363 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

MovinTarget, on 14 January 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

I guess my point is that right now, the impact is consuming one of 12 slots, having very little impact on the composition of the rest of the team. If someone devises a way to troll BV it would affect the composition.

Fear of the unknown should not be a reason to reject the idea.

[Koniving]

firewired, on 14 January 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

The only game improvement I desire is:

Randomly Generated Map Terrain.

Then we would see MechWarriros separated from MemoryWarriors.

With the map terrain always being identical for every drop it makes the game experience painfully predictable.

Surely we have the technology tools today to do this, yes? Is there some CryEngine limitation here? Randomly generated maps and terrain existed way back in the long long ago. I realize that we are dealing with advanced physics in game engines these days, but surely it can be done.

Same engine though different version.

So it's not a limitation of the engine.

[MovinTarget]

Peiper, on 14 January 2017 - 05:55 PM, said:

Fear of the unknown should not be a reason to reject the idea.

Lack of information is reason enough.

Its not the unknown that scares, me. It's those that charge blindly towards it, without a safety net nor considering the downsides to their actions.

Present the idea with an acknowledgement to potential pitfalls and drawbacks.

Do you know how many initiatives have failed after it was exclaimed "It can't fail!"?

Document the problem you want to solve. How you would solve it and what ancillary changes would be needed in order to ensure the solution succeeds without crearing new problems or how these new problems would be acceptable based on the gains. This necessary because no matter how much you prepare, there will be unintended consequences you'll have to manage after the fact.

Again, BV could work but you would have to agree that its not a magic wand one waves. Even if a brain trust of players decides on an implementation, without knowledge of the codebase you could not assume you suggestion would or could be translated effectively to code.

Would your BV take hitteg, ping, and other environmental factors into account or further obfuscate them for example. Its been demontrated that players with terrible ping in a fast mech is darn near unhitable by many types of weapons. Would that have some bearing on attempts to balance?

Point is... balance is a myth, beyond a certain threshold it is impossible to achieve because there are so many variable that cannot be accounted for. If you can accept that approaching balance is an asymptotic behavior, the only question left is, "at what point is it no longer worth it?"

I know i am stick in the mud, but the reality is that no matter how much balance is manipulated, there will always be those that cry unfair... in fact even if perfect balance is achieved some will cry. So what is the magic number on man-hours that an entity should invest before throwing it's hands up?

Edited by MovinTarget, 14 January 2017 - 07:13 PM.

[Talos7]

Dear god.... Yay new time line, new tech, new mechs.... but still no major improvements on the game overall

Another IS light. why? IS doesn't need one. Clans do.
Assault revamp... why do both sides have a base? Shouldn't it be attacker vs defender?

Yea I am happy that there will be some new weapons to shake up the monotony of the current set up. But, since we don't even have access to the full amount of 3025 tech (in 3052), I don't think we will receive the full amount of available 3060 tech. So I'm guessing there will be a full metic ton of salt poured forth by all the overzealous theory crafters on this post when they cant make the exact 'mech they want.

Been taking a break from the game and while these may eventually lead me back to it, there is no change that makes me absolutely have to at the moment.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Talos7, on 14 January 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

Dear god.... Yay new time line, new tech, new mechs.... but still no major improvements on the game overall

If I had a nickel for every a nickel for.....................

The game has had "major improvement" but we are going to be playing with definitions if I try to pin down on your definition of an improvement is. Then I Will show you how factually incorrect your initial statement is.

This would be one of the few times PGI has added any new weapons systems since UAC's.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 January 2017 - 08:41 PM.

[Talos7]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 January 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

This would be one of the few times PGI has added any new weapons systems since UAC's.

I'm ignoring the rest of your ego driven sh!tpost because this is the only part that is correct:
They are adding new weapons.

Edited by Talos7, 14 January 2017 - 09:15 PM.

[Duvanor]

It depends on your point of view. There have been a lot of improvements since closed beta. But they are coming in rather slow and in babysteps. If you are just looking forward there is not much to be seen. Looking way back is a bit different.

But all in all new Tech sounds nice and I for one am looking forward to it. Of course with the suspicion that balance will be broken for a while. But the game will be playable after some band-aid and PGI is not too bad with those quick hot fixes. Finetuning after that will take a while. Anyway, some new tech to tinker about in the mechlab will be a good thing

[BLOOD WOLF]

Talos7, on 14 January 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

I'm ignoring the rest of your ego driven sh!tpost because this is the only part that is correct. They are adding new weapons.

I never said they were not adding any new weapons. I was pointing out the poor distinction of "major improvements" and improvements. Either they are improving the game or they are not.

I pointed out the contradictory nature of your statement. You are welcome.

Duvanor, on 14 January 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:

It depends on your point of view. There have been a lot of improvements since closed beta. But they are coming in rather slow and in babysteps. If you are just looking forward there is not much to be seen. Looking way back is a bit different.

But all in all new Tech sounds nice and I for one am looking forward to it. Of course with the suspicion that balance will be broken for a while. But the game will be playable after some band-aid and PGI is not too bad with those quick hot fixes. Finetuning after that will take a while. Anyway, some new tech to tinker about in the mechlab will be a good thing

Balance is going to be a crap-storm when these things hit. If they do it right,we will be seeing build diversity like never before. Unfortunately they haven't solved the problem of alpha warrior or DPS monster warrior online. So they need to really get back to testing with that.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 January 2017 - 09:24 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Talos7, on 14 January 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

Another IS light. why? IS doesn't need one. Clans do.

Clans got the last new light mech. The Jenner IIC back in December 2015. The IS had the one before it so now it is their turn again.

[Talos7]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 January 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

I never said they were not adding any new weapons. I was pointing out the poor distinction of "major improvements" and improvements. Either they are improving the game or they are not. I pointed out the contradictory nature of your statement. You are welcome.

LOL. No one, not even yourself, said that they weren't adding new weapons.

No, I didn't define "major improvements". But, from what I can gather from your posts it would appear the monthly 'mech pack is a vast change, or improvement, in the game and its play for you. It must feel like Christmas for you every month! (I'm jealous)

Is a bunch of new weapons a change? yes. Is it an improvement? Yeah, I may even agree to that. But a major one? Not in my eyes. Because it doesn't change that you will be repeating the exact same thing on the exact same map that you have been doing for the last several years. Its basically going to be the launch of the Clan 'Mech Packs 2.0 (the last time new weapon systems were introduced) followed by obscene usage of the nerf bat. If you're new it could be incredibly fun, or incredibly frustrating. But for me, been there done that.
Jaded...... maybe... Gorramit. Yes, yes I am.

Kael Posavatz, on 14 January 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Clans got the last new light mech. The Jenner IIC back in December 2015. The IS had the one before it so now it is their turn again.

I understand that completely. Its just the imbalance in the amount of (viable?) Clan v IS light 'mechs that makes me wonder why its an IS 'mech and not clan, despite the taking of turns.

Edited by Talos7, 14 January 2017 - 10:08 PM.

[Arkhangel]

okay, first off, there was never any guarantee it was a Clan Mech this month, remember all four first Unseen were released in a row. secondly.... a 3060 MECH, not tech. IS will just finally be getting IS Tech II most likely, like the other ultras, LBXs, Streaks, maybe MRMs, Light Gauss, possibly Light fusion engines.

not Heavy Gauss or RACs. that's IS tech III. I also highly doubt they'd add Clan Heavy Lasers or ER pulse. that being said, Mech wise with that timeframe opens up some fun choices, like the Sunder, Turkina, Avatar, gotta remember they'd only add Mechs that actually use the weapons we're given, they wouldn't necessarily given us a mech specifically so that one weapon is available... also... seriously..Mech Rifles? the Silver Bullet Gauss and Blazer MAYBE. no way in hell we're gonna get rifles, to put it bluntly.

honestly, it's likely either the Flea (because it would be about damn time, given they showed the art years ago) or the Raptor, given it's a solid little IS Omni, and we don't have any IS Omnis yet.

Edited by Arkhangel, 14 January 2017 - 09:51 PM.

[Peiper]

MovinTarget, on 14 January 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

Lack of information is reason enough. (1)

Its not the unknown that scares, me. It's those that charge blindly towards it, without a safety net nor considering the downsides to their actions.

Present the idea with an acknowledgement to potential pitfalls and drawbacks.

Do you know how many initiatives have failed after it was exclaimed "It can't fail!"?

Document the problem you want to solve. How you would solve it and what ancillary changes would be needed in order to ensure the solution succeeds without crearing new problems or how these new problems would be acceptable based on the gains. This necessary because no matter how much you prepare, there will be unintended consequences you'll have to manage after the fact.

Again, BV could work but you would have to agree that its not a magic wand one waves. Even if a brain trust of players decides on an implementation, without knowledge of the codebase you could not assume you suggestion would or could be translated effectively to code.

Would your BV take hitteg, ping, and other environmental factors into account or further obfuscate them for example. Its been demontrated that players with terrible ping in a fast mech is darn near unhitable by many types of weapons. Would that have some bearing on attempts to balance?

Point is... balance is a myth, beyond a certain threshold it is impossible to achieve because there are so many variable that cannot be accounted for. If you can accept that approaching balance is an asymptotic behavior, the only question left is, "at what point is it no longer worth it?"

I know i am stick in the mud, but the reality is that no matter how much balance is manipulated, there will always be those that cry unfair... in fact even if perfect balance is achieved some will cry. So what is the magic number on man-hours that an entity should invest before throwing it's hands up?

You fear because you have lack of information? We're talking theory here with what information we have on hand. Without the devs input in this discussion, we have to assume things. If we don't, we can't carry on the discussion.

The safety net is that it is something that logically/ideally can be overlaid over the existing game without changing the game code itself. Like a module that fits on top of the mechlab that calculates battle value. I guess the code that would have to be altered is the part that tells the computer to check mech battle value instead of tonnage, then add that to the PSR to make the total battle value of that player. So, if it doesn't work, you just remove the module.

As far as pitfalls and drawbacks, I'm willing to acknowledge them, but of course, I'm here arguing a case, and will present the positive side. Sure, there may be abuses to the system, but that's why we have a think tank. We have to take into account that some mechs have better torso twist ranges, different hard point locations, etc... And so, each chassis would have a value in itself, taking into account quirks too. The hardest part of this system is creating the values, and the reason for the think tank is that one person will not see every side of it. So, ideally, any negatives would be taken into account by having more than one person working on it.

True, equal balance is a myth because of all human factors and because all mechs are not created equal. BUT, balance IS a goal. This is a step in that goal, while taking into account the fact that all mechs are not created equal. Tonnage is a poor indicator. Battle value is a much better indicator. Do you disagree?

And some will cry, some will always cry, I agree. Which is why I try to ignore them when working toward improvement and perfection.

[Edward Hazen]

Koniving, on 14 January 2017 - 06:21 PM, said:

Same engine though different version.

So it's not a limitation of the engine.

The have a much larger and more experienced dev group who nearly re-wrote the entire engine.

[Kael Posavatz]

Talos7, on 14 January 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

I understand that completely. Its just the imbalance in the amount of (viable?) Clan v IS light 'mechs that makes me wonder why its an IS 'mech and not clan, despite the taking of turns.

Inner Sphere fanboys? I mean, I've been seeing that accusation pop up for the last three years, and I haven't really seen a concerted effort to dispel the image either. Also, aside from the Firemoth the Clans don't have many (if any) iconic light mechs left. Oh sure, there are some, the Fire Falcon, Locust or Commando IIC and the like but still. Meanwhile, three months in a row, three mechs, first homebrew mech, first light mech in over a year (by the time it's released)...

Arkhangel, on 14 January 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

okay, first off, there was never any guarantee it was a Clan Mech this month, remember all four first Unseen were released in a row. secondly.... a 3060 MECH, not tech. IS will just finally be getting IS Tech II most likely, like the other ultras, LBXs, Streaks, maybe MRMs, Light Gauss, possibly Light fusion engines.

It was implied at MechCon that the Clans were skipped because they had the opportunity to release first entirely homebrew mech (Roughneck). Also that it was their intention to continue alternating IS/Clans (this will be third IS mech in a row). And comments at various places hinted at the Firemoth.

That being said, PGI has never shied away from making new variants when the canon conflicted with what they wanted to do. (Look at all those IIC mechs with an alphabetic designator. All of them, most clan battlemechs, are PGI-created).

As for tech...The Clans have been out for what, 30 months now? And apparently still not balanced. It does not give me any great sense of confidence in PGI's ability to balance level II(III?) tech, either against itself or against what is already in-game. The only upside will be the screaming won't be as one-sided when the nerf-hammer comes rolling around this time.

S0ulReapr, on 14 January 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

The have a much larger and more experienced dev group who nearly re-wrote the entire engine.

They had a developer who was able to dream up and market a vision that was able to bring in enough revenue to have that "larger and more experienced dev group who nearly re-wrote the entire engine."

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 14 January 2017 - 11:14 PM.

[Talos7]

Kael Posavatz, on 14 January 2017 - 11:12 PM, said:

As for tech...The Clans have been out for what, 30 months now? And apparently still not balanced. It does not give me any great sense of confidence in PGI's ability to balance level II(III?) tech, either against itself or against what is already in-game. The only upside will be the screaming won't be as one-sided when the nerf-hammer comes rolling around this time. "

This right here is exactly why I am not as excited about this new roll out of tech/weapons as I should be. This is exactly why I don't think its as big of an improvement as it could or should be.

Edited by Talos7, 14 January 2017 - 11:39 PM.

[mad kat]

Rhialto, on 13 January 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

What about those 2 problems?





I've seen another mech with similar shadow problem but didn't bother to take note of it.

Catapult doors float when open. Crab claws float when open....... Basically anything that the weapon door key does the shadow is separate from the mech........

While I'm at it how about the Victor's acceleration/deceleration glitch where the cockpit rotates significantly.

On this roadmap I read:

A. Clans get engine NERF to give them a fair penalty against is engines.

B. Mechs are getting their quirks removed (despite recently employing someone to do just that work on quirks) so what is it?

C. The skill tree is coming in February we think but don't know which could well stand to destroy the game for me. Moving the goal posts that much may just make me uninstall.

D. We're doing some new mechs but we can't decide how power creep and Hardpoint inflation will effect them.

C. Maybe we'll introduce mixed tech but seeing as how we can't balance what we already have after four years this will be a disaster in the making.

Edited by mad kat, 15 January 2017 - 01:16 AM.

[Aramuside]

Appuagab, on 14 January 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Wow, PGI finally got some balls to introduce new tech! Can't wait for MRM.
With upcoming new skill tree, IK and retirement of extortionist 50$ per mech distribution model there's only two things left that keep me from spending money on this game again:
1. B&W heat vision
2. Cry Engine

What on earth are you talking about? Mech packs aren't $50 a mech which is what they're retiring not hero mechs which are still here. I presume its a counter to no longer needing to level 3 mechs to get the one you want maxed so they'll sell 1 from each chasis in a pack. Either way even the $70 Ultimate packs gave you seven mechs not one.

[zzoxx]

I'm not too scared about any of that stuff. But, yays we get new music too! Wait.... #Mechcon_playlist #neverforget #sry_Tina

[Koniving]

S0ulReapr, on 14 January 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

The have a much larger and more experienced dev group who nearly re-wrote the entire engine.

I'm well aware.
This said... PGI has said they are giving us this technology for Mechwarrior 5 on the Unreal engine.

I wonder what it would take to convert MWO onto the Unreal engine....considering they are making MWO's single player component aka MW5 onto the Unreal Engine and it already looks better than MWO.

[Thomasso]

And one more idea for PGI.
Do sth with the sound. Esp with cannons sounds. AC/20 is just awful. Do sth please! Change then, let them be beefy

T.