395 replies to this topic

[Palerider Recon]

MW5 looks amazing, but won't its release kill the community for MWO? Why not just add a campaign mode to MWO, parsed out by era (3000, 3025, 3039, 3050), and allow for online co-op? That seems like an easier integration, and would allow for everything I've bought for MWO to carry over to the campaign (mechs of appropriate era, decals & other customizations, etc). You're already incorporating AI bots into faction play, so it's not a tough stretch to include a campaign.

And those hating on the Atlas escort, I get your venom, but I also point you to "Walker Assault" on Battlefront, perhaps the most popular game mode in that game. It CAN be done, and done well!

Edited by Palerider 1976, 04 December 2016 - 06:34 PM.

[Sereglach]

Daggett, on 04 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

While i won't say that the flamers mechanics are the best possible i can't follow you why they are 'destroyed'. In my experience flamers are super powerful if not borderline OP, most players just use them wrong (which of cause is the fault of their mechanics). But if you know what you are doing, you can totally wreck havok among high-heat opponents with em even in Tier 1 matches.

They were destroyed because their "fix" was implemented when there was a known exploit that had been reported for years. Then, for PGI to compensate for that exploit, they threw on layers of convoluted mechanics that aren't explained anywhere and remain enigmatic to the average user. There's a reason they're still not seen as a solid weapon of choice to compete with other weapons that share it's tonnage. They are far from OP. They're niche, at best, particularly in their gimped state.

Also, an entirely untrue stereotype that doesn't exist anywhere in Battletech, and yet PGI is perpetuating with their "fix" to Flamers, is that Flamers do no damage to mechs. That's just completely false, go ahead and check the game rules and lore. They do the exact same damage as Machine Guns and AC/2s. PGI removing all of their physical damage is yet another facet of destroying the weapon.

Daggett, on 04 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

In fact your proposed changes (2 Heat DPS instead of current 4.5) would destroy the flamer instead of empowering them, because you would need to carry way too much of them to have an effect on the enemy before he kills you.

Actually, 2 Heat Per Second, or 2 Heat DPS is enough to currently -with ONE (1) Flamer- cut the heat efficiency of a mech with 10 "true-dubs" to ZERO. That's a pretty serious effect. Two (2) would, in turn, begin applying 2 Heat DPS to the target; and from there you're doing significant heat damage to the target with additional Flamers. In the meantime you'd also be inflicting the actual physical damage you should be doing with the 1.0 physical DPS.

Doing 4.0 DPS while inflicting 8.0 Heat DPS for as long as you can maintain it would be a very serious knife-fighting weapon to contend with. However you're also still building 4.0 HPS on yourself while doing this so it's not something you can maintain forever. Thusly it simply and elegantly eliminates the stun-locking of the old exploit, it bypasses any convoluted mechanics, and the Flamer would be still performing its proper role as it was intended.

One Flamer shouldn't, by itself, be able to max out the heat damage on an enemy within the "free fire" time. Of course the "Free Fire" time is also a convoluted mechanic that shouldn't exist.

Daggett, on 04 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Sure, you may fire them all day long with enough HS when the exponential 'flamer-overheat'-mechanic is gone, but most enemies will still plant some alphas into you while you have to constantly face them to slowly apply some heat.

You wouldn't be able to fire them all day long, just as you can't now. Of course your own actual heat dissipation would also play a part instead of convoluted "free fire windows" and 4.25 second + time fired "pseudo-cooldowns".

On top of it, think about 2.0 Heat DPS and compare that to the dissipation of mechs now. Lets take the typical Laser Vomit Timber Wolf with ~24 Double Heat Sinks.

- Like mechs in TT, the sheer volume of Heat Sinks provides some resistance to assaults by Flamers.

- 10 True Dubs = 2.0 HPS Cooling & 14 x 1.5 Externals = 2.1 HPS Cooling: Total 4.1 HPS Cooling.

- Two Flamers would be needed to essentially eliminate all cooling on this Timberwolf. However, you'd still be inflicting 2.0 DPS AND they wouldn't be cooling hardly any at all (0.l Cooling).

- Anything over 2 Flamers (a stock Firestarter comes with 4) would build heat on the target at a rapid rate . . . for example 1 C-LPL builds 2.29 HPS by itself. 2.0 Heat DPS is nothing to scoff at.

Daggett, on 04 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

That's why flamers right now do work quite well: You get in and overheat the enemy with minimal facetime (of cause depending on how much flamers you bring). And the exponential component ensures that you can't keep the target at 90% heat all day long.

It's convoluted, impractical, and the numbers are terribly tuned. Again, one Flamer shouldn't do 4.5 Heat DPS by itself and -more importantly- absolutely zero weapons in the game should be able to be fired for free.

Let alone the fact that in the 4.25 second "Free Fire" + 4.25 second imposed "pseudo-cooldown" for a total of 8.5 seconds of minimum Flamer downtime, that 24 heat sink Laser Vomit Timberwolf just cooled 34.85 points of heat . . . more than enough to turn around and melt your face off . . . while you have absolutely nothing to show for it from the use of your Flamers.

The proposed changes I'm making would keep Flamers consistent, make them highly functional, and not broken in either direction. Even if the numbers don't work out perfectly (maybe 2.0 Heat DPS is a little low in the long run) then it can easily be slightly tuned. Regardless, the horrible setup that exists now needs to go away.

Daggett, on 04 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Maybe 4.5 Heat DPS are a bit too much, but 2 would definitely be to low to make them worthwhile, even if you could nonstop troll the target with em.

As shown above, it's not too low per individual flamer AND they should have physical damage to go with it, so they're certainly no trolling weapon. At the same time, they'd be generating more than enough heat on the user (as much HPS per Flamer as constantly firing a Clan SPL or IS ML) to limit their firing and prevent abuse.

The change is a win-win for everyone. Its terribly disappointing that PGI hasn't enacted it, yet, especially since it can all be done with mere XML file changes.

[Cy Mitchell]

Sixpack, on 04 December 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

Looks like a step in the right direction.

Still not happy with FW and view the whole qp maps as merely another bandaid.

What it needs is more game modes than the same old same old "assault the xth orbital gun on this planet".

Taking a planet can usually be considered a campaign in and of itself.

Here is roughly how I would imagine it:

a) Initial assault (this requires taking a few orbital guns to allow for easy mass reinforcements)
Meeting engagements (open warfare between forward elements with each side feeling each other and trying to get a frontline)
c) Pitched battle (the large fight where both try to decide who the owner of this planet will be, would require AI as well for the large scale battle feel)
d) Mop up / base battle.


If you would have a decent variety of maps and game mods for invasion it would be a good bit more entertaining. This will not address other problems such as pubs vs. premades but right now I am more interested in making it a good game mode.

By adding the QP maps and modes you can accomplish exactly what you have suggested without having to develop a bunch of new, time consuming assets. Player enjoy quick play. It makes perfect sense to take the best of those elements into the MWO end game which is supposed to be FP. Group the FP maps and QP maps up by themes ie cold or wet or volcanic or forest or urban. Choose a couple of the modes to include such as Skirmish, Conquest, new Assault and maybe Escort. Do a little voice acting to explain the objectives for each segment and let it roll. FP, in its current state, is boring and not much fun to play. If it was at least as much fun to play as QP then IMO it would have a much larger population.

Edited by Rampage, 05 December 2016 - 04:53 AM.

[Grinster]

TheLuc, on 04 December 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

Since when Mechs have turn indicators ?

It sure would help PUG matches if there were turn indicators, brake lights and reverse alarms. Few things annoy me more than when a pilot cannot chew gum (fire weapons) and walk at the same time.

[Wraith 1]

Escort mode will certainly be interesting.

There used to be a similar gamemode in Team Fortress Classic called 'Hunted', where the VIP was player controlled. It was scrapped in TF2 and replaced with 'Payload' because the quality of the match depended entirely on the skill of the person controlling the VIP. MWO's escort mode will have the same problem, but at least it'll be consistent.

Also, this will be the first time in the history of MWO where suicide picks will be a viable strategy. I wonder if we'll see an influx of Direstars after the patch.

[Prussian Havoc]

Great job Russ, Paul, Alez, Tina and everyone else at PGI!

I kept a running commentary on MECHCON for the HBS forum: https://community.ba...ads/4934?page=1 so even those not able to attend in person, were able to share in the gameplay results, announcements and discussions.

Thank you One and ALL! :bow:

[Tavious Grimm]

So....We get HBS. Mechwarrior and now PGI is going to release it's own Mechwarrior single player. Color me impressed. Will I be any less critical of the treatment for FP...hardly. They fubared and basically did nothing with it but little tweaks.That being said, I am HYPED for MW5. A brand new original 'canon mech' The Roughneck looks impressive. The updates to FW....the jury (for me at least) is still out.

[Koniving]

G3 Heathen, on 03 December 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

What was mech IK?

Outcast1six, on 03 December 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

+1 for this question.

xXBagheeraXx, on 03 December 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

What exactly is Mech IK?

Mech IK.
Pay attention to the feet.


Notice the foot?


This is NOT Mech IK, notice the foot goes Through the ground.


This is Mech IK.


Inverse Kinematics on a soldier.

And the reason Battlefield 3 sucks... was they dropped IK.

[mikerso]

Jimmy DiGriz, on 04 December 2016 - 08:08 AM, said:

@mikerso - I'm pretty sure quirks were a "band-aid" for an immediate issue resulting from the introduction of Clan tech which got a bit out of hand. I don't believe for a moment quirks were meant to remain in their original state for more than a few patches, nor were they a long-term resolution, but they have taken longer to fix and re-balance than anticipated.

I am happy to see an alternative approach and am willing to give it time to bed in.

I don't disagree on giving it time to settle in. I just hate to see a bunch of underperforming mechs mothballed. I got to watch the Q & A with Russ and Paul (thanks to Daeron, NGNG). One of the questions posed showed the uneven spread of structure per ton in mechs. If structure is evened out, then we would not even need structure quirks. Then they could throw those out and we could decide on mechs based on speed, hitboxes, and hardpoints.

Just a piece of food for thought.

[Felix Dante]

OK got my attention!

But where are my new weapons?

Where are my IS ER Medium and ER Small lasers?
IS Streak 4 and 6?
IS MRMs?
IS targeting computers?

Plasma Weapons?

What about Clan ATMs?

What about at least C3 computers? Hey?

We haven't had any new weapons introduced in over a year now!

I know weapon balance is important, but it is also the spice of the game as well!
New mechs are all well and good, but new weapons...they make the each chassis new again!

[Arkhangel]

mikerso, on 04 December 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

I don't disagree on giving it time to settle in. I just hate to see a bunch of underperforming mechs mothballed. I got to watch the Q & A with Russ and Paul (thanks to Daeron, NGNG). One of the questions posed showed the uneven spread of structure per ton in mechs. If structure is evened out, then we would not even need structure quirks. Then they could throw those out and we could decide on mechs based on speed, hitboxes, and hardpoints.

Just a piece of food for thought.

they aren't being mothballed. what the new skill trees'll essentially do is let YOU quirk the mech how YOU want it according to your playstyle. and it's highly likely there still might be a few skill tree things that're specific to a certain Mech's chassis, just ones you don't get right off the bat, you'd have to EARN them, which would make them far less of a crutch for pilots in the end, just a bonus. the only reason a lot of stuff in this game gets labelled "underperforming" is BECAUSE stuff with better quirks exists. the new system severely levels the playing field there. (not to mention it helps Pack sales and the forums for them since there won't be any more "quirks or my wallet's closed" idiots for five pages XD )

[Krucilatoz]

As a software engineer, i can relate why PGI build MW5. This may be their scenario :

1. Create MW5, using unreal engine, and port all 'Mech models, textures, weapon mechanics, etc into unreal -- THATS A HELL LOT OF WORK
2. Sell MW5, hope they gain profit and new playerbase from this
3. If plan no 2 success, remake the MWO (maybe as MWO2) using Unreal engine. Note that mech model,textures,weapons already implemented, PGI next task is to reimplement MWO into new MWO2 game. This, if things goes smoothly, may be in late 2018 or early 2019.

Lets just show our support in constructive ways.

Remember, those game developer is also humans, just like you.

[Arkhangel]

Felix Dante, on 04 December 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

OK got my attention!

But where are my new weapons?

Where are my IS ER Medium and ER Small lasers?
IS Streak 4 and 6?
IS MRMs?
IS targeting computers?

Plasma Weapons?

What about Clan ATMs?

What about at least C3 computers? Hey?

We haven't had any new weapons introduced in over a year now!

I know weapon balance is important, but it is also the spice of the game as well!
New mechs are all well and good, but new weapons...they make the each chassis new again!

in fairness, they're trying to stay within roughly two years of the current year tech wise. all that weapons stuff shows up at earliest in 3056. next year or two, maybe. that being said, it's entirely possible we might see a few IS Omnis show up, given the Raptor and Blackhawk-KU are produced around now (3052 and 3055, respectively).

don't get me wrong, i'd love to be able to wing on an UAC/10 to my Centurions or Enforcers, or Zeuses, etc. but i'm willing to wait until it's kinda "proper"-ish for us to have reverse engineered it

[Tarriss Halcyon]

Felix Dante, on 04 December 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

OK got my attention!

But where are my new weapons?

Where are my IS ER Medium and ER Small lasers?
IS Streak 4 and 6?
IS MRMs?
IS targeting computers?

Plasma Weapons?

What about Clan ATMs?

What about at least C3 computers? Hey?

We haven't had any new weapons introduced in over a year now!

I know weapon balance is important, but it is also the spice of the game as well!
New mechs are all well and good, but new weapons...they make the each chassis new again!

Well; if we go by the proper canon timeline, those weapons start to filter in slowly in 3056, 3055 at the absolute earliest. So; it's possible that we'll see enhanced IS tech emerging within the next year. Of course, these weapons will NOT be the weapons you want - the IS ER Medium Laser, for example, will have the same range as the Clan one but generate more heat. That's how the IS enhanced weapons were in lore - equal in the respects of range or damage, but not as efficient.

Similarly, MRMs are basically mid-range SRMs. They don't home in on targets like streaks or SRMs, nor do they have the speed of SRMs. Also, they aren't compatible with Artemis, which would force PGI to impliment Apollo purely for them. I get that you want more weapons, but MRMs aren't exactly combat-viable options for a shooter like this. They were certainly not comparable to the Clan variation, the ATM.

Now, there ARE actually a few new weapon types that PGI could implement. But, in order to do so, they would have to do something a lot of fans would scream blue murder about: re-engineer IS autocannons to shoot like the Clan ones. Why? Because then they could include the Periphery weapons: Rifled Cannons.

Rifles would basically be the IS cannons as they are now, but heavily restricted. Longer cooldowns, only three calibers instead of four, mixed damage profiles. Only thing that the Rifles would have going for them is low weight and small size; so that Mechwarriors could fit a Medium Rifle into a Light mech if they so chose and still have weight for a decent engine and other weapon options, unlike the current AC10/AC20/Gauss lights.

Rocket Launchers are the other possibility, but they should never be a thing. One-shot weapons are a terrible idea.

[Zolaz]

PGI always has good presentations. They always leave you feeling optimistic and ready to spend money. We will see what happens in a few months.

[Gaden Phoenix]

The first test will be 8 days away on the 14th Dec patch date.

Edited by Gaden Phoenix, 05 December 2016 - 12:45 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Palerider 1976, on 04 December 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

MW5 looks amazing, but won't its release kill the community for MWO? Why not just add a campaign mode to MWO, parsed out by era (3000, 3025, 3039, 3050), and allow for online co-op? That seems like an easier integration, and would allow for everything I've bought for MWO to carry over to the campaign (mechs of appropriate era, decals & other customizations, etc). You're already incorporating AI bots into faction play, so it's not a tough stretch to include a campaign.

And those hating on the Atlas escort, I get your venom, but I also point you to "Walker Assault" on Battlefront, perhaps the most popular game mode in that game. It CAN be done, and done well!

All of the older Mechwarrior games had escort missions too, although it worked well in single player, but in multiplayer MWO I think the Atlas will just get lurmed to death.

Edited by Ed Steele, 05 December 2016 - 01:07 AM.

[xengk]

Koniving, on 04 December 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Mech IK.
Pay attention to the feet.


Notice the foot?


This is NOT Mech IK, notice the foot goes Through the ground.


This is Mech IK.


Inverse Kinematics on a soldier.

And the reason Battlefield 3 sucks... was they dropped IK.

IK should also fix alot of pebble stumbling, since the system will now calculate the exact foot fall of the mech instead of proximate using mech CT.
Mech should now able to step on or over small obstacles without getting stuck.

[Aramuside]

Burke IV, on 04 December 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

No way i earned that XP they cant just take them away just like that. If PGI takes away all the XP i have earned over the whole time i have played this game i would call that grounds for money back tbh.

Except it was totally lost/0 value xp unless you converted it to GXP using MC. Same with my JM6-DD that is sitting there with loads because I trot it out for tournaments, or my FW mechs. If they give us that unconverted xp as gxp its really rather unfair on the people who did convert it. For us it was literally meaningless.

[Dee Eight]

I easily have MILLIONS upon millions of xp on mechs sitting in my garage. I converted 100k xp to gxp during the double-xp sale last month on my ARC-5W (taking it from 262k to 162k), and in just four days of using it I'm already back up to 224k. I already know my module collection is gonna refund for over 300 million cbills. I do not think I am going to have any problem re-skilling mechs to configurations that suit my play style / build style for them.

There's also a boost coming to heat sink cooling rates in the december patch remember. I expect a lot of my mechs to be running cooler in the long run, even without a 20% capacity and 15% cooling rate boosts from the existing skill tree.

Edited by Dee Eight, 05 December 2016 - 02:16 AM.