395 replies to this topic

[Grinster]

Just saw the skills vid and saw vectoring. That will help getting out of some sticky situations when standing still. Jumping up and down on the spot sometimes led to embarrassing outcomes.

[Dee Eight]

Wing 0, on 05 December 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Integrate quick play in Faction play? that's one dumb way of killing a unique mode all together. Let me guess. We have to play with lousy quick play restrictions.. Things like that was why I don't play much Quick play. Too boring and too obvious and too many idiots.

Its not integrating quick play.... its integrating the QP maps and some of the modes, to break the stagnation of the same four maps all the damn time, and the same two basic modes.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

radiv, on 05 December 2016 - 11:32 PM, said:

They are developing the game just fine?????? what did they do the last year?
added 2 maps and a bunch of cashgrabs
throwing the balance wheel around showing they have no understandings of they own game. In example Kodiak why did the best one come with quirks and not the rest?

They screwed the endgame mode over to the point that they have to reduce it now cus people arent playing.

They annonced a whole new heatsystem and took it back.(that was hillarious)

Yeah ur right theyr doing fine..... except for the fact that the game was probably better 1 year ago.. atleast then the endgame was alive

Well first of all the game is fun to play and it works. Second they added those maps, remade a few, as well as added a bunch of mechs. That's "fine" to me.

Second, game is ftp, they are supposed to be grabbing your cash, hard. They don't charge you at the door and they don't charge you for a subscription. If they didn't grab your f***ing cash with something the game would be dead. We should be glad the game isn't p2w. If PGI really were a bunch of cash snatching dopes, that's what this game would be.

They have more understanding then you're giving them credit for. Sure they screw up, and they don't know as much as comp players, they aren't blizzard, but that doesn't mean "spinning the balance wheel" or throwing "darts at the balance board" are anything but hyperbolic bellyaching.

As opposed to what? Not trying to salvage FP at all? leaving it in it's dead state? what? Personally I just play quickplay and I think that's good enough, but I can't fault them for trying to be responsible.

The energy draw system was bad move, I'm glad that's dead. Good on them for killing it.

Yeah the game is doing fine. No it wasn't better a year ago. It was just the ****** game mode was dying and not dead. Oh well.

[Edward Scissorhands]

i am quite pleased with the announcement. Hopefully they hit the nail on the head and the product matches the hype. This comming from someone who likes to be a critic.

[Myke Pantera]

Sounds pretty awesome! Looking forward to it. :thumbsup: PGI

I still hope for Solaris 1v1 matches, hopefully coupled with regular tournaments.

[radiv]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 06 December 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Well first of all the game is fun to play and it works. Second they added those maps, remade a few, as well as added a bunch of mechs. That's "fine" to me.

They did almost nothing constructive and playercount is more than likely half of what it was a year ago. Maybe thats fine to you, to me its sad.

[James Argent]

Perhaps the time to master a mech's skill tree at the proposed skill point cost would be too high. They'll work that out before it's implemented. However, the 'gottacan't master 'em all' system has ample precedent. EVE Online has more skills than can ever be fully mastered. It forces the players to make choices about what kind of pilot they're going to be and provides a broad diversity in the playerbase. The same would apply to MWO. There is no way in any Battletech narrative that any one pilot would be a true master at piloting them all, nor would there be so many mechs that deviated so far from the stock issue model that one pilot could own hundreds of fully skilled-out versions (let alone how a single battlemech was often the full extent of many mech pilot families' wealth, but a game's gotta be a game).

As I said, based on what we know now the XP required seems really high at the moment. But I'm not in any kind of panic over ZOMG DECADES FOR EVERYTHING!

[Willothius]

All this talk of solaris, melee combat, the ditching of Faction Houses, and details on the revamped skill tree..
Did I read the same "roadmap" as you guys?
All I saw was "sorry for our previous f#ckups, here's our new non-lore mech, a MW5 sneakpeek, and... new gamemode with A.I. atlas!"

Where's all the extra info coming from?

[Aramuside]

How are people calculating the total skill costs out of interest - is it a fixed cost for every SP?

Confused why this won't kill their pack sales dead as there's no way anyone will be able to max out a full pack in a month.... at which point the next one drops... and then the next.... and the next? I buy mech packs as I like to actually change my playstyle and feel like I'm progressing while helping fund the game but why would I under this new system? I can see why this is amazing for competitive players who rarely change mechs but for anyone regularly buying packs and funding the game it seems awful?

[Jack Shayu Walker]

radiv, on 06 December 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

They did almost nothing constructive and playercount is more than likely half of what it was a year ago. Maybe thats fine to you, to me its sad.

Enlighten me. What exactly counts as "constructive" to you?

See where I come from, just because you do something constructive doesn't mean it works out. PGI has tried a couple of rebalances, their community has been unhappy, they put them away. They rescaled mechs to their proper sizes, that was constructive and it worked out. They gave us scouting mode in FP, it buzzed up interest for a while, but ultimately players still found it boring. Now they're bringing the fun elements of Quickplay into FP to try and breath life in it again.

What exactly do you want from PGI? What would be "constructive?"

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Willothius, on 06 December 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

All this talk of solaris, melee combat, the ditching of Faction Houses, and details on the revamped skill tree..
Did I read the same "roadmap" as you guys?
All I saw was "sorry for our previous f#ckups, here's our new non-lore mech, a MW5 sneakpeek, and... new gamemode with A.I. atlas!"

Where's all the extra info coming from?

Footage from mech con. Sorry I guess people in this thread just sortof assume everyone has seen it.

[Dee Eight]

For every player who wants to complain about the glacial pace of PGI in bringing about changes....I'd like to draw your attention to Sony's The Last Guardian...for which gamers have waited NINE YEARS without more than teaser trailers. At least PGI has provided an actual game that could be played for the past four years.

[Wibbledtodeath]

Great stuff PGI. Just don't let yourselves be held back by the conservative haters that cannot tolerate any change.

In fact, don't even bother with PTU- it just generates unreasonable fear in the dinosaur brained portion of the community which makes design more conservative. Just give us more content fast as you can.

Maybe, if you really do need legit feedback rather than change-hate, use a star citizen esc Evocati invitational group of analytical play-testers to try to break new content prior to full release. Looking forward to the future of MW.

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 06 December 2016 - 02:13 PM.

[WarHippy]

Dee Eight, on 06 December 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

For every player who wants to complain about the glacial pace of PGI in bringing about changes....I'd like to draw your attention to Sony's The Last Guardian...for which gamers have waited NINE YEARS without more than teaser trailers. At least PGI has provided an actual game that could be played for the past four years.

Slow development on a unreleased game and slow development on a released game are vastly different situations. Slow development on a released game is a much bigger problem for everyone involved than slow development of an unreleased game.

Wibbledtodeath, on 06 December 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

Great stuff PGI. Just don't let yourselves be held back by the conservative haters that cannot tolerate any change.

In fact, don't even bother with PTU- it just generates unreasonable fear in the dinosaur brained portion of the community which makes design more conservative. Just give us more content fast as you can.

Maybe, if you really do need legit feedback rather than change-hate, use a star citizen esc Evocati invitational group of analytical play-testers to try to break new content prior to full release. Looking forward to the future of MW.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. Change is not inherently good or inherently bad, however it can be good or bad. Throwing every crackpot idea onto the live server just because you can and because it is different(WOO change) is probably the worst thing any game developer could do. Under no circumstances should anyone take your advice as it is flat out bad advice.



(A lot of really delusional people in this thread. Its fine to be excited or hopeful, but the sycophants are getting ridiculous.)

Edited by WarHippy, 06 December 2016 - 02:35 PM.

[MovinTarget]

WarHippy, on 06 December 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

Its fine to be excited or hopeful, but the sycophants are getting ridiculous.)

As are the salt-casters still butthurt about things that happened years ago.

Yes, all enthusiasm should be tempered, unless you want to end up like many of the embittered ones in these forums. I know some of them are pissed due to promised broken or stalled, but I swear so many more are mad because what they imagined in their head is not what ended up being developed and blame PGI/IGP/M$/Trump *and* Hilary for it not living up to their imagination.

Sorry I'm a bit salty myself.. RL reminding me there's a lot more to life than whining about a game.

[Daggett]

Crashking, on 05 December 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

okay since neither of you believes me, I guess I just have to draw you a roadmap and yes this can be done in testing grounds. It doesn't exactly matter the mech you use but some decent ones to prove my example are Victor 9s or 9b, Zeus 6s or 9s2. Now when I did this AC5 heat was only 1 point each instead of the now 1.5 but basically you take a mech that has 2 ballistic slots and fill it in with 2 AC5's the rest can be lasers or missiles ect. Point being here is fill the lasers out with like mediums so they are nice and light and you can stick in a boat load of heat sinks. Now go to testing grounds... doesn't matter the map exactly but a hotter one will heat you up faster and cool off slower.. and vice versa for a cold map. Once in map Fire off stuff until you get your heat warning near 80% or you can even go a bit higher. Then just keep chain firing off the AC5.. you will overheat even though your heat sinks should be dissipating the heat you have built up. You can build this up on SMURFY and adjust the weapons to see that it shows you should have a much higher cooling efficiency running, by just using the 2 AC5 but in reality in game you don't lose heat until you stop firing all weapons.

now depending on the mech you use and its quirks there might be some delay In there where the AC5 aren't going off and you will see a slight heat decrease but it is possible to have the mech shut down from just firing off the AC5. For reference the mech I have built uses 17 double heat sinks - 10 defaults, 3 extra in engine and 4 in side torsos. If heat sinks were working constantly the mech should cool off by using less weapons and still allowing you to fire some.

I tested this with Clan and IS AC-5 and can't reproduce what you describe. With 17 DHS, i'm unable to overheat myself with two chainfiring AC5 or any other weapon even on hot maps and while moving. It also does not matter if you are over 80% Heat or not, dissipation always works the same and as expected.

Whatever you may have experienced, it was probably fixed since you tested last time. So please test it again and if you still think that something's wrong i suppose you make a video so we (and more important PGI) know exactly how to reproduce the problem.

[MovinTarget]

Daggett, on 06 December 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

I tested this with Clan and IS AC-5 and can't reproduce what you describe. With 17 DHS, i'm unable to overheat myself with two chainfiring AC5 or any other weapon even on hot maps and while moving. It also does not matter if you are over 80% Heat or not, dissipation always works the same and as expected.

Whatever you may have experienced, it was probably fixed since you tested last time. So please test it again and if you still think that something's wrong i suppose you make a video so we (and more important PGI) know exactly how to reproduce the problem.

Not quite how he was doing it... I think he wasn't taking into account that if you fire 1 ML you don't exactly get X heat generation on your heat scale. You get ML Heat - HeatSink_Capacitance = X on your gauge. As long as you aren't losing HS/DHS in battle, your ability to negate a certain amount of initial heat is a constant, unmodified by the # of weapons fired. So of course if you fire 2 weapons and your HS can't cover all the heat coming at them it will raise your heat more than twice.

Here's how you test this:
Screw ML, grab Small Lasers and get on a cold map with minimal HS/DHS. Fire one SL and you'll notice that your heat scale only registers a little heat *and* its a bit delayed. Fire 2 SL and it will register faster on your heat scale *and* climb higher. You have to remember that with beam weapons, not all the heat occurs when you fire, its constant over the time of the beam.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

It must be said that 2016 has not been without its missteps and mistakes; some quite avoidable, others the natural result of working with a live, constantly-updated game. While we can't claim mistakes and missteps will never occur as MechWarrior Online continues its ongoing development, we are resolute in our dedication toward addressing such issues when they do occur.
- This is perhaps the most humble statement I have seen from you in over four years, and I sincerely appreciate it.

Faction Play Phase 4.1
- I seriously hope that this is the "shot in the arm" that FP needs.
- Please make FP meaningful. Give us reasons to align with certain factions. Please include creative rewards for the "special Faction Play events".

Escort Game Mode
- I am cautiously optimistic about this. You've done a decent job balancing planetary assault, but assymetric game modes always feel stacked for one side or the other.

'Mech Collision Improvements
- This was one of the major differences we noticed playing in a zero-ping environment. This should be a significant QOL improvement for Oceanic players.

Competitive 1v1 'Steiner Coliseum' Private Lobby Map
- The map is beautiful and felt like an improvement in gameplay (not just aesthetics) over the "grey boxed" version. The extra ramps, etc. were a very nice touch.

Marauder IIC
- I have a feeling that this 'mech will be nearly as OP as the KDK was on launch. STFB.

Improvements to the Domination Game Mode on Alpine Peaks
- Thank the coordinator.

Assault Game Mode Revamp
- Looking forward to seeing this in PTS.

All-new Skill Tree
- As I mentioned to both Russ and Paul, the competitive community is seriously looking forward to trying to break this system. I just hope you'll be giving full refunds when we do find the things that are horrendously OP useful.
- "all GXP and 'Mech XP spent on Skill ... unlocks will be carried over as 'Legacy GXP'" ... Does this inlcude variants levelled but previously sold? I'm hoping, "yes".

Thank you for your playing, MechWarriors.
- Thank you for hosting my team mates and I in Vancouver, we had a phenomenal time getting to meet you and seeing your passion for the game, BattleTech in general, and the community.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 06 December 2016 - 06:12 PM.

[mikerso]

Arkhangel, on 04 December 2016 - 09:18 PM, said:

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 )

Sorry for the slow response on this. I see no problem in eliminating the weapons quirks. The biggest problem I can see is the full elimination of structure quirks without making sure the mechs will not be paper thin on structure and armor. Some of the mechs truly needed the structure quirks to survive. We have seen this several times in the past.

I can see the quirk customization in the builds and like that I will be able to customize my mech the way I want. I just hope to see people taking a variety of mechs out instead of seeing only the mechs with the best hardpoints.

A question for PGI:

If we have a mech that we leveled up but sold, will we need to rebuy that mech to level out the tree. If we do then it will cost players a ton of extra c-bills just to level up and customize their mechs.

This could also be to the advantage of newer players. They could use trial mechs to level up their skill trees, then buy the mechs in order to customize their loadouts.

[Commander A9]

Question.

Are we getting the Mech XP returned to us for mechs we skilled and mastered, then sold because we didn't need to retain them?

Or are we only getting the Mech XP for mechs we currently own?

Edited by Commander A9, 06 December 2016 - 08:33 PM.