude that only BAP-equipped mechs would even get a 'Low Signal' warning. No one else would even know there's jamming.)
LRMs can achieve hardlock with line of sight (but it would be delayed). Tag and C3 linked mechs can accelerate that lock regardless of if the LRM ammunition is tag-enabled. Continued after spoiler.

Spoiler

Example situation - Mech A has LRMs and C3 Master. Mech B has Tag and C3 Slave. Mech A targets Mech C who has ECM. Mech B receives notification 'Priority Target Mech C'. Mech C is jamming; no target information just a presence. Mech B is within a visual range to distinguish the enemy as an ominous Raven 3-L; no pilot info, no damage status, no weapon info, nothing more it's just a Raven 3-L.

Mech A begins to lock. It might take up to 5 seconds without help. Mech B is informed that locking has begun. Mech B uses TAG, it's effective. Mech A's lock accelerates to almost normal speed. Mech A achieves lock. Missiles fire. Mech C's pants turn brown. Mech C is hit and dies a horrible death.

Continued. However, if the LRM-user had TAG-enabled LRMs it could use either its own tag or an ally tag to mark the target and fire without lock. The condition is that the TAG laser must be maintained directly on the target for the most (especially near the end) of the duration of the flight. After all tag-enabled LRMs will seek the pointy end of the TAG laser.

Spoiler

If Mech D, another ECM-enabled mech had stepped near Mech B at any point in time while Mech B was using the TAG then the benefit it gave is instantly lost. Communication is cut off between Mech A and Mech B as far as their C3 communication goes. I envision that the jammed Mech B's signal on the map would begin to flicker in and out. Mech B would not receive any combat information from Mech A and Mech A would not receive any information from Mech B.
Supposedly, if you jam the C3 Master, the C3 Slaves lose their hub-link. After all C3 slaves are looking to support a C3 master. This is just something I'm big on; role warfare actually having a genuine tactical and strategic meaning and value and I see the C3 system as being able to support that.

Guardian ECM has zero effect on Streaks. Since Streaks with my best solution (computer controlled) are not handled with the lock-on system, this isn't a problem. With a separately coded lock on system, it also wouldn't be a problem.
Guardian ECM can block NARC signals but only within range; it cannot destroy NARC and so the NARC-hit mech must hide near the ECM mech to wait out the NARC's effects.
Guardian ECM has the ability to create ghost signaltures. These are false, unidentifiable sensor readings that look like ECM-masked enemies. A scout going in proximity of these can identify them as real or "ghosts."
Guardian ECM does not affect Bloodhound Active Probes ("BAP2") or Artemis V.

Angel ECM is similar to Guardian ECM but has the following quirks. It completely blocks "the following systems on enemy units: Artemis IV, Artemis V, Beagle Active Probes, Bloodhound Active Probes and their Clan equivalents, C3 Master Computers and C3 Slaves, Streak Missile Launchers and Narc missile beacons. Streak missiles may be fired at units affected by the device, but they function as standard missiles."
I take 'standard missiles' here to be a non-confusing way of saying 'Rocket' without the launcher being destroyed in the process or MRM (zero guidance). Not sure how I'd apply this to Streak launchers controlled by the game rather than the player.
Unlike Guardian ECM, Angel ECM is 2 tons (takes 2 slots though) counts as two ECMs when it comes to countering it (and costs 3.25 times as much).
Haven't put much into it beyond finding this out.

But there's a lot out there.
Some other pretty basic things:
Remove convergence of torso-mounted weaponry.
Separate left and right arms so that lower arm actuators don't get special exceptions. By default they will be linked whenever possible and thus easy to control. As a custom option, you can control them independantly using something like joysticks or analog sticks for more advanced simulation gamers.
Enable Mech-Turret Tracking to Arms (Wolverine, Locust, and some other mechs have turrets mounted on them. I'd like to see them track the "o" crosshair).
Armor concept; abolishing the universal armor rule and preserving stock mech armor differentials by allowing players to 'raise' the armor but for example a Raven 3-L will never have identical armor to a Raven 4X which is vastly armor superior. This creates significantly more diversity among the variants and mechs.
Mech Quirks per lore (example: Quickdraws have hyper-extending actuators, allowing their arms to fold backwards to fire at rear-ward targets. Some mechs like the Cataphracts have rear-firing torso mounts. Mechs with no lower arm actuators can flip their arms backwards allowing them to fire directly behind them. Thunderbolts are able to track multiple targets simultaineously.)
Mech Flaws per lore (If a mech proves to be too good, their trademark flaws could come into play. For example on Quickdraws the ankles are much more flexible than those of other mechs allowing it to climb significantly steeper inclines in addition to its jumpjet ability -- but they have exposed ankle actuators. Mauler had a missile feed problem. Victors [book only] had an AC magazine feed problem from reloading by hand.)
True to lore ACs (Burst and auto-fire styles, damage over time designs.)
Implementation of obsolete tech (Rifles, for example).
Hardpoint variation and weapon variants. Multi-sized hardpoints, and weapon variants of different types that can be slipped into hardpoint sizes normally too small or big. Example, if the 4-shot Chemjet Gun AC/20 or the 10-shot Crusher Super Heavy Cannon AC/20 are too big for a Raven, perhaps the 100 shot Pontiac 100 would do nicely without making the mech fall on its rear from immense recoil. Meanwhile the Chemjet Gun isn't something the Jagermech can handle without falling on its rear, but perhaps the Crusher SHC and the 15 shot (Atlas) (12 shot King Crab; not sure why other than caliber size) Deathgiver would do okay on it.
Weapon variety. Implementation of weapon types in an assortment of varieties that have different looks and feel to them.

Spoiler

Examples:
Tthis LRM launcher fires them all at once, assuring a massive blob of damage with a large chance of many missing. This other LRM launcher might fire in a stream, possibly increasing their likelihood of being shot down but making them considerably more accurate and the damage more focused.

There's a specific medium laser (Rassal Blue Beam) that fires a very powerful blue beam.
There's medium lasers that fire kind of on the red side of the spectrum, but the quick shots are rapid.
There's some that never 'stop' firing until the user lets go.
There's some that do a single shot in the blink of an eye and instantly devastates. (I'm picturing a Halo-style Sparten Laser charge up complete with a visual warning for enemies to see before this one fires). No mis-charge mechanic like Gauss Rifles have.

Autocannons of burst and automatic fire varieties. Limited to no single shot full damage ACs.

Gauss Rifle and PPC variants. Single shot upfront damage versions allowed.

The list goes on.

Limited Melee.
Knocksdowns -- not just a mechanic but as a balancing factor. Example: Too much recoil while moving too fast, lose your footing. Unstable surface and high speed? Slippery climbing surface without a high-traction quirk? Hit by high caliber weapon(s)? Working out details here.
Tabletop is a summary; not instant. Revamp the heat system accordingly, revamp the weapons accordingly.
Quite a bit more.

(Wow... I really spend 3 hours on this post.)

[Alaskan Nobody]

Koniving, on 03 April 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

(Wow... I really spend 3 hours on this post.)

I'd believe it
I was actually surprised by the lack of editing though.

[C E Dwyer]

sadly Op your halcyon days ended when you came here, many a bright optimistic battle tech mech warrior fan has had their desire for this game to be great crushed by PGi's utter inability to make anything they put in place work correctly, have even half decent instructions or not cause massive shifts in meta and balance.


welcome to frustration and simmering anger towards the fools who make this

[Koniving]

Shar Wolf, on 03 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

I'd believe it
I was actually surprised by the lack of editing though.

Don't jinx it. I already see stuff I'm pulling my hair at.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Koniving, on 03 April 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Don't jinx it. I already see stuff I'm pulling my hair at.

All good bro, +1 for #PutKonivingOnThePayroll

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Halcyon201, on 02 April 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

The tutorial barely covers anything.
How to move and fire.

Where is tutorial for the mechlab? Or how all building your mech works? Or upgrades? Or how experience is spent? Or the various elements of the targeting hud?

This game has almost 0% documentation on it.

To properly answer this question you must consider that PGI is a ship of fools piloted by two buffoons at best. You have to high of expectations in PGI and want to much. Figure you're lucky at all to even have a MechWarrior based game and be happy with all it's flaws and lack of progress.