75 replies to this topic

[Bolo Warden]

BeakieHelmet, on 14 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Wait, so is there no way to play with our friends in this game, we're forced to play with random people 100 percent of the time?

I think the devs were mentioning that you could select your team of up to 12 mechs, but your opponents would be drawn from a pool of other people waiting to have some fun. As to creating a scenario and running the group through it to see how things would turn out, will not be present at launch, but could be made available in the future.

[Paul Inouye]

BeakieHelmet, on 14 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Wait, so is there no way to play with our friends in this game, we're forced to play with random people 100 percent of the time?

That's... I mean, that can't be right. That seriously cannot be right.

Yes, we have deemed that all your friends are not worth playing with and will hence hook you up with people our match making system determines as "Cool dudes".

Spoiler

Yes, you can create groups with friends and join a match.

Yes I was being sarcastic.

Yes, I still think your friends are not worth playing with.

[Felicitatem Parco]

So, basically I have to drop as my own Lance since I won't be added to anyone's matchmaking team?

More kills for me...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 May 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Garth Erlam]

=Outlaw=, on 14 May 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

The reamins to be seen, really. Its one thing for the dev's family and friends playing ti together. Its another thing entirely when you unleash the game to the general public and actual players are squeezing the life out of it for everything that its worth ...with zero bias in wanting it to be balanced. I'm glad they are considering the BV/tonnage system for matchmaking. It will be needed. The "all mechs are special" argument for balancing won't last the first week of play time post launch (hell open beta).

You think we're trying not to break the game? You've never seen a testing team at work have you?
The first thing the testers did was make that mach 1 Jenner, then came the Small Laser Armada, followed by the SRM Renaissance. We have competitions for the best K:D, the best W:L ratio. Our best player uses a Hunchback - s/he used to use a Catapult.

We do 2v1's, 10v10's, 3v4's, everything. We stack teams on purpose, we try to see if our best player can take on two, three times his/her number in opponents - with each 'Mech.

We give kudos and (not real) 'prizes' for discovering the best cheats, the best abuses.

And I dunno about your friends, but mine like ruining my stuff more than telling me how pretty it is

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 14 May 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Well, yeah. But by this logic, wouldn't it be the same thing as saying EVERYTHING remains to be seen?

Yep, pretty much. Since this is a multiplayer game, it won't be "finished" until its been tested in a real multiplayer game setting. Family and friends don't make the best testers. Devs themselves make for the worst type of tester of all...unless its a paid tester not directly invested in the success of the game.

Heres a good video on playtesting.
http://penny-arcade....ode/playtesting

EDIT:

Garth Erlam, on 14 May 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

You think we're trying not to break the game? You've never seen a testing team at work have you?
The first thing the testers did was make that mach 1 Jenner, then came the Small Laser Armada, followed by the SRM Renaissance. We have competitions for the best K:D, the best W:L ratio. Our best player uses a Hunchback - s/he used to use a Catapult.

We do 2v1's, 10v10's, 3v4's, everything. We stack teams on purpose, we try to see if our best player can take on two, three times his/her number in opponents - with each 'Mech.

We give kudos and (not real) 'prizes' for discovering the best cheats, the best abuses.

And I dunno about your friends, but mine like ruining my stuff more than telling me how pretty it is

Didn't see you post till after I responded to Aegis. It sounds like you guys are testing well, but unfortunately like aegis said players are good at breaking games in ways the devs never thought of. You are going to have to give the players at large a go at testing to know for sure.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 14 May 2012 - 12:37 PM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Paul Inouye, on 14 May 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yes, we have deemed that all your friends are not worth playing with and will hence hook you up with people our match making system determines as "Cool dudes".

Spoiler

Yes, you can create groups with friends and join a match.

Yes I was being sarcastic.

Yes, I still think your friends are not worth playing with.

Paul, contract with E-Harmony.com to provide match making services to players who want to play with new friends based on deep and meaningful compatability. (Awesome idea, yo.)

Edited by LakeDaemon, 14 May 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[Joseph Calvert]

Hey Garth,

First question, did you break it?

Now, I know you can't tell me when closed/ open beta will be released.

But can you give us anything more definitive than "soon" and "summer"? PLEASE!?!

[Sprouticus]

Garth Erlam, on 14 May 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

You think we're trying not to break the game? You've never seen a testing team at work have you?
The first thing the testers did was make that mach 1 Jenner, then came the Small Laser Armada, followed by the SRM Renaissance. We have competitions for the best K:D, the best W:L ratio. Our best player uses a Hunchback - s/he used to use a Catapult.

We do 2v1's, 10v10's, 3v4's, everything. We stack teams on purpose, we try to see if our best player can take on two, three times his/her number in opponents - with each 'Mech.

We give kudos and (not real) 'prizes' for discovering the best cheats, the best abuses.

And I dunno about your friends, but mine like ruining my stuff more than telling me how pretty it is

Garth, I have no doubt you guys are doing your best, and testing your booty's off. But I have seen a LOT of games & updates go live that were tested rigorously internally. Almost every one of them missed something. That's why we have open Betas.

Dont take our skeptisism as being critical of your processes. It is just the reality of having an online game.

[snip]

Edited by Paul Inouye, 14 May 2012 - 04:23 PM.
Deleting the ugly. :)

[pesco]

MaddMaxx, on 14 May 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Wouldn't lower repair costs be a built-in benefit of a Lighter Chassis? A light chassis carries less armor. A ton of armor costs what a ton costs. A Light chassis carries less weapons. The BULK of any repair Bill will likely the replacement of lost weapons.

Erm. Yes, my point exactly. I said I was surprised that the answer didn't mention this as one of the points that makes piloting a lighter chassis attractive.

Quote

With a MechLab what "customization costs" were you thinking about? Repair time will not be an issue so that rules out better paid Tech crews. A "Custom Mech" may still cost more to maintain given higher costs for components such as ES, FF, XL engines and T2 weapons and EW gear.

This remark was not related to the chassis size question but to the answer to Freebie Question 2. That answer says that currently, Mech customization costs only the price of the equipment and kind of implied ("you've planted the seed") that they hadn't considered an extra cost before. This also surprised me. I thought that rigging a Mech to carry a different loadout than it had originally would be a somewhat costly process and require more money than, say, repairing it (replacing broken parts). In fact I thought it might even take some real-world time to finish, depending on the magnitude of the changes. Such factors would make it a little bit special to have "your" Mech; and last but not least, provide a nice avenue to spend real-world cash.

[Paul Inouye]

HADDDDDOOOOKEN!!!!!


Don't make me do this again. You do not want to be left out of any upcoming news because of your behavior on this forum.

[CoffiNail]

Paul Inouye, on 14 May 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

HADDDDDOOOOKEN!!!!!

AUGH augh augh! thud thud.

[CoffiNail]

Ohh I see what you did there Paul

[Redshift2k5]

I'm sure the Dev team is trying their damnest to break every system they've built.

I'm sure they will miss something anyway.

That's why games go from internal testing, to a closed beta, (often to progressively bigger closed betas) and finally into open beta. Sometimes open beta/launch are the same thing, sometimes the 'launch' is version 1.5 after the first batch of open beta testing.

There will be a chance for everyone to test the game, some sooner than others, but no need to argue over who does or does not have precedence because of more or less experience, or tabletop vs online. We're all here to support MWO, no need to fight over credentials.

[Morashtak]

pesco, on 14 May 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

In fact I thought it might even take some real-world time to finish, depending on the magnitude of the changes. Such factors would make it a little bit special to have "your" Mech; and last but not least, provide a nice avenue to spend real-world cash.

While this might be more realistic it would not translate into fun. People want to try new things now, not wait for some random amount of time.

This might work well in "MechWarrior:The Meta-Game", tho'. Look for it on your favorite download site later™. Much, much later™. Much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much later™. If at all.

[Solis Obscuri]

Garth Erlam, on 14 May 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

You think we're trying not to break the game? You've never seen a testing team at work have you?
The first thing the testers did was make that mach 1 Jenner, then came the Small Laser Armada, followed by the SRM Renaissance. We have competitions for the best K:D, the best W:L ratio. Our best player uses a Hunchback - s/he used to use a Catapult.

We do 2v1's, 10v10's, 3v4's, everything. We stack teams on purpose, we try to see if our best player can take on two, three times his/her number in opponents - with each 'Mech.

We give kudos and (not real) 'prizes' for discovering the best cheats, the best abuses.

And I dunno about your friends, but mine like ruining my stuff more than telling me how pretty it is

Glad to hear you're going in with a realistic mindset!

Though I still hope you guys are ready to hop lively when open beta comes and the MW internet hivemind comes in - there's always a few woodchucks in the wainscoting...

Paul Inouye, on 14 May 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yes, we have deemed that all your friends are not worth playing with and will hence hook you up with people our match making system determines as "Cool dudes".

Spoiler

Yes, you can create groups with friends and join a match.

Yes I was being sarcastic.

Yes, I still think your friends are not worth playing with.

I am also glad you have Paul as an enforcer. The Jain Cobb public relations approach is too often underappreciated and underutilized, and I'm sure it'll come in handy when people start crying that there isn't an exploitable EZ-mode layout they can carry over from some previous title...

[Cifu]

Kudzu, on 14 May 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

You realize that the BV numbers are based on formulas and that those formulas can be changed to fit MWO online better, right? In other words if weapon X is better on the TT than it is in MWO it's BV can be lowered to match it's effectiveness, while if system Y is better in MWO than in the TT it's price can be raised. The best part is as they gather data from games play they can adjust those formulas with patches, something the TT could not do.

Then it's not even be based on the TT BV at all, ne?

And i point out the obvious: the price of the weapon (plus the upkeep, ammunition and/or heat sinks) and the battle value (BV) need to be very close to each other. If this two show great diversity, then most player tend to use the cheaper (or for the same price, the better) mech / weapon / equipment. In other words: the mech cost and the mech BV are around the same scale, so we need only one - and in this case, that is probably the price.

[Ramien]

The problem is that BV also includes things that may not necessarily affect price, such as critical placement for explosive components and heat efficiency. A well-designed mech will give a moderately higher BV than one of similar price but poorer design.

[Cifu]

Ramien, on 14 May 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

The problem is that BV also includes things that may not necessarily affect price, such as critical placement for explosive components and heat efficiency. A well-designed mech will give a moderately higher BV than one of similar price but poorer design.

Please clarify this, i'm lost.

I understand what you try to say, but simply cannot believe this can be followed by the BV. For example we have two mech with the same type (let's say a Hunchback HBK-4G), but one has a "standard" armor allocation, while the other one has literally no armor in the center torso front, but has more armor in the arms and legs, plus placed all the AC/20 ammunition into the center torso. This version is clearly a flawed design, but have the same armor point, the exactly same weapons, etc. as the original. Only it's a flawed design.

How do you wan't to set up the rules of the BV, to follow this? O.o

[Ramien]

The BV rules subtract values for AC ammo being placed in careless or unprotected locations. In the case of the aforementioned Hunchback, the BV actually wouldn't change because the AC20 ammo is in a side torso with no CASE to protect it, meaning that an ammo crit would likely destroy the mech whether it came from the side torso or the center. But, drop one heat sink and add CASE to the side torsos and the BV goes up because an ammo explosion would no longer destroy the mech, merely cripple it.

When it comes to heat calculations, once the maximum heat value a mech can generate is higher than the total amount the sinks can handle, the weapons that are 'over' the heat allocation only contribue half their value to the BV calculations, since it's assumed that the mech will normally not fire all it's weapons.

It's all in the tech manual.

[Paul Inouye]

Renegade Mitchell, on 14 May 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Yeah me too. Oppress those that show real concern for the game and suggest something that may help the MWO. But instead delete everyone of my suggestions to them. Have fun with this game. I am out. Also **** all you brown nosers and TT guys that have no clue about online competitive play. I feel this game will fail. Seyla!

Your posts were removed due to the fact that if left in tact with the wording you used would cause a circular flame war that started here in the first place.