26 replies to this topic

[MedivalJ]

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Sorry, but that's possible only in fan-made Mechlabs, not in MWO. PGI needed weeks to add simple "Trial 'Mechs" filter and months to add "Favourite 'Mechs" filter.

It's PGI's game... They can add whatever they want...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

We have been waiting for years to have LBX Autocannons with switchable ammo. Sadly, the only man, who knew how to program this, left PGI years ago.

I find this hard to believe that PGI would take such a risk by having only one individual with the ability to program into MWO, as every avenue for them to make a substantial profit would be tied to this requirement for effectively marketing their product. What I find even harder is that you actually fell for it. However, if such is true then finding replacement programmers shouldn't be that much of an issue.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Only for MCs, I would imagine.

That would be up to PGI...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Really, this is just a detail, considering that you see the pilot just a few seconds in the beginning of the game ...

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean others are required to do so as well..

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

HTAL is LosTech.

Source...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

I wouldn't even need custom crosshairs - I would be absolutely okay with the option to change the colour. I hate playing and having light blue crosshairs against light blue background or light yellow crosshairs against ochre background.

Who said anything about need? Needing something isn't the reason for why people play. They play because it's fun... and fun is profitable...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Sorry, but today's 'Mechs are result of exactly such resizing (happened in Summer). If you don't like it, you are out of luck.

Resizing was taken directly from other topics in the forum. Personally I don't care. However, if others vote for another resize I have no quarrel with them over this issue.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

You are not playing some old MechWarrior 3.

Do I have to be to make the suggestion...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

For years we have had empty monitors with "NO SIGNAL" on them (with occassional ammo counter and Heat Sinks status display).
Do you know how much effort it cost PGI to program what you can see on those displays now?

Appeal to emotion... PGI exists to service a demand and as such should be exploring every avenue for making a profit... Also, I am fully aware, as I was there for most of it...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

This is not your old MechWarrior 2.

So what...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

After years of deliberating, PGI added a new gamemode: Domination. Somehow, it plays exactly as Assault and Skirmish.

Yeah... So I guess you can cross King of the Hill off the list...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

That's so 1990s ...

Posted Image
After all, you have respawns in CW. That should be enough.

Irrelevant... Your perception of what I, or others need, plays no basis for whether something is worth doing. That is up to the community at large and PGI to decide.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

That's just a cosmetic detail, but if you wish...

I refer to the previous comment...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

If new maps will be as bad as existing maps, then it really won't matter.

So what... Look in the forums/in-game and you will find a common desire for more maps.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Functional AI - that's the problem. But PGI is working on it and maybe in the two or three years ...

If so then I encourage them to continue. Just as I will continue to come up with new ideas for ways to alleviate the bottleneck formed in CW.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

I believe that Russ Bullock said that CW is more or less complete as is. Maybe PGI will change some details, but don't expect some big changes.

This idea is supposed to go hand-in-hand with the one prior to it and service a basic functionality as to how the AI would play into CW.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Maybe in the next decade.

On the other hand, HBS BattleTech will have it in May 2017. I have backed that game.

Fair enough. I too, am aware, and very interested in the turn out, of HBS Battletech's kickstarter project.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Solaris 7 gamemode? PGI is thinking about it and maybe it will be ready in some nebulous future.

Again, this stems from the forums. However, it makes for a very interesting and active game-type should it be implemented.

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

That's so 1990s.

You really didn't believe it when PGI promised it in back in 2009 or so, did you? Well, I must admit, I believed it too.

Posted Image

And see, it's 2016 now and you can step on fences and knock down trees. Isn't it great?

See forums for idea reference...

And finally...

martian, on 29 October 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

Look, boy. PGI explicitly told you: "Not your father's MechWarrior."

So stop asking for impossible things ...

Posted Image

Alright... Now you look son... I really don't care what PGI said... They're financial future depends on the loyalty of their customers, i.e. the people who play their game. No customers = no game = no PGI. In addition, there is no harm in bringing ideas to the table for general discussion. If anything, PGI should be jumping on as many as they can if they actually intend on being successful...

Edited by MedivalJ, 30 October 2016 - 12:06 AM.

[Damocles]

MedivalJ, on 29 October 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

there is no harm in bringing new ideas to the table for general discussion.

True words.

Have any new ideas?

[MedivalJ]

Gaden Phoenix, on 29 October 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:

But if you want to easily change layout, the only way now is the buy mech bay and the same mech. And I am sure there are people that do that.

Or you can just write down the loadout in notepad and refit as you will without ever purchasing another mech. Loudout Saves would be the solution for allowing players refit their mechs quickly, without being forced to use the previous method mentioned. However, as Davers stated one would still need to purchase all 3 mechs for mastery.

Damocles, on 30 October 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

True words.

Have any new ideas?

That's what the post is for... In addition it helps if you actually read it...

Edited by MedivalJ, 30 October 2016 - 12:10 AM.

[Damocles]

MedivalJ, on 30 October 2016 - 12:06 AM, said:

That's what the post is for... In addition it helps if you actually read it...

I read it, nothing new.

Maybe you could suggest a new mech?

[MedivalJ]

Damocles, on 30 October 2016 - 12:13 AM, said:

I read it, nothing new.

Maybe you could suggest a new mech?

Well, try again... Also, I have another entire post devoted to the that.
http://mwomercs.com/...-list-of-mechs/

[Damocles]

MedivalJ, on 30 October 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

Well, try again... Also, I have another entire post devoted to the that.
http://mwomercs.com/...-list-of-mechs/

Oh well cool all the new ideas are in that thread, I'll go there

and its a POLL?

[RestosIII]

MedivalJ, on 29 October 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

It's PGI's game... They can add whatever they want...


I find this hard to believe that PGI would take such a risk by having only one individual with the ability to program into MWO, as every avenue for them to make a substantial profit would be tied to this requirement for effectively marketing their product. What I find even harder is that you actually fell for it. However, if such is true then finding replacement programmers shouldn't be that much of an issue.


That would be up to PGI...


Just because you don't like something doesn't mean others are required to do so as well..


Source...


Who said anything about need? Needing something isn't the reason for why people play. They play because it's fun... and fun is profitable...


Resizing was taken directly from other topics in the forum. Personally I don't care. However, if others vote for another resize I have no quarrel with them over this issue.


Do I have to be to make the suggestion...


Appeal to emotion... PGI exists to service a demand and as such should be exploring every avenue for making a profit... Also, I am fully aware, as I was there for most of it...


So what...


Yeah... So I guess you can cross King of the Hill off the list...


Irrelevant... Your perception of what I, or others need, plays no basis for whether something is worth doing. That is up to the community at large and PGI to decide.


I refer to the previous comment...


So what... Look in the forums/in-game and you will find a common desire for more maps.


If so then I encourage them to continue. Just as I will continue to come up with new ideas for ways to alleviate the bottleneck formed in CW.


This idea is supposed to go hand-in-hand with the one prior to it and service a basic functionality as to how the AI would play into CW.


Fair enough. I too, am aware, and very interested in the turn out, of HBS Battletech's kickstarter project.


Again, this stems from the forums. However, it makes for a very interesting and active game-type should it be implemented.


See forums for idea reference...

And finally...

Alright... Now you look son... I really don't care what PGI said... They're financial future depends on the loyalty of their customers, i.e. the people who play their game. No customers = no game = no PGI. In addition, there is no harm in bringing ideas to the table for general discussion. If anything, PGI should be jumping on as many as they can if they actually intend on being successful...

He was trying to point out that most of this stuff SHOULD have been in the game already by now. I thought that was obvious.