Ask The Devs 29!
#121
Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:20 AM
2. During close beta you said the base cap mechanic was a place holder. You guys still planning on changing how base caps work or are you happy with the current system?
3. Can you tell us about any upcoming modules?
4. Why don't you guys patch more often? We all know this is beta so I don't think anyone would be upset with having to patch more than once a week. If you fix something send it out, I think we have proven to be much better at catching stuff than the internal testers.
5. Any possibility on getting a toggle for the UAC/5 to switch between single shot and double tap?
Thanks for your time
#122
Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:32 AM
Perhaps its just the current power of the ECM, but BAP seems much, much more lackluster in comparison. Net even more niche, just totally useless for scouting. Its increase in radar range is about the only useful thing right now, but ECM totally makes that useless. The increased lock on speed is also useless due to ECM. Even without ECM around BAP is still not very useful for a scout. The increased range isn't extremely good when a mech runs as fast as a scout does. It seems, currently BAP is far more useful on LRM boats than scouts.
I think 360 targeting (not just retention like the module does it) would be excellent, perhaps with a shortened cone in the rear, of course (you don't get to target a mech 600 meters behind you or something).
#123
Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:37 AM
Thontor, on 14 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:
Since you are moving to the right, so are the projectiles, and they continue to have that lateral movement after they are fired. This is why they hit to the right of where you're crosshairs were.
This will be less of an issue when they increase the muzzle velocity
If you did check the video, you may notice that I was already at a full stop when I fired.
#124
Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:50 AM
#125
Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:50 AM
Russ said recently that you don’t have the rights to SOME unseen….can we get a list of mechs we can definately NOT expect to be in game unless things change? It would stop all the theorizing at what could be added...and you could always update us later if things change. Do you have the rights to the re-seen?
Question 2:
I've seen the reasons for not doing the lucky 13, but why not just slap the skin on the mech, add a 30% c-bill boost and sell it? Would take a minimum of time/resources and you'll make money. People don't have to buy it if they don't want. I probably won't buy the muromet because I hate the paint scheme. Way to bland for a hero mech IMO.
Question 3:
Why not at least allow us to change the colors of the hero mech, while keeping the pattern? This one thing will stop me from buying the muromet...and other hero mechs in the future. You are loosing money because of this.
Question 4:
This was addressed rather vaguely in another ask devs, but no info specifically relating to the Highlander was given...
The spider was released out of order of the announced mechs list…what are the chances of getting the highlander in sooner then the flea or other mechs? (Good call on getting the spider out sooner though, my faith in you guys is being restored due to this and other smart decisions.)
Question 5:
Why not allow the LBX-10 to fire 1 ton of ac10 ammo, and perhaps vise/versa for the ac10? Would make each gun more fun, and keep the ac10 viable even if the lbx can fire some of its ammo. All you need is a button to switch ammo types on the fly.
Question 6:
Why not make NARC allow SRMs to track slightly? ...Like allow them to turn as much as 1 average mech width. This would help you hit moving targets, but won't be like streaks....that would be OP IMO. Don't tighten the spread...but some small tracking ability with NARC would be canon (according to sarna), and Not OP....It would add to the usefulness of a system no one is hardly using because tag is vastly superior.
Love you guys
Edited by Onyx Rain, 14 December 2012 - 08:51 AM.
#126
Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:02 AM
Now for the question... When might we see the command module go live? I have high hopes that the command module will add as much, or even more depth to the game as what ECM has.
Great job with the game!
p.s. please answer the first question on paint pricing... Your price point and purchase valuations are questions for us all, I think.
#127
Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:19 AM
#128
Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:11 AM
I know you said no Community Warfare questions, but what about other things like the Stalker and whatnot.
#129
Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:25 AM
Q: Have you considered having more counters to ECM? Narc as it stands doesn't really have a place (To heavy and to few rounds per ton), and would be a simple addition alongside the TAG if tweaked, IMO.
Q: Are there any plans of retaliation against the Russians for their attack the other day?
Q: Can you give us any info on CW? Not trying to be cute, I know you asked us not to, it's just that for me it's what originally caught my interest in the game (and I'm not the only one). Any info at all? Will it make it's Q1 launch guesstimation?
Q: Will you bare my children?
#130
Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:39 AM
Why not some kind of free for all;
All mechs of X tonnage can have up to X size engines.
And make it so all mechs have access to all current and future electronics, but at a price.
And is Yaletown more Geeky or Nerdy?
#131
Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:30 AM
How about public test server so there would be larger 'sample size' when testing new patch, like something similar to what WoT guys do? I think we really need this, as many of new features seem to be tested only superficially or not at all.
Do you have plans for hotkeys assigned to some basic commands/responses etc. ("Enemy spotted", "Attack my target", "Fall back", "Roger", "Negative" and something like that)?
Are we going to have destructable environment? Any details and/or ETA?
Any plans to change/fix zoom module to make it actually usefull (like 1.5 - 2 x current zoom level instead flat 4x)?
Can we expect some changes to convergence system? Like manual setting or makeing it fix on distance to current target.
Do you like current XP and money reward system and is it final or are you going to change it somehow? Many players don't seem to be happy with what we have now.
And one question on critical hits: can we expect to have more effects besides weapon/equipment destruction? I'm thinking about, for example, jamming of arms/torso (so you can't move them or have only decreased mobility becouse of servo/actuator damage) or some troubles with aiming when targeting computer gets hit.
#132
Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:42 AM
It seems odd to have such huge differences in engine capacity within a single chassis, such as 260 vs. 390 with the Centurions. Also, the 8.5*tonnage cap disallows certain canon mechs, such as the Jenner IIC. Given that speed is the primary reason to take a smaller mech, it seems likes anything smaller than a Jenner, which can already hit that cap, will be deprived of the primary advantage for shedding tonnage.
#133
Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:51 AM
#134
Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:51 AM
I know we don't have them, so we don't see enemies behind our back.
But why don't we see our alles? Shouldn't they be able to relay ther location at all times?
#135
Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:21 PM
#136
Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:38 PM
THESE SHORTS ARE OP! WHAT PLANS ARE THERE TO BUFF/NERF THEM? IF NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT THIS RIGHT AWAY THE FAILURE OF ALL THINGS MECHWARRIOR WILL BE YOUR FAULT!
#137
Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:20 PM
#138
Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:22 PM
http://mwomercs.com/...ack/page__st__0
#139
Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:38 PM
I would also like to know if you guys will implement mechanics in the ELO Matchmaking to make it more viable to Lone Wolfs, or the future of the game will by focused only in Premades (Merc Cops and like)?
Edited by Locan Ravok, 14 December 2012 - 01:44 PM.
#140
Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:23 PM
Q: Can we get the Match making system to match pre-made group sizes? (e.g., if you join in a group of 4, the other team gets 4; join with 2, the other side gets a pair; etc.)
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users