13 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

Or was it another one of the features that was "held for release at MechCon" but then "not quite ready at MechCon but will be in the next patch" and then "oh look, it's almost a year later, keep buying Mech Packs, Mechwarrior 5 is gonna be great"?

Edited by Appogee, 04 March 2017 - 06:48 AM.

[Bud Crue]

I'd have to go back, but in June's town hall it was announced as coming back as early as July. But I have a vague recollection from...October maybe...wherein Russ casually said during a town hall that IK was indefinitely on hold as they were not able to do it with the current engine. It think it was the same townhall...hell maybe even the same discussion therein...where he said Solaris was on hold too because they couldn't get the replay function to work.

I'm not going back and watching so you're on you're own for confirmation, but I swear I remember him having a reason for its never ending delay.

[El Bandito]

Bud Crue, on 04 March 2017 - 06:59 AM, said:

I'd have to go back, but in June's town hall it was announced as coming back as early as July. But I have a vague recollection from...October maybe...wherein Russ casually said during a town hall that IK was indefinitely on hold as they were not able to do it with the current engine.

But the game did have IK before... so what engine limitations?

[Bud Crue]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

But the game did have IK before... so what engine limitations?

I don't remember what he said...but I swear he had a reason and I thought that was what was said.

Your gonna make me find it aren't you?

Gimme a few...

So edit 1: https://soundcloud.c...ck-june-17-2016
at around 1 hour 27min Inverse Kinematics was announced as returning in July. "Performance Reasons" cited as why it was originally removed "a former technical director's decision". Russ "something I don't care about but others do and it is coming back".

Edit2: https://mwomercs.com...map-and-beyond/
MECH IK delayed but will be instituted in 2017.

That's last word I can find. I still think there is a town hall where a more precise (though perhaps BS) excuse was given, I just can't find it atm.

Edited by Bud Crue, 04 March 2017 - 07:26 AM.

[Appogee]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

But the game did have IK before... so what engine limitations?

The only limitation I see is a development studio which keeps dangling features Soon™ while trying to pretend to its customers that it hasn't significantly decreased development of the product it's currently selling.

[El Bandito]

Bud Crue, on 04 March 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

So edit 1: https://soundcloud.c...ck-june-17-2016
at around 1 hour 27min Inverse Kinematics was announced as returning in July. "Performance Reasons" cited as why it was originally removed "a former technical director's decision". Russ "something I don't care about but others do and it is coming back".

I know IK was removed due to performance issue (means a lot of people's computers couldn't handle it and FPS suffered), same as spiraling LRMs, and old battle damage effects. But that performance issue has nothing to do with whether it can be implemented or not. IK can be implemented; it had been implemented. There is no engine issue blocking it from being in this game.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 March 2017 - 07:29 AM.

[Bud Crue]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

I know IK was removed due to performance issue (means a lot of people's computers couldn't handle it and FPS suffered), same as spiraling LRMs, and old battle damage effects. But that performance issue has nothing to do with whether it can be implemented or not. IK can be implemented; it had been implemented. There is no engine issue blocking it from being in this game.

I believe you, Russ may not though.

[C E Dwyer]

No it hasn't been it's another thing that keeps being put back over other priorities.

[Appogee]

Cathy, on 04 March 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

No it hasn't been it's another thing that keeps being put back over other priorities.

"Other priorities" like MW5, the unannounced project which led to a year of monthly patches, 3-monthly roadmaps that were claimed as being "a focus on patch quality", and the six-month vacuum of "we're keeping it til MechCon", and the claim that "we have a separate development team working on MW5 so MWO development won't be impacted".



I'm just tired of being lied to, waiting forever for things which are promised but continually pushed back by a developer that seems forever asleep in the cockpit.

Edited by Appogee, 04 March 2017 - 08:36 AM.

[Jackal Noble]

Dammit Appogee, why'd you have to go and bring a dose of reality here?
I thought it was generally understood that PGI is grossly incompetent, and that anything that wasn't a mech pack is considered a bonus.

BTW PGI, you had one job. One game!!!

Not getting MW5, just on my observation on how MWO has and is continuing to be handled. Yes there have been some marginal improvements, but largely the same.

First and easiest way to improve retention and still to this day not sure why it hasn't happened:
In game fluff - on the mechs, the weapons, the damn reason why CW is happening, the clans, the inner sphere - like WTF really easy stuff.

It's like a super-model that was aged 10 years past her "Best By" date, promptly put in stasis and then stuffed to the gills with cadaver beetles.

What is it, like a week before Battle Tech beta drops?

[Sorbic]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

I know IK was removed due to performance issue (means a lot of people's computers couldn't handle it and FPS suffered), same as spiraling LRMs, and old battle damage effects. But that performance issue has nothing to do with whether it can be implemented or not. IK can be implemented; it had been implemented. There is no engine issue blocking it from being in this game.

If the engine causes bigger FPS hits/limitations than other engines then it's not unreasonable to cite it as an obstacle.

[Jackal Noble]

Incompetence is also an obstacle

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

I know IK was removed due to performance issue (means a lot of people's computers couldn't handle it and FPS suffered), same as spiraling LRMs, and old battle damage effects. But that performance issue has nothing to do with whether it can be implemented or not. IK can be implemented; it had been implemented. There is no engine issue blocking it from being in this game.

I thought I heard that the issue was about client vs. server hit registration. IK were a client-based feature, so the leg position on your screen might not be the same leg position as the other guy's screen. You could thus have times when you hit a leg that shouldn't have been hit or vice-versa.

[Jackal Noble]

Why can't IK be implemented client side?