63 replies to this topic

[CgMass]

How exactly did they pick the questions to be asked from the list?

[TexAce]

What the hell do you mean with NO COLLISIONS?!

[Pariah Devalis]

CgMass, on 20 February 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

How exactly did they pick the questions to be asked from the list?

Initially, they just went down the list. After an hour 45 they started randomly selecting from sections because there were way too many questions to answer. After 2 hours or so, they did a bit of an in chat QnA which had what I presume were randomly selected questions.

[Bigbacon]

#11

please no.. I mean, they are already in bed with PGI behind the scenes. we don't need them making more decisions for the rest of us.

[Zeece]

Strykewolf, on 20 February 2015 - 05:56 AM, said:

Thanks for this. Twitch, and me, never really got along.

Anytime my friend

[Triordinant]

Alistair Winter, on 19 February 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

He answered my question.

PVE tutorial and PVE missions hopefully before the end of 2015, and then more and more PVE is planned in 2016.

Awesomesauce.

Hallelujah!

[Benjamin Davion]

Stopped reading at 'Cauldron Born'. *internal screaming of joy*

[Ambuscade]

By any chance was there any mention as to the state of flamer (buff, not buff, etc?). There was at least one guy on the forums that said he'd be posting a question about it in the meeting.

Though the fact they are willing to touch on the heat system at all gives me hope. The flamer and the heat system are intricately tied together. Perhaps they will include some changes that gives the flamer some love in the PvP environment.

PS - before Alistar Winter replies that its going to be a weapon "only effective in PvE" I'd like to add this tidbit. An enhanced flamer for PvE only is fine (AI's don't whine about being stunlocked after all). However, that doesn't mean we can't have an altered version for PvP that is still viable but mechanically different (players hate stunlocking, etc). Just my stance on the matter.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

[FupDup]

Ambuscade, on 20 February 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

By any chance was there any mention as to the state of flamer (buff, not buff, etc?). There was at least one guy on the forums that said he'd be posting a question about it in the meeting.

Though the fact they are willing to touch on the heat system at all gives me hope. The flamer and the heat system are intricately tied together. Perhaps they will include some changes that gives the flamer some love in the PvP environment.

PS - before Alistar Winter replies that its going to be a weapon "only effective in PvE" I'd like to add this tidbit. An enhanced flamer for PvE only is fine (AI's don't whine about being stunlocked after all). However, that doesn't mean we can't have an altered version for PvP that is still viable but mechanically different (players hate stunlocking, etc). Just my stance on the matter.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

I think the "PvE" thing just refers to having little infantry guys run around to kill with Flamers. My own criticism of that approach however is that there are probably other ways to kill infantry. My own theory is that chainfiring lasers could work very effectively against them by creating a continuous "deathray" beam to sweep over them.

[Zeece]

Ambuscade, on 20 February 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

By any chance was there any mention as to the state of flamer (buff, not buff, etc?). There was at least one guy on the forums that said he'd be posting a question about it in the meeting.

Though the fact they are willing to touch on the heat system at all gives me hope. The flamer and the heat system are intricately tied together. Perhaps they will include some changes that gives the flamer some love in the PvP environment.

PS - before Alistar Winter replies that its going to be a weapon "only effective in PvE" I'd like to add this tidbit. An enhanced flamer for PvE only is fine (AI's don't whine about being stunlocked after all). However, that doesn't mean we can't have an altered version for PvP that is still viable but mechanically different (players hate stunlocking, etc). Just my stance on the matter.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

Russ No.... but Sean, Bombadill and Paul talked about it some in their latest 'past. -->

[Water Bear]

Thanks for this transcription!

[Johnny Z]

I have to say that was the least informative pod cast yet. They already talked about PVE and 4v4 in the previous podcast right? New content is what I am interested in, like additions to the star map. I guess it was the first long while this game was out with few additions is why I am expecting more.

That podcast gets a 5/10. It was coherent but not very interesting.

Edited by Johnny Z, 20 February 2015 - 08:38 AM.

[Ambuscade]

To FupDup:
Yeah your probably right about other weapons being more effective, even though flamers are extremely effective against infantry. They will likely lack heavy long range firepower, so LL and ERLL sweeps at extreme range will likely be most effective. Unless they employ camo or something...**shrugs**.

To Zeece:
Thanks for the response, I will have to check the video out a bit later when I have more time. Nice notetaking btw, keep up the fantastic work!

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

[Brody319]

I imagine they will design troops to be better handled with machine guns and flamers than larger lasers.

[Zeece]

Water Bear, on 20 February 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Thanks for this transcription!

Your welcome....

[FupDup]

Brody319, on 20 February 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

I imagine they will design troops to be better handled with machine guns and flamers than larger lasers.

How would they do that, other than just making infantry have a magical shield that makes them nearly immune to laser sweeps?

[Nightmare1]

Thank you for posting this Zeece!

+1

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 19 February 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

New Omnimech hardpoint possibilities, for those interested:

So... how are they going to add a Shadowcat 4th variant? Is it time to plot evil ideas?

FupDup, on 20 February 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

How would they do that, other than just making infantry have a magical shield that makes them nearly immune to laser sweeps?

I want to understand how human beings would be magically immune to said sweeping beams... unless it doesn't burn hard enough...

[Brody319]

FupDup, on 20 February 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

How would they do that, other than just making infantry have a magical shield that makes them nearly immune to laser sweeps?

perhaps. or maybe like take cover and jump backwards to avoid it.

or just make it far more effective to use them, like with the flamer troops who get hit could ignite other troops ect, machine gun cone of fire being unpredictable and thus troops would have a much harder time dodging.

[FupDup]

Brody319, on 20 February 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

perhaps. or maybe like take cover and jump backwards to avoid it.

or just make it far more effective to use them, like with the flamer troops who get hit could ignite other troops ect, machine gun cone of fire being unpredictable and thus troops would have a much harder time dodging.

It's kinda hard to dodge a continuous, unending hitscan deathray.

I'm not saying that one laser would have the same overall effectiveness against soldiers as one Flamer, what I'm saying is that lasers could end up being "good enough" against infantry while being exponentially superior against all other target types as well.