121 replies to this topic

[verybad]

Garth Erlam, on 15 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I'll walk around with a rum and coke all day, will that work?

Why the heck are you messing up a perfectly good Rum with some coke. Drink it straight like a man!

You're not a Pirate are you?

Edited by verybad, 15 February 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Qman]

Garth Erlam, on 15 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I'll walk around with a rum and coke all day, will that work?

Well when you come over to Australia to promote Mechwarrior (as i am sure you are already planning to do so ) i will provide you enough rum n coke to make your liver hate you.

[Odin]

Its the violinist then, not the violin.
I knew it.
Cool questions, great answers.
Feels great to witness the best Mechwarrior shaping up.

I gonna be deadly!
Promise.

[nubnub]

Overall Q&A sounds really good with great opportunity for teamwork, customisation and dynamic gameplay .

I only have one problem - "...one fateful day you have your ride completely destroyed. Do you lose all mech XP and start over in a new mech, but retain your buff pilot abilities? –BarHaid [PAUL] You will not be able to have your ’Mech destroyed..."

I don't like this. Sure it will cost money/time/reputation/etc to get fixed but it feels a bit comical to me, a bit like One Must Fall. So does this mean others can't then salvage the mech for parts? I think the mech should be lost, especially if the reactor goes critical (and as is in the 2009 trailer!), and the other team can claim scrap allowing them to get valuable tech. This happens in bt universe where clan weapons can by better than IS and visa versa. Most RPGs and strategy games have huge attraction (addiction) because of rewards for kills and taking their stuff.

[Red Beard]

nubnub, on 15 February 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Overall Q&A sounds really good with great opportunity for teamwork, customisation and dynamic gameplay .

I only have one problem - "...one fateful day you have your ride completely destroyed. Do you lose all mech XP and start over in a new mech, but retain your buff pilot abilities? –BarHaid [PAUL] You will not be able to have your ’Mech destroyed..."

I don't like this. Sure it will cost money/time/reputation/etc to get fixed but it feels a bit comical to me, a bit like One Must Fall. So does this mean others can't then salvage the mech for parts? I think the mech should be lost, especially if the reactor goes critical (and as is in the 2009 trailer!), and the other team can claim scrap allowing them to get valuable tech. This happens in bt universe where clan weapons can by better than IS and visa versa. Most RPGs and strategy games have huge attraction (addiction) because of rewards for kills and taking their stuff.

.

This is not a strategy or RPG game.

[Sprouticus]

Kartr, on 15 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

So it sounds like if I don't take any command modules I'll only be able to see what the commander lets me on the battle grid, but if I take the right command modules I'll be able to see everything the commander can see. So wouldn't it make sense to have at least the command module that allows you to share Information on every 'mech you own?

Or do my command modules not give me access to that kind of information unless I'm in the commander (lance/company) position?

I think the idea is that your commander will be able to give you info he or the scout collects without extra modules, but there may be some limit to some of the info. Without certain modules might say....be able to see that there is a mech behind a building, but not see it in your HUD because you done have the IR or magneto modules installed. Or you might see that there is a mech, but not the damage.

I doubt that there are going to be 6 or 7 modules in any mech, probalby 2-3 on average with 4-5 on command mechs. So you may want to put a command module in if you are a backup commander or if you want to acces the full range of informaiton on the battle grid, but Im guessing that IR vision or Magneto will be more useful if yu are assault/defense, or the faster gathering of info/ghosting for scouts.

[Sprouticus]

nubnub, on 15 February 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Overall Q&A sounds really good with great opportunity for teamwork, customisation and dynamic gameplay .

I only have one problem - "...one fateful day you have your ride completely destroyed. Do you lose all mech XP and start over in a new mech, but retain your buff pilot abilities? –BarHaid [PAUL] You will not be able to have your ’Mech destroyed..."

I don't like this. Sure it will cost money/time/reputation/etc to get fixed but it feels a bit comical to me, a bit like One Must Fall. So does this mean others can't then salvage the mech for parts? I think the mech should be lost, especially if the reactor goes critical (and as is in the 2009 trailer!), and the other team can claim scrap allowing them to get valuable tech. This happens in bt universe where clan weapons can by better than IS and visa versa. Most RPGs and strategy games have huge attraction (addiction) because of rewards for kills and taking their stuff.

I see this as a balance issue. Maybe they put salvage in one day, but for the inital go live you get extra C-Bills for a win, so that sort of represents salvage at a higher level. Same goes for the mechlab. You wont have to BUY th Gauss rifle or extra tons of armor, just pay for them.

I could see salvage and buying equipment down the road, it would add an element to the meta game where you can manage rareity, and even have an auciton house for weapons and armor. But for the intial rollout thats a lot of overhead for not much gain.

[Sprouticus]

I think one of the more challenging issues the Dev's are up against is the XP requirements to climb the skill trees.

If you make it too high players will take forEVER to max out their modules and skill sets, especially when you consider the number of mechs + varients (and more so if they keep adding models and varients). Some will consider this a 'grind' although I would not clasify it as such, just slow progression. Grind implies you hgave to do the same thing over and over, which is not true when the 'grind' is just playing the game.

If you make it too short a trip everyone has all the modules and all the skills too quickly and you end up with the trees being meaningless unless you are a newbie.

Personally I would think that starting it too high would be more conservative, you can always lower the XP requirements. Raising them will just honk people off and make what was easy for some not easy for everyone.

The other option is to make the XP requirements for higher levels in the tree multiplicative or even exponential. So its easy to get decent with a lot of mechs but hard to become a real expert. Of course then you are limiting pilot points and thus modules available. But it would encourage people to try different mechs and varients.

I'ts quite a balancing act, I am sure the Dev's are mulling over that day and night.

Edited by Sprouticus, 15 February 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[Dayuhan]

After reading the Q & A I came up with another question regarding 'mech module slots. This might have to wait for 'mech warfare month but I will take a stab now since I don't know when that month will be. Is there a way through Pilot XP or 'Mech XP to increase the number of module slots available on a 'mech chassis?

[nubnub]

Dayuhan, on 15 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

After reading the Q & A I came up with another question regarding 'mech module slots. This might have to wait for 'mech warfare month but I will take a stab now since I don't know when that month will be. Is there a way through Pilot XP or 'Mech XP to increase the number of module slots available on a 'mech chassis?

I would think not, getting a different mech may be more suited for a certain role.

[Sorbio]

Dayuhan, on 15 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

After reading the Q & A I came up with another question regarding 'mech module slots. This might have to wait for 'mech warfare month but I will take a stab now since I don't know when that month will be. Is there a way through Pilot XP or 'Mech XP to increase the number of module slots available on a 'mech chassis?

nubnub, on 15 February 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I would think not, getting a different mech may be more suited for a certain role.

Tier 8 of the Mech Efficiencies chart says +1 module slot, so yes you can. Unless they change it before launch. Which they will, if it's not balanced.

Edited by Sorbio, 15 February 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[Waylandx]

Great Info Guys! Ty !

[Win44]

Paul Inouye, on 15 February 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

.... *facepalm*...

I've seen numerous conversations about this particular item on the forums so I'm going to nip it in the bud...

Artillery/Airstrikes/Naval Bombardment (Whether it be from a boat or a drop ship) will be very limited in the number of times you will be able to use it in a match. We are not setting the game up to be a carpet bomb-apolooza! The three mentioned support strikes differ only in the pattern/focus of the incoming rounds. For example, in a city environment, you might want to use airstrikes instead of artillery because airstrikes land in a line instead of a circle on the ground.

Now to really hammer it home... THEY WILL ALL SHARE A COOLDOWN TIMER! Who woulda thought that?!?! A commander who takes all 3 into combat is going to basically waste 2 module slots.

Please give us the benefit of the doubt that we do know how to balance a game and that the key focus is 'Mech to 'Mech combat, not dropping bags of poo on each other... though that might actually be funny to put in...

Got it? Good.

Thunder out.

The Pink Thunder Hath Spoken! *tries to coax his dog out from under the bed*

Thanks for the explanation, Cooldown timer, guess that answers my awesome NGNG podcast question....

[Morashtak]

Modules sound like a good idea to balance poorer designed 'Mechs/variants a little less so by adding an extra module slot or two. This might make the less desirable 'Mechs a bit more sought after or at least tried out.

As for everyone having a command module - can't see it happening if we are severely restricted on the number of slots, say 2-3, with other modules being a good to great benefit to bring along. Example; Sure I can see everything on the battlefield but what I really need at the moment are better aiming and maneuvering modules to hit that blankity-blank Light chewing up my backside!

Quote

[DAVID] There are a few reasons why bigger isn’t always better. First off, smaller ’Mechs are faster, on average, than larger ’Mechs. It’s all well and good to want to scout in a Hunchback or a Centurion, with a top speed of 64 km/h, but wouldn’t you be better off in a Jenner, running at 118 km/h? Even if scouting isn’t your thing, a ’Mech with a faster speed combined with better maneuverability and smaller size makes for a good hit and run attacker. Not only are there places where larger ’Mechs will have a harder time reaching, but a smaller ’Mechs are smaller, harder to hit targets that are a lot more difficult to track when they get in close to their bigger opponents.

Ghost's sig pic should accompany this quote.

Edited by Morashtak, 15 February 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the talented, hard-working highly skilled people at PGI (oh, and Paul too) for providing us with these Q&A sessions.

[tacobellkiller]

I can't wait to throw money at this game, with every new bit o' info we get I get more excited. It seems like they have the concepts needed to create a great mech game in place. The biggest question left is customization, and honestly I hope it is relatively limited but that we have enough module slots to allow you the personalize your ride sufficiently. Too many variants and even whole chassis will get ignored with too much customization.

As far as the concerns over the call-in strikes go I think Paul addressed this satisfactory and as long as the damage dealt is kept reasonable (which I'm fairly confident it will be) it should be an exciting addition to the battlefield. Even if a lot of people take strike modules it will just be reflecting the combined arms aspect of Battletech, although in a limited way.

The role warfare and module system to me seems like a fantastic way to MMOize Mechwarrior, that is allow player progression and specialization without overriding player skill. Specific module vs. module balance will be a tricky thing to nail down but with the f2p formula allowing constant tweaking overtime it should work itself out eventually, balance is never fully achieved at launch no matter how talented the dev team.

I'm glad the question about mech destruction was cleared up, this isn't Eve online there is no need for permanent mech destruction. If that was the case all battles would be painstakingly slow and extremely defensively minded, which would be quite boring. Everyone would be so afraid of losing their mech that no one would want to make the first move, so I applaud this decision.

[Deathjester]

Excellent Q&A, cleared up a lot of details. Glad to hear that we won't be restricted to the one role but can specialise as we see fit. It's also good to see the dev's here nipping some of the crazier inferences in the bud before they get out of hand.
Looking forward to seeing you in the Beta.
*nudge-nudge, wink-wink*

[Kenyon Burguess]

thanks for the answer. that helps me focus my attention more on medium mechs. *wanders off to stare at mech stats*

[Solis Obscuri]

InnerSphereNews, on 15 February 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Can 'Mechs be customized to change their roles (beyond merely modules and pilot skills)? –Ghost

[PAUL] The main driving force behind roles is the modules and pilot skills you choose to focus in. You’re never going to make an Atlas run as fast as a Jenner but you can lighten the loadout of it for extra armor for example. This would allow the Atlas to play more to a defensive role but again, it’s mainly about modules/skills.

SilentWolff, on 15 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

So heres the million dollar question. I see alot of talk about varients, but nothing about a mech lab. It sounds like we will be limited to just certain varients of each chassis and no real ability to customize the mech to our liking. Any dev care to expand on this?

Sounds like they already did (see above). Guess we'll have both capabilities.

Kaemon, on 15 February 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Just as an aside, anyone notice when they answer the same question again and again, we get a bit more information each time?

Almost like we've done this before....

What, spammed non-specific poorly worded questions?

verybad, on 15 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

YESSSSS! I am gonna make my Dragon into a Ninja Dragon Headhunter, mixing ghost signature and some assault modules for a Stealth Hunter.

Looks like Mechlab will be limited considering the higher profile of variants in the descriptiuons, and I'm completelyOK with that.Optimized homemade variants are boring. If mechs need to stay similiar to how they're made in the factory, with perhaps some unlockables through hiring highend techs, or replacing one weapons with a similiar one (eg heavy autocannon ith a Gauss Riflle, AC-5 with a PPC, and so on.)

I don't like mechs being generic gun-bags, I'm sure if there is no completely free make anything you want mechlab, then some will be angry, but I think that would actually lead to better gameplay.

Kind of the way I feel about this too, but it seems like the devs are sitting tight on MechLab details for now (though mentioning customization was a bit of a tipped hand). I expect we'll hear something more specific in the coming months.

[CPTAmerica]

Honestly, I haven't read all the posts yet.

I have a big question that I am sure is on many minds but, I did not see in the Q&A. If multiple warriors have the ability unlocked and the modules in place on their 'mechs, how will the "Supporting Elements" (ie. artillery, aerospace fighters, etc.) be available to the unit? Will all "commanders" be able to activate these abilities based on their own unlocked abilities? Are they only available as a singular resource pool that only one "commander" can use at a time? If so, if multiple warriors are trying to call in "Supporting Elements" simultaneously, how will they be prioritized? Will they only be available to the warrior selected as the "company commander" for that battle? If so, who receives these resources if the commander is KIA?

UPDATE: Okay, I saw that all "supporting elements" will share a cool down timer but, I am still curious as to the availability of these resources to the mechwarriors in the company.

Edited by CPTAmerica, 15 February 2012 - 07:52 PM.