795 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

PhoenixFire55, on 07 April 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

To only be kicked out like Garth? Nope...
I wish EVERYONE who worked at PGI was like Koniving ...

I wish everyone at PGI was like treated like Garth was.

[no one]

I proposed this a while back for a 3/3/3/3 replacement system. ELO buckets and 'Mech effectiveness balancing so you can use open group size with group matching / independent queues etc;
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Jumpships from what I read can carry up to 4 dropships...
Then from that MW3 video, each dropship had 6 lances of 4 mechs each.

So I guess you could field up to eight simultaneous 12 man assaults on a planet with a single Jumpship? And you'd have a commander or something fielding deployment and reinforcements and the like. A small merc unit might just have a dropship's worth of 'Mechs to deploy, so two 12 mans. Those numbers work out scarily well . . .

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

They talk back in twitter, reddit, etc. Definitely won't have a meaningful conversation on twitter though. You'd have better luck asking one for an interview at one of the podcasts other than NGNG.

It. . . should not be this hard to have a discussion with the devs. Maybe Niko can convince them to reply to the forums now that he's one of us. gooble gobble There was that one time they finally started splitting crotch hit-boxes between legs after an effort post, but they seem to have abandoned efforts on that.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

-- splash damage -- was mentioned by Russ himself (with a different figure) on an NGNG podcast (between 30 and 40, think it's 38). But I know that for the same reason splash damage was 'makeshift' removed for missiles, it could not be made possible to work for PPCs without making them worse instead of better (as CryEngine multiplies damage values with splash, not divides from a set amount of damage).

Well, yeah. You can't base splash on hit boxes when 'Mechs are different sizes, so you can't use CryEngine's inbuilt splash damage, but doing a simple damage transfer table should be child's play. For the case of a PPC hit, apply 8 damage to the location hit and 1 damage to areas adjacent (8/1), or (9/2) for CerPPCs. Arrays and Hashmaps aren't hard.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

And thank you. Doubt I'll have any luck though, nobody knows me outside of the MWO forum.

Well if you interview at PGI, mention you're Koniving. If they just blink and go "who?" . . . I dunno. Cry?

Edit: Speak of the devil. Hey, Niko.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

I was referring to the ELO score processing equation itself. Unless that one slipped out while I was in cryo. >.>

Sort of?
http://mwomercs.com/...65#entry1626065

Edited by no one, 07 April 2014 - 04:04 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Simply separating grouped and solo play is a lot easier and less expensive. Groups of various sizes against groups of various sizes. Solo play with the 3/3/3/3 thingy.

Hell, I think even groups would be happy with this if they could group greater than 3. At least for the Public Queue, and not the Faction Warfare Queue.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Of course, because Paul gets the most negative feedback, if I were him I wouldn't really want to check my inbox either.

If you make your bed, you should lie in it.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

The most genuinely read feedback is in the patch feedback. Devs you'd never even heard of, and the well known devs, both show up in there quite frequently.

This is true, unfortunately, it's closing the barn door after most of the horses have left.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Besides, Twitter doesn't allow enough words to give anything meaningful.

And yet, this is the primary form of communication they have chosen. Gotta go where they are

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

For this topic, there's here too.
After all Niko is actively monitoring it, collecting important and valid points and compiling it for a weekly meeting (if I recall roughly how part of the job works).
We'll likely see it appear in a Vblog explanation or a big post.
If we're really lucky, it could influence possible decision changes.

I'm actually happy that with the a few glaring exceptions, that it has remained on topic and civil. Good work everyone.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

I don't mind this 3/3/3/3 thingy for the random public matches to fill stuff in.

Yes, I just wish they had focused on a group queue instead. Organized groups are much less crybabyish about mismatched tonnage as the solos are. For the most part, we're able to take our licks and not look for excuses for a loss when more often than not, we realize we just got outplayed.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

But I absolutely do not want to see this 3/3/3/3 system in merc or faction loyalist group warfare (aka the community warfare aspect for large groups). The notion itself makes it impossible to be "Liao."

From your lips to (insert deity here)'s ears

[Bhael Fire]

AEgg, on 07 April 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

You can't do 3/3/3/3 with arbitrary group sizes.

You misunderstood my post. I said 3/3/3/3 would be better than what we have now.

However, 3/3/3/3 is another band-aid fix that this game doesn't need. I'd prefer to have an UNRESTRICTED group queue that allows any group size with any weight-class combos AND a solo-only queue that uses 1:1 weight class matching.

[BLOOD WOLF]

PhoenixFire55, on 07 April 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

Hmmm. So founders didn't make them any money? Oooook ...
Note that founders bought this game on the certain promises PGI made. I'd say if they kept their promises founders would have continued to support the game with their money. But no, somebody got too greedy didn't they?






Its like being really sick and with no ability to stand up and leave bed. Is it worth living like that? I honestly can't answer that.

That wasnt not a good example in relation to his analogy, not close.

Nope. Nope. Nope.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ...
They lost all trust long ago. Even if they offer me all gold clan mechs for 1$ I won't buy.

Founders did make them money, but you guys were about a year's funding if not less. Try not to have an elitist attitude, game like this need to start somewhere and they needed funds to start. This game has been in dev for years after the founders program and the overlords and pheonix packs. As a matter of fact,founders dont keep this game running. There is a income and a expenditure; It takes millions to dev a game.


Fair enough. Unfortunately, for those who cry that, will always find something to dislike in the game. Not only that but you talk trust and broken promises but what about what they did do? that they are still here trying to make a game for us. Yea they want to make money but i'm sure they are passionate about what they do. It's not good to live in the past, makes you look bitter for petty reasons.

I want to add for those who dont have tags or didn't Invest in Packs, could have spent hundreds on MC. You never know what can be the variables to ho is actually spending money on the game.

srry, i think i messed that up, with my analysis. was trying to get in between the quotes

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 07 April 2014 - 04:15 PM.

[Koniving]

no one, on 07 April 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

I proposed this a while back for a 3/3/3/3 replacement system. ELO buckets and 'Mech effectiveness balancing so you can use open group size with group matching / independent queues etc;
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

On that. 1) I honestly believe that basing ELO entirely on winning and losing to be incompetence, not to mention inconsistent with the very first explanation of the system, which described that ELO looked at who you went up against and who you killed. This and ELO's system is largely under wraps. Plus how would you assign a value to that? (I realize that Chess ELO is literally "if lost, 0, if won, 1." A binary element to an equation but that's one on one. How is the game supposed to judge that based on player and enemy performance if by whether or not the team wins? I would hope it checks individuals against who they fought, if they won or loss each fight..etc.
2) I truly suspect that ELO is based on match score. Match score is a culmination of many things and MWO clearly keep track of it to the point of prioritizing your order within a lance in real time to what your match score is. Yet, like ELO, matchscore is never, ever, publicly recorded beyond a single score screen. You'll never find your accumulative match score in the stats. Saved the link, like Roland's I need to take time to read it.

Now. There are people at both PGI and IGP that know who I am. But I wouldn't necessarily call that a good thing. I suspect my familiarity is, right now, on par with Homeless Bill back in the day. Though I'd like to think I'm not nearly as critical. I can see things both ways.

For example I can see and accept why PGI essentially can't rework the core heat system at this point in a way that won't require ghost heat. It's easy to do, but the repercussions and backlash from the people who don't care for lore would be quite a thing to put up with. Suddenly depriving everyone of their ability to fire every weapon at the same time would bring the world into mass panic! After all it would, in Paul's words on the same thread I first mentioned it: "Be a global nerf" to 'all' mechs and weapon systems over a 'small problem' with 'a select few weapons'. Plus redoing 2 years of warped balancing fresh would offset some people. But damn it'd bring a lot of people who quit back to the game!

ACs in a multi-shot format would require time between cycles to increase, or to work as given (example, if a 10 shot AC/2 was made it sure as heck couldn't do a full cycle in 0.52 seconds it'd have terrible hit detection) HSR would need to be removed. Removing HSR is not an option even if it would make SRMs work again.

The list goes on.

However far as people not knowing me outside of here, I meant the Russians that picked up MW:LL. It'd be like "Who are you?" "That guy, on the MWO forums." "MWO?! *Door slam!* Don't sue!" "...Crap."

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 11:03 PM.

[Roadbeer]

RG Notch, on 07 April 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

I wish everyone at PGI was like treated like Garth was.

No. There are some great and hard-working Devs doing what they can with this game. Albert and Karl come to mind just off the top of my head. Kyle does great with the site when a problem comes up. You're only as good as your management.

Unfortunately, those who need to be shuffled down the road are the ones who make the decisions of who to shuffle down the road.

[Roland]

Blood wolf, out of curiosity, how much money do you think pgi got through the founders program?

[Roadbeer]

Roland, on 07 April 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

Blood wolf, out of curiosity, how much money do you think pgi got through the founders program?

Ugh, why do you engage him?

Now this thread is going to turn into 3 pages arguing semantics about what the definition of "Founders" is

[Kjudoon]

I'm lost with the OP. Can I get a TL:DR version with examples, a PSA and puppets?

The only thing I'm getting from it is that the MWO community is too small by far to support the Quad3 matchmaker for fear of abuse from too few players.

Is that right or do I need another hole bored in my head to let the sap run out?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Ugh, why do you engage him?

Now this thread is going to turn into 3 pages arguing semantics about what the definition of "Founders" is

I love biasm roadbeer, keep it up. I know constructive thought is not your strong point. Funny how you have had similar arguments against others that shared my argument and yet you feel no spite except for me. everybody just think about that. I guess its just your reasoning of no tags; that a person words are weighted less but continue with those snide remarks. Your just mad somebody challenged and then made you look less than capable of rational argument.

Roland, on 07 April 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

Blood wolf, out of curiosity, how much money do you think pgi got through the founders program?

I read 5 million. http://www.tomshardw...gram,18474.html Thats just one of many sources. should note that differnt source material give the same number, but i feel this is an estimate not an exact. The point being is that the founders were the catalyst. However a game like MWO needs funding throughout its lifetime. Not only that but we dont have figures on players who solely bought MC. Maybe they were here not long but contributed. There are a number of variables.

And Roadbeer, if you dislike me that's fine. I can live with that; However do not try to insult my intelligence. What the definition of a founder is? honestly, Can somebody else address that because if i do it will be reasoning with no end.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 07 April 2014 - 05:00 PM.

[Koniving]

BLOOD WOLF, on 07 April 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Founders did make them money, but you guys were about a year's funding if not less. Try not to have an elitist attitude, game like this need to start somewhere and they needed funds to start. This game has been in dev for years after the founders program and the overlords and pheonix packs. As a matter of fact,founders dont keep this game running. There is a income and a expenditure; It takes millions to dev a game.

As much as we hate to say this, what makes the founders upset is that 100% of the Founder's Program funding went to "other projects." This angered many of us. I'm a bit more understanding, as "other projects" includes most of it to "bailing out of near bankruptcy" after Microsoft strong-holed PGI until it nearly sank underwater with "Mechwarrior 5."

Through research. MW5 was being forced as a third person game by Microsoft in the vain of MechAssault. Xbox 360 only. So much money potential was lost that the budget couldn't hope to be recovered, development shifted to an Xbox Arcade title (doomed anyone?), and finally was abandoned completely with no hope of ever recovering. A 'porting' service of sorts of Duke Nukem 3D is the only thing that kept the company from drowning in bankruptcy.

This can be confirmed in the now nearly impossible to find Devleoper Blogs.
This is Dev Blog 0.
There are 5 in total. Sorry, 6 in total. 0 through 5. Impossible to acquire through search and requires exploring date folders individually; a huge pain in the ass!
This was dev blog 3.
And since I was looking, here's the Dragon announcement.

Afterward, Smith and Tinker (formerly FASA) said "We got some of the rights back from Microsoft." PGI made a clause; that PGI would have sole control over development of this new Mechwarrior project, later named Mechwarrior Online. A number of the lore friendly traits from MW5's demonstration trailer were subsequently abandoned to suit certain whims. Primarily SRMs and Autocannons taking on the firing form of Rifles (i.e. tank cannons) instead of lore's burst and automatic fire autocannons (basically the Abrams 120mm cannon would equate to a Whirlwind AC/5, requiring back to back shots from it to equal 5 damage).

Class 5 Autocannons. GM Whirlwind = 120mm (Sources: Thunder ridge & Wolves on the border) -Marauder Notes: -3 round bursts.

Yes. Founder's program made them money. No, none or virtually very little of it got spent on MWO. Indeed, this is why founders can be quite arrogant. Between that, and the game's shift from simulation to this near Call of Battlehalo shooter we have now, abandoning of many of MWO's core design pillars, and being forsaken from the target audience has made many a founder quite upset.

This game at the start targeted what became the founder program buyers. Role warfare. Information warfare. Attack, defense, working monitors, explorable cockpit, engineers working on the mechs, repair and rearm, community warfare, galactic conquest-based economy, logistics and dropships, actuator damage, heat penalties, graphics, audio, the list goes on and on.

Spoiler

Role warfare, alienated by ghost heat and a code of conduct that punishes role-related behaviors. Quite literally one of the Devs stated that "defense" of a base or structure can be punished if you deliberately stand on it to prevent its capture.
This for example had become a punishable offense.

As has this; staging an ambush.


Information warfare, completely forsaken by monotonous map design revolving around 1 to 3 choke points on every map. It could have been given some new life with ECM, but the erroneous implementation gave it Electronic Warfare Equipment, Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, and Stealth Armor all in one neat little 2 slot, 1.5 ton package.

Working monitors are promised after the return of knockdowns, which would be after community warfare, which would be after UI 2.0, which was to come in December 2012. o.O;

Engineers were made before the Founder's program. They have never been put into the mechlab though they continue to exist today within the game's files. The dude's even got a beard and the ugliest orange-red jumpsuit I've ever seen.

Heat penalties did in fact exist in closed beta. 80% heat and higher, you'd receive equipment damage to the following, one at a time, completely at random: Heatsinks, Ammunition, Weapons, Actuators (accuracy, convergence if arms. Movement, 'tendency to yaw' if legs,) gyro (no effect), Engine (only affects repair/rearm costs), cockpit systems (no effect at the time). At 101% no matter what the conditions, if you had ammunition it instantly detonated. All completely removed.

Repair and rearm. Needed some serious reworking, but kept things pretty interesting.

The graphics were a lot better back then.

Though I agree. Money is an expenditure, and they frequently need more income. While it's true that Founders do not and will never have the game that we actually paid for back then, our money didn't do anything for this game, and the continued development of it relies on the money of those willing to spend it. Having spent money on the game in the past doesn't entitle anyone to a high opinion of themselves.

I, personally, have spent beyond 800 dollars on this game and even I am not that arrogant. Yes, I am disgusted with numerous slaps to lore's face when its very clear that many of the things in lore (not tabletop, the lore) could bring about significantly better balancing than anything PGI's ever tried so far. And no, I do not believe my opinion or that of anyone else's will change the entire game into something better or that I should therefore be entitled to a bunch of stuff I didn't pay for.

I hope that settles the dispute that you and whoever the other guy is. Damn my fingers hurt. *Grabs throttlestick.* Onward my Dragons and Awesomes, it's time to cry at poor balance while spitting in the face of ghost heat and killing some of these freebirths!

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 05:12 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Well sound, although there are things i question and need to research upon. It never hurts to do some extra digging and looking into.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 07 April 2014 - 05:16 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Kjudoon, on 07 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

I'm lost with the OP. Can I get a TL:DR version with examples, a PSA and puppets?

The only thing I'm getting from it is that the MWO community is too small by far to support the Quad3 matchmaker for fear of abuse from too few players.

Is that right or do I need another hole bored in my head to let the sap run out?

Sounds about right but there are a multitude of other issues that hang off this which broaden this entire argument.

The bigger the player base the harder it would be to game in any significant way for sure.

Without knowing how big the playerbase is though its hard to get a reading on this

Maybe off topic but i still think there needs to a percentage population meter showing what weight classes people are dropping so if you want a faster game you can fill the lower ones ... maybe add a small cbill bonus

[no one]

Kjudoon, on 07 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Is that right or do I need another hole bored in my head to let the sap run out?

Sorta? As I understand it, even if you had a billion players many 4 man groups would launch with just 3 'Mechs of the same weight class, because by doing so they exclude that weight class from their potential match ups, and effectively increase their chances of dropping with other pre made groups with 3 of some other weight class.

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

For example I can see and accept why PGI essentially can't rework the core heat system at this point in a way that won't require ghost heat. It's easy to do, but the repercussions and backlash from the people who don't care lore. After all it would, in Paul's words on the same thread I first mentioned it: "Be a global nerf" to 'all' mechs and weapon systems over a 'small problem' with 'a select few weapons'. Plus redoing 2 years of warped balancing fresh would offset some people.

Well that's why the Clans would be a perfect excuse to trial run a different heat system. If people liked it better you could apply something similar to IS 'Mechs. Or they could run a test on the test server, I don't know.

Well yeah, using a straight TT dissipation rate it would "Be a global nerf" because MWO uses doubled armor and an effective weapon turn length of 4 seconds instead of 10. Using 2 times the TT dissipation rates with a minimal heat cap and a set overheat range, plus few other tweaks would work out very well and require minimal weapon re-balancing. Besides, they've been doing more groundwork with the UI and whatnot than weapon balancing.

mwomercs.com/forums/topic/152887-i-aint-afraid-of-no-heat/

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

However far as people not knowing me outside of here, I meant the Russians that picked up MW:LL. It'd be like "Who are you?" "That guy, on the MWO forums." "MWO?! *Door slam!* Don't sue!" "...Crap."

Well, I think the Russian word for 'friend' is either "Drugovich" or "Mellon".


V V V Edit: That too.

Edited by no one, 07 April 2014 - 05:40 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Kjudoon, on 07 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

I'm lost with the OP. Can I get a TL:DR version with examples, a PSA and puppets?

The only thing I'm getting from it is that the MWO community is too small by far to support the Quad3 matchmaker for fear of abuse from too few players.

Is that right or do I need another hole bored in my head to let the sap run out?

Asmudius Heng, on 07 April 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

Sounds about right but there are a multitude of other issues that hang off this which broaden this entire argument.

The bigger the player base the harder it would be to game in any significant way for sure.

Without knowing how big the playerbase is though its hard to get a reading on this

Not so much fear, as delight. I just used an alarming title to draw attention, I made my feelings clear at the bottom that this makes me happy, because without a group queue, and the exposed layers of matchmaking, my friends and I will have an easier time sync dropping

Asmudius Heng, on 07 April 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

Maybe off topic but i still think there needs to a percentage population meter showing what weight classes people are dropping so if you want a faster game you can fill the lower ones ... maybe add a small cbill bonus

Sure, but you'll be required to carry Premium Time to view it, and MC per use down the road.

[Asmudius Heng]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Sure, but you'll be required to carry Premium Time to view it, and MC per use down the road.

And my firstborn, and an arm and a leg, and an oath of fealty too?

Done deal!

*hop hop hop*

[InRev]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

The graphics were a lot better back then.

Forgive me for the threadjack, but wtf happened? Shouldn't a game look better after 2 years of development and not worse than an early beta build?

Edited by InRev, 07 April 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[Mystere]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

As much as we hate to say this, what makes the founders upset is that 100% of the Founder's Program funding went to "other projects." This angered many of us. I'm a bit more understanding, as "other projects" includes most of it to "bailing out of near bankruptcy" after Microsoft strong-holed PGI until it nearly sank underwater with "Mechwarrior 5."

...

With all due respect, you're going to have to point to reliable sources for those. Classified or otherwise makes no difference. Let me worry about that.

[Ransack]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Hey, not entirely related to the conversation.

When did the population counter go away. Was it before or after the group restrictions? Both were around the launch of OB.

When UI 1.5 launched and they added the store. If I remember correctly. When they first wanted to go to open beta saying that the closed beta testers were burned out.