359 replies to this topic

[Iqfish]

So uhm, this starts in 3 hours right?

[Jakob Knight]

My question is this:

What drives your conviction that the elements of restricted gameplay of E-Sports games (currently evidenced by the on-rails design of CW maps and the continued changes to CW to deny any gameplay other than those determined by you personally as "properly winning the engagement") will enhance the goal of MWO as a "A tactical BattleMech simulation" and a "BattleMech combat simulator with a heavy emphasis on tactical strategies" when it is clear the two have contradictory requirements (E-Sports require artificially controlled conditions and regulated conduct along narrow accepted strategies and allowed actions, while combat simulators require the most accurate depiction of actual warfare conditions that are extremely variable and the widest possible tactical and strategic options in order to explore the results of all possible conditions) ?

In short, why do you believe turning MWO towards an E-Sport does not by definition betray both the intent and the goal of MWO as so stated by yourself?

Edited by Jakob Knight, 25 June 2015 - 01:25 PM.

[Count Zero 74]

Any plans of adding Bots in CW?

Because if it goes on like this your precious Clans will run out of IS players to stomp pretty soon.

[Ward Serpentine]

What happened to the Enhanced NARC and AMS Overload for Inner Sphere mechs? They aren't available anymore? If any side needs them, it would be the IS.

[Summon3r]

when will Summoner get more love?

when will some pride be taken in map making, where a guy can safely fire his weapons at a target and not have the terrain/buildings reach and intercept shots? where is fully destructible terrain and objects?

[Scout Derek]

Shall we ever see the day when we get the chance to do large battles or drop from actual ships such as the Talon or stepping out froma hrothgar dropship during the midst of battle, such as Ground war or War Zone?

[Clay Pigeon]

When will clans get LAMS? They should be available already.

Will you add a button to let pilots eject unusable ammo leftover after the weapons utilizing it get crit out?

Will you add gauss visual trails?

Edited by Clay Pigeon, 25 June 2015 - 02:39 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Dawnstealer, on 25 June 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

Rough translation (using the power of the googles): Why isn't there a bigger strategy? One involving more than mechs, like elementals, infantry, vehicles, (I'm assuming) aerospace, etc.

armored vehicles

I submit that it is too much to do for a FTP game. Especially if you don't have the staff for a minimally viable BETA release of a game.

[Clownwarlord]

The emersion factor seems to be lost on Community Warfare, what is PGI doing right now to remidy this issue?

How does PGI define the difference between Mercenary, Loyalist, and Lone Wolf? Because currently there isn't any distinction in Community Warfare when it comes to game play, other than bonus C-Bills and Loyalty Points when you get a win.

Also can we get rid of gauss charge up ... due to that change I feel my Heavy Metal has gone to waste.

Edited by clownwarlord, 25 June 2015 - 06:06 PM.

[Haplo88]

I like the scouting mission giving invasion mode perks, thought i'd offer other suggestions to it as well. Instead of having it automatically happen, maybe at the various levels each side gets a set number of points from the success of their scouting missions to use ingame. The drop commander/lance commanders could then spend those points in game to provide the radar ping, id mechs, or call in a long-tom strike.

An additional scouting perk could be positioning ammo reloads and/or the disruption of those supplys. Not sure how the community would respond to that though. Limited ammo does inflate the value of being laser heavy in CW compared to solo/group queue. Having ammo reloads come at an opportunity cost would be a nice way to ease this balancing pressure and give some immersion.

Edited by Haplo88, 25 June 2015 - 05:52 PM.

[Michal R]

Some summary of town hall meeting?

[Peter2k]

Ozealot, on 26 June 2015 - 12:09 AM, said:

bump

http://mwomercs.com/...-625-done-live/

Edited by Peter2k, 26 June 2015 - 12:21 AM.

[VoodooLou Kerensky]

The 4v4 Drops I think should be renamed to 'Raid' instead of 'Scouting'. Scouting is Mechs looking for other Mechs on a map where there are 3 possible Drop Zones, granted those types of maps do tend to get spots where teams will stack and draw the OpFor to, but it is not going to always be the end all spot and 1st there and set wins. This is where the CW falls apart. Our drops arent supposed to be tailored to one type of drop (Scouting, assaulting etc) but to combine all of those elements into a cohesive whole with each pilot knowing what their roles are. Russ mentions that he kinda in a way wants to break up the Large units so that the player base is more spread than it is now were there are 12 mans preformed ROFLStomping PUGs. People want fast fast fast, but they have little regard for being immersive and instead of Wash,Rinse, Repeat that they have now that wins a planet in a day spread it out to where it takes a week to take a Planet. The expanded Tukayyid drops was this way and look at how many people played. We all came together on both sides and filled out those drops and yes it slowed down at certain times of day but making the taking of a planet last longer than 24 hours means all the time zones units will have to work together over the time zones to stay on track.
All of this was done before by those Amongst us, who broke down the planets into zones each zone having specific maps used to represent the predominant climate of the planets. Right now CW seems more like the Professional Paint ball games. Small areas that force fast games and while it has its place that lil battle is not the war of the planet, but just a portion of it. By Lore it took 2 weeks of fighting on Tukayyid to determine that ComStar had won. You want to play quick fast drops to determine a Planet? Fine I bid a Space rock to turn your planet to slag. Surrender or die. And it doesnt really matter to me, your people on the planet are not mine, I do not need the planets resources to continue my push whether the planet surrenders or dies and I have the ultimate in cutdown that beats even Phelan Kell taking Gunzburg by himself. Welcome to reality, its war. War means I do what ever it takes to win. War is a moral aberrant already so the Clamoring that Im such a evil barstard for having a total disregard for life is true. Total Disregard for the lives of those I am sent to Conquer, but not those lives of my own people. It would only take a few planets before the rest of the Inner Sphere capitulates and surrenders en masse, so that the Dream of Kerensky and leading humanity forward away from war and prosperity across the Human Universe

[Dawnstealer]

Gremlich Johns, on 25 June 2015 - 02:47 PM, said:

armored vehicles

I submit that it is too much to do for a FTP game. Especially if you don't have the staff for a minimally viable BETA release of a game.

Again: I was translating. Refer to the original poster. I'm all for AI tanks taking the place of turrets, but obviously space battles and everything else is a different game.

[Odanan]

Any transcripts? (not the full thing, just the highlights)

EDIT: Oh, it's here.

Edited by Odanan, 26 June 2015 - 01:56 PM.

[Aylward]

You know, It seems if we ever want Russ to answer the real questions that get the most interest in these threads that ask for our input, but might be the harder question, I think we might have to get someone other than NGNG to choose them objectively.. No offense to NGNG is meant here, but just picking the wiffle ball easy and overly vague CW questions no one even put one like on and a handful of duplicated topics just to avoid floating the hard questions about CW most of us really wanted to hear about at this town hall primarily in the first place does us all a disservice and makes you just look like shills IMHO.. Just saying. The Kool-Aid may taste good, but were not getting paid to drink it.. (Indeed, we are paying for it). So stop taking It easy on them and lobbing those hand picked softball questions and start bringing the heat already.....

Please consider that in your thought process as you choose next time.. Or simply just let the level of interest shown to the questions in these threads decide the top picks and be done with it.. Take yourself out of the equation.

[Sky Hawk]

Actually, it was very informative and entertaining for me.. Looks like, when Phil and Daeron don't disturb Ross with unexpected questions, he can give out (in his own looooong-style way) quite a lot usefull info... in the long run... Thanks guys!

[Sereglach]

One thing I will say, as far as the ammunition problem goes. That ammunition problem is rampant with missiles in general. While Ballistic weapons received ammo count boosts to cover the x2 armor boost from TT (made during Closed Beta, if I am properly informed on that), they still only received ammunition boosts per ton of 50%.

What we need is to see ammunition counts go to double TT values for MWO (or at the very least give the missile ammunition the 50% boost that ballistic ammunition has!), to match the armor increases. This allows a "match" in weapon damage potential to match the increased armor capabilities. Missile boats and severely ammunition dependent mechs (COMMANDO!) wouldn't need to devote such a massive amount of tonnage to missiles. They'd actually be able to devote more tonnage to backup weapons for defense, and many mechs wouldn't run dry on ammunition quite so quickly.

[Ovion]

Sereglach, on 26 June 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

One thing I will say, as far as the ammunition problem goes. That ammunition problem is rampant with missiles in general. While Ballistic weapons received ammo count boosts to cover the x2 armor boost from TT (made during Closed Beta, if I am properly informed on that), they still only received ammunition boosts per ton of 50%.

What we need is to see ammunition counts go to double TT values for MWO (or at the very least give the missile ammunition the 50% boost that ballistic ammunition has!), to match the armor increases. This allows a "match" in weapon damage potential to match the increased armor capabilities. Missile boats and severely ammunition dependent mechs (COMMANDO!) wouldn't need to devote such a massive amount of tonnage to missiles. They'd actually be able to devote more tonnage to backup weapons for defense, and many mechs wouldn't run dry on ammunition quite so quickly.

TT LRM ammo is 120 missiles per ton.
MWO LRM ammo is 180 missiles per ton.
They have received +50% ammo.

SRMs haven't. +50% ammo there might be nice.

Also, for most of it, we have pinpoint, targetted fire, rather than RNG based spread.
We have perfect convergence - even on fixed torso weapons.

TTK is pretty low tbh - we don't need more ammo in general, we need to turn pinpoint off, have Torso Weapons on fixed trajectories and have convergence linked to arm movement speed.

[Sereglach]

Ovion, on 27 June 2015 - 04:18 AM, said:

TT LRM ammo is 120 missiles per ton.
MWO LRM ammo is 180 missiles per ton.
They have received +50% ammo.

SRMs haven't. +50% ammo there might be nice.

Honestly, I am mistaken on the LRM's. I thought those were still at TT values. I didn't realize the LRMs were boosted. However, that does leave the SRM's; and some of the most starved builds are SRM based (Commando, Koshi, SRM Locusts, etc.). It is something they should certainly consider.

Ovion, on 27 June 2015 - 04:18 AM, said:

Also, for most of it, we have pinpoint, targetted fire, rather than RNG based spread.
We have perfect convergence - even on fixed torso weapons.

TTK is pretty low tbh - we don't need more ammo in general, we need to turn pinpoint off, have Torso Weapons on fixed trajectories and have convergence linked to arm movement speed.

I'm all for almost ANY of the convergence change recommendations that are out there. I'm for just about anything that'll lengthen TTK. I've expressed support for the Fixed Torso Convergence, the Cone of Fire method, the unlocking of the targeting reticle in first person (having it match third person), and others. Don't take what I'm saying as saying we need to lower TTK. Please do NOT take my words out of context.

However, for extremely ammunition dependent mechs, ammunition has always been an issue. I was pointing out a contributing factor to that problem with the doubling of TT armor to but not having the ammunition follow suite, entirely. Ammunition supplies means absolutely nothing for TTK, other than most ammunition starved mechs would actually have functioning weapons for longer, and some of the extreme boats would actually be able to spare a couple of tons (obviously scaling with the tonnage of the mech and how much they devote to ammunition according to tubes, etc.) for mounting more backup weapons then a few medium or small lasers, or for getting a few more heat sinks, or armor, or engine size. That has very little effect on TTK.