67 replies to this topic

[Lucian Nostra]

Interesting I wonder if they realize that if they want to increase the damage dealt to a jumping mech on landing that they need to first increase the thrust of JJs.

As it stands now a mech on the fall can never produce enough thrust to re-lift and in many circumstances you can not properly cushion a fall even with max JJ fuel

[Roland]

Heffay, on 09 May 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

Just a small point of order from a linguistics point of view: That is what is known as a dialect, and isn't incorrect. It is still proper pronunciation according to the dialect rules he was raised under. Dialects also change over time. For example, "ain't" used to be considered the "proper" way of contracting "is not", but that changed roughly a century ago.

Uh, what dialect includes pronunciation of especially as "expecially"? The only reference to saying "Expecially" is "in urban areas", which isn't really a dialect as much as it's a sign of substandard education.

That's not a dialect specific vernacular. It's a mispronunciation of a word, like saying "Expresso" when you mean "Espresso". Or "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear". It's not a dialect. It's just saying the word incorrectly.

[Agent of Change]

They need to make up their mind are 84% of players dropping solo or is having multiple groups per team the only viable way to do MM?

I mean i'm no Mathmagician but i was thinking about this.

84% solo - 16% team.

If we are generous and say 80 - 20 for ease of discussion that then means roughly 1 in 5 players is in a group.

A full match is 24 players that means there is 4.8 team players buy the numbers

extrapolate out to 4 full game being 96 players we have 19.2 team players or just shy of 5 full 4 man premades.

4 games = 8 teams / 5 premades = 1.6 premades per game.

So I'm curious is it that PGI is fudging the numbers to justify really really bad design decisions or is it that they can't do math?

I've been skeptical of the 84-16 numbers from the git go, but this is just kinda sad.

Edited by Agent of Change, 09 May 2014 - 06:07 AM.

[kesuga7]

seemed like phil was the only one who was asking teh serious questions/statements lol

[Cattra Kell]

General Taskeen, on 09 May 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

I assume, although I don't know if this is correct, that Sean is getting this idea from MW:LL, which in turn got the idea from TT. NGNG used to plug for MW:LL, so I imagine they've played it. Although jets have way, way more advanced programming built in for them in that game.

Sending from my phone at work so apologies in advance. Some of us use to work on MW;LL.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 09 May 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

Uh, what dialect includes pronunciation of especially as "expecially"? The only reference to saying "Expecially" is "in urban areas", which isn't really a dialect as much as it's a sign of substandard education.

That's not a dialect specific vernacular. It's a mispronunciation of a word, like saying "Expresso" when you mean "Espresso". Or "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear". It's not a dialect. It's just saying the word incorrectly.

What one person calls a mispronunciation of a word, another calls it "the way they speak". You have your own versions of this and don't even realize it. Yours aren't any more right than theirs. They are just different, not wrong.

At the end of the day, they are all *spelled* the same way. That's the difference between language and dialect. One is written, the other is the oral implementation of that.

[Fut]

Peiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Footnote 4: Maybe if falling were factor in the game would I agree, along with death from above. But jump jet capable mechs are DESIGNED to jump and land without falling apart. I would like to see large mechs take damage more proportionally from falling/sliding down mountains as compared to smaller mechs. It doesn't make sense that the lighter the mech, the more damage it takes from landing/falling/sliding down. But JUMPING mechs should not take damage from LANDING if they are landing from a height no greater than the greatest arch of flight they were designed for. Now if a mech jumps high off a cliff, then they should take damage as they're falling much further down then the are designed to jump up! -Peiper

Great work, as always, Peiper.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Don't think I see eye-to-eye with you on this point though.
Sure Mechs with Jump Jets are designed with jumping in mind, but I don't think that their structure was designed for plummeting to the ground.

JJ Mechs should take damage if they fail to make a controlled decent.
No more of this JJ to the top of the arch then cut the JJs to fall back to the ground as quickly as possible.

Edited by Fut, 09 May 2014 - 07:23 AM.

[Wieland]

Peiper, on 08 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Footnote 5: SIZED hardpoints might make some mechs more viable too. The hunchback might be more interesting if it is the ONLY medium mech that can sport an AC/20? Geezus... You guys have no idea how frustrating it is to listen to these guys ignore such a basic issue as what makes a chassis unique to begin with. Ghost heat would be unnecessary, overpowered/exclusive ECM could be reworked, etc... It's all down to frankenmechs and how we can abuse them. So fracking frustrating to see what is a simple solution instead of endless bandaids. If you have a headache, don't break your fingers to make your headache go away! -Peiper

To bad that PGI is deaf on that ear.
But, it could also be the mysterious Puppetmaster that is forcing them to not go for sized hardpoints.

[Peiper]

Agent of Change, on 09 May 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

They need to make up their mind are 84% of players dropping solo or is having multiple groups per team the only viable way to do MM?

So I'm curious is it that PGI is fudging the numbers to justify really really bad design decisions or is it that they can't do math?

I drop in teams 99% of the time, and so am used to - and not really bothered - when I see one or two premades on a side. I don't know how much ELO has to do with it, but I expect that team players have a higher average ELO than solo players. Perhaps those solo players who see teams more often have a higher ELO and/or team players see more team players dropping for the same reason. There may be a large number of lower ELO matches where you rarely see a team at all among the 24 who drop - but those of us who care about the game enough to head to the forums to debate, suggest, or complain also are the ones who see teams more often. New players may never once step into the forum, and/or the don't see teams at all - or know how to recognize them in a drop to begin with.

Another factor: I do know that many of my Devil Dogs drop solo when grinding out mechs and experience. However, if you ask them, they would prefer to be considered team players. Those solo drops they do may skew PGI's results the same way the odd man out in five players do.

One statistic that I'd love to see after a month is how many players are dropping on each team in private matches. At the House Steiner HUB we tend do have 3-8 players per side (whether we're combining players of different units, or dropping within our own). Part of this is due to the fact that there are a lot of guys who need c-bills and experience and so feel they can't afford to participate/not prepared for private lobbies, and the other situation is just due to the logistics of fielding so many guys at once. A third factor is: we're having a blast playing smaller games. You really get to know players when there's less of them on each team, the game is more personal, and especially for those of us who are burned out with the deathmatches - it breaths some life back into the game.

[Eddrick]

I agree, Peiper. Sized hardpoints would allow for more distinction between chassis and variants.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 09 May 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

Uh, what dialect includes pronunciation of especially as "expecially"? The only reference to saying "Expecially" is "in urban areas", which isn't really a dialect as much as it's a sign of substandard education.

That's not a dialect specific vernacular. It's a mispronunciation of a word, like saying "Expresso" when you mean "Espresso". Or "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear". It's not a dialect. It's just saying the word incorrectly.

Really? X is 5 o'clock from S on the key board... Somebody mix your medicine again?

[Agent of Change]

Peiper, on 09 May 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

snip for space

you have to understand I am a die hard "team player" If the choice is drop solo or play another game i will play another game. Under no circumstances do I find it worth dropping solo ever (only exception is sync dropping for something like marik madness). So I know all about the team play and multiple premades a side bothers me not one whit, but I'm challenging PGI's idiotic numbers that seem to support dumb decisions while they simultaneously tell us things that blatantly contradict the previous numbers and decsions.

The larger point is that from the outside their business plan strongly resembles a Simian sexually assaulting a football. and their ability to deliver on anything they say they are going to deliver on is suspect at best.

I just want them to cut the BS be open and honest for once and actually follow through on something that they say they are going to do.

[Sable]

About hardpoint sizes. I'm glad they don't have them in MWO, that was one of the single most frustraiting things to me in the Mechwarrior 4 games. I would buy a mech thinking i could put a cool build in it only to find out nothing but its stock config was doable. Especially when it came to some of the larger weapons that could only fit on certain mechs. If i want to put a slow engine in a raven and run an AC20 then thats what i want to be able to do. Its not practical, or ever all that great but the option is there for me if i want it, and i like it that way. Hardpoint sizes would pigeonhole mechs into sucky builds or only the meta build. Instead of there being a variety of weapon loadouts for a variant there would ONLY be the meta loadout, you know, that one cookie cutter design that everyone thinks is best. You may think there are already builds like that but i do see some varieties of those variants as people experiement with different loadouts.

[Fut]

Sable, on 09 May 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

About hardpoint sizes. I'm glad they don't have them in MWO, that was one of the single most frustraiting things to me in the Mechwarrior 4 games. I would buy a mech thinking i could put a cool build in it only to find out nothing but its stock config was doable. Especially when it came to some of the larger weapons that could only fit on certain mechs. If i want to put a slow engine in a raven and run an AC20 then thats what i want to be able to do. Its not practical, or ever all that great but the option is there for me if i want it, and i like it that way. Hardpoint sizes would pigeonhole mechs into sucky builds or only the meta build. Instead of there being a variety of weapon loadouts for a variant there would ONLY be the meta loadout, you know, that one cookie cutter design that everyone thinks is best. You may think there are already builds like that but i do see some varieties of those variants as people experiement with different loadouts.

I can agree with this, but only if the Devs made it so the larger weapon stayed it's proper size.
When you drop a massive weapon into a Mech that doesn't normally field it, the hitbox for that section should be enlarged to actually house the weapon.

Although I understand your point, I find it ridiculous that the HBK needs an exaggerated shoulder to house the AC20 - yet a much much smaller Mech can have one and it's totally fine, no enlarged torso section that's easy to aim for and hit, no real downside at all (besides having to move at a slug's speed).

[Barantor]

Fut, on 09 May 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Although I understand your point, I find it ridiculous that the HBK needs an exaggerated shoulder to house the AC20 - yet a much much smaller Mech can have one and it's totally fine, no enlarged torso section that's easy to aim for and hit, no real downside at all (besides having to move at a slug's speed).

This in turn nullifies the specialization that the original mech was intended for and lowers it's desire to be played.

Some mechs overall shape comes from the loadout they were designed for, but when you can customize things where the shape doesn't matter so much then you have basically created a game designed around altering weapons, not about what a mech was designed for.

[verybad]

Wow, I actually like a lot off the things they're mentioning.

Especially sized hardpoints (IMO the best thing MW4 did with the series, no matter how much some people like or dislike that game) Mech based pilot traits are also delicious.

Edited by verybad, 09 May 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[Pygar]

Yeah, they should just roll 3/3/3/3 and stop worrying about groups per side.

[Peiper]

Summary complete.

[verybad]

An Awesome with 3 PPCs and no ghost heast might be viable? Especially if no other mechs could do that.

Edited by verybad, 09 May 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Peiper]

verybad, on 09 May 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Wow, I actually like a lot off the things they're mentioning.

Especially sized hardpoints (IMO the best thing MW4 did with the series, no matter how much some people like or dislike that game) Mech based pilot traits are also delicious.

Don't confuse what THEY said with what I said. I wasn't there. All my stuff is in [brackets]. I am disappointed that they DIDN'T mention hardpoints as the issue. I expect they didn't because whether they agree with me or not, I really don't think Paul and/or PGI will ever agree to looking into it. MAYBE after they run out of stuff to do on their roadmap (after CW). But Bryan/Russ have always bragged about 'mechlab' being super-duper important, which means they are more likely to revisit ECM than limit our frankenmeching powers.