154 replies to this topic

[Redshift2k5]

I'm much more concerned about being able totry all of the free starter mechs than I am about whether it is good or bad that people can start in an Assault

[Solis Obscuri]

Darn, I sent in my questions early, and it looks like they got missed.

Anyway, thanks for compiling all this together Aegis!

Kudzu, on 16 May 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

I thought the same thing, but having TT-like leg-loss effects would send the twitch crowd home crying.

Frankly I think falling down and being kicked in the head is a good reminder for everyone to put some armor on their ******* legs. I was disappointed by this one.

Kudzu, on 16 May 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I'm really hoping this does not apply to ammo explosions.

Ditto. There's also the question of whether XL engines can be critted out through the side torsos...

[DirePhoenix]

@Bryanekman said:

currently we are not allowing damage overflow as a form of balance.

I find the non-damage transfer to be very disturbing. This means we can essentially strip off all the armor from torsos with no weapons, equipment or XL engines inside with no consequences and making for invulnerable side torsos.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 16 May 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Psydotek]

Fresh_Meat, on 16 May 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

What are notable named hero mechs? are these special rare variants with unique hard points?

I sure hope so...

I don't want them to be better, I just want them to be different. Y'know, to avoid the whole pay2win thing.

[Redshift2k5]

Psydotek, on 16 May 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I sure hope so...

I don't want them to be better, I just want them to be different. Y'know, to avoid the whole pay2win thing.

Different hardpoints, different weapons using the same hardpoint type(such as an LBX-10 instead of an AC/10), custom paint, maybe complete with modules installed (while still needing the right skill tree to use them), etc. Lots of options, especially with special cosmetic applications.

[Breeze]

My biggest question comes from two of the responses. Firstly, players can only pick one of the 4 available classes at the start. And secondly, matches may have limits on tonnage/BVs implemented at some point.

The potential problem I see is that people will be spending amounts of time in the pre-game lobby just trying to juggle their mech choices, and the game's limit. Imagine if I gathered up a lance of buddies all taking Assault class mechs (cos we roll like that), then entered a lobby where everyone else has also taken an Assault, and we now have to negotiate who gets bumped down. Urgh... That's not a conversation I'm looking forward to have.

There'll probably be quick-game options. But still, this could be a potential sticking point.

[FaustianQ]

For those concerned, fairly positive that the devs mean that one pummeling a dead left arm, such damage does nothing to the left torso, not that an ammo explosion without CASE won't also destroy the center torso.

[Nick Makiaveli]

DirePhoenix, on 16 May 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

I find the non-damage transfer to be very disturbing. This means we can essentially strip off all the armor from torsos with no weapons, equipment or XL engines inside with no consequences and making for invulnerable side torsos.

I would assume that losing a torso cause the arm to also become useless. That means all your weapons would have to be in your CT (not much room there I would assume) or the other torso/arm. Which means I only have to shoot at that side of your mech. If you try to hide it from me, then that would likely impair your ability to shoot at me.

[Pht]

Quote

Q: Can legs be blown off? Is their limping with significant hip/leg damage? A: Legs cannot be blown off. However you can do critical damage. The leg becomes useless and the mech limps (Bryan)

Shame. Robust deconvergence to simulate the abilty of the 'mechs to handle their weapons would have fixed this without resorting to irrational fixes...

Quote

Q: What happens to the damage overflow if you shoot someone in a destroyed (but still attached) leg? A: Currently we are not allowing damage overflow as a form of balance (Bryan)

Disappearing damage? ... why?

Quote

Q: How will the game deal with headhunting (Aiming at the head for an easy kill)? A: In short we are and will deal with it just like the problem of legging. We won’t stick our head in the sand and ignore (Russ)

You can shoot the head, but you can't destroy the cockpit? Is that what you mean? It appears to be.

Robust ... deconvergence ... simulation of the 'mech's abilities ... to handle ... the weapons... !

FaustianQ, on 16 May 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

For those concerned, fairly positive that the devs mean that one pummeling a dead left arm, such damage does nothing to the left torso,..

This is not what the damage transfer simulates; The damage transfer makes sure(a) that all of the damage is applied and ( represents a hit against the stump/nub/next section down the line - remember, damage transfer happens AFTER it is determined that the weapons have "hit" the target... or a laser blasting through what's left of an arm and than lasing into the adjacent torso...

Edited by Pht, 16 May 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Nick Makiaveli, on 16 May 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I would assume that losing a torso cause the arm to also become useless. That means all your weapons would have to be in your CT (not much room there I would assume) or the other torso/arm. Which means I only have to shoot at that side of your mech. If you try to hide it from me, then that would likely impair your ability to shoot at me.

This would be canonical, but it has not been confirmed thus far...

Pht, on 16 May 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

You can shoot the head, but you can't destroy the cockpit? Is that what you mean? It appears to be.

They've already listed focusing fire on the head as a means of destroying 'mechs, but it sounds like it will take some repeated blasting, not one-shot kills.

[Tuhalu]

Nick Makiaveli, on 16 May 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I would assume that losing a torso cause the arm to also become useless. That means all your weapons would have to be in your CT (not much room there I would assume) or the other torso/arm. Which means I only have to shoot at that side of your mech. If you try to hide it from me, then that would likely impair your ability to shoot at me.

Hopefully, the intent is mostly to prevent a situation where someone just shoots you in the leg until your centre torso explodes (since the leg won't disappear when exploded because you need to see the leg "limping").

Also hopefully, other locations will eventually be properly destroyed on the mechs hit model/graphical model so that when you shoot at the mech, you can't hit a destroyed/blown off left arm or a destroyed torso location.

Edited by Tuhalu, 16 May 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[StandingCow]

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

Thanks for all the answers devs!

[Melissia]

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

Re-confirmation of game max player size being 3 lances (1 company) vs another (24 total players) — Russ

12v12 is still better than most FPS games these days.

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

PGI understands its players value VOIP but are looking into exploring official options — Russ

I hope we can mute a person's voice chat with ease.

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

Matchmaking will start off simplified but will be developed and evolved over time — Bryan

Matchmaking sucks, can we have a server browser alongside it?

Aegis 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

I hope the raven is the default for the lights then...

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

You can group together with friends and then launch as a group to ensure you play alongside each other — Bryan

That sucks. For those that are surprised that I say it sucks, I say this because it means there will be endless team stacking.

The rest was rather cool to hear, but the forum doesn't like having that many quote tags.

[Kanatta Jing]

Melissia, on 16 May 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

That sucks. For those that are surprised that I say it sucks, I say this because it means there will be endless team stacking.

But it's the cool thing these days to count our friends as tools that bring us closer to glory.

[Melissia]

Yes, team stacking for victory-- it's not cheating, it just might as well be!

[GrizzlyViking]

Quote

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

So, does this mean 1 free Mech in each class?

[Minatorc]

Melissia, on 16 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Yes, team stacking for victory-- it's not cheating, it just might as well be!

And hence the developing and evolving Matchmaking, pitting teams and against teams and leaving us pug players to run around around like kamikaze lemmings to out hearts content.

[Kanatta Jing]

GrizzlyViking, on 16 May 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

So, does this mean 1 free Mech in each class?

First read this:
Players get 1 free Mech to start.

Nod in understanding, then read the second line defines the first.
They can choose from 4 (1 in each class)

Now the Key words are "Choose from" and then it goes on to define the group "4(1 in each class)" that one can "Choose from"

[Dirk Le Daring]

Thanks for putting this together Aegis. (non-twitting type here)

And thanks to Russ and Bryan for your time to answer those questions. Good information there.

[LackofCertainty]

Melissia, on 16 May 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

That sucks. For those that are surprised that I say it sucks, I say this because it means there will be endless team stacking.

So you'd rather they completely remove the ability to queue with friends just to ensure that teams aren't stacked.

That's like trying to hammer in a -screw- with a butter knife. (wrong on multiple levels)

1. Letting people queue with their friends is good. One of the reasons why me and my friends quit playing WoT was because we had to just randomly join matchmaking at the same time and pray we got paired together. (yes I'm aware that you can duo-queue for free now, but that wasn't the case when I played)

2. You're looking at the symptom and not the cause. If the matchmaking takes into account premade groups when it pieces together people for a game, then it can just put similar sized groups on opposing teams. (aka If you have a premade group of 4, and get matched with 8 pubbies, then the enemy team should get a premade group of 4 with 8 pubbies.)