Jump to content

Dev Vlog #6


426 replies to this topic

#81 Kinski Orlawisch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 2,282 posts
  • LocationHH

Posted 12 July 2014 - 01:40 AM

1. Thx you.
2. The last map where he walks around is a new one. Correct? Reminds me a bit of River City. Nearly finished. Great.
3. More modul Slots can lead to more Airstrikes ingame.....Hmmmm
4. Rejoin. Great...;)
5. Russ said 5 years as Long is Mechworrior online is around?? I hope MWO will live longer. Clarify this please. CW development will take that Long? I hope not. There is no reason to finish a good game..and close it after running it 2 years after 6 years of Beta.
I played a Online game wich closed suddenly ist Support. I hope this will never happen to MWO! Yes we demand more. But we do this, because we love this game.
When nobody is intrested anymore. Than the game is dead. As Long as there is a Community wich screams...There is a Futur! When nobody is intrested anymore. It is over. We have Commercials in Germany for f Broswer games. Make a TV Commercial to get more peopel. Get the Computer Magazines to take a look at the Clanmechs. Buffed, Gamestar etc. Nobody wrote about the Clanmechs! Why? Goddamit! Make something out of your Options to increase yourself!

#82 Erox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 01:56 AM

Where is the text form of the news? I can't stand that babbeling around and want to read it in proper form

Edited by Erox, 12 July 2014 - 01:59 AM.


#83 Legend_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 12 July 2014 - 01:59 AM

About the new maps;

Please, for the love of all that is mech, release them clean. By that I mean without horrendous amounts of invisible terrain/feature clipping, corners and such that block shots even though there's a clean LOS.

Also, the mech factory map looked alright for it (Very Crimson Straight in some regards) but don't be afraid to use some colour! Maps like HPG, Terra Therma and such are good ideas but lacking horribly in any colouring.

#84 Túatha Dé Danann

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 1,164 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:00 AM

Good to see some progress. I really like the idea of the Swamp Map and different types of modules. I fear, that CW still has a long way to go, as we do not have Rearm&Repair, planets, dropships (!!!) and a global economy system, but well, at least it is in the works.

To the custom map creation:
It would be nice to see some talents of the community to re-shape some maps we have right now. There are a couple of maps that are just feeling old/simple or boring. With all the changes in gameplay and mechanics, weapon design etc we could start to give out the source of the map to the community and have them to make their own call on those maps.

The best-re-designed maps could be put to a vote (similar to Star Citizen with "The next great starship") and the best re-design will replace the existing map. We could start with a community poll of which 3 maps need a re-design the most (I see Alpine to be at #1, not sure about #2 and #3) and then we put these 3 maps out for re-design.

The players can "launch" this map in the training ground, look around and finally vote for their favorite(s).

Other than that, for CW we need a big background system with advantages for players to participate - like more C-Bills and stuff to use C-Bills for (like dropships)

Last but not least: Give me real bases! A thing with walls, turrets, sensor towers, ECM-covered regions etc.

#85 Bigbacon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,096 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:05 AM

so... why LRM min range damage? I don't get it and is it ONLY for flan mechs? So now people can spam LRMs for damage even at close range which was a COUNTER to LRMs.

they should have a larger minimum range I think. they shouldn't be a close range support weapon.

not sure why clans need weapon modules and you BETTER be updating the IS weapon modules so they are more useful. can you make IS weapon modules stackable?

clan weapons already have a range advantage, they don't need more.

Edited by Bigbacon, 12 July 2014 - 02:13 AM.


#86 charov

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,110 posts
  • LocationLondon - UK

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:19 AM

Lots of good news, thanks PGI! ;)

View PostBigbacon, on 12 July 2014 - 02:05 AM, said:

so... why LRM min range damage? I don't get it and is it ONLY for flan mechs? So now people can spam LRMs for damage even at close range which was a COUNTER to LRMs.

TT

#87 Magos Titanicus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 282 posts
  • LocationSagittarius A

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:29 AM

one mech module slot? seriously?? foo!

#88 Naduk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,575 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:32 AM

i wish NGNG would shut up during these videos
we dont need them holding our hands explaining what each dev is going to talk about as ya know.... they fraking talk about it
someone correct me if im wrong but most of us are not five year olds looking to cross a road

#89 eitsch

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 37 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:35 AM

View PostInnerSphereNews, on 11 July 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

[...]great vlog'n stuff[...]

I am surprised that no one mentioned this yet ... or am i just mistaken.

My first reception of the VLOG announcement made me cringe ... because:

Why is THIS WHOLE (Thread)THING "here" ... and not here --> http://mwomercs.com/...eveloper-vlogs/

It is the attention to this details which built a really bad Entrée for this VLOG. Please shove it over there if this is not already planned.

just my first 2cents without even having watched it already
eitsch

//edit: on second read/thought: it is not the "attention to details" ... more precisely i would have to say i am annoyed by the lack of "clearness in communication-strategy". It is the same with the tidbits of information which get sprinkled about twitter and all the other social media crap which some janitor-like keyboardmonkey (for whose dedication and work i am very grateful) needs to pile together so that they gladly get also centralised again in the forums. bleh!

Edited by eitsch, 12 July 2014 - 02:40 AM.


#90 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:49 AM

The module change was PGIs chance to start redefining role warfare in this game where that pillar has yet to really have any meaning at all.

Instead we get a cgance deliberatly designed to make people spend more XP and cbills on the worthless weapons modules.

This is HORRIBLY dissapointing PGI.

By making this a generic, dull, uninspired time sink you have crapped on any chances of making a set of role warfare enhancers.

You already had roles for modules, sensor types, support types etc weapons as well ... instead of using ROLES to define modules you are basically forcing people to spend for the weapons thats it.

Here this is how you redesign modules.

Have weapons slots
Have mech slots
Have support slots
Have sensor slots

Now every module is tagged with one of those catagories including consumables. example:

Coolshot -> weapons
UAV -> Sensor
Artillery -> support

Now you have 4 basic roles in modules.
-Ones that enhance your mech performance (hill climb, fall damage etc)
-Ones that enhance your sensors (Seismic, target retention etc)
-Ones that provide support to your team(capture accel, this one might need more modules released for it)
-And of course weapons based modules

Now apply these VERY differently depending on the mech. Lets take a look at a few.

1. Raven: Your sensor mech, this one might have three Sensor modules, one support module, and one mech module - thats right NO WEAPONS module they do not ALL have to have every type.

2. Jenner: A light with a different role might have: two weapons modules, one sensor module, 2 mech modules - This mech can modify its performance and its weapons being the striker mech but it cannot do artillery

3. Catapult: 2 sensor modules, 2 support modules, 1 weapons module - This mech might not be able to modify its performance much but it can boost its LRMs, get decent sensor help, and can add artillery and more being a support mech

4. Victor, lets take a look at a meta mech - 2 mech modules, 1 sensor module, 2 weapons modules - Inhibits it bringing arty but it has good weapons and can enhance the machine itself with some sensor backup

5. DDC Atlas A command mech - 2 sensor modules, 2 support modules, 1 mech module - All about sensors, supporting and something to help boost the machine itself but stops it being a weapons enhancer.

Now weapons modules need to be worth a damn for this to really work and these are just rough ideas but I really hope PGI can see that this would help balance, this would help role warfare, this would get them to sell more weapons modules because they are there and people WILL fill them.

What you propose PGI is horrific and a waste of time and an obvious cbill/xp sink.

#91 Lucky Noob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sovereign
  • The Sovereign
  • 1,149 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:58 AM

First: ty for the good News.

Second: Russ seriously get some sleep and /or medicine. Damm its not worth to work you to death, we still need you here.

#92 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:01 AM

View PostNaduk, on 12 July 2014 - 02:32 AM, said:

i wish NGNG would shut up during these videos
we dont need them holding our hands explaining what each dev is going to talk about as ya know.... they fraking talk about it
someone correct me if im wrong but most of us are not five year olds looking to cross a road

is that not rude? they are just giving a brief intro into the talking point.

#93 Bigbacon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,096 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:07 AM

View PostAsmudius Heng, on 12 July 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

The module change was PGIs chance to start redefining role warfare in this game where that pillar has yet to really have any meaning at all.
.......
What you propose PGI is horrific and a waste of time and an obvious cbill/xp sink.


choices and options. Maybe role warfare isn't on the horizon or this is a way to gather information for the future of CW.

Edited by Bigbacon, 12 July 2014 - 03:08 AM.


#94 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:14 AM

View PostBigbacon, on 12 July 2014 - 03:07 AM, said:


choices and options. Maybe role warfare isn't on the horizon or this is a way to gather information for the future of CW.


If they change this it will take them years to make another change, i seriously hope they reconsider before they commit to something they refuse to undo.

PGI very rarely makes major changes to a core feature unless it is destroying the game (Like R&R) - this will not do any damage apart from even more artillery, it will change very little so it will slip quietly by as people sigh and buy weapons modules and continue to dream of a game where roles and mech differentiation/character exist ...

#95 Detriitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 105 posts
  • LocationA long time ago in a galaxy far less explored

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:15 AM

View PostFupDup, on 11 July 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Also, we need more weapon mod variety. I'm talking cooldowns, heat, damage, and weapon-specific mods. Give me MG CoF reduction, LBX crit rate increase, UAC jam reduction, faster Gauss charge, etc. etc. I don't want to waste a slot on +10 meters of range, please.


This would make a difference.

More consumables and less mechslots sounds plain terrible, while the other news gets my hopes up. Thank you!

#96 J0N3S

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 52 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:28 AM

Only 1 MechModule? - absolutly fail.

Pls rethink this desicion .

#97 Jakob Knight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 1,286 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:36 AM

I have to echo what people have already posted about the module slot plans. Essentially, this reduces the possible number of uses for a given mech by reducing the ability to slot modules for utility and support (mech modules) as well as eliminate a focus on pure utility/support for any mech, decreases the penalty for using consumables by providing additional slots for them that do not force the pilot to sacrifice another type of module (the primary limiting factor in their use and part of the calculation of their cost breakdown within the game), and drastically reduces the value of mastering a mech by making the resultant reward now restricted solely to a class of modules many pilots do not use and which do not have meaningful value for their cost. The sum of this change is that mechs become less varied and more railroaded into specific, dev-approved configurations, rather than player-determined.

A side effect of the change in module capabilities is also that owners of specific mechs may find the mech they purchased can no longer perform the role they purchased it for because the Devs' idea for what that mech is 'supposed to be' is different than the stated role the established description of each mech in the original source material is, or different from the players' understanding of what the mech would be capable of at the time of purchase. For instance, a Stalker pilot might find their mech has 0 Mech modules because the dev in charge of assigning its module configuration decided arbitrarily that it should be a total weapons platform with no utility role, and allocate it instead with 2 Consumable and 4 Weapons Modules, resulting in a mech unable to use Seismic, Long-Range Sensors, or other such.

Time will tell, I suppose.

The one glaring thing that I -hope- is not the case is the point at 5:23, where the Cataphract is shown using it's jumpjets to land and, even though it is clearly thrusting prior to the point of landing, takes damage anyway from a minimal jump. The time from the last jump thrust to landing is clearly less than a second, yet suddenly the mech's velocity jumps at the point of landing to ensure it still takes damage. This seems counter to the idea that a mech that uses its jump jets to break its descent prior to landing will not take damage from normal JJ useage, and is very worrying. Also, the mech didn't seem to get much terrain clearance altitude from what seemed like the 'normal' jump jet configuration (4 jump jets), when it should be able to clear terrain up to twice it's own height from those jets (if, indeed, they are supposed to be more in-line with what they are supposed to be). All of this calls into question if these changes will really promote their use as terrain-avoidance and maneuvering equipment or encourage mechs to avoid their use as even reasonable usage will result in self-damage, maybe even catastrophic self-damage to the heavier units.

As for the new maps, I'm a little disappointed the 'Forest' map seems to be much more open spaces than actual tree cover (swamp), and that the 'urban' map is only an industrial zone pretty much like what we have with Crimson Straits or River City. Above all that, however, is the impression these maps are small, rather than the kilometers-long maps we need for CW. Both of these still seem to be 'arena' mentality maps, rather than actual typographically-sensible maps depicting the kind of situation a mechwarrior would actually face when fighting over a world people would build who did not live in an arena.

I'll wait and see, of course, and hope all of this is simple misunderstanding or false impressions caused by the use of video instead of context-scrutinized text documentation to provide accurate information to the players.

#98 Phrixis

    Rookie

  • 5 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:50 AM

Match rejoin: Awesome!
CW progress: Awesome!
Renewed efforts on Maps: Awesome!
Module changes: Horrible!

Seriously - if you are sticking to this route, make the mastery slot an omni-slot (any module type). An extra weapon slot is not commensurate reward for mastering a mech. Better yet, scrap the module rework as described.

#99 BladeXXL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 12 July 2014 - 04:21 AM

I would like to see the master module being an universal one!!!

#100 Xeno Phalcon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,461 posts
  • LocationEvening Ladies

Posted 12 July 2014 - 04:24 AM

So we will get on most mechs 2 consumable slots, 2 weapon slots and 1 mech slot, and the master slot is a weapon slot?

One second while I get my baby powder, need to get the most out of this pimp slap.
-------------

Seriously, no mech should take more than one arty type, and being 'encouraged' to invest more gxp into weapon slots because we get three of those but have to choose between 'mech' slots (That would be radar dep, seismic, decay,ect) which basically means get wrecked.

And any variant that has more than one mech slot is instantly superior to others (if they have any like that).





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users