1581 replies to this topic

[MW222]

LadyDanams, on 08 January 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

It was done partially to help speed up match making, and it did help a lot with that. Also, the more times your vote loses, your vote is counted more times each time after that until your vote wins, so it helps avoid this some.

If you like more objective play styles Faction Play is probably more for you anyway.

Ah it's load balancing disguised as voting, You can not vote on all modes, you can not vote on all maps. I have a 15,000 GXP, 3 or was it 6 million C. Capture accelerator that is now pretty much useless because I can not select to play capture but must bend to the whims of other players. I could equip it but when not doing capture or assault it wastes the module slot. I had purchased the mod to start to play the other two modes. I mainly played Skirmish. Now being forced to play two modes out of three I dislike does nothing to make me want to spend any money on the game. I will continue to play but will cast my vote by not spending any money.

[Raubwurst]

There are enough other threads to "talk" about this... why not let this thread for ideas only?

[Digital_Angel]

It's not load balancing disguised as voting. The match maker just no longer takes that factor into consideration when putting groups together (less constraints equals faster match making) and then lets you vote.

I've seen speculation in other threads regarding how the options to vote on are chosen, but I don't know for sure.

[IraqiWalker]

LadyDanams, on 09 January 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

It's not load balancing disguised as voting. The match maker just no longer takes that factor into consideration when putting groups together (less constraints equals faster match making) and then lets you vote.

I've seen speculation in other threads regarding how the options to vote on are chosen, but I don't know for sure.

The MM now has only 1 queue for solo players. It gets 24 players together from one pool that has access to all players on the server, and then makes them choose what map, and mode to use. It leads to faster matchmaking, and more accurate matchmaking (the accuracy part was something people complained about a lot).

[Triordinant]

Most wanted feature?

[IshanDeston]

The thing i want the most is the ability to either unobfuscate the Password entry screen or the ability to copy and paste my password into the client.

I am using passwords like this: 1Str4eGH3AL3r when ever possible even containing special symbols and i really need to see what i am typing to spell check it. And its a PITA to enter when all i am seeing is ************.

I don't need protection from people that might see my screen. I am not playing in an Internet Caffee or public place. If a hacker manages to break into my home and install a camera in my home, to watch my password entry for MechWarrior Online they are welcome to use my account, as they probably could murder me in my sleep anyway.

So please, i do not want to use a less secure password just because its easier to enter, but i very much need the ability to see what i am entering with a password like this.

So please, please.. could we get a copy&paste or at least an option not to obfuscate the entry line?

[MW222]

IraqiWalker, on 09 January 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

The MM now has only 1 queue for solo players. It gets 24 players together from one pool that has access to all players on the server, and then makes them choose what map, and mode to use. It leads to faster matchmaking, and more accurate matchmaking (the accuracy part was something people complained about a lot).

All maps and all modes are not displayed for voting. Unpopular maps and modes would dry up and blow away from non use IF all maps and modes were offered for voting.

Seeing visual conformation of one mode and map is displayed and something totally different shows up, oh ya that's load balancing. The match maker is not looking at mode or maps.

When the game mode selection options were still there pgi knew that assault and conquest did not get the same numbers as skirmish, conquest and assault are needed by pgi as precursors to cw which pgi sales has delusions about creating a mwo universe A la eve on line.

[MW222]

IshanDeston, on 09 January 2016 - 09:23 PM, said:

The thing i want the most is the ability to either unobfuscate the Password entry screen or the ability to copy and paste my password into the client.

I am using passwords like this: 1Str4eGH3AL3r when ever possible even containing special symbols and i really need to see what i am typing to spell check it. And its a PITA to enter when all i am seeing is ************.

I don't need protection from people that might see my screen. I am not playing in an Internet Caffee or public place. If a hacker manages to break into my home and install a camera in my home, to watch my password entry for MechWarrior Online they are welcome to use my account, as they probably could murder me in my sleep anyway.

So please, i do not want to use a less secure password just because its easier to enter, but i very much need the ability to see what i am entering with a password like this.

So please, please.. could we get a copy&paste or at least an option not to obfuscate the entry line?

I do not want to be judgmental or rude but Dude! that is the lamest thing I ever heard.

Edited by MW222, 18 January 2016 - 07:07 PM.

[Jmills]

Some sort of reporting system of other players negative play style such as team killing on purpose. As of now their is no punishment except for loss of money/exps which most don't care enough about. Maybe a ticket system that your staff could look through an decide on punishments. Just an idea. Thanks

[IraqiWalker]

Jmills, on 09 January 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

Some sort of reporting system of other players negative play style such as team killing on purpose. As of now their is no punishment except for loss of money/exps which most don't care enough about. Maybe a ticket system that your staff could look through an decide on punishments. Just an idea. Thanks

We have a reporting system implemented, and if that fails, you can e-mail moderation@mwomercs.com with timestamp of when the match ended (monday 4/2/2018 635 PM PDT), which map, and mode, and what happened. Plus any screenshots you may have scored.

The punishment is usually banning actually.

[Raubwurst]

IraqiWalker, on 09 January 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

We have a reporting system implemented, and if that fails, you can e-mail moderation@mwomercs.com with timestamp of when the match ended (monday 4/2/2018 635 PM PDT), which map, and mode, and what happened. Plus any screenshots you may have scored.

The punishment is usually banning actually.

Just to clarify:
While in a battle press and hold tab to get access to the playerlist (you can do it at the start or endscreen, too).
Now you click on a player name and you will see a contect menu where you can choose what to report the player for.

[The Blood God]

newer API DX12, mantel or vulcan dont care which, cry engine supports mantel and DX12 and vulcan is just an updated version of mantel so couldnt be to tricky to get it using that either way on API bench marks my best result for DX11 was 5.3 million draw calls per second DX 12 10.5 million DC's per second and 12 million p/s on mantel so lets cut the excuses and get on it we know MWO is CPU intensive hence why we need the better API it doesn't make sense that every game i have except this one can be ran (using DX11 in most cases) @ 4k on ultra and maintain 60fps or better including black ops 3, witcher 3, fall out 4. in MWO if i set the res higher than 1280x1024 (yes it does look a bit mine crafty) everything gets really tall and lanky looking and makes text almost impossible to read as all words just look more like bar codes on the screen this is also the only res i can use and maintain 40-50fps any higher and my fps swings wildly between 5 and 90 i've try'd all sorts in pursuit of maxing this game out and have come to the conclusion its not my fault this game doesnt run well on my rig so please
NOT MOST WANTED MOST NEEDED = NEW API (DX12, MANTEL, VULCAN)

Edited by MAX909, 10 January 2016 - 06:56 AM.

[AmazingOnionMan]

I'd really like an IS targeting reticule that isn't a see-through pale beige colour that fades into everything.

[Digital_Angel]

By the same token MWO has done a really good job of still being playable at low settings (~30 FPS) for those of us on crappy low end rigs.

Part of the reason they haven't updated thins like this might be to not break the game for those of us stuck on lower end systems.

[PlasmonDawn]

I feel like this has been requested time and time again for a few years now:

Ability to control ammo depletion priority in the mechlab. Even if this is something simple like ammo is depleted in the order it is added to the mech, or based on distance of ammo to the weapon.

Always has been a minor issue for me, but recently I've been playing with a symmetric mech build which drains ammo assymetrically. I've had two matches in a row where losing my right side has denied remaining ammo for my left side since that was depleted entirely first.

[DaangeroussDann]

There should never be an empty drop in CW. People wait 20 minutes to get in for nothing. Put tanks, air assets,, hover craft,, bots,, something, this is lame .

WC play should also include a new player option, or low tonnage , maybe 6 man drops, such as factory raids, or landing zone scouting raids. But low tonnage for the players that only have lights and mediums. And just for another battle type, with some of the other maps modified to have some CW assets on them to fight over.

Major Planetary capitol assault tonnage CW, restricted to players above a certain rating ONLY! Like Rank 3 minimum. So they can at least field some custom mechs and we have something to work towards.

[Digital_Angel]

DaangeroussDann, on 11 January 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

Major Planetary capitol assault tonnage CW, restricted to players above a certain rating ONLY! Like Rank 3 minimum. So they can at least field some custom mechs and we have something to work towards.

A certain number of matches played, sure, but there are plenty of people who have played for a while that are still Tier 4 and 5 and you shouldn't ban them from a large portion of the game content.

[a gaijin]

I hope this suggestion forum is still used by the Dev Team.

• Removal of ALL weapon velocity and range quirks for ALL mechs.
  
• Allow Clan mechs to swap out engines. At least engine size, if not type. At least.
  
• Make jump jets, especially hard-wired jump jets allow you to actually jump, like we saw Thors do in the intro video back in MechWarrior 2. The crap we have in MWO is weak.
  
• And finally. properly scaled weapon models, regardless of the mech it's installed on. If a Locust is packing an AC20, that needs to show and it would look awesome

Doing the above would go a long way towards making me feel like I'm actually playing a MW game again. I might even start making purchases again.
I wouldn't feel so bad about that Gold mech I purchased when I still had faith in PGI.

[IraqiWalker]

HeroForHire, on 12 January 2016 - 09:01 PM, said:

• And finally. properly scaled weapon models, regardless of the mech it's installed on. If a Locust is packing an AC20, that needs to show and it would look awesome

Doing the above would go a long way towards making me feel like I'm actually playing a MW game again. I might even start making purchases again.
I wouldn't feel so bad about that Gold mech I purchased when I still had faith in PGI.

For the record, they're not doing anything non-canon here.

There are different calibers for different weapons. For example, the Pontiac 100 is the AC 20 mounted on the Yen Lo Wang canonically. It fires 100 rounds, each dealing 0.2 damage within 10 seconds totaling 20 damage.

Then there's the chemjet AC20, which fires 4 150 mm shells each dealing 5 damage for 20 total in 10 seconds.

Both are classed as AC 20s One has a big honkin' barrel, the other one has a tinier one.

[Karl Streiger]

IraqiWalker, on 12 January 2016 - 11:50 PM, said:

For the record, they're not doing anything non-canon here.

There are different calibers for different weapons. For example, the Pontiac 100 is the AC 20 mounted on the Yen Lo Wang canonically. It fires 100 rounds, each dealing 0.2 damage within 10 seconds totaling 20 damage.

Then there's the chemjet AC20, which fires 4 150 mm shells each dealing 5 damage for 20 total in 10 seconds.

Both are classed as AC 20s One has a big honkin' barrel, the other one has a tinier one.

But shouldn't the smaller cannon fire more shells?

afaik the old missile handling for energy and ballistic weapons...
can fire pellets of size 5 max.... mounting a AC 20 result in a burst of 4 shots a 5dmg.
can fire 6dmg per second energy hardpoint:

• Medium Laser = 0.833sec Burn Time
  
• Small Laser = 0.5sec Burn Time
  
• Large Laser = 1.5sec Burn Time

Of course with exception of the "bullet" size the burn time could be managed by quirks.