Jump to content

Discussing the First MWO Developer TweetChat Topics


154 replies to this topic

#121 Howling Mad Murdock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • LocationPlanet Sian....but sometimes Essex, UK

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:14 AM

View PostShezmu, on 17 May 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

This has intrigued me, might be very interesting to find out what the variants are going to be. :rolleyes:


Perhaps it will be the various loadouts or version of the Mechs that were available in 3049.

I.e see the Centurion Variants here :wacko:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Centurion

#122 Kreisel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 466 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:31 AM

View PostPvt Dancer, on 17 May 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

The way criticals worked in TT is that once damage gets past the armor (either through destroying the armor or rolls a special hit (snake eyes, which is CT with a auto chance for a crit, even if you don't get past the armor)). Every shot that does Internal Structure damage has a chance to crit. You roll 2d6 and if you get an 7-8, one critial location is destroyed, 9-10 is two locations, and 11-12 is 3 locations. A 6 or less doesn't cause a critical. The Average roll on a D6 is 3.5, thus 7 on a 2d6... you kinda have a 50/50 chance of getting a crit per chance. If your Mech only has a single critical location, it will automacticly be destroyed, even if you rolled more than one location.

So yeah, it is not a TT system, as in TT if a Torso is destroyed, the Arm is automaticly destroyed as well. Case just prevents the damage from transfering. So yeah, your dead on with Case being a waste to even have with how this is describe to us. I might as well put all of my ammo in my legs, as I can't lose them, the damage will not transfer, and I can still move.

Apparently the only way to kill a mech is to destroy the CT due to engine destruction, unless they do XL engines like they are suppose to be. Then maybe Torso shots might be effective. I don't know how effective Gyro hits will even be... so engine hits or nothing.


Thanks for the explanation of the TT. No, it clearly wont work the same, but I would not be surprised if it's similar, where each hit to the section once armor is gone randomly checks if it destroys something (or more likely always destroys something but checks which something it is).

My point about CASE is this, they have confirmed it as something that WILL be in the game at launch and have talked about it as useful, given what CASE does this tells me their is something we're missing. In the Mechlab video Paul makes an offhanded remark about putting his ammo somewhere 'safe' and checks the legs first. I was under the impression he said this as a joke, which would indicate doing so is a poor choice.

They said blowing up a leg wouldn't destroy it and that the mech would limp, they did not say it wasn't possible to remove a mech from the game by destroying both it's legs. If the explanation is that leg is crippled and being dragged at very least you would turn someone into a lousy turret if you destroyed them both, at which point you could stroll around to their backside and core them at your leisure.

Garths made a comment in posts regarding balancing XL Engines before that indicated very strongly the XL engines made it possible to be blown up with only a side torso stripped of it's armor. He made it in an unofficial capacity but, it was pretty clear he thought that XL engines ought to run the traditional risk of exploding if your side torso is smashed.


View PostPvt Dancer, on 17 May 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Well, I think this is to prevent lights from being cored by a weapon that does 10pts of damage or more to a single location. /ALOT/ of people were complaining about this as they felt that it would make lights 'worthless'. Guess what... now lights are pretty much unstoppable. You can't take out the leg, so a limping Jenner is still probably faster than an Atlas. Any hits with weapons that do more than 5pts of damage to a single location are kind of a waste. Might as well save that AC 20 ammo for heavies and Assaults that actually have 20pts of armor/IS in a location to make it worthwhile to fire. They are faster than a mech can turn/torso twist and thus hard to hit, even if they are moving slow. Then you add on top of this people who are crying for DoT weapons and this game really becomes unplayable. Damage is nerfed, effectivily.

The removal of head shots as a insta kill is also a bummer... get ready to see alot of mechs with no armor on the heads! Hard enough to hit the head as it is apparently.


Having your center torso instantly cored by a hit to a side torso would put a pretty major damper on light mechs. It certainly did in past games. I fail to see how having to shoot a mech somewhere near the center mass makes them unstoppable. If lights mechs only advantage is speed and removing a single leg completely removes that advantage to the point it's moving at the pace of the slowest category of mechs in the game, then taking that leg out was an extremely effective thing to do (say at-least as effective as destroying both an Atlas's arms and one of it's side torsos).

Also, where did we get the automatic assumption lights would move fast enough that no one could turn/torso twist fast enough to keep up? Manipulate the geometry of their movement relative to yours and you ought to be able to get them in your sights unless they are hugging you or your trying to run forward at top speed at the same time (if you want to swivel your aim faster slow down!).

I haven't heard anyone crying for DOTs, that just how we explain the way Lasers DO work in this game, it's a very short duration dot at that, somewhere between 1.5 and 3 seconds to deliver the whole damage.

Yes, your right, damage IS nerfed compared to other MW games, by design, and the Devs have been open about their intention for it to be so from very early on in the design process. They don't want instant death for players who only get one life if a potentially 15 minute long game! Lords, players would rage quit matches all the time if in the first minute they are dead and they have to sit around doing nothing for the next 10 to 14... And many players would give up playing entire classes of mechs or just the game itself in frustration.

Not that they actually said no more headshots either, just 'we want to do something to reduce the amount of headhunting that goes on.' and that as it stand now, headshots do destroy mechs.


View Postjesus, on 17 May 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

Legging won't actually destroy the leg (lol?). And no damage overflow so people can make their mech invulnerable by simply turning the destroyed arm/torso/leg to the opponent, leaving only the tiny head (if that, depending on the model) as a viable target?

Have you looked at the Mechlab pictures of the Catapult and Hunchback? The ones with the glowing sections highlighting which part of the model are count as which section of the mech? I don't care how far to the side you turn, unless your presenting me with that squishy rear armor I can shoot your center torso.

When an arm is blown off it's not on the Mech anymore to shoot for overflow. We have a confirmation that the same does not happen to legs, and blowing up a side torso does not destroy the arm. It might be that the destroyed side sections crumple and present less of a target profile, or again... they might have just been talking about no overflow from the legs.

As a general note, as someone who played lights in MW4, sure you still might outrun an Atlas if you got legged, but... it was a death sentence. An Atlas only moves at 52 after all, and if you can't consistently hit a target moving in at >60, your in the wrong game. Reverse was also disabled, you were siting duck, you we're moving slow enough to be an easy target, and lightly armored enough that the very next shot killed you 90% of the time, and they never missed that shot, because a even a limping mech with a top speed of 120 to start was verrrry easy to hit.

Edited by Kreisel, 17 May 2012 - 04:43 AM.


#123 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:53 AM

View PostJazzySteel, on 16 May 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:


He does have a point. You could get the Atlas, sell it, then buy the mech you want with some change leftover


That assumes you can Sell your Freebie. That seems unlikely for the exact reason you stated... :wacko:

P.S. I like the non transference of damage info. Want to knock out a section, shoot that section, not the dead one next door. :rolleyes:

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 May 2012 - 06:57 AM.


#124 Grokmoo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:08 AM

I don't know why people assume the Atlas will be a starter choice. The starters will probably be the least expensive option in each class. So the starter Assault should be the Awesome or maybe the as-yet unknown Assault mech.

Edited by Grokmoo, 17 May 2012 - 07:08 AM.


#125 GuntherK

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:12 AM

The developers could give a starting amount of cbills.
You buy one of the 4 starter mechs and the value in cbills is deducted from that starting money.
If you choose a more expensive mech you would have less starting cbills left.
Later you could sell the mech as any other mech you have, probably for half the price you bought it initialy.
Voilá, problem solved.

#126 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:16 AM

The Awesome with the PPC min range will actually be a difficult mech to play for newcomers, it may well be whatever else is chosen. At the moment I'm still going for a medium, although I might go Dragon. It depends on what the choices are.

#127 CoffiNail

    Oathmaster

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Cub
  • The Cub
  • 4,285 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationSome place with other Ghost Bears. A dropship or planet, who knows. ((Winnipeg,MB))

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:20 AM

Starting mechs will probably be a selection on Atlas, Catapult, Hunchback and Jenner, my guess at least.

#128 wwiiogre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • LocationNorth Idaho

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:33 AM

View PostBelisarius†, on 16 May 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

No damage rollover is completely insane. What possible justification is there for that?


Physics answers this question, but it also poses another question. IF there is no damage rollover, then when I shoot from the side of a mech that has a destroyed arm and destroyed torso, are the destroyed parts now shields, or does the angle of the shot now determine I hit center torso instead of arm/side torso?

I will be perturbed if a player can use destroyed body parts as a shield. I will be happy if I can auto bypass center torso armor by shooting a mech with a destroyed side torso and arm and then hitting internal bits because physics say this is possible.

chris

#129 Ayumi Silverfops

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSunnyvale, CA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:46 AM

View PostRisky, on 16 May 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I'm a bit skeptical on why system requirements are being so delayed, I'd like to to think that since the game is in alpha and around it's graphical requirement peek, that they should be ready around now.

My only thoughts on the entire tweet session, since it lasted only five minutes.


If you've done hardware compatibility testing, benchmarking, or QA at a game company the "delay" in system requirements being posted is actually quite normal. A LOT of these companies outsource their QA and, depending upon where they are located and the size of the team, results can take awhile to get. Even if they had their own internal team it would still take some time to get this taken care of to say nothing of passing builds to the hardware developers as well also takes time to get results back from them as well.

I could go into quite some detail regarding this topic, considering it's something I'm intimately familiar with, but if you REALLY just HAVE TO HAVE something to start off with I'd say look at the system requirements for Crysis 2:


Operating system: Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7, with the latest Service Pack
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo at 2Ghz, or AMD Athlon 64 x2 2Ghz, or better
Memory: 2Gb (Vista requires 3Gb)
Hard disk space: 9Gb
Video: NVidia 8800GT with 512Mb RAM, ATI 3850HD with 512Mb RAM, or better
Sound: DirectX Compatible Sound Card

Notes: Expect minimum of 20 FPS at a resolution of 1024x768

These are the specs that were recommended by VR-Zone after benchmarking the game:

Recommended: 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo / A64 X2 CPU, 3GB RAM, GTX280 / HD4870, 1GB Video Memory, DX9.0, Shader Model 3.0/4.0, Windows XP, 30fps @ 1650 x 1080

Highly Recommended: 3GHz Core i7 4GB RAM, GTX560Ti / HD4870 X2, 1.8GB Video Memory, DX11, Shader Model 3.0/4.0, Windows 7, 30fps @ 1920 x 1200

This will give you a starting point to work from to compare whatever hardware you have against. Chances are, even if they make some tweaks to the engine to add features that it should only change these results by I'd estimate 20% tops.

Myself, I'm always interested to see companies release their system requirements especially those using third-party 3D graphical engines like Cryengine or Unreal. It gives me an insight into what trade-offs they did in order to make the marketing types happy as well as the rest of us apes who buy their product not scream for scalps.

*chuckle* It's funny in that I clearly remember some of the discussions back when Crysis came out when I was doing a compatibility pass on a title I was working on. Believe you me the marketing types were WAY easier to deal with after I had that mess to show them about how NOT to make system requirements too low just to meet some marketing sales numbers. The trade-off just was not offset as much as the bean-counters thought since the "pulse" of sales at the beginning dropped VERY sharply after folks found out the "minimum" meant more like "postage stamp window with crappy graphics" which turned people off for some reason. *rolls eyes*

Anyway, they'll post them just as soon as the marketing types give the go-ahead to do so and the "boxart" is approved. Meantime, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride since we'll be getting to the end here pretty soon if they keep to their timetables. :rolleyes:

#130 Dayuhan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 385 posts
  • LocationCarse

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:50 AM

View PostRisky, on 16 May 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I'm a bit skeptical on why system requirements are being so delayed, I'd like to to think that since the game is in alpha and around it's graphical requirement peek, that they should be ready around now.

My only thoughts on the entire tweet session, since it lasted only five minutes.


When a game is still in development there is a lot of debug code running that significantly increases the requirements for the game. This debug code will be disabled (or removed) before the game goes gold. With the debug code disabled the requirements will change.

#131 Aidan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 542 posts
  • LocationFlorida, USA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:50 AM

The decision by PGI to limit the number of players on a server is a good one, IMHO. When MWLL servers first began appearing, most server operators created 32 players servers, the maximum for the Crysis game. These 32 player servers proved, through time, to become very laggy due to the nature of the MWLL mod. There was just too much bandwidth, both locally and remotely, to allow the game to run smoothly. As time went by, many MWLL server operators, myself included, lowered the total server player count down to 26 and 24 players. Game response, as viewed from the client, became much improved.

Good design choice PGI ! :rolleyes:

#132 Dayuhan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 385 posts
  • LocationCarse

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:55 AM

View PostStandingCow, on 16 May 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Should be interesting to see how the non-damage overflow works in game.

Thanks for all the answers devs!

He did say Currently it will not transfer for balance. That means it is not a difficult change to implement damage transfers if doing so does not imbalance the game. Put another way, their is already stub code for damage transfers in-game it just will not be active in the initial release.

#133 Ayumi Silverfops

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSunnyvale, CA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:48 AM

View PostDayuhan, on 17 May 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:


When a game is still in development there is a lot of debug code running that significantly increases the requirements for the game. This debug code will be disabled (or removed) before the game goes gold. With the debug code disabled the requirements will change.


Actually, that's not very true anymore or rather I should say it's a trend that's going away or being found more in console development rather than PC development especially when it comes to MMO-style games. The "debug code" is usually left in for MMO's to assist the developers, QA, and GM's better get to certain areas of the game without having to do a full playthru; with the full playthru usually being reserved for QA only. Most of the time the way this works is that accounts that are flagged for "development" access will have access to the debug tools while everyone else has those hidden from them or are only enabled on a test server.

Come to think of it, the last time I ever saw a "debug code" being removed from a title prior to going Beta (it's part of the standards docs for most titles to have debug stuff mostly removed since the code is submitted to places like Sony and such for a standards pass) was on a console title and the last PC title I ever touched sheesh over 3 years ago. Goddess, time flies.....

#134 Creed Buhallin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:55 AM

View PostRedshift2k5, on 17 May 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

I'm worried about upwards of half the players all being in Assaults (I expect more informed decisions on the part of the reasonable players here on this forum, but less so from the huge number of less-informed players who will appear on launch) and making the game very top-heavy.

If the devs have managed to make the Role Warfare worthwhile, then topheavy teams won't work well, people will realize that, and move towards more varied options. Problem solved. If they haven't, then everyone will migrate to the top anyway.

Being able to pick big and heavy at the beginning won't really impact much.

#135 Ragotag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 126 posts
  • LocationVirginia, U.S.A.

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:15 AM

View PostAegis Kleais™, on 16 May 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

  • Players get 1 free Mech to start. They can choose from 4 (1 in each class) — Bryan


My guess on this one is that you will get enough cash to buy the most expensive of the *free* 'Mechs. This way, if you go for the light 'Mech, you will have leftover cash to buy components and customization whereas if you buy the most expensive 'Mech (likely the assault) you'll have to run it stock.

#136 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:45 AM

View PostRagotag, on 17 May 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:


My guess on this one is that you will get enough cash to buy the most expensive of the *free* 'Mechs. This way, if you go for the light 'Mech, you will have leftover cash to buy components and customization whereas if you buy the most expensive 'Mech (likely the assault) you'll have to run it stock.

Personally, I think it's just going to be a credit. "Redeem 1 Mech" Costs you nothing so that everyone starts off with the same money.

#137 Cifu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 348 posts
  • LocationHungary, EU

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:08 AM

View PostNik Van Rhijn, on 17 May 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

The Awesome with the PPC min range will actually be a difficult mech to play for newcomers, it may well be whatever else is chosen. At the moment I'm still going for a medium, although I might go Dragon. It depends on what the choices are.


Well, i won't really agree. The Awesome with only two type of weapons (3x PPC, 1x SLAS) is an easily playable mech, i think an Atlas is far more harder to handle (LRM20, SRM6, AC/20 and 4x MedLas), if you won't familiar the weapon grouping.

#138 Name140704

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:15 AM

View PostAegis Kleais™, on 17 May 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Personally, I think it's just going to be a credit. "Redeem 1 Mech" Costs you nothing so that everyone starts off with the same money.



I think so as well, I just hope that 'mech won't be sell-able, or just sell-able for 0

#139 DirePhoenix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:17 AM

I'll laugh if the starter Assault 'Mech is the 3025 Charger

#140 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:18 AM

View PostNARCoMAN, on 17 May 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:



I think so as well, I just hope that 'mech won't be sell-able, or just sell-able for 0

Yeah. I think you can only opt to "destroy" the Mech. You can add/remove items from it, but the items it came with cannot be equipped onto other chassis or sold to market for money. They can only be destroyed or used with the starter Mech.

That way, whether your free ride came with 3MLAS or 4MLAS and 2LRM15, you won't be able to use them elsewhere or get compensation for them.





13 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 13 guests, 0 anonymous users