Mwo Production Update!
#81
Posted 03 March 2018 - 08:44 PM
I really do hope Russ reconsiders improving Faction Play during the downtime - oferrring real incentives to being a loyalist vs being a merc. FP should give pilots a sense of progression - it’s almost non existent. The community has given so many ideas, e.g., capturing planets could give exclusive bonuses to allied forces.
And, Russ should tone down the alcohol when representing MWO. It just made me think he needed the alcohol to survive the interview. :/
#82
Posted 03 March 2018 - 09:00 PM
AnHell86, on 03 March 2018 - 08:44 PM, said:
I really do hope Russ reconsiders improving Faction Play during the downtime - oferrring real incentives to being a loyalist vs being a merc. FP should give pilots a sense of progression - it’s almost non existent. The community has given so many ideas, e.g., capturing planets could give exclusive bonuses to allied forces.
And, Russ should tone down the alcohol when representing MWO. It just made me think he needed the alcohol to survive the interview. :/
actually.. that's just how Russ is all the time. he isn't drunk. they really should get the Vice-president to do more. guy's a lot better of a "face" i find, when i've met them before.
#83
Posted 04 March 2018 - 12:15 AM
Arkhangel, on 02 March 2018 - 11:33 PM, said:
I for one am fine with 12v12, specially as we have solaris incoming for speedy matches anyways. might actually weed out the guys who like doing their own thing from team playmodes.
There is enough support, the problem is PGI is only listening to streamers, Twitter and Reddit. Most people who play this game are older and have real lives and can't be on social media all day long.
Arkhangel, on 03 March 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:
I should talk to Russ, I drink more than him, I just can't afford the fancy stuff.
Edited by Ed Steele, 04 March 2018 - 12:13 AM.
#84
Posted 04 March 2018 - 03:50 AM
MovinTarget, on 03 March 2018 - 05:30 PM, said:
Not tying convergence to time.
A simpler solution is to tie convergence to the range of your targeted object. That way if you do not target the object, there is no convergence or it converges to a given range. Yes the convergence would be more or less instant, but this means you can't juggle targets too quickly, or efficiently hit things that you can't target. This would make ECM quite powerful, but if coupled with many of the other things PGI said they would make for information warfare but never did, then you'd have sensor and jamming buoys to drop.
What would the new balance would really depend on is how PGI handles it from here. But of a neat thought is this, lets say you're a rifle man wanting to corner shoot from behind a building. Don't target anyone, and you can make potshots going straight out from behind the building.
Or be able to pull this final shot off again, which at the time was only possible due to delayed convergence and suddenly losing convergenc due to the wall in front of me.
I'm not able to find a really good Starsiege video depicting it.. But if you don't have a target locked, you had convergence to the reticle at whatever distance (and with so few objects in that old game, this usually meant it would converge about 800 meters away, where if you have the target locked it would converge at that range, regardless of whether you aim at the target or not). Starsiege had Mechs...well Hercs...that physically cloaked and became invisible, but it still worked there. Not sure why it couldn't be made to work here even with ECM.
This is actually going to be beneficial to autocannon and LBX use, as this means convergence would be more or less where you want it as you lead the target, making them more viable. Lasers would effectively be the same, but striking one person and then the next without changing locks wouldn't be as efficient.
Since targeting is a server side queue, perhaps f there is a time delay, this would standardize it as opposed to constantly trying to listen to the crosshairs for distance. Get a target beat, when the sensor data of equipment is given, simultaneously complete an accurate convergence calibration? This would also mean that readily known targets would be faster to converge for while unknown targets would take longer. Just might depend on how people feel on it.
Edited by Koniving, 04 March 2018 - 06:37 AM.
#85
Posted 04 March 2018 - 10:20 AM
I'm looking forward to Solaris. But I must admit I care more about Faction.
The decal (dee-cal) thing is cool but trivial in my view. Adding my own custom decals would be cool (but I recall why that wouldn't work from the plethora of porn decals in MW4).
I strongly disagree that there are "lots" of maps. Many of us that played MW4 through various incarnations know what it's like to have over 100 multiplayer maps to choose from. Telling us otherwise is silly. I get that the dev team can only focus on certain high return tasks. But letting the community build content would offload some of the weight and allow a rebirth of interest.
#86
Posted 04 March 2018 - 11:27 AM
MovinTarget, on 03 March 2018 - 06:49 AM, said:
...and thats for the people that KNOW how to twist...
My thought is that its almost a "focus" thing where if you can keep your reticle fixed on the same point long enough for convergence, you'll get pintpoint. In other words you have a cone, but it can get smaller if you have a steady, patient hand. It would increase difficulty of poptarting w/o killing it, it would create risk/reward scenarios for quality shots. It would make long range pinpoint harder without necessarily penalizing brawling.
C337Skymaster, on 03 March 2018 - 08:45 AM, said:
There was a suggestion I saw, once, to have accuracy connected to your target lock (which actually fits with some of the books I've finally been able to read). Targeting Computers with target locks, range, all improve the accuracy of your weapons. Especially since IS now has their own targeting computers. It'd be nice if they got the tonnage restrictions in there with them, though.
I like the idea of some kind of variable focus system or target lock decay for maximum convergence, rather than a permanent random cone system.
#87
Posted 04 March 2018 - 02:07 PM
Arkhangel, on 03 March 2018 - 07:09 PM, said:
First of all, with an attitude like that, your name is a complete waste.. nothing angelic there..
Second of all, the map's design is simply not good.. the heat is just a part of it.. Then there's clutter, pathways and areas that nobody ever uses, and waaay too much cover..
It's simply a bad bad map..
#88
Posted 04 March 2018 - 03:13 PM
Vellron2005, on 04 March 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:
First of all, with an attitude like that, your name is a complete waste.. nothing angelic there..
Second of all, the map's design is simply not good.. the heat is just a part of it.. Then there's clutter, pathways and areas that nobody ever uses, and waaay too much cover..
It's simply a bad bad map..
Isn't that like every map though? There's plenty of areas that never see use on a lot of maps. That's a very common complaint about most maps.
#89
Posted 04 March 2018 - 03:40 PM
Vellron2005, on 04 March 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:
First of all, with an attitude like that, your name is a complete waste.. nothing angelic there..
Second of all, the map's design is simply not good.. the heat is just a part of it.. Then there's clutter, pathways and areas that nobody ever uses, and waaay too much cover..
It's simply a bad bad map..
So, lemme guess... you like Polar Highlands, don't you.
#90
Posted 04 March 2018 - 03:59 PM
Vellron2005, on 04 March 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:
First of all, with an attitude like that, your name is a complete waste.. nothing angelic there..
Second of all, the map's design is simply not good.. the heat is just a part of it.. Then there's clutter, pathways and areas that nobody ever uses, and waaay too much cover..
It's simply a bad bad map..
Most good maps have evolving tactics. People get used to the same maneuvers, then some enterprising people decide to mix things up.
If you never have a variety of options, the map will stagnate.
Edited by MovinTarget, 04 March 2018 - 05:29 PM.
#91
Posted 04 March 2018 - 05:40 PM
Luscious Dan, on 02 March 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:
... must be a qestion of taste because I really don't see one looking any better than the other. The mech has always been ugly as sin.
#93
Posted 04 March 2018 - 11:27 PM
#94
Posted 04 March 2018 - 11:43 PM
Ed Steele, on 04 March 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:
There is enough support, the problem is PGI is only listening to streamers, Twitter and Reddit. Most people who play this game are older and have real lives and can't be on social media all day long.
I should talk to Russ, I drink more than him, I just can't afford the fancy stuff.
They're not just listening to streamers.... it's more they don't listen to whiners. there's plenty of people who are none of those things who are fine with 12v12. 8v8 got canned because there wasn't enough support among a majority of players IN GENERAL for it.
deal with it.
#95
Posted 04 March 2018 - 11:49 PM
Vellron2005, on 04 March 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:
First of all, with an attitude like that, your name is a complete waste.. nothing angelic there..
Second of all, the map's design is simply not good.. the heat is just a part of it.. Then there's clutter, pathways and areas that nobody ever uses, and waaay too much cover..
It's simply a bad bad map..
Might want to recall that in Revelation, Archangels aren't known for being "nice."
also, FYI, it's not that Rubellite is a bad map, obviously.... it's more the fact you're a pilot who's incapable of thinking outside of the box and using the map to your advantage. Rubellite's positive is there's actually about four different attack routes that i see used every time I'm there. compare that to, say, Polar... which has a grand total of about... one? or Caustic Nascarring? hel, 9 times out of 10, Tourmaline, 6/E Line.
Rubellite actually favors people NOT doing the same **** repeatedly BECAUSE of its clutter, verticality, and heat.
the Map isn't the problem. You are.
#96
Posted 05 March 2018 - 01:01 AM
Sigmar Sich, on 03 March 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:
Solaris will not be gentle to new players
DRlFTER, on 03 March 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:
Me thinks to have heard/read that
I think 3 more slots
err
it should also be in the update on dropping 32-bit support?
https://mwomercs.com...ill-tree-respec
yeah its in there
also new mechlab is supposedly better at placing decals more precisely
Christophe Ivanov, on 03 March 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:
https://www.reddit.c...duction_update/
Edited by Peter2k, 05 March 2018 - 01:17 AM.
#97
Posted 05 March 2018 - 05:53 AM
Peter2k, on 05 March 2018 - 01:01 AM, said:
Yah I think that too except there would be a stockmech league where people can play the trail mechs without faceing Solaris optimised builds piloted by experianced players.
Even with a good pilot a trailmech will have a hard time against an optimised build. I would say that it would come to an experiance, for the stock player, similar to going into FP with a stockmech.
I hope PGI will have some rules or other idea in place to ease the pain for new players or even players with a new account.
I could imagne that people who have seperate accounts for Clan/IS will also create an extra account for Solaris. Since there aren't 11 other teammembers to shield you that could mean you get hurt a lot in the beginning.
So something like a stock-league or limiting participation to fully skilled mechs might be something. Well they said that it would be possible to play Solaris only, so I hope they have taken new players/accounts into consideration and not just went with "old players" can now switch to Solaris.
#98
Posted 05 March 2018 - 06:31 AM
#99
Posted 05 March 2018 - 08:03 AM
Ripper X, on 05 March 2018 - 06:31 AM, said:
yeah I can see it now, trolls are not going to make new accounts to ruin new players games in Solaris, only QP
btw
I'm sure PGI will get around of making it good enough for new players, but we are trusting in a company that said the MM and more importantly the tier system is working as inteded
ELO when we had it was not that great either, it was better though
its not just how the ranking/tier/sorting is named, its the math and the stats that flow into that will matter
PGI has, in my opinion, not shown they know about such things
I'm fine with wait and see, but I'm not going to hold my breath
to top that off
in my experience for 1v1 matches, you use quite different lines of thinking to build your mech compared to normal QP
while a VET usually has the c-bills, it might not be very friendly to new players to rebuild or buy 2 mechs for 2 different ques
Edited by Peter2k, 05 March 2018 - 08:09 AM.
#100
Posted 05 March 2018 - 08:55 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users