1768 replies to this topic

[Lan]

smurfynet, on 31 July 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Created at is not really difficult, patch date a bit more but not really.
About the design, i like the idea from michael (mechspecs thread), i will add something like that, maybe later today. i will do an update anyway to push the latest public test data live.

Sweet, thanks for all the great work. This will help a lot (especially now as they are pushing out patches and tweaks real fast).

[MourningZero]

Fantastic site, using it all the time. Thought of a feature worth requesting:
I am adding ammo to mechs with multiple weapon types (AC2 and AC5s for example), and thought it would be nice to have an ammo section in the weaponlab that details how long you can continuously fire before running out, and how much damage potential overall is present in the loaded ammo. This would help me decide how many tons of each type to load.

Keep up the great work.

[BlacKcuD]

Love the new versions on the iframe <3

(If you are still wondering, whether to show date, version, or both. My vote goes to showing both. Some people are into version numbers, but a lot of other people only look at the date. It is much more clear that way. I think the additional clutter is worth it.)

Edited by BlacKcuD, 01 August 2013 - 03:33 PM.

[Nacon]

smurfynet, on 02 July 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

Currently i tried to add a realistic stock loadout, but before we get more infos about the mechs / changes to come this is the best i can do.

Yeah that's understandable. I still can't help but think those pods will have 6 crit slots, just like the head, and take 6 slots from the torso. Even more wondering if they're gonna have some kind of internal part to take up a slot or two. "Shoulder joint" or something like that to even it out. Maybe 5 slots with one slot filled out in the pod.

So the problem is... if they do add more like how I think it would be... means you'd need to reorder the layout in mechlab.
I've made a mock up of the mechlab to support this "theory" for building a BattleMaster mech here below.



Would it work? I wasn't sure if the Right Pod should be darken or just be empty space when not available to some mech.

PS: In case some were wondering why would I have a theory about the pods like this. Because they will have pods show up in the damage indicator hud in the game and they're not connected to their torso side as one piece. Thus the damage will be separated.


(This can only be seen from a UI glitch, showing its placeholder parts.)

Edited by Nacon, 04 August 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[smurfynet]

BlacKcuD, on 01 August 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

If you are still wondering, whether to show date, version, or both. My vote goes to showing both. Some people are into version numbers, but a lot of other people only look at the date. It is much more clear that way. I think the additional clutter is worth it.

i will test a bit with long mech names if there is enought space to add the patch date aswell.

Nacon, on 04 August 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

Would it work? I wasn't sure if the Right Pod should be darken or just be empty space when not available to some mech.

If PGI follows the same schema than before this should be quite easy to implement.

[Deathlike]

Hi Smurfy... the Heavy Metal (HM) seems to be the only mech that doesn't seem to have the specific missile pod arrangements like all of the other mechs. I see "16" and I'm assuming a (10, 6) configuration, but the site doesn't reflect that.

Also, the TBT-7K and PB doesn't follow the current missile pod format.

One other question... is there any consideration of partially/occasionally harvesting the public server test data?

As I understand it, we have "projected loadouts" from the Kintaro (hero and regular) plus the Champion CPT-A1 (unreleased, but will be in the rotation in next patch day). Those should be in consideration...

Also, why not have some code to highlight the 4 trial mechs for the current month/rotation? It doesn't have to be too colorful, and it's not that important, but perhaps it should be considered?

Edited by Deathlike, 05 August 2013 - 12:35 PM.

[smurfynet]

Deathlike, on 05 August 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Hi Smurfy... the Heavy Metal (HM) seems to be the only mech that doesn't seem to have the specific missile pod arrangements like all of the other mechs. I see "16" and I'm assuming a (10, 6) configuration, but the site doesn't reflect that.

Also, the TBT-7K and PB doesn't follow the current missile pod format.

i don't own this mechs, i'm relying on the communities help to get the missile bay data.

Deathlike, on 05 August 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

One other question... is there any consideration of partially/occasionally harvesting the public server test data?

As I understand it, we have "projected loadouts" from the Kintaro (hero and regular) plus the Champion CPT-A1 (unreleased, but will be in the rotation in next patch day). Those should be in consideration...

I already do: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ats/public-test

but this currently only works for the stats page.

Deathlike, on 05 August 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Also, why not have some code to highlight the 4 trial mechs for the current month/rotation? It doesn't have to be too colorful, and it's not that important, but perhaps it should be considered?

i thought about that too, but the data about which mech is currently a trial mech is not available in the gamefiles. (or i don't know where)

Phil

[Deathlike]

Hi smurfy... I can't seem to attempt to pre-build with the public test's Kintaro data as of yet...

Doesn't the MC value for hero mechs have a projected math cost?

The cost is something like mech tonnage * 75.

So the Hero Kintaro will have a projected value of 4125 MC.

[smurfynet]

I pushed the newest patch data, i also optimized the heat penalty display on the mainpage http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eapon_heatscale

Deathlike, on 06 August 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Hi smurfy... I can't seem to attempt to pre-build with the public test's Kintaro data as of yet...

yea, the switch version feature only works for the main page and it will be some work to get it working in the mechlab too.
but with todays patch all Kintaro mechs are in the gamefiles so happy building

Deathlike, on 06 August 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Doesn't the MC value for hero mechs have a projected math cost?
The cost is something like mech tonnage * 75.
So the Hero Kintaro will have a projected value of 4125 MC.

i think so, i still have a seperate list with all prices which i load and update manually, same goes for missile tubes.

[Void Angel]

Forgive me if I missed it when someone else pointed this out (I did look,) but the Thunderbolt's stock load-out puts 3 single heat sinks in its center torso, along with a 260 engine.

[smurfynet]

Void Angel, on 08 August 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Forgive me if I missed it when someone else pointed this out (I did look,) but the Thunderbolt's stock load-out puts 3 single heat sinks in its center torso, along with a 260 engine.

i see , thats not possible because there are only 2 slots left after the engine. thats happens when you fake a non existing stock loadout ...

i will fix this with a future update, its not a really severe bug, because the the stock loadout is complete fake, because its simple not existant yet. only which hardpoints are used with which weapon, number of heatsinks and the engine is known.

[Void Angel]

I thought that would be the case.

[Kali Rinpoche]

Kintaro 19 is over-tonnage in editor. Won't allow you to modify anything on it b/c its says 56.2 tons. Have to remove a component before you can modify design. Acts like it's supposed to have Endo-steel or Ferro-Fibrous.

[smurfynet]

Void Angel, on 09 August 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

I thought that would be the case.

i fixed it

Kali Rinpoche, on 13 August 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Kintaro 19 is over-tonnage in editor. Won't allow you to modify anything on it b/c its says 56.2 tons. Have to remove a component before you can modify design. Acts like it's supposed to have Endo-steel or Ferro-Fibrous.

thanks for the report, i currently can't check ingame whats wrong, because i don't own a kto-19 but i will check once its available for cbills.

[smurfynet]

smurfynet, on 13 August 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

thanks for the report, i currently can't check ingame whats wrong, because i don't own a kto-19 but i will check once its available for cbills.

Ok i just bought the kto-19 and even in the buy dialog its displayed with normal armor, after buying it it's "magically" gets ferro.
I modified the gamefiles my site uses to display the stock with ferro.

Phil

[arghmace]

I'm afraid the HBK-4G torso pitch value is wrong. Do you get this from data files? If so, then data files are borked and uncoupled from what actually happens in-game. If you're trusting the patch notes, they are simply wrong.

Notice how patch notes say for every other HBK variant this: "Torso pitch angle increased to 20 degrees"
For 4G it says "Torso pitch angle remains at 25 degrees"
This makes no sense since 4G like all HBK's used to have 16 degs. So I thought it will either remain at 16 or increase to 25. But neither is correct.

I ran some tests in the testing grounds and all HBK's have the same torso pitch. Furthermore their pitch is less than that of Centurions (25 deg) and more than Atlai (16 deg). So I can only conclude that 4G like all Hunchies has 20 deg torso pitch, not 25 like currently stated.

Edited by arghmace, 21 August 2013 - 02:43 AM.

[Koniving]

smurfynet, on 20 November 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Smurfy. Is there any way you can put the heat generation to enemy mechs from the flamers in the flamer section of the energy weapons? Also.. Despite generating one heat per second, a single flamer on a mech on frozen city with 27 DHS still overheats? This implies it has some sort of time penalty to keep it from being heat neutral (it's been there since early closed beta).

[smurfynet]

arghmace, on 21 August 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

I'm afraid the HBK-4G torso pitch value is wrong. Do you get this from data files? If so, then data files are borked and uncoupled from what actually happens in-game. If you're trusting the patch notes, they are simply wrong.

The data comes directly from the gamefiles,

Koniving, on 21 August 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Smurfy. Is there any way you can put the heat generation to enemy mechs from the flamers in the flamer section of the energy weapons? Also.. Despite generating one heat per second, a single flamer on a mech on frozen city with 27 DHS still overheats? This implies it has some sort of time penalty to keep it from being heat neutral (it's been there since early closed beta).

Hi it was there a while back but it seams they changed the way the flamer heat to target is in the gamefiles (old: heatdamage=xxx, new: heatinctime="5.5" trgheatinctime="4.0")

Also yea i tested a while back an atlas ddc with only one flamer rest dhs still overheats.
I need to figure out how the values work from the gamefiles and then i'm be able to show the heat again.

Phil

[Koniving]

smurfynet, on 21 August 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Hi it was there a while back but it seams they changed the way the flamer heat to target is in the gamefiles (old: heatdamage=xxx, new: heatinctime="5.5" trgheatinctime="4.0")

Also yea i tested a while back an atlas ddc with only one flamer rest dhs still overheats.
I need to figure out how the values work from the gamefiles and then i'm be able to show the heat again.

Phil

Thanks because that drives me nuts. I think they did it in reaction to this:


But the "fix" I was talking about is the spiking of the heat and it instantly disappearing; that heat should have been sunken over time not instantly removed. Not fixing the fact that I had so many heatsinks it made the heat neutrality possible. After all consider all I sacrificed to make it happen.

[LegoPirate]

hey you prob already know, but the max armor values on the griffin and wolv are way too much. they carry as much armor as a stalker? guessing thats an error.

Edited by LegoPirate, 30 August 2013 - 05:07 AM.