263 replies to this topic

[JohnnyWayne]

We havn't heared about C - ERPPCs yet.

[Jon Gotham]

I'm a bit gutted about the 4x3, as I got a few games in when it did go live and LOVED it. Matches felt much fairer with less stupid weight walls to be run into.
I am glad you know what's going down with that though and are sorting it.

Just hope it's soon as getting rolled by 6+ assaults is getting stale....

[AztecD]

whine for an arty nerf? - check
sausage an LBX&AC - check

i cringed when i saw that vlog, seems that mechwarrior is just a name at this pont since what PGI is doing to the core game.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Blah Blah Blah can we get to the juicy parts of the plan?

Good ole PGI, holding out since 2011.

[Imperius]

Ok Niko I'm calling you out. Now that I am home and I've watched the video more closely.

Two questions.

That drop-ship will we be able to see that when dropship mode comes out? As in... Do we start inside the dropship and roll out like the autobots?

Second question are they using Kinnect for cockpit pilot movement via our body? Or is that for oculus rift?

[CHH Badkarma]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 28 May 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Addendum Note:
There has been a mis-understanding in the latest V-Log (#4) when talking about the Clan Modules. These specialized Clan Modules are included with the various Clan Packs that are on sale. These modules are visually different from the non-Clan Pack version which is available for C-Bills to all players.

Yes, you can take a Clan Pack Module that you got with your Clan Pack and put it on your InnerSphere 'Mechs. It will keep its unique visual effect.

You can also buy the exact same module as the Clan Pack Module but it will not have the same visual effect and put those on your InnerSphere and/or Clan 'Mechs as well. There is no P2W scenario here and we wanted to make sure we clarified this as soon as possible. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

The first small step towards mixed tech. Wonder when the other shoe will fall? Do not say it will not happen, it is only a matter of time. Yes, I will say "I told you so" when you flip flop
Unique visual effect, much like clan mechs that preserve the "feel" but have no real bite. I am already starting to regret buying a warhawk package

[Deadeye254]

Ok so maybe I am alone on this but the ppc is by far the most competitive weapon on this game so do you guys intend to give us any info on how the Clan ER PPC is gonna work because that single weapon system is going to make or break the clan mech competitively speaking . Or am I just going to have to wait till clans are released to find out if I wasted my money or not.

[1453 R]

Warhorns: So, basically what everyone expected then. I really hope the foghorn bellow from the Vlog isn’t our only option. Heavy Metal’s warhorn call is at least stylish.

Clan Modules: This is going to get fun. Between the increased-range and the increased-firerate modules, AMS-equipped ‘Mechs (especially dual AMS ‘Mechs) are going to start being pretty much impervious to any kind of missile fire. Alternatively, the no-more-decay module is going to make a big impact, and not just on missiles. Any time you can deny enemies your paperdoll you’re doing good, to say nothing of knowing for a fact that broken LoS is also broken locks. It’ll make evading missiles much easier, and strikers maneuvering through tight quarters in urban maps will start being very difficult to keep a firm track on. I really like this module, actually. Looking forward to stuffing it in a Stormcrow and making myself a virtual ghost in cities and broken canyons and stuff.

The NARC module, the fall-damage module, and the faster-when-legged module are all pretty much dead weight. Too bad. Still, I suppose two out of five’s not too bad.

Clan Weapons: Not a lot of new stuff indeed. Very disheartening to hear that Clan LB/X guns aren’t getting switchable ammo – that particular glitch in the Matrix should be on the list as well. I do not approve of simply adding ‘Clan Regular Autocannons’ in place of switchable ammo for the LB/X guns. It’s a sloppy stopgap I don’t want to see, and it also just about guarantees that they’ll never actually find the glitch that’s preventing ammo switching and fixing it. After all, if they did then their new ‘Clan Regular Autocannons’ would be as obsolete as the IS standard autocannons, and never mind that they were never supposed to exist in the first place. These CRACs (punny acronym totally intended) had best weight the same and take up the same slots as Clan LB/X guns. If you can’t select between ammo types on the fly in-match, you’d best be able to pick your choice of rounds in the Mechlab.

Odds of that happening: 0%. God damnit MWO.

Game Balance: Same old same old. Moving on.

Matchmaking: Didn’t even watch this portion of it. Too many derps blame the matchmaker for their own inadequacies as it is without any real understanding of what MWO is or how a typical MWO match plays out. 3/3/3/3 and the 4 or less group restrictions are completely and entirely the whiny playerbase’s own damn fault, and I refuse to let them off the hook for it.

Blah.

Anyways.

Cool to have warhorns confirmed, and a couple of the new modules are particularly interesting. It will be fun to see if they’re Clan-specific, as that could be another intriguing way of pseudo-balancing things between IS and Clan tech bases. Modules specific to either side that tailor each side to its own strengths would be a nifty way of providing both some balancing interplay and some unique identity to each faction. As well, anything which potentially reduces the number of strikes on the battlefield can only be taken as a good thing, eh?

[TLBFestus]

I just don't understand when RB says that they have extensively tested 4x3 that they don't DO THAT WITH WEAPONS DAMAGE/RANGE/RECHARGE VALUES.

Take a week, change the damage values of some weapons and see HOW IT WORKS. Collect all that valuable telemetry and use it to have a rationale base for making weapons changes.

[Graugger]

YAY, now my PPC / Gauss boat will be unchallenged!

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I haven't read any of the previous feedback, so if some of this is redundant, sorry ... kinda ... not really ...

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 28 May 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Matt Newman ... Clan Warhorns ... A Warhorn is a mounted cockpit item that has a physical representation in your cockpit. When you take it into battle and you get a kill, it's going to play a sound. Some of them are even animated.

- Cool ... this info could have been released months ago.

Quote

Alex Schmidt. ... unique clan bonus modules ... 5 different modules ... increase the rate of fire of the AMS ... improve the NARC, so increase range and increased duration ... reduces fall damage ... move faster when you've lost a leg ... if an enemy has targeted you and you move out of sight, that target will be instantly lost ... pre-ordered ... you will get some or all of these modules together with a unique visual and/or audio effect.

- Will also be available for GXP / C-Bills when clans are released?
- Can they be equipped on IS 'mechs?
- So the "unique clan bonus" is a visual and/or audio effect ... nicely played.

Quote

Paul Inouye ... clan weapons ... general game balance ... Clan LBX ... problem ... not allowing us to actually have an ammo swap-type ... looking like we're going to be dealing with a mixture of a LBX and a actual clan autocannon. ... There hasn't been a lot going on in terms of general balance in the game right now. ... tournament ... actively looking into the SRM issue. ... nerf that we did to the AC2, ... expect that to start coming into effect for all autocannons ... artillery and air strikes, ... relooking at the way Mechs take damage when they fall

- Clan Weapons ... still need more information ... us spreadsheet warriors aren't goign to dump any more disposable income after unknowns. It is kind of concerning that three weeks before launch, and you're still figuring out how the weapons are going to work. Please stop trying to sell us hopes and dreams, particularly when even you don't know how they're going to turn out.
- No recent balance changes because of the tournament ... the last balance adjustment was over six weeks ago, the tournament was announced 3 weeks ago, and round one was 10 days ago ... this is a cop-out, stop blowing smoke up our rear torsos.
- "Buckton" fix ... something needs to be done to balance the risk-reward for scouting, jump-sniping, brawling, and fire support ... I hope this helps you guys get there.
- AC nerfing continues ... while this might help either the long-range meta and increase time-to-kill slightly, it doesn't increase the risk or reduce the reward for PPCs (which have been the true problem since ballistics HSR went live).
- Arty / Air ... seven months since you buffed damage by a factor of four, and you're just now figuring this out? ... two months, I could see, but seven ... wow.
- Fall damage revisit ... awesome! ... it appears, right now, that an approximately equal amount (i.e.: points, not percentage) of damage is done for a fall of a given distance. If F=M*A, where A is constant (gravity), then the force applied (which would cause damage) is directly proportional to the mass of the falling object. While there are arguments to be made about the resiliency of larger structures, etc., etc. ... I'm sure there are dozens of actual mechanical and systems engineers that can help you figure out how sifnificant all that is compared to basic High School Physics (F=M*A).

Quote

Russ Bullock ... Matchmaker ... 3/3/3/3 ... 4x4 as we called it, so no more than 4 per class, 1 group per side and we've run a lot of combinations and we've really improved our telemetry to kind of gather as much data as possible. ... re-write of the matchmaker in order for the 4x3s to properly work. ... unknown ETA ... really an unavoidable thing, ... community warfare ... was always going to require a level of a re-write of the matchmaker as it is for the new faction-based matchmaking. ... update in the next 2 weeks

- Ever since it was announced, I have been super excited about 3/3/3/3 (4x4 is a good comprimise), and while the slip-up is dissappointing, what is even more dissappointing is this further evidence that one more thing (Clan 'Mechs, in this case) has significantly delayed meaningful development on Community Warfare. Thanks for the honesty, I'll be patient (disgruntled, but patient).

Quote

Addendum Note: ... non-Clan Pack version which is available for C-Bills to all players. ... Yes, you can take a Clan Pack Module that you got with your Clan Pack and put it on your InnerSphere 'Mechs. It will keep its unique visual effect.

- Thanks for answering my only questions in advance ... you guys really are getting better at this communications stuff.

Bonus ... I noticed the Track IR being tested at the end of the VLOG ... nice to see you trying out new stuff.

[Pihoqahiak]

00ohDstruct, on 28 May 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Why does PGI not say how Advanced Targeting Computers are going to work?

Most likely because they have no idea what they are going to do with them, just like Command Consoles. I could see a decent function for them being to extend direct fire weapon ranges, especially after they implement the discussed range nerfs. On that note, I really feel they need to modify their range extension philosophy for modules (and if they were to use similar functionality with Targeting Computers). They should increase the Maximum Range less than they increase the Long Range. They clearly are wanting to cut down on the Maximum Range of weapons after seeing the AC/2 nerf and the stated intent of doing the same to other ACs. Increasing the Long Range of weapons will cause them to be much more useful in general, making the decision between modules to be much more interesting and meaningful.

Edited by Pihoqahiak, 28 May 2014 - 04:32 PM.

[Sevrid]

Please get rid of the huge speakers INSIDE for the warhorns that are on the OUTSIDE of the mech. They are right in the middle of your view and there is no point to them.

Edited by Sevrid, 28 May 2014 - 04:42 PM.

[Navy Sixes]

Thanks for the update and the honest assessment of 4x3 implementation. For as salty a crowd as we are, I think we're pretty forgiving if you guys will keep shooting straight with us (I know it's too late now, but I feel this sort of honesty from the beginning might have made a very different impact on the community).

Looking forward to Clan mechs... I didn't buy any myself, just can't wait to thrash a few!

[Cimarb]

AztecD, on 28 May 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

whine for an arty nerf? - check
sausage an LBX&AC - check

i cringed when i saw that vlog, seems that mechwarrior is just a name at this pont since what PGI is doing to the core game.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Clan weapon ideas are far more lore-centric than the existing IS implementation. What "core game" are you even referring to?

Imperius, on 28 May 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

Second question are they using Kinnect for cockpit pilot movement via our body? Or is that for oculus rift?

That is TrackIR, I believe. Oculus is a full enclosed visor.

Sevrid, on 28 May 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Please get rid of the huge speakers INSIDE for the warhorns that are on the OUTSIDE of the mech. They are right in the middle of your view and there is no point to them.

The sample ones they showed were pretty bad, I agree, but I am interested to see the other versions, as having some nice big thumping woofers will be pretty cool.

[Pjwned]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 28 May 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

and one that - if an enemy has targeted you and you move out of sight, that target will be instantly lost, so there's no decay anymore.

Right away I can say this sounds incredibly stupid, especially if somebody is carrying a target decay module and it's like LOLNO CLAN TECH MODULE GET OWNED #REKT.

If it doesn't work very well (which I doubt it will) then please consider doing something else like reducing the target decay instead of eliminating it completely.

Quote

There's been some concerns over artillery and air strikes, we are looking at trying to balance that out a little bit. What might be happening is that there's a little bit of excessive damage happening in terms of the area effect splash damage. We're going to look into that, and if that's not the cause then basically what we're going to do is probably reduce the overall damage amount. One of the things that is still a concern is that some people are saying that there's a lot of registration hits basically directed to the head based on air and artillery strike. Now one thing I have to caveat with is that the air and artillery strike is actually hitting the head, it's not splash damage that's killing you, it's not like some weird thing happening, it's an actual shell hitting you in the head that blows up your `Mech. But we'll look into that, if it requires us to reduce the amount of damage done to the head, we will do it but we are looking into it.

This sounds a bit better at least, having a RNG shell blast me in the head to kill me instantly is EXTREMELY lame. I had a match earlier on river city night (where, of course, I can't see the smoke because I have night vision on) where an artillery strike placed from completely across the map killed me via headshot while I was on a cap point and I didn't even get a chance to do damage, that is just stupid beyond belief.

Edited by Pjwned, 28 May 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

When you say people adapted nicely to the 4x3 model and that it was a success because people were playing the less popular mech sizes, I don't see how it is necessarily a success. If a four-man wanted to drop in all heavies, one of them is forced to choose a different class in order to drop.
It wasn't like they 'wanted' to use a lighter or different mech, they were forced to.

I say allow four mans to be composed of whatever the lance wants and balance the teams based on tonnage limits. This way people aren't restricted in choosing their mech in a four-man, and there is still fairness in matches.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 28 May 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I do find the "no target decay" module interesting, from a lore perspective ... wouldn't this (from sarna.net):

Quote

Certain actions taken during a duel are considered dezgra and an opponent who engages in them too often can render the fight void. These include intentionally moving out of the line of sight or weapons range of an opponent or failing to fire a weapon at the opponent if capable of doing so, although even these may be acceptable if tactically appropriate.

... mean that the module is unnecessary from a clanners perspective?

If a clan MechWarrior is expected to remain in line of sight and/or weapons range, why would he need this module? Why would they even create it? Perhaps it's not really a "clan" module at all ...

Any how, I appreciate that the VLOG was produced in a relatively short period of time, and had mostly fresh information.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 28 May 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[Jay Z]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 28 May 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

^ The voice of reason. The communication and proposed changes are excellent, seriously well done, just...... much later than it really needed to be particularly the SL, SLP, MPL and SRM changes which have been clearly needed for the better part of a year.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 28 May 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

- Fall damage revisit ... awesome! ... it appears, right now, that an approximately equal amount (i.e.: points, not percentage) of damage is done for a fall of a given distance. If F=M*A, where A is constant (gravity), then the force applied (which would cause damage) is directly proportional to the mass of the falling object. While there are arguments to be made about the resiliency of larger structures, etc., etc. ... I'm sure there are dozens of actual mechanical and systems engineers that can help you figure out how significant all that is compared to basic High School Physics (F=M*A).

As a Mechanical Engineer and a Physicist (yes I did 2 degrees), I would happily assist in any calculations (not limited to fall damage) as I like seeing stuff work .

[N0MAD]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 28 May 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Transcript:

And finally, Russ Bullock,

First off one of the challenges is that public test isn't providing us the information we need. Even with some incentive and getting 400 plus people into public test server,

Even with bribes you can only get less than 400 players testing, whats that telling you Russ?.