107 replies to this topic

[Will9761]

Will you implement turrets for base security?

Edited by Will9761, 20 October 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[UPnADAM]

Do you guys plan on allowing us an option to keep the centurion and cat and any future mechs with bays over weapons doors to be always open?

[Cattra Kell]

Any hints towards in-game music or soundtracks, like the ones we have heard in the trailers, etc.

[Woodstock]

What kind of vetting process do you foresee being required before player created logo's are allowed on mechs?

I.E. to avoid offensive images.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Null Signature, will it ever be in game? If no, then might we get the 'Mechs that mount Null Sig gear without it?

[Hennessey]

1. Why the engine size correlation to turn speed? Having this correlation is nearly crippling for assault/medium mechs trying to bring as much firepower as possible, but making them feel like you're turning them with a hand crank. This is especially true now where medium mechs have had their engine size options seriously limited. Shouldn't turn speed be based on chassis instead? Removed. Thank you Thontor for making sense of it all!

Thontor, on 19 October 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Because it makes sense that the bigger the engine the stronger your legs are to turn you faster

And also because that's how it was in TT, engine size determined movement points, movement points are used for straight line movement, and turning. A 4/6 mech would only be able to do a 360 in a ten second period in TT, whereas a 8/12 mech mech could do a 720 in the same time period.

2. Have you considered using uploaded jpegs for customization of mech camo/paint/cockpit internals? Obviously, you'd either have to verify they weren't offensive first, or allow players to report them, but the benefits, I think would outweigh the risk:

• I would think that they would be much more interesting to the players, and easier to code if we could do it ourselves by just paying to upload a pic we want to use.
  
• We could then design our own paint schemes, as jpeg overlays, that you could then sell to other players (free labor = more money ).
  
• You could charge for each change (again, more money than selling it once), and players would really be able to get what they wanted as far as internal/external customization.
  
• No more 'I CAN HAZ TOILET IN COCKPIT?!?!?! PROGRMZ IT 4 ME PLZ!!!' instead they can upload a pic of it next to their calendar of pinup girls, and you didn't have to do a thing except collect the cash!
  
• The mech re-paint thread would have a purpose in life.

3. Profit...?



*NINJA VANISH*

//Edited for bad punctuation.//

Edited by Hennessey, 19 October 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Loc Nar]

Joystick support. When will we have it?

Analog turning. Please?

[CTsai]

Any plans on sending the centurion to jenny craigs or give it a subscription of weight watcher?

[Kdogg788]

1. (from before) Will we be able to buy expensive items including XL engines with straight MC? They cost as much as small mechs.
2. Will SRMs function better with Narc and Tag? Narc seems to work slightly better but is extremely slow and the ammo yield should be much higher. If AMS is over 1000 per ton, how is Narc less than 10?

-k

[Strum Wealh]

Question: Has the notion of adding a user-toggleable "Field Inhibitor" mechanic for PPCs been considered, and what is the likelihood of such a mechanic being implemented in MWO?

Background:

Quote

The PPC minimum range can be attributed to a component called a Field Inhibitor, which is intended to "prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems".

Quote

In the Tactical Handbook, a PPC Field Inhibitor could be disabled by a player before firing. This allowed the unit to fire a PPC at units inside the minimum range. The normal minimum range modifiers were then ignored. The to hit rolls were resolved as normal, but the controlling player had to roll 2D6 to determine if the PPC exploded due to feedback. If the target was 1 hex away, the firing unit had to roll a 10 or more to avoid the explosion. A target at 2 hexes away required a roll of 6 or higher, and a target 3 hexes away needed a roll of 3 or more. A successful roll indicated no damage occurred to the unit firing the PPC.

If the firing player failed to get the roll needed, the PPC was immediately destroyed and critical slots for the PPC were crossed off the record sheet. The firing unit also took ten points of damage to the internal structure of the location housing the PPC.

(source is Tactical Handbook, pg. 47)

Based on the description from Tactical Handbook, disabling the Field Inhibitor could potentially(?) be programmed to have the following effects in MWO if the option is made available:

• Damage is no longer reduced for salvos fired within the normal minimum range.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 90.00 to 60.01 meters from the firing platform, the PPC has a 2.77% chance of exploding.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 60.00 to 30.01 meters from the firing platform, the PPC has a 27.82% chance of exploding.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 30.00 meters or less from the firing platform, the PPC has an 83.35% chance of exploding.
  
• If the PPC explodes, it does 10 units of damage the the BattleMech's internal structure, and behaves as if it were an ammo explosion.

[Khanhran Vickers]

With all tthe recent issues, will open beta still start on the 23rd, or will it be postponed again?

[Acid Phreak]

are pgi aware that there aimbots with radarhacks out? what will pgi do to prevent hacks?

[Adrienne Vorton]

Kdogg788, on 19 October 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

If AMS is over 1000 per ton, how is Narc less than 10?

narc is a electronic beacon, not a small caliber machinegun bullet like ams ammo...i think it´s about as huge as a gauss projectile, if not larger

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 20 October 2012 - 02:33 AM.

[TigrisMorte]

First off, thanks. I am having fun.
Now to the important stuff.
While there are certainly plenty of PWNers only worried about the single match PVP and personal rankings, there are plenty for whom Btech is about the greater conflict. Where taking planets and defending what is held is the "goal".

I understand that plans exist for "community warfare" but the details are quite sketchy, as required since it is not done. Certainly understand that getting the active first person combat is probably the most important step. And sure staying true to the back story requires limitations. But would really appreciate some more details on how far along in planning and how much "continuity of outcome" is a focus.

For me personally, I love the single missions but without at least an illusion of "lasting reward" the single missions have no real cost/reward. I mean if my loss of my beloved SHD-2K Shadow Hawk, I know we are very unlikely to see it :{, does not cost House Kurita why should I care?
Why not take unnecessary risks? For the cbills? I am not meant to be merc. scum.

Edited by TigridMorte, 20 October 2012 - 07:41 AM.

[Derick Cruisaire]

Do you intend to have some form of user's manual? Either a digital version, or maybe a PDF download?

[Odanan]

1- Will IS pilots be able to pilot Clan Mechs? Will IS pilots be able to mount Clan weapons in their IS mechs?

2- How Artemis VI will improve SRMs?

3- How omni mechs will be handled in the mech lab? Will the variants work exactly like those not-omni?

4- Can I mount Ferro Fibrous/Endo Steel in any mech or this will be variant-restricted? Can I change the location of the FF/ES criticals?

5- Will the Spider SDR-5V have more than 2 hardpoints?

6- Will we be able to use ECM and Beagle in any mech?

If you are reading this, please consider to make ammo only available AFTER you mount the relative weapon. I'm playing Mechwarrior since 1995, but I guess newbies will eventually mount by mistake SRM ammo for their SSRMs or LBX/10 ammo for their AC/10s. Making the ammo available only for the weapons mounted can really simplify things.

[Acid Phreak]

global chat?

[Ixis]

Read a few of the post about MWO being free to play and in all honesty I have to say that if I like a game enough then I don't mind shelling a few bucks every month to play but everyone loves a freebie and I'm no exception,however I do have some questions.1) whos is going to host the game? 2) will there be online admin support 3) and most importantly will there be any software/admin to prevent the use of third party software (hacks)? One thing that I and I should imagine most dedicated gamers hate is some **** turning up with a aimbot/unlimited armour/ammo hack and taking out everyone else in the match in a light mech

[Nik Kerensky]

Adrienne Vorton, on 19 October 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

+ it would create a HUGE ammount of work to do, AND a huge factor for imbalance issues... make some weapons the non-plus-ultra while extincting others and so on...

i´d go for visual diversity, like some ac´s might "simulate" a salvo through sound and visuals and other´s a oneshot, but do the same damage at the same moment... i´d love to hear a NO from PGI to that question pls ^^

I disagree.

It can be implemented with balanced gameplay (noone is saying it will be tenable overnight so yes there will be some work to do).

But there are a lot of true battletech sim fans out there who will appreciate it.

And it will enhance gameplay depth and longevity significantly.

So in summary I would love to hear a YES (eventually) to this question pls.

[Nik Kerensky]

Are we going to see more detailed damage modelling?

One possible idea for the future is physics based damage modelling..