338 replies to this topic

[Wizard Steve]

Legolaas, on 13 January 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Who the Fu++ is tolkien? Is he the non ECM Party Leader? We all know ecm is overpowered but before ecm has benn inplemented you guys complained about Streaks, lrms +++. Forum is full with ecm complaints. DEVS Will have noticed that and it looks like they dont want to change anything.

He asked a perfectly reasonable and well written question about ECM. It's been ignored more than once. We want it answered.

[Accursed Richards]

Legolaas, on 13 January 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Who the Fu++ is tolkien? Is he the non ECM Party Leader? We all know ecm is overpowered but before ecm has benn inplemented you guys complained about Streaks, lrms +++. Forum is full with ecm complaints. DEVS Will have noticed that and it looks like they dont want to change anything.

Then all they need to do is say "We've noticed the complaints, but we don't want to change anything." Simple as that.

People have rallied behind Tolkein's question because it's a concise and well-written summary of the issues with ECM, and it's acquired extra notoriety for being ignored twice (not "answered unsatisfactorially", ignored) for no apparent reason.

[Pugnacious Stoat]

I have a question about double heatsinks. Before you skip to the next question, I'm not going to ask if there are any plans to set all of them to 2 times the effectiveness of a single heatsink—I saw the response to that question in an earlier ask the devs thread. Instead, I'm going to ask if you guys ever considered leaving double heatsinks as they were in the initial implementation, in which double heatsinks built into the engine were the same as singles, and those mounted manually were 2 times as effective.

Before I explain why I think that's worth considering, I'd like to request clarification on an important point that no one on the forums seems sure about. After the patch came out that was supposed to set all double heatsinks to 1.4, some people claimed to have done testing and determined that engine heatsinks were actually at 2.0, while the rest were at 1.4. Is that the way it works currently? If so, that amplifies what I consider to be the big problem with double heatsinks tremendously.

Regardless, the basic nature of the problem is the same, as long as double heatsinks upgrade the engine heatsinks in some fashion. Garth's explanation for why double effectiveness for all double heatsinks was off the table was that the dev team didn't want double heatsinks to be mandatory for all mechs. From this, one can infer that double heatsinks are not meant to be a straightforward improvement over single heatsinks (an upgrade), but rather a different option with its own trade-offs, which make it better in some cases, and worse in others (sidegrade). The trouble is, improved engine heatsinks make double heatsinks behave like an upgrade, because they provide a benefit with no associated cost. Suppose engine double heatsinks are 1.x times as effective as singles. Then, before you even get into the trade-offs associated with mounting external doubles vs. singles (preserving tons vs. preserving crits), anyone choosing to use single heatsinks is penalized by x tons and x crits, since he or she has to mount x single heatsinks just to match what the double heatsink user gets for free in the engine.

This does two things. First, it decreases the number of configurations that are better off with single heatsinks. Second, if you have a configuration that is better off with single heatsinks, there's a good chance that it's not a competitive configuration in general, since it suffers from the penalty described above.

So, the bigger the upgrade that double heatsinks provide to the engine heatsinks, the less viable it is to use singles. With non-engine double heatsinks set to 1.4, this becomes much more of a problem than it would be if they were all set to 2.0. At 1.4, external double heatsinks provide little benefit relative to the amount of space they take up. Combine the poor scaling of heat efficiency as you add double heatsinks with the free boost provided by the upgraded engine heatsinks, and you get a heat efficiency sweet spot. If your loadout produces enough heat to take advantage of the upgraded engine heatsinks, but not so much that you need lots of heatsinks outside of the engine, double heatsinks will work very well for you. On the other hand, if your heat demands are much higher than what the engine heatsinks alone can meet, you'll have a very hard time fitting on enough doubles to meet them, and may simply run out of critical space before you succeed. Using double heatsinks, I can build an efficient HBK-4P with 7 medium lasers, or an efficient 4H with 4 medium lasers...and a Gauss rifle. (The space taken up by double heatsinks on the 4P precludes the use of ES or an XL engine).

One might think that this works out, since it makes double heatsinks most suitable for certain types of loadouts, while the rest can use singles. The problem here goes back to the penalty I described earlier—since double heatsinks give you something for free, loadouts that can use them effectively will have an advantage over those that cannot. So, by making high-heat configurations poor candidates for double heatsinks, 1.4 externals make those configurations uncompetitive in general. A prime example of a mech that suffers from this phenomenon is the poor AWS-8Q. Compare it to a Cataphract. If you use doubles, and try to add enough energy weapons to take advantage of the Awesome's extra tonnage, you'll run out of space before you can cool them. On the other hand, if you use singles, that pretty much kills the tonnage advantage you have over the Cataphract, if it's using doubles.

So, why not take away the free upgrade to the engine heatsinks, and make double heatsinks outside of the engine 2 times as effective as singles? That way, choosing doubles over singles would simply trade crits for tons, making them a useful option in some cases, but not an upgrade. Thanks for reading, if you got this far.

[Koniving]

There are those of us who run youtube channels but do not have the benefit of a Machinima Partnership. We who can would like to monetize our MWO tribute videos, tutorial videos, and gameplay videos. Is there any information addressing this? Some sort of form we can fill out for permission, info on diverging some of our earnings to the rightful copyright owners, etc? I have searched and searched and could not find any information for those of us who run youtube channels.

[Tex Arcana]

When will you bloody answer Tolkien's question?

[Jungle Rhino]

After being repeatly circled to death by flocks of Ravens tonight I'd like to withdraw my earlier question and replace it with Tolkien's one.

Not really having a good time anymore.

[Arguss10]

Can you please turn back on collision. That way bigger mechs can hit the smaller mechs and shoot them when they are down. Will help with the ecm issue also. Also made piloting the smaller mechs more fun as you have to avoid bigger mechs.

[FinnMcKool]

When will we start seeing something like the Meta game?
What will that be?

[repete]

Syncline, on 11 January 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

When will a "leaver buster" type of system be implemented to stop people from c-bill farming by disconnecting early in the match? What do you intend to do about people who intentionally commit suicide early in the match for the purpose of c-bill farming?

Not sure if you were aware of this already or not, but this is already in. If you do nothing, you get nothing.

[repete]

Legolaas, on 13 January 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Who the Fu++ is tolkien? Is he the non ECM Party Leader?

He is the person who has repeatedly asked the most liked ECM question and has, in some ways, been given the mantle of "He who's ECM question should be answered", so to answer your question..Yes.

[repete]

Thontor, on 13 January 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

how about we wait to see what the answers look like before we judge this new format.

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that less questions getting answered less frequently equals less information.

[Homeless Bill]

repete, on 13 January 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that less questions getting answered less frequently equals less information.

You say that, but if you read the last few sets of answers, we're not really getting any information. If we get anything definitive, it's usually a "yes, later."

I think it's a fine idea to have them answer five things in-depth. Unless he can write five paragraphs that all say, "We're thinking about it," I'm betting the answers will be more satisfactory as a whole.

[repete]

Homeless Bill, on 13 January 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

...but if you read the last few sets of answers, we're not really getting any information...

I can't argue with that.

Edited by repete, 13 January 2013 - 07:59 PM.

[Aaron45]

Wizard Steve, on 13 January 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

He asked a perfectly reasonable and well written question about ECM. It's been ignored more than once. We want it answered.

There have been better Ecm analysis and fix suggestions . So cant understand the hype on tolkien.
He "just" summarized the ideas and complaints from ealier posts.

Watch this LINK http://mwomercs.com/...96#entry1732496


and you will feel like: Holy why is this post so unknown


By the way you cant force devs to answer anything even if any post has 300 likes. They just dont want to change ecm, at least i guess.

Edited by Legolaas, 13 January 2013 - 10:17 PM.

[Monsoon]

Taizan, on 08 January 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Will we at one point be seeing interims prototype mechs or technology of IS mechs that was basically salvaged from clan technology?

Yes, yes we will, unfortunately the process for capturing tech, reverse engineering it and then setting up manufacturing of said technology means we won't be see much for a few years on those designs. IE. Bushwacker 3053, Avatar 3056, Sunder 3056, Hauptmann 3060, Black Hawk-KU 3055, Nova Cat 3059...you get the idea. Until then you're better off salvaging an Original Clan mech that one of the Houses hasn't claimed for their science teams.

If you're referring to IS versions of weapons...well the IS ER Medium Laser will become available in 3058, the Ultra AC/2 in 3057, so yeah, once again salvage is your better bet. Unfortunately the MRM (Medium Range Missile) won't be available until 3058, possibly the one item I care about most.

Edited by Monsoon, 14 January 2013 - 12:05 AM.

[MacSquizzy]

Community Warfare - what's the status? Obviously it's not going to happen anytime before the summer (unless you're holding back a huge surprise), which is fine, but could we get an updated estimate? Are we talking fall, winter, next spring? Next summer (god I hope not)?

Speaking of community, how are things looking for player communities. Typically these are called "guilds" in other games. Without CW they aren't that big of a deal but some information on planned features would be wonderful.

Also: please, please please, for the love of all that is stompy, answer Tolkien's question


Thanks in advance!

[Peter Thorndyke IV]

Quote

Will critical slot configuration remain universal on all mechs in the future? There are mechs that one or more of their base configurations cannot be pulled off in the current MW:O system; for example (and just example):
(1) The Marauder (yes, I know: Macross Unseen, Harmony Gold legal issues) carries an AC/5 (a future variant carries a LB-X AC/10) in its CT and would need two more (four more for the future variant) critical slots to pull it off.
(2) The Annihilator (yes, I know: very few right now and the ones that are around are likely owned by the Wolf's Dragoons) carries two AC/10 (in the -1A) in each arm and just about every bit of art shows all the variants with both upper and lower arm actuators so each arm would need five additional critical slots to pull that configuration off.
If the critical slot configuration becomes non-standard on a few mechs will the game allow the "bleeding over" of critical slots to adjacent sections similar to TT, will some mechs have critical slots "donated" from some sections to others (i.e. the Marauder loosing two critical slots in each arm but gaining four critical slots in the CT), or something else?

The Marauder: has his Cannon ( AC-5, LB-10 X, Gauss) in one of the Side Torsos, take a look at any TRO mentioning the MAD Variants.

The Annihilator mounts his AC-10' 1 each in the Arms and 1 in each of the Side Torsos, the Artwork, might suggest something else (ok it is a really big Barell for a Med-Laser :-) ) but nevertheless TRO helps even here :-)

[Capt Cole 117]

Will you consider raising the founders mech bonus? With the founders variants already being among the worst due to hard points or lack of ecm, there will be no reason to use them when there are hero mechs in every weight class with 30% cbill bonuses.

[Peter Thorndyke IV]

For the Questions,

for the sake of at least keeping it something like Battletech and not a modified "FPS".

1.
Double Heatsinks,
for the sake of making it a viable Idea mounting those 3 crit. Space HeatSinks the efficiency needs to improve. its Double not 1.4ish Heatsinks.

2.
LB-10X should recieve a ammo select option to make it more then a 800k C-Bill, trophy in your Hangar.

3.
Jump Jets should be able to lift a mech faster and let the mech Jump somewhere near the original BT distance (ca. 30m per Jump Jet, not the current 10-12m per Jump Jet)

4.
Physical Combat
In times where swarms of Commandoes and Ravens circle your Mech and often enough bump right into your knees, without you being able to twist your Field of View enough to even have a small chance of placing a shot at the little ******, you really wish being able to Punch or Kick that little ******.

The Punching mechanism could be switch based hitting a Physical combat key (whatever lets say "P") locks the use of your arm mounted weapons, instead shooting the corresponding group launches a punch.
Kicking should be Imho implemented as a switchable auto attack, triggered by having a target in kick range ( the player should be able to turn that attack on or off, if on it should have a 40% base chance of letting yor mech fall, this could be improved with corresponding Piloting Skills e.g. Tier 1 "Physical combat training" -10% falling chance, Tier 2 "Advanced Gyro handling" -10% falling chance, Tier 3 "Elite HtH Combat Training" -5% falling Chance +5% Physical Damage)
Allong with it implement Collision damage e.g. collisions beyond 40 kph should cause damage to both machines involved, something allong the original Physical rulesset of BT, ca. ( Tonnage x Speed / 100 e.g. 50t x 90kph = 45 Damage to the Target and (22,5) 50% to the Charging Mech.

[Pando]

Bump.

Keep the questions coming!