58 replies to this topic

[LTC Kilgore]

Nightbird, on 29 September 2020 - 09:50 AM, said:

Then you probably sent it to the wrong email address, since there is an automated ticket system that always replies immediately.

nope. Sent it to technical@mwomercs.comand get no response at all. I get their occasional marketing emails, but support ignores every ticket I have submitted.

Edited by LTC Kilgore, 29 September 2020 - 10:22 AM.

[Nightbird]

Well, share your emails, take a screenshot. Maybe we can help you, with the issue or with explaining why you did not get a reply.

[LTC Kilgore]

Nightbird, on 29 September 2020 - 10:29 AM, said:

Well, share your emails, take a screenshot. Maybe we can help you, with the issue or with explaining why you did not get a reply.

I'm over it, these were a long time ago and some issues I managed to figure out myself, and some I have just learned to deal with because with MWO being on life support, PGI wont invest any resources to address

[Nightbird]

LTC Kilgore, on 29 September 2020 - 10:41 AM, said:

I'm over it, these were a long time ago and some issues I managed to figure out myself, and some I have just learned to deal with because with MWO being on life support, PGI wont invest any resources to address

Nevertheless, here is a easy test showing that PGI does send out instant automated support ticket emails after receiving your email. If you didn't get this email, they didn't receive your request.

[LordNothing]

Beorning, on 29 September 2020 - 02:34 AM, said:

You can port the assets to whatever. It is not the logical choice at all, unless you want to make the matches even shorter.

Name a UE game with large maps. I haven't seen one, every UE 4 game feels cramped for a reason. I do not know what you are playing but the MW5 maps are repetitive half assed and not really interesting - the biggest challenge is figuring out the crappy JPG when one presses the map key, then realizing it is not necessary as most of them are the same - like a colon drawn by an imbecile.

mw5 has some huge maps, many are small but there are a few huge ones in there. id love to see huge megamaps, but its pgi were dealing with and i dont think we will get that. the problem with the mech 5 maps isn't the maps themselves. they look a lot better than what they did with cry engine and aren't full of all the uglies that the mwo maps have. and they lean towards the natural. they arent full of artificial chokepoints and bad hit detection.

the reason i say ue is the logical choice is not because of maps, its because they already have invested in that engine. their developers that they have on staff are all ue guys, you would have to hire a whole other staff if you went with some other engine. not to mention mwo2 being based on mw5 would require very little extra work. pgi loves their shortcuts.

[Beorning]

LordNothing, on 29 September 2020 - 06:50 PM, said:

mw5 has some huge maps, many are small but there are a few huge ones in there. id love to see huge megamaps, but its pgi were dealing with and i dont think we will get that. the problem with the mech 5 maps isn't the maps themselves. they look a lot better than what they did with cry engine and aren't full of all the uglies that the mwo maps have. and they lean towards the natural. they arent full of artificial chokepoints and bad hit detection.

the reason i say ue is the logical choice is not because of maps, its because they already have invested in that engine. their developers that they have on staff are all ue guys, you would have to hire a whole other staff if you went with some other engine. not to mention mwo2 being based on mw5 would require very little extra work. pgi loves their shortcuts.

huh? Every map I played on MW5 really was a colon in a cube 'designed' to use every piece of the map to make it feel larger and yes filled with artificial choke points. They look like something anyone could draw up on a napkin - but I admit I only played it for a week, as there is only so much fun to be had shooting hapless AI, or crushing buildings which is a nice effect that grows stale quickly. The trees were very pretty and burned nicely, but lumber jacking is not what I signed up for.

Sorry I will not buy the argument that they invested in UE4 guys - 'maybe' you would hire C++ coders specifically, but they certainly did not hire Cryengine guys back then, and since they used UE4 they probably just relied on copy paste for their coding needs, seeing as there is no evidence that they needed to seriously code at all.

[LordNothing]

so long as pgi is the developer, any mwo2 would be the same run of the mill shovelware that they have been delivering.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Quote

[color=#959595]huh? Every map I played on MW5 really was a colon in a cube 'designed' to use every piece of the map to make it feel larger and yes filled with artificial choke points. They look like something anyone could draw up on a napkin - but I admit I only played it for a week, as there is only so much fun to be had shooting hapless AI, or crushing buildings which is a nice effect that grows stale quickly. The trees were very pretty and burned nicely, but lumber jacking is not what I signed up for.[/color]

thats the Problem with Procedual terrain Files, handcraftet good looking maptiles without Errors and Spawn/Clipping problems binding as a Puzzle the best Solution for it

[LordNothing]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 01 October 2020 - 02:25 AM, said:

thats the Problem with Procedual terrain Files, handcraftet good looking maptiles without Errors and Spawn/Clipping problems binding as a Puzzle the best Solution for it

hand crafted is good but that can be lax. pgi takes map design shortcuts which i would expect from crackpot modders. take reskins for example. a good excursive in making textures at best, and a cry for help at worst. i never expected to see that on a map out of a so called professional studio. at least they made a few minor changes to the terrain. but they could have chosen a tileset other than snow. there were already too many snow maps in the game. that in of itself is a shortcut seeing how snow maps usually have the least complex terrain. and there are other seldom used tilesets like bog or emerald taiga.

procedural on the other hand can also be hit or miss. if you are going for simple natural terrain then it can do it well. i always prefer natural terrain to moba style. then you let players build their own bases or set local terrain parameters which many procedural terrain generators can do (there are ksp mods that let you build bases on procedurally generated planets and they can look pretty good, and that's a unity game).

obviously there is a balance to strike. a mix of both procedural elements, player contributed elements and statics and you can build a terrain system worthy of a mechwarrior game. too bad its a niche product and such development is just impractical.

Edited by LordNothing, 01 October 2020 - 05:16 AM.

[Beorning]

Last I played around with the cry engine the terrain generator was really smooth and , well, good. Better then UE3 ?'s at the time, so much better, I thought make terrain in cry engine, bring it into UE.

17 maps after 8 years is sad, not getting mod tools or even the idea of community contributions is sort of criminally stupid.

[Monkey Lover]

Its now been 1 month and nothing as normal. Pgi will string us along for 6 months or more than say nothing .

[Willard Phule]

The6thMessenger, on 25 September 2020 - 04:13 PM, said:

Yeah, but this is an online game, so there must be a semblance of balance. If they don't like it, too bad, there's competition here as opposed of simple PVE.

I don't mind if Clan ERPPC dealt like 12 damage total, ****, I don't mind if Clan ERML dealt just 6 damage and in fact I would prefer it that way, I'd rather have the game handled with symmetrical balance.



Lol, just lol. More like gimped actually, and the most hilarious part is they still are still better. They can cram more heat sinks regardless, so what if it's fixed internals? So what if they have less quirks? Dude the quirks are basically done because IS is lagging and they wouldn't rather just buff the IS tech, and just put quirks as cherry on top.

Seriously, have you even considered the sheer dakka output that the clanners could do? You know the IS struggles to put a 2x UAC10 + 2x UAC5 dakka platform right? Or the laser vomits they can do, or the gauss-vomits they can put, and that was still before heavy-lasers. Dude I struggle putting an AC20 or a Gauss on my Urbie, but the Kitfox, the Cinder, and the Cougar can put those in serious capacity.

Dude, I'm a Clanner, and I tend to agree that Clan is a crutch, that is why I'm a Clanner.

I don't agree with it being a crutch, but I do think that once you learn to deal with the downsides like more heat, slower cycle rate, etc.. you have the advantage of being able to pack more weaponry in than the IS can. Which is how it's supposed to be according to Battletech in general. Granted, this isn't Battletech.

IS weapons do have advantages, regardless of what the "Clams are OP" crowd will tell you, because PGI in it's infinite wisdom in the name of "balancing" created a system wherein IS has different advantages than the clan does that's normally paid for in slots and tonnage. That single BB from the ACs is far more lethal to someone that can actually aim than the burst fire of Clan ACs. The recycle speed of IS SRMs makes up for the lack of range in many cases. MRMs and RACs are their own special flavor of "IS only."

That doesn't even take into account the nerf bat and "ghost heat." There are classic, iconic chassis that are virtually unplayable due to decisions beyond public opinion that happened with a flip of a switch. Timberwolves are the first on that list, with Dire Wolves a close second or equal. No, the Clans absolutely do not have a "huge" advantage over the IS. Not at all.

[VonBruinwald]

Willard Phule, on 01 October 2020 - 01:25 PM, said:

No, the Clans absolutely do not have a "huge" advantage over the IS. Not at all.

Of course you'd say that, you're Clan Wolf.

Biggest issue stems from cXL, ain't no getting around that one.

Edited by VonBruinwald, 01 October 2020 - 03:26 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Willard Phule, on 01 October 2020 - 01:25 PM, said:

I don't agree with it being a crutch, but I do think that once you learn to deal with the downsides like more heat, slower cycle rate, etc.. you have the advantage of being able to pack more weaponry in than the IS can. Which is how it's supposed to be according to Battletech in general. Granted, this isn't Battletech.

Well, yeah, because PGI purposely gimped it.

Willard Phule, on 01 October 2020 - 01:25 PM, said:

IS weapons do have advantages, regardless of what the "Clams are OP" crowd will tell you, because PGI in it's infinite wisdom in the name of "balancing" created a system wherein IS has different advantages than the clan does that's normally paid for in slots and tonnage. That single BB from the ACs is far more lethal to someone that can actually aim than the burst fire of Clan ACs. The recycle speed of IS SRMs makes up for the lack of range in many cases. MRMs and RACs are their own special flavor of "IS only."

I don't know what to tell you, but that's just "assymetric balance", IS doing things differently does NOT mean they are balanced, even if they are advantages.


So what if is SRMs do more damage and has less cooldown, and is more accurate? You know the Pakhet (hero Huntsman) can pack 8 SRM6s? So far, the only 8-SRM6 that I know for the IS is ******* Marauder II, a 100 tonner which is comparatively slow and less effective to engage-disengage with such short range.


That "Single-BB" only really matters to the accurate, but the Clans with their ludicrous ability to put a LOT of acs in their kit, they can compensate with OVERWHELMING fire. Take Rifleman IIC for example, it can bring 2x UAC10 + 2x UAC5 for it's tonnage. You know even the Seipnir struggles to put that precisely because of it needing standard engine, and when you put it on something like an Annihilator, it still does not have the amount of heatsinks that something like the MCII-B packs for sustained fire.


I respect pin-point damage, but when damage isn't exactly spread, such as by people who don't know how to twist, or to be caught off guard, it's not going to matter that much. The clans have LUDICROUS laser vomit, and while you think that long duration balances it, you are still able to focus a LOT of damage at a single component at a range.

Willard Phule, on 01 October 2020 - 01:25 PM, said:

That doesn't even take into account the nerf bat and "ghost heat." There are classic, iconic chassis that are virtually unplayable due to decisions beyond public opinion that happened with a flip of a switch. Timberwolves are the first on that list, with Dire Wolves a close second or equal. No, the Clans absolutely do not have a "huge" advantage over the IS. Not at all.

Build flexibility is a huge advantage. You can make lighter clan mechs participate with firepower as heavier IS mechs.

It would be better balanced if we stuck with Omni-Mechs, but Kodiak ****** that up. I felt that the ****-up cascade started when PGI started involving clan battlemechs.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

by procedual Terrain and Multiplayer im seeing by natural terrain without Tilesets the Problem with spawns and Clipping errors or in impassable Terrain.

Although the tile sets are worked, it often happens with MW5 that the tiles do not fit at the edges, or bases have clipping errors when setting, or float above the terrain with the edges

[martian]

Monkey Lover, on 01 October 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

Its now been 1 month and nothing as normal. Pgi will string us along for 6 months or more than say nothing .

I can even tell you what Russ Bullock is discussing with his co-workers (read "ordering to his subordinates"):

A few months ago Russ Bullock floated the idea that MWO should turn into "subscribe-to-play" game. He is now thinking how to announce the upcoming change to the MWO players.

Edited by martian, 04 October 2020 - 01:38 AM.

[Kodyn]

If they go sub, which honestly they could have done a long time ago if they did it correctly- then they really better offer some major game improvements with it, or everyone will be gone. I wouldn't mind paying up to $15 a month for MWO if it had thriving faction play, some better maps, and some way to draw in a larger player base to fuel that faction play.

As it stands though, I don't know what PGI could realistically do with their resources to turn this into a sub-worthy game. The things I've mentioned are things that should have been addressed ages ago as it is, and haven't. I'm also one of the easier to please players- other people would need to see a lot more in the way of changes- many don't care about FP at all. For some it's the outdated engine, hitreg issues, balance issues, etc. Really curious to see what they're thinking, but I'm certainly not going to get my hopes up.

Edited by Kodyn, 04 October 2020 - 02:56 PM.

[Bistrorider]

LTC Kilgore, on 29 September 2020 - 09:03 AM, said:

I have the exact opposite experience. Contacted support several times, and never have I received a response.

Well you know, I contacted helpdesk like year ago. You did it long time ago, so it's a proof that helpdesk improved.

And it's an improvement nobody can beat.

[LTC Kilgore]

Bistrorider, on 06 October 2020 - 05:15 AM, said:

Well you know, I contacted helpdesk like year ago. You did it long time ago, so it's a proof that helpdesk improved.

And it's an improvement nobody can beat.

I did it a long time ago, and only a few months ago... same result, total silence from PGI.