This topic is locked
Will we get acctual stats for the new weapons prior to release?
6
174 replies to this topic
#82
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 196 posts
Member
Posted 05 June 2017 - 07:05 AM
MovinTarget, on 05 June 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:
Huh, I thought they said they have some maps in the works...
but again, I love people that cry for maps but offer no input.
Maybe they don't care what the map layouts are, they just want variation, regardless of the pros/cons of the selected layouts?
I'm sure they could come up with a nice flat surface with no cover that the lurmers would drool for. Or a dense city map where brawlers would be happy.
I dunno, maybe I'm weird... I don't walk into a restaurant and demand "food", I try to provide some details of what I want.
I want variety. I want new things. I, like everyone who ever existed, want to feel that what I'm doing is kinda new even though it's just a small variation on the same old bare handful of themes.
This applies to maps spectacularly. Don't beat yourself to death on balance, don't spend tons and tons of time on the things, just make them. Lots of them. Bring them out and retire them regularly. Have a set of core maps that you make pretty and balanced and use for comp. Everything else should be in flux. We shouldn't be asking "why has it been so long since the last map?", we should be asking "what's the name of this month's urban map?" and complaining about last month's iterations.
We need bad maps. We need maps that suck. We need maps that don't let you use some of your weapons because they're designed in such a way that they're useless, and make some mech classes useless. These should come, go, and be available for private lobby.
We should be able to click off willingness to play on maps that aren't "core" maps.
Variety is the spice of life. If they can deliver regular variations on basic themes that are cleanly designed and balanced, great! Since they won't be able to, I just want "different" in regular heaping spoonfulls until I'm tired of it.
#83
-
-
- Field Marshal
- 3,831 posts
Member
- LocationGreen Acres
Posted 05 June 2017 - 07:42 AM
metallio, on 05 June 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:
I want variety. I want new things. I, like everyone who ever existed, want to feel that what I'm doing is kinda new even though it's just a small variation on the same old bare handful of themes.
I think the FCCW content might satisfy this statement.
metallio, on 05 June 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:
Don't beat yourself to death on balance, don't spend tons and tons of time on the things, just make them. Lots of them.
This might be, perhaps, the first time I've seen anyone post that PGI should put *less* thought into what they are doing...
metallio, on 05 June 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:
We need bad maps. We need maps that suck. We need maps that don't let you use some of your weapons because they're designed in such a way that they're useless, and make some mech classes useless.
Okay, maybe I get what you are saying here, but you'd have to basically eschew various meta configs (or boating in general) and adopt more of a "kitchen sink" mentality to have a hope of being remotely viable on some maps?
...The disconnects will be atrocious.
metallio, on 05 June 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:
Variety is the spice of life. If they can deliver regular variations on basic themes that are cleanly designed and balanced, great! Since they won't be able to, I just want "different" in regular heaping spoonfulls until I'm tired of it.
Varitey is the spice of life, and while, yes, more maps would be nice, w/o other work in the game, it'd be firing the same guns on the same mechs in the same modes... but with different scenery.
I'm not saying you are wrong for wanting more maps, but I would stop short of "IDK HOW CRAPPY IT IZ!!! GIMME TEH MAPZZZZzzzz!"
#84
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 196 posts
Member
Posted 05 June 2017 - 07:54 AM
Eh, this is PGI. I've played online games where there were vast stores of player made maps and they were hit and miss but fun to explore (all the Starcrafts, Left4Dead, etc) while some were better for comp than the basic maps (old Starcraft) and some were popular but rage inducing (Delta Force).
PGI doesn't make much content. They're scared of their own shadow and customer feedback. They barely even adjust the existing content most of the time and wait years for major adjustments that will need iterated and adjusted. This means that MWO doesn't see regular adjustment and new content, it sees stagnation and occasional big changes that tend to be as annoying as more regular updates but without the benefit of being "interesting" because you've settled into the way things have been operating for years.
They need to get off high center and start making "Stuff". I almost don't care what it is because once they start doing it they'll get better at it. That's why I want BAD maps...the more often they churn something out the better they'll get at it, and in the interim we'll get to play and laugh about how horrible some of this stuff is...if they got player support on some of that it'd get better even faster, but I'm not holding my breath.
If PGI were capable of doing the big stuff well I'd wait and soak up the new content as it rolls out. They aren't, so I'd like smaller things that are at least amusing even if they'll never be good enough to stick around long term. Make it, play it, laugh about it, trash it because it's terrible, move on to the next one.
Keep the existing stuff separated from it so you don't destroy your existing game. Some people will be interested in the new stuff and will be playing it instead of the core maps, but we don't have a population problem in QP so having an option to screw around in the newest thing and give feedback would be great, no matter how bad it is. If you don't waste much time creating it what's the worst that could happen? You only made a few players happy?
PGI doesn't make much content. They're scared of their own shadow and customer feedback. They barely even adjust the existing content most of the time and wait years for major adjustments that will need iterated and adjusted. This means that MWO doesn't see regular adjustment and new content, it sees stagnation and occasional big changes that tend to be as annoying as more regular updates but without the benefit of being "interesting" because you've settled into the way things have been operating for years.
They need to get off high center and start making "Stuff". I almost don't care what it is because once they start doing it they'll get better at it. That's why I want BAD maps...the more often they churn something out the better they'll get at it, and in the interim we'll get to play and laugh about how horrible some of this stuff is...if they got player support on some of that it'd get better even faster, but I'm not holding my breath.
If PGI were capable of doing the big stuff well I'd wait and soak up the new content as it rolls out. They aren't, so I'd like smaller things that are at least amusing even if they'll never be good enough to stick around long term. Make it, play it, laugh about it, trash it because it's terrible, move on to the next one.
Keep the existing stuff separated from it so you don't destroy your existing game. Some people will be interested in the new stuff and will be playing it instead of the core maps, but we don't have a population problem in QP so having an option to screw around in the newest thing and give feedback would be great, no matter how bad it is. If you don't waste much time creating it what's the worst that could happen? You only made a few players happy?
#85
-
-
- Stone Cold
- 144 posts
Member
- LocationNOLA
Posted 05 June 2017 - 07:58 AM
Kifferson von doober, on 03 June 2017 - 07:57 AM, said:
i've been wondering why not put out 2nd maps for each planet type . ie tourmaline 1 and 2, double the map variety but using existing assets and models. just a different area of the same planet.
would speed things up some
Also, do we have the old maps in private lobby? would be cool to see them again. it's been so long since i've seen a tunnel rush!
would speed things up some
Also, do we have the old maps in private lobby? would be cool to see them again. it's been so long since i've seen a tunnel rush!
That's a good idea. I also have proposed in the past that they put the old maps back into the mix as well. That would add 3 maps right back into the game. Granted, they aren't the best maps, but it would add variety.
What they really need to do is to let people make and submit their own maps. Part of what was great about old FPS games like Doom, CS, Unreal Tournament, Quake, etc. was the community making maps. I'll suggest again that if they put out a map making toolkit, have mapmakers submit a map by the 15th of each month, then decide on which map they like the best, and then give each mapmaker whose map is selected a prize, then we could have a new map a month.
#86
-
-
- The Slayer
- 910 posts
Member
- LocationUSA
Posted 05 June 2017 - 09:07 AM
Steinkrieg, on 05 June 2017 - 07:58 AM, said:
That's a good idea. I also have proposed in the past that they put the old maps back into the mix as well. That would add 3 maps right back into the game. Granted, they aren't the best maps, but it would add variety.
This idea has been brought up a lot, I think it just lacks a louder outcry. There wasn't really any different between metallio's current complaints about the current line up becoming stale and the old maps being stale. Unless players become more creative with their play styles and start playing in a less predictable fashion, every map will become stale. Other than considering varying the drop points, the old maps should be thrown in because they offered a variety of options, even if not regularly taken advantage. Old Terra Therma was a great map with a large variety of ways and places to force enemy engagements. Old Forest Colony offered 3 attack lanes despite being a bit linear, but creative teams and players found ways to vary tactics and battles.
Adding just those 2 maps back to the cycle would provide a huge boost to map and battle variety!
#87
-
-
- Stone Cold
- 144 posts
Member
- LocationNOLA
Posted 05 June 2017 - 09:14 AM
Another suggestion - drop decks for quick play.
No, not like in CW. Bear with me. Here are the steps I envision prematch start:
1. A NEW TAB HAS BEEN CREATED IN THE UI!
This tab is the Quick Play Drop deck tab. For every tonnage increment that you own, you are allowed to slot up to 3 mechs to choose from for that tonnage In order to maintain weight limit parity. So, for 100 tons, you could put 3 different KDKs of various builds, 50 tons you could slot a Huntsman, a Nova, and a HBK IIC. So forth and so on. The idea is to let the player slot the mechs of a specific tonnage in their drop deck to allow build variation based on the map chosen. So, before you even queue for a match, you have your Quickplay Drop decks slotted per ton.
2. When you click Quickplay solo, a new window pops up and says select Drop deck tonnage. You select the tonnage you want to play and click Quickplay. If you don't have a drop deck made, you can still just select the mech from your inventory and click play again.
2a. If you are in a group, instead of the mech selected displaying, you have a drop down menu that lets you select your drop deck tonnage. You click ready. The group lead Clicks play.
3. Map selection and mode selection occurs.
4. Prematch timer is the same, except when everyone is connected, it doesn't drop to 10 seconds or whatever it does now. It drops to 15 seconds to ensure that everyone that is connected has the chance to choose the mech they want out of their drop deck before the match starts. If no mech is selected, it defaults to the first mech in the drop deck.
----
Problems this seeks to solve:
1. Getting stuck in the wrong build for a particular map. EX: Brawler assault on Polar Highlands, laser boat on Tourmaline, Caustic, etc.
2. Allowing greater flexibility for groups to create better team comps.
3. Getting stuck in the wrong build for a particular game mode.
----
The framework is already there for drop decks and tonnage limits from CW. Not to say that we've all 'dropped in the wrong mech' for a particular match, but it has happened, and I think that a great flexibility with mech selection after map and mode selection would improve gameplay and player satisfaction.
No, not like in CW. Bear with me. Here are the steps I envision prematch start:
1. A NEW TAB HAS BEEN CREATED IN THE UI!
This tab is the Quick Play Drop deck tab. For every tonnage increment that you own, you are allowed to slot up to 3 mechs to choose from for that tonnage In order to maintain weight limit parity. So, for 100 tons, you could put 3 different KDKs of various builds, 50 tons you could slot a Huntsman, a Nova, and a HBK IIC. So forth and so on. The idea is to let the player slot the mechs of a specific tonnage in their drop deck to allow build variation based on the map chosen. So, before you even queue for a match, you have your Quickplay Drop decks slotted per ton.
2. When you click Quickplay solo, a new window pops up and says select Drop deck tonnage. You select the tonnage you want to play and click Quickplay. If you don't have a drop deck made, you can still just select the mech from your inventory and click play again.
2a. If you are in a group, instead of the mech selected displaying, you have a drop down menu that lets you select your drop deck tonnage. You click ready. The group lead Clicks play.
3. Map selection and mode selection occurs.
4. Prematch timer is the same, except when everyone is connected, it doesn't drop to 10 seconds or whatever it does now. It drops to 15 seconds to ensure that everyone that is connected has the chance to choose the mech they want out of their drop deck before the match starts. If no mech is selected, it defaults to the first mech in the drop deck.
----
Problems this seeks to solve:
1. Getting stuck in the wrong build for a particular map. EX: Brawler assault on Polar Highlands, laser boat on Tourmaline, Caustic, etc.
2. Allowing greater flexibility for groups to create better team comps.
3. Getting stuck in the wrong build for a particular game mode.
----
The framework is already there for drop decks and tonnage limits from CW. Not to say that we've all 'dropped in the wrong mech' for a particular match, but it has happened, and I think that a great flexibility with mech selection after map and mode selection would improve gameplay and player satisfaction.
Edited by Steinkrieg, 05 June 2017 - 09:18 AM.
#88
-
-
- Field Marshal
- 3,831 posts
Member
- LocationGreen Acres
Posted 05 June 2017 - 09:54 AM
I like suggestions like this, its something that can be discussed and in this case, I can get behind it.
The one thing is that there are really two basic reasons for dropping... I mean there are lots but to me there are two that stand out:
1) get paid (in some sort of reward)
2) level a mech (in hopes of using it to get paid)
The above suggestion is really enticing for (1) but can be dang frustrating for (2)... the only question is, would it be more frustrating than what we have already?
So how about this as an addendum (since we are spitballing), lets say you can enter the same queue but in two different ways. You can queue and pick from 3 mechs as described above, or you can double down on one mech and get a modifier on your XP/cbills. This way regardless of the map you are maybe getting a little something extra to help your development.
Actually, instead of getting XP/CBills in that latter scenario, they could basically just guarantee you get +1 Skill Point win/lose/draw at the end of the match on top of whatever else you earned... this makes it literally a option only for leveling mechs...
The one thing is that there are really two basic reasons for dropping... I mean there are lots but to me there are two that stand out:
1) get paid (in some sort of reward)
2) level a mech (in hopes of using it to get paid)
The above suggestion is really enticing for (1) but can be dang frustrating for (2)... the only question is, would it be more frustrating than what we have already?
So how about this as an addendum (since we are spitballing), lets say you can enter the same queue but in two different ways. You can queue and pick from 3 mechs as described above, or you can double down on one mech and get a modifier on your XP/cbills. This way regardless of the map you are maybe getting a little something extra to help your development.
Actually, instead of getting XP/CBills in that latter scenario, they could basically just guarantee you get +1 Skill Point win/lose/draw at the end of the match on top of whatever else you earned... this makes it literally a option only for leveling mechs...
Edited by MovinTarget, 05 June 2017 - 09:59 AM.
#89
-
-
- The Blade
- 3,459 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 05 June 2017 - 10:06 AM
PFC Carsten, on 05 June 2017 - 12:00 AM, said:
That's a very lovely looking game. Feeling seems right for a Mech game too. What is it's name and why cannot PGI take a leaf out of this game's book?
I would really pay dollars for a game like that. Wait... I did! Where's my game?!?!?
TBH, we can't enjoy most of the mech game nowadays, because you are blasting away your target in 2 cooldowns / 8 seconds or get melted yourself at the same speed.
If we had less alpha warrior online, we could have the same gameplay fun as in the Beta (slow and hulky giant mechs fighting a long battle).
Bot no, Energy Draw is so evil and nobody likes Ghost heat or other "limits", because it feels so satisfying to burst away your 60dmg alpha into the poor little target (another player who does not have fun being on the recieving end of the alpha)...
#90
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 171 posts
Member
Posted 05 June 2017 - 10:48 AM
"Faction Play Timeline Advancement"
I wonder if this means we will see some additional factions or the elimination of some factions (smoke jaguar)...I mean I guess it ultimately doesn't matter with the one bucket approach but I think it would be cool to see the addition of a wolf-in-exile and Nova Cat IS faction that uses Clan tech.....also a word of Blake faction would be tasty.....at the very least it would be something of little impact that could tickle the fancy of some of the lore enthusiast.
I wonder if this means we will see some additional factions or the elimination of some factions (smoke jaguar)...I mean I guess it ultimately doesn't matter with the one bucket approach but I think it would be cool to see the addition of a wolf-in-exile and Nova Cat IS faction that uses Clan tech.....also a word of Blake faction would be tasty.....at the very least it would be something of little impact that could tickle the fancy of some of the lore enthusiast.
#91
-
-
- Little Helper
- 4,247 posts
Member
- LocationUnknown... Except for the stars, it's kind of dark here!
Posted 05 June 2017 - 03:31 PM
Just got a look at the roadmap... Some things good, some actually bad... I might as well give a rundown on my take of the whole mess, but I'm skipping things I wouldn't have any current useful input on...
Faction Play Updates
For starters, the replacement of Assault with Incursion wasn't exactly the best choice. It would have been better to swap out Skirmish, and then resequence the set of modes. A layout of "Assault > Domination > Conquest > Incursion > Siege" would have worked out rather well, but also maintained the "War Motif" at the same time, unlike how Skirmish seemingly just tosses it all to the wind.
As for the Randomizer, hopefully that being added on will take care of some of the annoyances.
Balance Adjustments
Read it, not happy either. PGI's trying to do an unnecessary reinventing of the wheel, when everything is mostly already right with consideration to being prior to July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Instead of this massive change they're trying to shove down out throats, all they really need to do is simply put the LRM Baseline Range back up to "960 to 1000 meters", and then have the Skill Tree Nodes add to it from there. A small change in the manner I've just stated is all that's needed to diffuse a larger change of any kind to current weapons balance until July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Right now, I could swear they've failed to realize less tweaking is better. Worse, I could swear PGI is also failing again to read forums, and therefore is also failing to listen to logical minds that want to help them make their game last for a long time to come.
Turret Performance Optimizations
We'll see what happens with this one. If I do see any performance improvements on an AMD Dual-Core, I'll be mildly surprised, given that a lot of my graphics settings are low due to how heavy MWO simply is on the CPU.
Sound Caching & Performance Optimizations
There's more problems to fix than just JumpJets here... that was only the most blatant of them. Frankly, it seemed like there was no issue prior to the 'New Skill Trees', which would suggest that "they somehow stopped caching prior to loading the initial game interface, and then keeping it cached until the game was shut down", but only with the most recent patch. I'll be watching (or more like listening) severely on this count. Also, there has been a severe loss of multichannel sound over the last six patches, as well as a complete loss of some Dialogue and Sound Effects at the beginning and during matches, so let's hope PGI finally fixes that awful mess. It has been more than just annoying or disconcerting... It's been disorienting, frankly.
Private Lobbies -- Premium Time Requirement Removed
I'll file this one under "About Danged Time, PGI!"... Why? Because other than things mentioned by other people already, it has been real hell to practice, have unrated fun, or even check out some things. Plus, this will also give PGI room to show off their New Map Ideas, and then get useful Feedback before actually placing them into the normal map voting, which will allow maps to be more polished from the start, instead of being half-baked insanity. I would like to think that we can all get behind that positive note, and roll forward from there?
...and with that, I'll leave it there for now at having gone through June's set of items. I'll skip emotes due to post length, and deal with feedback about July's part of the Road Map in another post later on this thread. No, really, I don't see the point in making the post full of stuff for all the parts, which would make people stop reading due to "Awful 'Wall Of Text'-itis"...
~Mr. D. V. "Not pushing this beyond a 'Screen-Full-And-A-Half'..." Devnull
Faction Play Updates
For starters, the replacement of Assault with Incursion wasn't exactly the best choice. It would have been better to swap out Skirmish, and then resequence the set of modes. A layout of "Assault > Domination > Conquest > Incursion > Siege" would have worked out rather well, but also maintained the "War Motif" at the same time, unlike how Skirmish seemingly just tosses it all to the wind.
As for the Randomizer, hopefully that being added on will take care of some of the annoyances.
Balance Adjustments
Read it, not happy either. PGI's trying to do an unnecessary reinventing of the wheel, when everything is mostly already right with consideration to being prior to July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Instead of this massive change they're trying to shove down out throats, all they really need to do is simply put the LRM Baseline Range back up to "960 to 1000 meters", and then have the Skill Tree Nodes add to it from there. A small change in the manner I've just stated is all that's needed to diffuse a larger change of any kind to current weapons balance until July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Right now, I could swear they've failed to realize less tweaking is better. Worse, I could swear PGI is also failing again to read forums, and therefore is also failing to listen to logical minds that want to help them make their game last for a long time to come.
Turret Performance Optimizations
We'll see what happens with this one. If I do see any performance improvements on an AMD Dual-Core, I'll be mildly surprised, given that a lot of my graphics settings are low due to how heavy MWO simply is on the CPU.
Sound Caching & Performance Optimizations
There's more problems to fix than just JumpJets here... that was only the most blatant of them. Frankly, it seemed like there was no issue prior to the 'New Skill Trees', which would suggest that "they somehow stopped caching prior to loading the initial game interface, and then keeping it cached until the game was shut down", but only with the most recent patch. I'll be watching (or more like listening) severely on this count. Also, there has been a severe loss of multichannel sound over the last six patches, as well as a complete loss of some Dialogue and Sound Effects at the beginning and during matches, so let's hope PGI finally fixes that awful mess. It has been more than just annoying or disconcerting... It's been disorienting, frankly.
Private Lobbies -- Premium Time Requirement Removed
I'll file this one under "About Danged Time, PGI!"... Why? Because other than things mentioned by other people already, it has been real hell to practice, have unrated fun, or even check out some things. Plus, this will also give PGI room to show off their New Map Ideas, and then get useful Feedback before actually placing them into the normal map voting, which will allow maps to be more polished from the start, instead of being half-baked insanity. I would like to think that we can all get behind that positive note, and roll forward from there?
...and with that, I'll leave it there for now at having gone through June's set of items. I'll skip emotes due to post length, and deal with feedback about July's part of the Road Map in another post later on this thread. No, really, I don't see the point in making the post full of stuff for all the parts, which would make people stop reading due to "Awful 'Wall Of Text'-itis"...
~Mr. D. V. "Not pushing this beyond a 'Screen-Full-And-A-Half'..." Devnull
#92
-
-
- The Dragoon
- 1,444 posts
Member
- Google+: Link
- LocationA fog where no one notices the contrast of white on white
Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:52 PM
Steinkrieg, on 05 June 2017 - 07:58 AM, said:
That's a good idea. I also have proposed in the past that they put the old maps back into the mix as well. That would add 3 maps right back into the game. Granted, they aren't the best maps, but it would add variety.
What they really need to do is to let people make and submit their own maps... then we could have a new map a month.
What they really need to do is to let people make and submit their own maps... then we could have a new map a month.
I've been saying this for months, and I'm sure I didn't think of it first. Question is, will PGI ever consider it?
PGI are you there? Hello?
#93
-
-
- The People's Hero
- 106 posts
Member
- LocationTaiwan
Posted 05 June 2017 - 07:26 PM
Hiya!
PGI has a lot of work ahead with the new weapons, LFEs, balancing, etc. They need money by selling mechs. However, they also need to understand that a game with varied game modes and maps also brings in more love and money from the player base.
Unfortunately, maps are desperately needed. Furthermore, interesting game modes are also needed. Incursion was a good idea, but not for PUG Queues. Escorting a VIP that is a potato is not fun either. In fact, all game modes (except for Skirmish), need an injection of motivation if one succeeds in objectives.
Conquest needs some buffs if one captures a conquest point (a friendly dropship with lazors, or ECM cover for a short period of time, etc). Perhaps borrow some offensive/defensive buffs from Incursion.
Assault also needs the old bases back. It at least needs some walls to make it difficult for the enemy to assault the base.
Incursion is fine for Group Queues where there is much better coordination. Some people have mentioned an asymmetric version (attackers vs defenders) which I think is a nice idea and would be good for PUGs and Groups.
Escort Make the potato at least torso twist. LOL Oh! And the potato sometimes gets stuck in Crimson Strait.
o7
Edit: I don't think the IK is necessary. It should be super low priority. The problem is not with the IK equation programming, it is the synchronization between all of the connected clients in the match. 24 x 2 legs with their respective hitboxes must be synchronized to have an acceptable hit registration (25 x 2 legs if Escort mode). And all the friggin' ping difference is also a problem.
Here is an IK example in the new Battletech game <3. Look at the pretty Centurion legs.
PGI has a lot of work ahead with the new weapons, LFEs, balancing, etc. They need money by selling mechs. However, they also need to understand that a game with varied game modes and maps also brings in more love and money from the player base.
Unfortunately, maps are desperately needed. Furthermore, interesting game modes are also needed. Incursion was a good idea, but not for PUG Queues. Escorting a VIP that is a potato is not fun either. In fact, all game modes (except for Skirmish), need an injection of motivation if one succeeds in objectives.
Conquest needs some buffs if one captures a conquest point (a friendly dropship with lazors, or ECM cover for a short period of time, etc). Perhaps borrow some offensive/defensive buffs from Incursion.
Assault also needs the old bases back. It at least needs some walls to make it difficult for the enemy to assault the base.
Incursion is fine for Group Queues where there is much better coordination. Some people have mentioned an asymmetric version (attackers vs defenders) which I think is a nice idea and would be good for PUGs and Groups.
Escort Make the potato at least torso twist. LOL Oh! And the potato sometimes gets stuck in Crimson Strait.
o7
Edit: I don't think the IK is necessary. It should be super low priority. The problem is not with the IK equation programming, it is the synchronization between all of the connected clients in the match. 24 x 2 legs with their respective hitboxes must be synchronized to have an acceptable hit registration (25 x 2 legs if Escort mode). And all the friggin' ping difference is also a problem.
Here is an IK example in the new Battletech game <3. Look at the pretty Centurion legs.
Edited by AnHell86, 05 June 2017 - 08:09 PM.
#94
-
-
- Little Helper
- 4,247 posts
Member
- LocationUnknown... Except for the stars, it's kind of dark here!
Posted 05 June 2017 - 10:55 PM
D V Devnull, on 05 June 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:
Balance Adjustments
Read it, not happy either. PGI's trying to do an unnecessary reinventing of the wheel, when everything is mostly already right with consideration to being prior to July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Instead of this massive change they're trying to shove down out throats, all they really need to do is simply put the LRM Baseline Range back up to "960 to 1000 meters", and then have the Skill Tree Nodes add to it from there. A small change in the manner I've just stated is all that's needed to diffuse a larger change of any kind to current weapons balance until July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Right now, I could swear they've failed to realize less tweaking is better. Worse, I could swear PGI is also failing again to read forums, and therefore is also failing to listen to logical minds that want to help them make their game last for a long time to come.
Read it, not happy either. PGI's trying to do an unnecessary reinventing of the wheel, when everything is mostly already right with consideration to being prior to July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Instead of this massive change they're trying to shove down out throats, all they really need to do is simply put the LRM Baseline Range back up to "960 to 1000 meters", and then have the Skill Tree Nodes add to it from there. A small change in the manner I've just stated is all that's needed to diffuse a larger change of any kind to current weapons balance until July's 'Civil War Update' Patch. Right now, I could swear they've failed to realize less tweaking is better. Worse, I could swear PGI is also failing again to read forums, and therefore is also failing to listen to logical minds that want to help them make their game last for a long time to come.
Okay, I'm gonna call myself out on this one, even though this means I'm getting long-winded again. There was a point I didn't make while posting this, in order to give PGI time to undo making LRMs into such a Bad Weapon System. But I'm realizing much sooner than I thought that I would be forced to utterly and completely point the following problem out, leaving PGI exposed to the hate of anyone whose mind would wake up after reading my words.
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety. Snipers now have completely free reign... But, even worse, so now do the mid-range and long-range skirmishers and brawlers who are using AC10-Series Weaponry, as even they can now out-range an LRM user... This should NOT be allowed. It was already bad enough that those using Series of ERLL/PPC/Gauss/AC2/AC5 Weapons, or simply had AMS/ECM/'Radar Deprivation' (for a Grand Total of 19 ways before) were all able to Counter LRMs, but adding the AC10-Series of Weapons has pushed it to an obnoxious 24 ways of Countering LRMs. Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
Further, why is PGI even "babying" these Anti-LRM Whiners which I've heard about? Those Whiners need to learn to actually use Terrain Cover on a map, and available Weapons/Equipment/Skill Options. Letting those Whiners have their way over a Weapon System they don't like -- and thereby hurting those that were trying to use LRMs to help their team -- only reinforces their terrible habits where they just sit out and pick others off without any repercussions. That kind of bad game design should never be allowed to stand. The ability of LRM Users to start long, come in strong, and then help a team properly really should have been left present, instead of alienating those people. Not everyone likes to be stuck using Direct Fire, only to find a Teammate jumping in the way and causing them penalties -- that's why LRMs are supposed to be part of the MechWarrior games, regardless of the incarnation, and unnerfed as well.
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
#95
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 998 posts
Member
Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:06 PM
MovinTarget, on 05 June 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:
I think the FCCW content might satisfy this statement. This might be, perhaps, the first time I've seen anyone post that PGI should put *less* thought into what they are doing... Okay, maybe I get what you are saying here, but you'd have to basically eschew various meta configs (or boating in general) and adopt more of a "kitchen sink" mentality to have a hope of being remotely viable on some maps? ...The disconnects will be atrocious. Varitey is the spice of life, and while, yes, more maps would be nice, w/o other work in the game, it'd be firing the same guns on the same mechs in the same modes... but with different scenery. I'm not saying you are wrong for wanting more maps, but I would stop short of "IDK HOW CRAPPY IT IZ!!! GIMME TEH MAPZZZZzzzz!"
Have to be honest I get where he's coming from but the silly voting method people demanded means we barely see most of the handful of maps and modes we have.
Either way the game badly needs new maps far more than it needs IK which apparently is a higher priority.
Colour me confused.
#96
-
-
- Bad Company
- 32 posts
Member
Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:49 PM
Dont know how the rest of you guys, but I am tired of the same right side rotation, racing 3x circles around everytime with the same pattern.....really boring. Even driving tanks in WOT is every time different.....
We urgently need new maps, different spawn point, various objective locations, game physics....before it gets boring routine
We urgently need new maps, different spawn point, various objective locations, game physics....before it gets boring routine
#97
-
-
- Survivor
- 441 posts
Member
- LocationUkraine
Posted 06 June 2017 - 12:23 AM
Let the community help you with maps - organize challenge with map ideas and designs, make voting, give prizes and implement maps in game - all will be happy. Can’t stand those old maps over and over again anymore.
Also MWLL conquest in MUST HAVE - you have the license why you don't make it? Please make that mode and you provide yourself solid players base for decades forward.
Also MWLL conquest in MUST HAVE - you have the license why you don't make it? Please make that mode and you provide yourself solid players base for decades forward.
#98
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 998 posts
Member
Posted 06 June 2017 - 01:00 AM
D V Devnull, on 05 June 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:
Okay, I'm gonna call myself out on this one, even though this means I'm getting long-winded again. There was a point I didn't make while posting this, in order to give PGI time to undo making LRMs into such a Bad Weapon System. But I'm realizing much sooner than I thought that I would be forced to utterly and completely point the following problem out, leaving PGI exposed to the hate of anyone whose mind would wake up after reading my words.
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety. Snipers now have completely free reign... But, even worse, so now do the mid-range and long-range skirmishers and brawlers who are using AC10-Series Weaponry, as even they can now out-range an LRM user... This should NOT be allowed. It was already bad enough that those using Series of ERLL/PPC/Gauss/AC2/AC5 Weapons, or simply had AMS/ECM/'Radar Deprivation' (for a Grand Total of 19 ways before) were all able to Counter LRMs, but adding the AC10-Series of Weapons has pushed it to an obnoxious 24 ways of Countering LRMs. Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
Further, why is PGI even "babying" these Anti-LRM Whiners which I've heard about? Those Whiners need to learn to actually use Terrain Cover on a map, and available Weapons/Equipment/Skill Options. Letting those Whiners have their way over a Weapon System they don't like -- and thereby hurting those that were trying to use LRMs to help their team -- only reinforces their terrible habits where they just sit out and pick others off without any repercussions. That kind of bad game design should never be allowed to stand. The ability of LRM Users to start long, come in strong, and then help a team properly really should have been left present, instead of alienating those people. Not everyone likes to be stuck using Direct Fire, only to find a Teammate jumping in the way and causing them penalties -- that's why LRMs are supposed to be part of the MechWarrior games, regardless of the incarnation, and unnerfed as well.
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety. Snipers now have completely free reign... But, even worse, so now do the mid-range and long-range skirmishers and brawlers who are using AC10-Series Weaponry, as even they can now out-range an LRM user... This should NOT be allowed. It was already bad enough that those using Series of ERLL/PPC/Gauss/AC2/AC5 Weapons, or simply had AMS/ECM/'Radar Deprivation' (for a Grand Total of 19 ways before) were all able to Counter LRMs, but adding the AC10-Series of Weapons has pushed it to an obnoxious 24 ways of Countering LRMs. Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
Further, why is PGI even "babying" these Anti-LRM Whiners which I've heard about? Those Whiners need to learn to actually use Terrain Cover on a map, and available Weapons/Equipment/Skill Options. Letting those Whiners have their way over a Weapon System they don't like -- and thereby hurting those that were trying to use LRMs to help their team -- only reinforces their terrible habits where they just sit out and pick others off without any repercussions. That kind of bad game design should never be allowed to stand. The ability of LRM Users to start long, come in strong, and then help a team properly really should have been left present, instead of alienating those people. Not everyone likes to be stuck using Direct Fire, only to find a Teammate jumping in the way and causing them penalties -- that's why LRMs are supposed to be part of the MechWarrior games, regardless of the incarnation, and unnerfed as well.
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
Whereas before we just fit a module for 100% radar dep to the mech before we even started leveling it. You rather missed that point. You also accidentally forgot the minimum 9 skillpoints to get that 60% which are such precious commodities I don't even use them on quite a few mechs. But we get it you're a campaigner for LRM's....
Personally I'm all up for AMS being boosted to where I consider its worth taking but I think there's very little chance of that.
#99
-
-
- The Blade
- 3,459 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 06 June 2017 - 03:07 AM
D V Devnull, on 05 June 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:
snip...
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety.
....
Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
...
snip
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety.
....
Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
...
snip
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
I think you see a bit too much problem by the low change of 100 meter.
Who cares about 100m if your LRM is taking 4 seconds to get to 900m?
You basically need to get to 600m or closer to be of any use ANYWAY.
skill tree didn't change anything here (outside of the ability to only spec 20% increments for Radar Derp).
And the "ability" to be in BAP range, but outside ECM range to fire at about 180-240m is hardly a new problem, but is a long time issue with ECM.
What should be different is ECM hard-counter being a soft-counter (remember Info-War PTS3 over a year ago).
This leaves 90% of your feedback looking like overreacting for me.
Let's see what they come up with for the Energy Rebalancing before actually deeming it wasted because they are not looking at the LRMs.
#100
-
-
- The Deadly
- 337 posts
Member
Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:19 AM
I'm super excited for the loyalty mechs. Give us a hint!
Tldnr
D V Devnull, on 05 June 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:
Okay, I'm gonna call myself out on this one, even though this means I'm getting long-winded again. There was a point I didn't make while posting this, in order to give PGI time to undo making LRMs into such a Bad Weapon System. But I'm realizing much sooner than I thought that I would be forced to utterly and completely point the following problem out, leaving PGI exposed to the hate of anyone whose mind would wake up after reading my words.
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety. Snipers now have completely free reign... But, even worse, so now do the mid-range and long-range skirmishers and brawlers who are using AC10-Series Weaponry, as even they can now out-range an LRM user... This should NOT be allowed. It was already bad enough that those using Series of ERLL/PPC/Gauss/AC2/AC5 Weapons, or simply had AMS/ECM/'Radar Deprivation' (for a Grand Total of 19 ways before) were all able to Counter LRMs, but adding the AC10-Series of Weapons has pushed it to an obnoxious 24 ways of Countering LRMs. Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
Further, why is PGI even "babying" these Anti-LRM Whiners which I've heard about? Those Whiners need to learn to actually use Terrain Cover on a map, and available Weapons/Equipment/Skill Options. Letting those Whiners have their way over a Weapon System they don't like -- and thereby hurting those that were trying to use LRMs to help their team -- only reinforces their terrible habits where they just sit out and pick others off without any repercussions. That kind of bad game design should never be allowed to stand. The ability of LRM Users to start long, come in strong, and then help a team properly really should have been left present, instead of alienating those people. Not everyone likes to be stuck using Direct Fire, only to find a Teammate jumping in the way and causing them penalties -- that's why LRMs are supposed to be part of the MechWarrior games, regardless of the incarnation, and unnerfed as well.
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
The problem is this... Anybody who gets at least "40% to 60% of 'Radar Deprivation' Skill Nodes" (that's just 2 or 3 unlocks) immediately causes LRMs to be as bad as (if not worse than) they were before the LRM Baseline Range Nerf. Combine that with the loss in 'Arch Angle Control' that losing 100 Meters of Baseline Range has caused, and LRMs are instantly ruined in their entirety. Snipers now have completely free reign... But, even worse, so now do the mid-range and long-range skirmishers and brawlers who are using AC10-Series Weaponry, as even they can now out-range an LRM user... This should NOT be allowed. It was already bad enough that those using Series of ERLL/PPC/Gauss/AC2/AC5 Weapons, or simply had AMS/ECM/'Radar Deprivation' (for a Grand Total of 19 ways before) were all able to Counter LRMs, but adding the AC10-Series of Weapons has pushed it to an obnoxious 24 ways of Countering LRMs. Stack against this the fact that there needs to be room to insert MRM/ATM Missile Weapons, I.S. Streak SRM Weapons, plus a host of other things including Range Nodes on the Skill Tree being far too mandatory to make LRMs of any reasonable use, and the LRM Baseline Range Nerf needs to be undone by at least 60 Meters to place it at 960 Meters, if not fully undone and the Range returned to 1000 Meters. Plus, restoring the LRM Baseline Range up to 960-1000 Meters is also a hell of a lot easier fix than trying to completely rewrite the Energy Weapons Table, and I know PGI likes to pick the most easy fix available to them.
Further, why is PGI even "babying" these Anti-LRM Whiners which I've heard about? Those Whiners need to learn to actually use Terrain Cover on a map, and available Weapons/Equipment/Skill Options. Letting those Whiners have their way over a Weapon System they don't like -- and thereby hurting those that were trying to use LRMs to help their team -- only reinforces their terrible habits where they just sit out and pick others off without any repercussions. That kind of bad game design should never be allowed to stand. The ability of LRM Users to start long, come in strong, and then help a team properly really should have been left present, instead of alienating those people. Not everyone likes to be stuck using Direct Fire, only to find a Teammate jumping in the way and causing them penalties -- that's why LRMs are supposed to be part of the MechWarrior games, regardless of the incarnation, and unnerfed as well.
~Mr. D. V. "Slapping down with the truth onto the table, because I can't take the stress of silence anymore..." Devnull
Tldnr
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
