Monday Mechwarrior Update With Daeron #02
#321
Posted 15 November 2020 - 03:18 PM
plz make new mechs
#322
Posted 15 November 2020 - 03:27 PM
Hey Daeron. Can we get the ability to draw on the Battle Grid? Makes sense as a Lance Leader, or Commander, so it's easier to direct teammates.
#323
Posted 15 November 2020 - 06:03 PM
Alreech, on 13 November 2020 - 09:36 AM, said:
Clan Endo Steel needs only 50% of the slots compared to IS Endo Steel
Clan Ferror Fibrous boost armor better and needs only 50% of the slots compared to IS Ferror Fibrous
Clan Missles & Machine guns weight only 50% of their IS counter parts
Clan Medium & Small lasers do more damage & have more range
Clan Lager Lasers weight less and do more damage
Clan PPCs weight less and need less slots
Clan Autocannons & Gaus Rifles weight less and need less slots
Clan LRMs don't have minimum range
...
isn't what enough?
No.
#324
Posted 15 November 2020 - 08:12 PM
InnerSphereNews, on 09 November 2020 - 08:48 PM, said:
- Skill Tree
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hpt5OjhxQp4" style="text-align: start;" width="560"></iframe>
Not sure if this has been said, but can we please have Quirks show up separately from Skills/Enhancements on the MechLab?
Every time I want to check the quirks on an owned 'Mech, I end up looking it up in the store.
Proposals: Put it in a separate section, or color them differently.
Thanks!
#325
Posted 16 November 2020 - 01:02 AM
#326
Posted 16 November 2020 - 01:16 AM
Wraith of Shadow, on 14 November 2020 - 10:17 AM, said:
Cute, have a Like.
More seriously though, that is something that could in theory be mostly moved to Solaris. Expand Solaris matches to include Lance on Lance matches and have it be the place for the most direct PvP combat, no other objectives to distract you, simply be the last man/team standing. Maybe have it's own Solaris PSR (probably called something else to avoid confusion) and you'd know who the most personally lethal players are. Then Quick Matches would generally be for more complicated scenarios with alternative win conditions and the PSR for it would change from valuing "Killing the Other Team" most to "Actions Which Win the Match" most (actions which may involve killing the other team, depending on the scenario) and how much value each action would have could change dynamically depending on the scenario goals.
Mind you, we probably don't have the player base to split the population like that though.
We might've years ago, but not anymore.
Oh yeah, just remembered another one:
- Separate Voice Chat for Living/Dead teammates: Kinda odd that the dead can talk to the living. It'd probably be circumvented by 3rd party chats, but that's how I would've set it up. When you die your voice dramatically dissolves into static before cutting off, and you get moved to the "Match Dead" voice chat lobby to comment and spectate with the other fallen Mechwarriors. Possibly from both teams, no talking to the living until the match is over.
People don't want real competition
Otherwise Group, FW queues wouldn't struggle as they do.
As for lance on lance action, well yet again , sorry
People don't want real competition, they want ez kills with just enough risk to be a hero but not a serious threat type deal.
As with everything their are exceptions
I point to Solaris 2v2 a real ghost town, which is surprising as all.
Since you would think all these people with FRIENDS would love it.
But no, that competition me no likely thing. thats why people with friends are in merge queue not FW, Group or Solaris.
I don't think I need mention what happened to FW Scouting which was lance on lance .
Edit: SCOUTING WAS Excellent!, Couldn't hide in your group and get carried. Every team member was vital and losing just one was a huge blow.
Its was real completion so no wonder it died due to not being popular. No surprise, I sense a pattern!
IMO Good matching would reduce the competition making those queues for FRIENDS more popular.
Then we solo's can have our queue back.
I will let the reader deliberate.
I rest moi case.
Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 November 2020 - 01:21 AM.
#327
Posted 16 November 2020 - 06:12 AM
Announcements
=> Community Spotlights (Sub-Forum)
=> Future of MWO - Discussion (Sub-Forum)
-Thread 1: New Player Experience
-Thread 2: Features
-Thread 3: Maps
-Thread 4: Mechs
-Thread 5: Modes
-Thread 6: Social / UI
-Thread 7: New Features
-Thread 8: Monetization
Announce some posting basics in post 1 of every thread to remind people to stay on the thread-topic. Would furthermore propose to ask people to generally differ between short-, mid- and long-term proposals since this allows for further structural simplification when evaluating the feasibility of measures.
Block post 2 (since I don't know about max-strokes the forum can handle per post, mebbe block post 3 too jtbs) in every thread for conclusion and/or ongoing summary.
Let the dicussion boil for a certain period of time and conclude the proposals made with emphasis on short-term proposals / short-term possibilities and their feasibility first and bring em live asap.
Grant some sophisticated feedback (get some techs etc. into the discussion etc.) on mid- and long-term proposals to refine / re-adjust the scope of possible changes. Set a time-frame for mid- and long-term changes going live.
And yes, I fear we somehow gotta get the input placed in here into the new structure (if chosen to do so):
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 16 November 2020 - 09:16 AM.
#328
Posted 16 November 2020 - 09:52 AM
Jables McBarty, on 15 November 2020 - 08:12 PM, said:
Every time I want to check the quirks on an owned 'Mech, I end up looking it up in the store.
Proposals: Put it in a separate section, or color them differently.
Thanks!
Been said many times before.. but it can never be said enough.. c'mon pgi, this would be a big QOL improvement!
OZHomerOZ, on 16 November 2020 - 01:02 AM, said:
You keep saying that but it's not a good enough solution homerz.. PGI needs to fix this..
#329
Posted 16 November 2020 - 10:23 AM
AnAnachronismAlive, on 16 November 2020 - 06:12 AM, said:
Announcements
=> Community Spotlights (Sub-Forum)
=> Future of MWO - Discussion (Sub-Forum)
-Thread 1: New Player Experience
-Thread 2: Features
-Thread 3: Maps
-Thread 4: Mechs
-Thread 5: Modes
-Thread 6: Social / UI
-Thread 7: New Features
-Thread 8: Monetization
Announce some posting basics in post 1 of every thread to remind people to stay on the thread-topic. Would furthermore propose to ask people to generally differ between short-, mid- and long-term proposals since this allows for further structural simplification when evaluating the feasibility of measures.
Block post 2 (since I don't know about max-strokes the forum can handle per post, mebbe block post 3 too jtbs) in every thread for conclusion and/or ongoing summary.
Let the dicussion boil for a certain period of time and conclude the proposals made with emphasis on short-term proposals / short-term possibilities and their feasibility first and bring em live asap.
Grant some sophisticated feedback (get some techs etc. into the discussion etc.) on mid- and long-term proposals to refine / re-adjust the scope of possible changes. Set a time-frame for mid- and long-term changes going live.
And yes, I fear we somehow gotta get the input placed in here into the new structure (if chosen to do so):
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
THIS
#330
Posted 16 November 2020 - 11:19 AM
DAEDALOS513, on 16 November 2020 - 09:52 AM, said:
Many times since the Skill Tree was added pretty much:
https://github.com/M...cker/issues/102
https://github.com/M...cker/issues/103
https://github.com/M...cker/issues/200
#331
Posted 16 November 2020 - 11:49 AM
#332
Posted 16 November 2020 - 12:08 PM
Has anyone mentioned the group UI getting all out of sync with who's in the group, yet?
Edited by DevilCrayon, 16 November 2020 - 12:08 PM.
#333
Posted 16 November 2020 - 12:32 PM
Remove the 'your mech is locked and cannot be taken into a new game'. It penalises new players, makes the grind harder, and slows the entry of players back into the queue.
Make an option to re-enter the queue whilst you spectate after death. It will get more people back in the queue.
I think these two additions would increase the queue size by 20% at all times without requiring any new players. That has to be a good thing and simple to implement (I hope).
Also, can you please make it so that blocked players are muted by default? Currently they are not, and you have to unblock them to mute them, and then block them again. Pretty clunky.
Thanks
#334
Posted 16 November 2020 - 01:00 PM
#335
Posted 16 November 2020 - 01:14 PM
OZHomerOZ, on 16 November 2020 - 01:16 AM, said:
Otherwise Group, FW queues wouldn't struggle as they do.
As for lance on lance action, well yet again , sorry
People don't want real competition, they want ez kills with just enough risk to be a hero but not a serious threat type deal.
As with everything their are exceptions
I point to Solaris 2v2 a real ghost town, which is surprising as all.
Since you would think all these people with FRIENDS would love it.
But no, that competition me no likely thing. thats why people with friends are in merge queue not FW, Group or Solaris.
MWO players without friends don't like competition too (or fair ELO base matchmaking), otherwise they would play 1 vs 1 Solaris.
The big benefit of 12 vs 12 Quickplay are the other 11 players you can use as meatshield and from whom you can steal the kills.
Most groups are bigger than 2 players, so solaris 2 vs 2 isn't an option if you want to play with friends.
Most groups are even bigger than 4 players, and that was the problem of group play: the huge difference in group size that can't be balanced by tonnage alone.
IMHO the optimum maximum group size for MWO would be 4 players, even if player groups tend to be bigger:
It fits to the 4 player Squad that is used ingame
It allows 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8 and 12 vs 12 match sizes
Group sizes bigger than 4 may be wished by bigger player groups, but create more problems than they solve, especially if PGI allows hard to match group sizes.
Just from matchmaking it doesnt make sense to allow hard to match groups size that work only in one combination and cause long waiting times:
9+3, 10+2 in 12 vs 12
5+3, 6+2 in 8 vs 8
So if you don't want to exclude 8 vs 8 as option groups bigger than 4 players make no sense.
It also doesn't make sense to use always 12 vs 12 match sizes. During times with low population the matchmaker should also be able to create 8 vs 8 or even 4 vs 4 matches with balanced teams (using smaller maps or reduced combat areas on big maps).
The match size (1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8, 12 vs 12) should not be a question of competition or not but a question of the playstile a player enjoys and how much players are aviable.
Solaris playstile is quick & brutal close quarters combat, and the 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 match size and the small maps are better for that than the big maps and big teams of 12 vs 12 Quickplay.
The problem with Solaris is that you can have quick & brutal close quarters combat too in quickplay - at least if you play NASCAR on Canyon Network, Solaris City, or HPG, or... - and you have 11 "teammates" to hide behind if things go wrong.
Edited by Alreech, 16 November 2020 - 01:17 PM.
#336
Posted 16 November 2020 - 01:20 PM
All of the threads are pinned here: https://mwomercs.com...-command-chair/
#337
Posted 16 November 2020 - 02:26 PM
DAEDALOS513, on 16 November 2020 - 09:52 AM, said:
You keep saying that but it's not a good enough solution homerz.. PGI needs to fix this..
Yeah mangz PGI should just upload it to our brains directly
or PGI could save money for working on important stuff like MATCHMAKER!
And lazy players can CLICK A FEW BUTTONS AND GO TO THE STORE!
I say that
And will repeat
PGI have a limited pool of resources to work on the game
Should not be used frivolously, like mini map changes no one wanted or asked for or Solaris 7
Edit: BTW I keep saying MATCH MAKER NEEDS WORK, this was the first time I mentioned the store I believe so a bit of an exaggeration on your part.
Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 November 2020 - 02:36 PM.
#338
Posted 16 November 2020 - 02:54 PM
Alreech, on 16 November 2020 - 01:14 PM, said:
Well their casuals, expected them to be competative? Ha ha
Yet the queue they populated had a semi functional matchmaker that had semi fair PSR based matchmaking.
Untill merge queue that is!
And I already mentioned that players don't really want completion and players without friends are players.
So your point is?
People with friends have choices.
They have several queues made specifically for them. Group, FW, Scouting previously
Yet they come to the queue with solo's. All those FRIENDS QUEUES DIED, Go figure.
Why?
Haven't they got any FRIEND's, opps, we talking about people with friends arn't we?
Alreech, on 16 November 2020 - 01:14 PM, said:
Steal kills, what winner ever says that! Its secure kills mate!
Whatever it takes For The Win!
Meatshields get compensated by winning often getting a free win via carriage, increasing their W/L which looks guid on ones resume.
Plus they get an extra 150K and any assists which they wouldn't have got if it was 12-0.
My Win/Loss is positive, any player on my team has a greater chance of winning than losing.
I'd say that's a positive for them!
Alreech, on 16 November 2020 - 01:14 PM, said:
Most groups are even bigger than 4 players, and that was the problem of group play: the huge difference in group size that can't be balanced by tonnage alone.
IMHO the optimum maximum group size for MWO would be 4 players, even if player groups tend to be bigger:
It fits to the 4 player Squad that is used ingame
It allows 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8 and 12 vs 12 match sizes
Group sizes bigger than 4 may be wished by bigger player groups, but create more problems than they solve, especially if PGI allows hard to match group sizes.
Just from matchmaking it doesnt make sense to allow hard to match groups size that work only in one combination and cause long waiting times:
9+3, 10+2 in 12 vs 12
5+3, 6+2 in 8 vs 8
So if you don't want to exclude 8 vs 8 as option groups bigger than 4 players make no sense.
It also doesn't make sense to use always 12 vs 12 match sizes. During times with low population the matchmaker should also be able to create 8 vs 8 or even 4 vs 4 matches with balanced teams (using smaller maps or reduced combat areas on big maps).
The match size (1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8, 12 vs 12) should not be a question of competition or not but a question of the playstile a player enjoys and how much players are aviable.
Solaris playstile is quick & brutal close quarters combat, and the 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 match size and the small maps are better for that than the big maps and big teams of 12 vs 12 Quickplay.
The problem with Solaris is that you can have quick & brutal close quarters combat too in quickplay - at least if you play NASCAR on Canyon Network, Solaris City, or HPG, or... - and you have 11 "teammates" to hide behind if things go wrong.
All that sounds like an opinion Dude, do you have data points.
Dead or diminishing FRIENDS QUEUES is moi PROOF!
I posted earlier my thoughts on the game regarding completion
OZHomerOZ, on 16 November 2020 - 01:16 AM, said:
Otherwise Group, FW queues wouldn't struggle as they do.
As for lance on lance action, well yet again , sorry
People don't want real competition, they want ez kills with just enough risk to be a hero but not a serious threat type deal.
As with everything their are exceptions
I point to Solaris 2v2 a real ghost town, which is surprising as all.
Since you would think all these people with FRIENDS would love it.
But no, that competition me no likely thing. thats why people with friends are in merge queue not FW, Group or Solaris.
I don't think I need mention what happened to FW Scouting which was lance on lance .
Edit: SCOUTING WAS Excellent!, Couldn't hide in your group and get carried. Every team member was vital and losing just one was a huge blow.
Its was real completion so no wonder it died due to not being popular. No surprise, I sense a pattern!
IMO Good matching would reduce the competition making those queues for FRIENDS more popular.
Then we solo's can have our queue back.
I will let the reader deliberate.
I rest moi case.
Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 November 2020 - 03:03 PM.
#339
Posted 16 November 2020 - 03:16 PM
I just played 10 straight drops and got a cold map on almost every drop and sometimes the selections to choose from were 4 cold maps. I think in all 10 drop selection screens I didn't see Mining Collective, Viridian Bog, Canyon Network, Grim Plexus, HPG, a single time! It should never be that skewed!
Yet several times the selection screen was 4 choices of a cold map. Also as a side note 2 separate times it was Forest Colony Classic (both classic in one selection) and Frozen City Classic (both selections in one 4 map choice) Those are the same maps just different visibilities. They should never be in the same 4 map selection. At that point you're basically choosing from 3 maps...and then it skews the remaining options. Should be some way to code the selection screen that if one of the Forest Colony Classic or Frozen Classic maps get randomly selected the other version of that same Classic map is not randomly selected in the choice of 4.
I don't think those would be hard fixes. I know during certain events Terra Therma frequency was increased so it would come up more often. So it sounds like it's easily done.
Edited by Crashburn, 16 November 2020 - 03:18 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users