Jump to content

Dev Vlog #4


263 replies to this topic

#21 Citizen Erased

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 97 posts
  • LocationMontsoult (Paris) - France

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:03 AM

That moment when you see the Track IR sneak peak and get over hyped... I need an Oculus so badly now.

#22 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:04 AM

With regards to the "not being able to switch modes" as described by Paul about LBX...

In "older FPSes", like Half Life, Unreal, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and other old games, the game was pretty much able to switch between two modes OF THE SAME weapon. All one would have to do is program a new keybind for what amounts to "alternate fire".

That is how most games do it. I'm not even sure why this sounds like Lostech.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 May 2014 - 09:05 AM.


#23 EvilCow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,232 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:11 AM

Good news about the 2x reduction on all ACs but, wow, did poptarting really need a boost with the instant lock loss?

#24 Runs With Scissors

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 123 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:15 AM

yeah... not happy about the instant lock loss module. LRMs are still only useful in PUG matches and this is like a huge nerf to them.

#25 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,455 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:21 AM

View PostRuns With Scissors, on 28 May 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

yeah... not happy about the instant lock loss module. LRMs are still only useful in PUG matches and this is like a huge nerf to them.


Would you rather have the instant lock loss module, or an arty strike? :ph34r: Eventually we'll have enough modules to choose between that some hard decisions will have to be made, especially in a tournament scenario where the map is known.

#26 Goosfraba

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 221 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:23 AM

Russ:

From the bottom of my heart, listen to me, what you have up there is unsalvageable.

It is time.

Posted Image

Edited by Goosfraba, 28 May 2014 - 09:23 AM.


#27 Vanguard836

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,101 posts
  • LocationOttawa, ON

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:24 AM

The one follow up question in regards to modules is what collection gets which module(s).
Is it pre determined or is it a choice akin to the phoenix medalions ?

#28 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:28 AM

Finally some communication, answers, explaination and more. Now was that hard? I want more of this. Repped.

Edited by Sarlic, 28 May 2014 - 09:29 AM.


#29 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Clan Exemplar
  • Clan Exemplar
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:30 AM

View PostDeathlike, on 28 May 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

With regards to the "not being able to switch modes" as described by Paul about LBX...

In "older FPSes", like Half Life, Unreal, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and other old games, the game was pretty much able to switch between two modes OF THE SAME weapon. All one would have to do is program a new keybind for what amounts to "alternate fire".

That is how most games do it. I'm not even sure why this sounds like Lostech.


He did say "the way we have the weapons designed" or something to that effect.

I foresee a lot of core component rewrites in PGI's future.
(Weapons, MM, Heat system, etc..)

-----------------------------------------
Also, very disappointing to see they're looking at the damage of the strikes rather than the frequency/amount.

Arty strikes are supposed to hurt. The problem isn't the damage they're putting out, it's in a good place, the problem is that there are 24 of them in a match, and often in rapid succession...

Edited by Livewyr, 28 May 2014 - 09:32 AM.


#30 Rubidiy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:31 AM

NERFS NERFS NERFS... Thanx Paul! That's a nice way to keep players in the game. Nerf everything and cut off all the joy out of the game! :) Go on nerfing all weapons and monetize those sweet modules for their viable performance! Yay! :ph34r:

#31 Trauglodyte

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,373 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:33 AM

Good things are coming with modules.

Clan LBs and switching ammo: DUH! I told you so last year. This is why I always suggested that you could equip both weapons when you add one. Want to fire a UAC in single fire mode without jamming? When you equip it, you can also apply it as a weapon group set as an AC5. Want to fire slugs from the LB 10? You can apply it as a seperate weapon group as a normal AC10. Why is this so damned hard?

As for the MM, here is a simple freaking solution: MULTI-MECH QUEUING!!! What is killing your code is the fact that you've got a limited population base from which to pull matches together. Your MM is pulling on ELO, weight class, and then weight. Don't you think that it pairs down the possibilities a bit much? Well, why not allow for people to queue up as many mechs as they want and then be given the choice of what mechs that can use based on what is pulled in? For all that is logical, stop shooting yourself in the foot by limiting a system which is already strained with limitations.

#32 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:36 AM

View PostLivewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

He did say "the way we have the weapons designed" or something to that effect.

I foresee a lot of core component rewrites in PGI's future.
(Weapons, MM, Heat system, etc..)


Well, a number of patches ago, they "optimized" how heatsinks interact with water.

That's just a glimpse of things to come... "it needs more work/optimizing".

Here though, it's more with respect to "design" and "easily modifiable".

Edited by Deathlike, 28 May 2014 - 09:37 AM.


#33 Redshift2k5

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 11,975 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:39 AM

Paul and Russ don't seem very comfortable in front of the camera.

some great information load, although I m,ay not like some of the details (those modules sound too good to be limited cash-only items) but the amount of info coming out is great

Would have loved to see more clan mech cockpits, one is not enough!

#34 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,745 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:40 AM

So it sounds like the unique modules are just normal clan modules with added sound effects that will be unique and maybe visual effects. Sounds like a fair approach.

#35 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,884 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:43 AM

It's nice to see all the 'end game' module content can be easily ignored by competitive players. When you add in the upcoming Chaff consumable, how many items have been implemented to counter LRMs?

#36 o0Marduk0o

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 4,230 posts
  • LocationBerlin, Germany

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:44 AM

View PostAlex Warden, on 28 May 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

sooooo instant lock loss will be clan package owner exclusive for a while or will they also be purchasable for everyone ? otherwise p2w :ph34r:

Not sure whether you want to waste a module slot on something like this.

#37 AdamBaines

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,381 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:47 AM

This Vlog was an improvement on past ones. Aside from the time between this on and Vlog 3, I thought that most of the info was timely and informative and I enjoyed it. Thanks guys, and please let try to do them more often as it was great.

#38 CHH Badkarma

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 829 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:48 AM

Modules designed for the clan pack should stay clan only equipment. Not likely though. I am sure it will not be long after release that the cave in on mixed tech and start to allow it. Pgi flip flops more than a pair of sandals

#39 Leigus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • LocationSierra, Free Worlds League

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:48 AM

Good info in this vlog -- glad to hear that the other autocanon ranges are being looked at (even thought the AC/2 didn't really need the range adjustment).

Does this mean that the idea of minimum 2, maximum 4 has been thrown out? I know that that had a very positive response when discussing alternatives to 4 by 3 in another thread.

#40 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,745 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:49 AM

View PostLivewyr, on 28 May 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

Also, very disappointing to see they're looking at the damage of the strikes rather than the frequency/amount.

Arty strikes are supposed to hurt. The problem isn't the damage they're putting out, it's in a good place, the problem is that there are 24 of them in a match, and often in rapid succession...


I agree, keep the pain but space them out, make the global team CD for Arty and Air Strikes 60-180 seconds and make the CD grow for every use.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users