20517 replies to this topic

[xVLFBERHxT]

Juodas Varnas, on 14 January 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

This might be a different variant of the Crusader. The lack of one of the hands and the pelvis mounted srm-2 racks, makes me think of the 5M

Here's the picture of the variant from Sarna:

Keep in mind, that i'm PRETTY SURE that it still has a hand actuator in the record sheets. It's just that the art doesn't show it, for some reason or another.

Never noticed, that the left fist is missing. Wow!

[Koniving]

xVLFBERHxT, on 14 January 2018 - 12:11 PM, said:

Never noticed, that the left fist is missing. Wow!

The strange thing is I can't see why.
Left arm:
Medium laser. LRM-15.
Right arm:
Machine gun. Flamer. Medium Laser. LRM-15.

...It doesn't make any sense.

----Also of fun note in terms of weapon and equipment variants:
The AMS is a "LFN Linblad Shotgun" Anti Missile System.

LFN Linblad Shotgun

Shotgun-style AMS.

Its just listed as not having a left hand actuator, but I do not see any reason why it would lack one. Most of the weapons are on the right hand, so it isn't to fit more weapons.

Also evidently leg mounted weapons should probably be depicted as on the hips, since mounting them on the legs don't make sense and in this canonical example, they are shown on the hips when their crits mount them on the leg slots.

[Koniving]

Crusader 5S is the only other Crusader prior to 3067 (that's where I stopped looking) that doesn't have a left hand actuator. I wanted to say its a trait exclusive to the 5th gen, but.. The 5K has a left hand actuator. So it isn't a 5th gen trait, but a specific trait of the Marik and Steiner 5th gen models.

Sadly there's no other Steiner or Marik models in that time frame.
If I skip ahead..
6th gen Marik has NO hand actuators. And Multi-Missile Launcher 7s with Light PPCs.
The next Steiner model is the 8th Gen Steiner, which has a Heavy Gauss... but both hand actuators.

Considering that the "Owl Eyes" of the Fafnir are supposed to be the barrels of Heavy Gauss Rifles....

I'd hate to imagine a barrel that size on a 65 ton Crusader...

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 14 January 2018 - 10:07 AM, said:

I've been saying for a while, the HGR should be 10 Crist, with the LB-20 should be 8 or 9 Crist in MWO, due to the lack of dual fire modes that it was balanced around in TT... doing this would make some mech that need the crit splitting to work suddenly become viable variants in MWO. Truth be told, I'd like the HGR to be 9 Crist, so that we could see the Crusader variant that uses an XL engine and HGR....

This ruins the capacity of MWO special builds being ported to TT, which they most certainly want to do.

The problem, as it always has been, is a coding failure on PGI's end. I cringe at the thought of what will happen when we get to things like XL/compact engines or gyros, or small cockpits- all of which are mashed together into "engine", which is why we have the kludge of a negative tonnage 60 standard engine for the Urbanmech.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 14 January 2018 - 10:27 PM, said:

This ruins the capacity of MWO special builds being ported to TT, which they most certainly want to do.

The problem, as it always has been, is a coding failure on PGI's end. I cringe at the thought of what will happen when we get to things like XL/compact engines or gyros, or small cockpits- all of which are mashed together into "engine", which is why we have the kludge of a negative tonnage 60 standard engine for the Urbanmech.

-sigh- This argument again?

I really don't feel like getting into this again with you Brain, so I will keep this short and simple. Would I like it if PGI could fix their code, yes. Do I think they are capable of that anytime soon? No, no I do not. So I am willing to accept a half assed way of them fixing broken things, to make them less garbage? Yes, yes I am.

[Koniving]

I won't get into the argument, but if it is any consolation I tried to build the King Crab heroes created by the OP over here..

Because they were made entirely with MWO's rules, it was impossible to build them in tabletop/Megamek. So I had to try and compromise to make something comparable. Two of the heroes were impossible to build anything that was anything remotely like them...meaning I could never play them. In MWO or otherwise. Since they are fan creations made outside of the rules.

And that makes me sad.

[Water Bear]

Juodas Varnas, on 14 January 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

This might be a different variant of the Crusader. The lack of one of the hands and the pelvis mounted srm-2 racks, makes me think of the 5M

Here's the picture of the variant from Sarna:

Keep in mind, that i'm PRETTY SURE that it still has a hand actuator in the record sheets. It's just that the art doesn't show it, for some reason or another.

I got not much to add except that I know what TRO that image comes from - the original, uncensored 3050. Love the art in that book.

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 15 January 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:

-sigh- This argument again?

I really don't feel like getting into this again with you Brain, so I will keep this short and simple. Would I like it if PGI could fix their code, yes. Do I think they are capable of that anytime soon? No, no I do not. So I am willing to accept a half assed way of them fixing broken things, to make them less garbage? Yes, yes I am.

I'm not. If there's enough push that it IS unacceptable, then it gets fixed. Half-fixes on top of half-fixes already drags this game down. Or they lose more players as they march forward into another tech upgrade and we end up with even MORE broken giant robots and weapon systems to strap on them, leading to further unhappy people not spending money. That is, without fixing the things at the bottom, we'll end up with ever more rickety kludging at the top to try and keep things together, meaning the leading edge of MWO will be worse as we go along.

Failures like this don't make an additive, negative effect. It's multiplicative.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 15 January 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

I'm not. If there's enough push that it IS unacceptable, then it gets fixed. Half-fixes on top of half-fixes already drags this game down. Or they lose more players as they march forward into another tech upgrade and we end up with even MORE broken giant robots and weapon systems to strap on them, leading to further unhappy people not spending money. That is, without fixing the things at the bottom, we'll end up with ever more rickety kludging at the top to try and keep things together, meaning the leading edge of MWO will be worse as we go along.

Failures like this don't make an additive, negative effect. It's multiplicative.

I was at the last MechCon, I talked to several staffers (Though Paul was either at the far side of the VIP booth, or running out the door the few times I managed to spot him), I chatted with them about potential fixes, gave suggestions on how to fix them, asked what they could and couldn't do. I came away with the impression that no one at PGI knows how to work with their own code (or that the bulk of the code is even theirs in the first place), beyond .xml edits.

About the only way PGI can fix MWO, is to rebuild it from the ground up, something they are at current unwilling to commit to. Based on my experience playing the MW5 demo at MechCon, they could do it and do it well... it's just a matter of them figuring out what they want to do, and doing it in an engine they are comfortable working with. I found that the AI in MW5 wasn't auto-targeting my CT, trust me in a SHD-2D that is a godsend!

[Water Bear]

Metus regem, on 15 January 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

I was at the last MechCon, I talked to several staffers (Though Paul was either at the far side of the VIP booth, or running out the door the few times I managed to spot him), I chatted with them about potential fixes, gave suggestions on how to fix them, asked what they could and couldn't do. I came away with the impression that no one at PGI knows how to work with their own code (or that the bulk of the code is even theirs in the first place), beyond .xml edits.

About the only way PGI can fix MWO, is to rebuild it from the ground up, something they are at current unwilling to commit to. Based on my experience playing the MW5 demo at MechCon, they could do it and do it well... it's just a matter of them figuring out what they want to do, and doing it in an engine they are comfortable working with. I found that the AI in MW5 wasn't auto-targeting my CT, trust me in a SHD-2D that is a godsend!

Knowing nothing about any of this, but having played with an Open GL implementation just enough to know it's technically involved, I am not surprised that they don't have any desire to delve into someone else's engine code. Without support from the group that originally wrote the code, it would take way more man-hours than any fix is likely worth.

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 15 January 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

I was at the last MechCon, I talked to several staffers (Though Paul was either at the far side of the VIP booth, or running out the door the few times I managed to spot him), I chatted with them about potential fixes, gave suggestions on how to fix them, asked what they could and couldn't do. I came away with the impression that no one at PGI knows how to work with their own code (or that the bulk of the code is even theirs in the first place), beyond .xml edits.

Let's just repeat that last part.

the impression that no one at PGI knows how to work with their own code (or that the bulk of the code is even theirs in the first place), beyond .xml edits.

Point me at any game developer unable to develop their own code and their long-term ability to add to the game as a result. No, really. A lot of the CW tech update is actually slightly modified performance of existing weapons (which is why ATMs had a 180m deadzone on test- it was copied LRM code with it's angle of fire modified), but there's only so far you can go on XML changes.

It really, really does need to be scrapped as the coding stands. I'm hoping MW5 allows for that, because otherwise I see them rapidly running out of Mechpacks they can do properly.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 15 January 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:

Let's just repeat that last part.

the impression that no one at PGI knows how to work with their own code (or that the bulk of the code is even theirs in the first place), beyond .xml edits.

Point me at any game developer unable to develop their own code and their long-term ability to add to the game as a result. No, really. A lot of the CW tech update is actually slightly modified performance of existing weapons (which is why ATMs had a 180m deadzone on test- it was copied LRM code with it's angle of fire modified), but there's only so far you can go on XML changes.

It really, really does need to be scrapped as the coding stands. I'm hoping MW5 allows for that, because otherwise I see them rapidly running out of Mechpacks they can do properly.

Like I said, those were my impressions from talking with PGI staffers at MechCon. With MW5, it is on a different engine, that they seem more comfortable with, and my experience with it, was MW5 is more fun to play.... I really enjoyed doing a second mission with the Atlas and using an AC/20 to kill a H.V.T. in a building at 1400m+ away by arcing my shot.

[Water Bear]

Brain Cancer, on 15 January 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:

Let's just repeat that last part.

the impression that no one at PGI knows how to work with their own code (or that the bulk of the code is even theirs in the first place), beyond .xml edits.

Point me at any game developer unable to develop their own code and their long-term ability to add to the game as a result. No, really. A lot of the CW tech update is actually slightly modified performance of existing weapons (which is why ATMs had a 180m deadzone on test- it was copied LRM code with it's angle of fire modified), but there's only so far you can go on XML changes.

It really, really does need to be scrapped as the coding stands. I'm hoping MW5 allows for that, because otherwise I see them rapidly running out of Mechpacks they can do properly.

Believe it or not, a lot of game developers use an engine they did not develop. It's not unusual for companies to pay extremely large licensing fees to gain access to (and tech support for) a major game engine, such as Cry Engine or the Unreal engine. Those engines are no joke to create and optimize.

What this means is that a lot of game development boils down to content creation, intentionally avoiding the coding back end of creating and running a game engine. This is why technical support is typically a critical part of an engine-licensing deal. If the people using the license need to make the engine do something it wasn't designed to do, you pretty much have to have back end support from the company that wrote the engine in the first place. This can easily include network code issues.

I'm sure I can find articles on this sort of thing all over Ars Technica.

Edited by Water Bear, 15 January 2018 - 02:03 PM.

[Metus regem]

Water Bear, on 15 January 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

Believe it or not, a lot of game developers use an engine they did not develop. It's not unusual for companies to pay extremely large licensing fees to gain access to (and tech support for) a major game engine, such as Cry Engine or the Unreal engine. Those engines are no joke to create and optimize.

What this means is that a lot of game development boils down to content creation, intentionally avoiding the coding back end of creating and running a game engine. This is why technical support is typically a critical part of an engine-licensing deal. If the people using the license need to make the engine do something it wasn't designed to do, you pretty much have to have back end support from the company that wrote the engine in the first place. This can easily include network code issues.

I'm sure I can find articles on this sort of thing all over Ars Technica.

This coupled with the fact that MWO is using an older version of CryEngine that was near the end of it's support life cycle when PGI got it, PGI / IGP went around messing with the back end of the engine to make it do things it was not meant to do in the first place, by the time PGI / IGP were done doing that CryTek stopped supporting the version of CryEngine that MWO is using, meaning PGI now has no engine developer support for the engine they are using for MWO. That means that major game overhauls like you are advocating for (ones that I would like to see), are very, very unlikely to happen, not with out an engine hop to a more modern one, like the version of Unreal they are using for MW5. That would mean PGI would have to start building MWO from the ground up again... something I think they are doing quietly behind closed doors, but I've got no proof of that at the moment.... given how I was right about MW5, about a year before they unveiled it, I wouldn't be surprised if at MechCon 2018 / 2019 they announce MWO 2.0

[Odanan]

PGI is able to implement things in their code: see the later changes in Faction Play and the Civil War upgrade. They will even release Solaris in about 4 months (?).

I want to believe they don't dedicate many resources to MWO because:

• Most resources are currently diverted to MW5; and/or
  
• They have the intention to somehow migrate MWO to the MW5's engine.

[Sereglach]

Odanan, on 20 January 2018 - 02:53 PM, said:

PGI is able to implement things in their code: see the later changes in Faction Play and the Civil War upgrade. They will even release Solaris in about 4 months (?).

I want to believe they don't dedicate many resources to MWO because:

• Most resources are currently diverted to MW5; and/or
  
• They have the intention to somehow migrate MWO to the MW5's engine.

It's worth noting that implementing new things in the code is a great deal different from reworking code that's already in there. I'd think if they were actually capable of reworking things already in the code we'd actually have switchable ammo. Otherwise the whole concept wouldn't have been scrapped as having no hope of happening. Remember . . . "standard autocannon placeholders" for the clans.

From what little we've seen, migrating MWO over to MW5's engine would likely be a great thing for the game . . . especially if it means that PGI could actually start addressing issues like ammo switching. However, I somehow don't think that's likely to happen until after MW5's release . . . if it does happen.

[Brain Cancer]

Given how rapidly MWO's engine is becoming incapable of handling translation from TT, even if MW5 itself was an utter failure, it'd still be defraying the cost of using it's engine to make MWO functional again.

As it stands, a large number of chassis simply don't function with PGI's current level of coding ability even if you jump to 3069, never mind the Jihad.

[Odanan]

So, how is the Piranha?

[xVLFBERHxT]

You kann simply walk thru them with an 4xSSRM6/AC20 Atlas.

[SuperFunkTron]

Odanan, on 23 January 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

So, how is the Piranha?

It is definitely a niche mech. A lot like the locust and despite the huge hardpoint count, it's low space for ammo and tonnage for hard hitting weapons in general keeps it checked.