206 replies to this topic

[Bryan Ekman]

Adridos, on 04 November 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Is it the viewpoint of the camo maker tool, or will we be able to turn our mechs in the mechlab, even if just for the already mentioned tool?

You can rotate the mech 360 deg.

[Adridos]

Tank Boy Ken, on 04 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Bryan if you inquire about the DHS 1.4 value, could you also inquire what the forumla behind the Basic Skill "Heat Containment" is? It's only containing text ingame and shows no % stuff, and some people like to go all excel on some things

Thanks it would be appreciated .

Sorry Tank Boy...

Bryan Ekman, on 04 November 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

I'll have to ask David to explain how all the calculations are done.

[Kothas Talari]

Bryan Ekman, on 04 November 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

You can rotate the mech 360 deg.

Good ! TY for the "preview".

Marineballer, on 04 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Anybody know the .cfg order for ******* Betty right now?
Read the link again, it was updated.

Yes I'd like to know that too :-)

[Ragor]

Maybe my question would be more appropriate for the classic Q&A but I take my chance to ask:
Are there any plans to display the individual equipped weapon models on the customized variants?
(crossing fingers now)

[Koningswulf]

Seriously DEVS You REALLY have to do something about the current MATCHMAKING in the game!
It was really bad before but now you have gone and done it worse again? With redrawing the only
small improvment you have made by taking away the max 4 premade groups able to play pugs. Why???

I play pug all the time not so much because I couldnt join a group but because
it is just easier to jump into the game whenever you want to and dont have to take
other people into consideration. And most of the time when we meet Premade groups
the Pug groups get severaly beaten. That is no surprise and most of the time I dont mind
as much either, but what it really do think is that it is very BAD FOR THE GAME because it prevent
NEW PLAYERS from having fun at all. I mean seriously how many will continue after getting
themself beaten to death in several games after another?

It is in your own intrest as well as for new players to deal with this Matchmaking issue as soon as possible
I suggest you make Premade matches play against other equal sized premade groups and fill the
other slots missing with pugs. Let pugs play against pugs when possible.
Also make the game balanced in terms of MechTons and experience of the players.
The total experiance of the player earned in the game could well work as a rank.
It doesnt tell the whole truth wheter you are good or bad but at least it would help soften the difference in
games.

Also Please could we have a Offical View from your DEVS how you actually see on this matter and what your plans are? It would help a lot to at least hear your thoughts on the matter, maybe you have it all sorted out but not yet implemented it?!

Edited by Koningswulf, 04 November 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Bryan Ekman, on 04 November 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

You can rotate the mech 360 deg.

yea!

oh and the last one before i go to bed...plsplsplspls tell your guys that i begged on my knees, to get rid of the frameratedrops since the last patch... (happening after several matches played) ... the first real performance issues i had so far ^^

[Adridos]

Ragor, on 04 November 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Are there any plans to display the individual equipped weapon models on the customized variants?

There are already some changes implemented on Centurions, Ravens and a few other mechs in specific situations (like the gausskitty).

Koningswulf, on 04 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Seriously DEVS You REALLY have to do something about the current MATCHMAKING in the game!

They already are, but periodically. If any of you guys culd link the MM plan to Koningwulf... http://mwomercs.com/...79-matchmaking/

Edited by Adridos, 04 November 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Marineballer, on 04 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Anybody know the .cfg order for ******* Betty right now?
Read the link again, it was updated.

yeee how to turn her on PLEASE?Its a must have option .

[Adridos]

Another update, this time for conquest mode.

[TowerDiver]

I've look around and haven't seen anything about it,

what's the Artemis?

[Adridos]

Lighthorn, on 04 November 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I've look around and haven't seen anything about it,

what's the Artemis?

The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components. In order to actually take the benefit of Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target, indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

Though extremely useful for improving a missile launcher, there is one major obstacle to their use: If any standard missile launcher is equipped with an Artemis system, every launcher of that type must have its own Artemis IV attached. Therefore a 'Mech mounting an LRM-15 and an LRM-5 would need two Artemis IV systems.

The thing weights 1 to and takes up one crit slot.

[Sarevos]

Lighthorn, on 04 November 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

I've look around and haven't seen anything about it,

what's the Artemis?

http://www.sarna.net.../Artemis_IV_FCS boop

Adridos, on 04 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components. In order to actually take the benefit of Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target, indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

Though extremely useful for improving a missile launcher, there is one major obstacle to their use: If any standard missile launcher is equipped with an Artemis system, every launcher of that type must have its own Artemis IV attached. Therefore a 'Mech mounting an LRM-15 and an LRM-5 would need two Artemis IV systems.

The thing weights 1 to and takes up one crit slot.

damn your quickness XD

[Ragor]

@Adridos: Me is aware of the number of barrels changing on the Raven etc. (Ok, got a quite tiny LBX on mine then.^^)

Me is wondering if there is some plans to implement 'weapon modules' as graphical gimmick at some point, for example that an AC/20 equipped mech looks different then the same variant carrying dual AC/2s...

But I assume my question is no subject to be answered here in this spontanoues Q&A Bryan does on a Sunday in his free time.

(BTW: Kudos for doing so!!)

Edited by Ragor, 04 November 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Artemis would make LRMs very fun in the 200-350m range with direct fire.

But I plan on using ECM and AMS on every mech, ever. Really not a fan of how indirect LRMs work/their current damage.

[Keifomofutu]

4 man groups will not end pugstomps. Phase 1 is a waste of time without putting one 4 man premade on each side.

There are probably quite a few good 4 man groups who could take on 8 man pugs and win most of the time 4 vs 8.

Pugs vs pugs premades vs premades I don't get the hangup about the concept...

Edited by Keifomofutu, 04 November 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

if you take a close look at the cat k2 in mechlab,while empty arms... you can come to the conclusion that they are working on something like that^^
@

Ragor, on 04 November 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

plans to implement 'weapon modules' as graphical gimmick at some point, for example that an AC/20 equipped mech looks different then the same variant carrying dual AC/2s...

Keifomofutu, on 04 November 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

4 man groups will not end pugstomps. Phase 1 is a waste of time without putting one 4 man premade on each side.

There are probably quite a few good 4 man groups who could take on 8 man pugs and win most of the time 4 vs 8.

Pugs vs pugs premades vs premades I don't get the hangup about the concept...

there is a high chance, that it ends up 4vs4 + pugs added...

[Adridos]

Ragor, on 04 November 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Me is wondering if there is some plans to implement 'weapon modules' as graphical gimmick at some point, for example that an AC/20 equipped mech looks different then the same variant carrying dual AC/2s...

I don't think so. The thing is, there are so many options on how to outfit a singloe mech it would take years to a bunch of engineers to model, texture and apply correctly for every single variant you could come up with... and some variants even can't be done, like the Gausscat, which is a no-no, considering the size of gauss rifles.

[cmopatrick]

unless it was in one of the fiction sources that i missed, i don't believe there a canon cat that mounted ecm as an option (and sarna seems to confirm this http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult ). from looking at the few mech i have in stable right now, only the RVN-3L seems to have the menu option any more. there should be some additions at a later date, but at this point in the timeline i think it was limited (at least with the mechs we can stable right now).

[Sarevos]

cmopatrick, on 04 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

unless it was in one of the fiction sources that i missed, i don't believe there a canon cat that mounted ecm as an option (and sarna seems to confirm this http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult ). from looking at the few mech i have in stable right now, only the RVN-3L seems to have the menu option any more. there should be some additions at a later date, but at this point in the timeline i think it was limited (at least with the mechs we can stable right now).

yea im pretty sure thats the case the only place ive seen it is in MW4 but then again the cat IS supposed to be primarily a long range support platform so it wouldnt need such equipment in the first place as youre not supposed to be brawling with it XD

Edit: I mean im pretty sure cats cannot mount it in canon

Edited by Sarevos, 04 November 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Sarevos, on 04 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

yea im pretty sure thats the case the only place ive seen it is in MW4 but then again the cat IS supposed to be primarily a long range support platform so it wouldnt need such equipment in the first place as youre not supposed to be brawling with it XD

Edit: I mean im pretty sure cats cannot mount it in canon

Well, it's not canon to mount PPCs in your Swayback, either, but I'd like to see you try and stop me