338 replies to this topic

[overkurator2]

Map Creator Tools For The Community?

People complain that there are not enough maps/ concerned that PGI won't be able to produce enough maps to fill the need for a BT Universe scale of Community Warfare. Well here is one solution that even MW4 / MC 1&2 had. A custom user side map creator?

I'm not sure why they haven't talked about plans like this. Sure PGI would need to approve maps, but the dedicated /talented community that is BT/MW would be able to produce enough maps with every climate / environment imaginable at an alarming rate. Hell, if the community got their hands on a decent map maker, their map making team would be working 24/7 on just making sure the maps are bug free and up to par.

Any map that isn't up to par, PGI could just send back an email to the creators saying why it got rejected and the list of grievances. No doubt the creators would then go back and improve the map, fix the bugs, etc.

Players feel the need for larger maps? They'd create them. More brawler orientated maps? Larger, urban maps? Space maps? (like Lunar from MW4 or the water asteroid mission on MW2 Mercs)

[Dyson Ring]

I'm not sure if this has been asked already (don't really want to go through 12 pages to find it).

Is there any information about whether there will be alternate munitions (Inferno SRMs, Thunder LRMs, and dare I ask, LBX slug ammo), and how they may be implemented (such as - all ammo must be of that type, or multiple ammo types can be mixed)?

If they can be mixed, what method of switching ammo type may be implemented?

Edited by Dyson Ring, 12 January 2013 - 03:36 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

overkurator2, on 12 January 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Map Creator Tools For The Community?

People complain that there are not enough maps/ concerned that PGI won't be able to produce enough maps to fill the need for a BT Universe scale of Community Warfare. Well here is one solution that even MW4 / MC 1&2 had. A custom user side map creator?

I'm not sure why they haven't talked about plans like this. Sure PGI would need to approve maps, but the dedicated /talented community that is BT/MW would be able to produce enough maps with every climate / environment imaginable at an alarming rate. Hell, if the community got their hands on a decent map maker, their map making team would be working 24/7 on just making sure the maps are bug free and up to par.

Any map that isn't up to par, PGI could just send back an email to the creators saying why it got rejected and the list of grievances. No doubt the creators would then go back and improve the map, fix the bugs, etc.

Players feel the need for larger maps? They'd create them. More brawler orientated maps? Larger, urban maps? Space maps? (like Lunar from MW4 or the water asteroid mission on MW2 Mercs)

Map creation tool is already out there, but PGI would have to change their stance on user content.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Question 0 is about your definition of "best". Does best mean the one most liked by the community or is it still just the ones you feel like answering?

Question 1 is about ECM)
How was it considered balanced to introduce a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that does all of the following?:

i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint

Going by tonnage and critical space the ECM should be about as useful as a small laser plus a regular heatsink.
Or a medium laser and a little armor,
Or an AMS and a ton of ammo
etc.

Here's a link to the existing unanswered question from 'ask the devs' 29:
http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry1598770
And another to the same in 'ask the devs' 29A:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1640301

The former question has 230 likes at last count, while the latter has another 94, and neither have been addressed yet.


Question 2 is about game outcome statistics versus number of ECMs on each team:
Put simply, are the outcomes measured here representative of the current state of the game? If not, how far off were my results?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

tl:dr I gathered enough match outcome data that with >99.999% confidence (statistical not subjective) I can say that ECM superiority is a predictor of victory. Also I can say with >97% confidence that a team with more ECMs is at least 2x more likely to win than the team with less.

Please answer this question.

I think this is the best question.

Please provide an in-depth answer.

[Red squirrel]

I'm not asking if, I'm asking when will you introduce a tonnage limit.
And how will you implement this.

Fighting in Assault only teams gets quite boring.
There are just too many drops where the majority of mechs are D-DCs or RVN-3Ls.
So much more than a pure tonnage limit is required e.g. something like

8 mechs
max 2 Assaults
max total weight 500 tons.

(But then it might just end in 2 D-DC and 6 RVN-3Ls anyhow)


So here comes the question:
How are you going to balance lances so we do not have FOTM spam all the time?

Edited by Red squirrel, 12 January 2013 - 06:44 AM.

[Stormwolf]

I didn't plow through all the pages, so excuse me if these have been asked before:

1. Why do we have have missions like conquest and assault in their current form? They are standard formula for FPS multiplayer games, but they seem horribly out of place in the BT setting. Where are the classic missions like assault/defend, scout, forced withdrawel, escort, etc?

2. How do you guys come up with the game mechanics and their balancing? You could have easily predicted the fan reaction to ECM before it was even implemented in the game. And in a related matter, will you even have to integrate C3 networks in the current incarnation of the game? All units already share data on their targets, it seems rather redundant to implement a unit that does the same thing.

Edited by Stormwolf, 12 January 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Hellboy561]

Why does my Atlas - a 100 ton monster - have the same number of critical slots as a Commando - a 25 ton leg of an Atlas? I find it confusing that I am limited to what I can fit on my Atlas not only by its hardpoints, its weight but the critical slots too? Surely the larger the Mech, the more critical slots it would have? I can understand this is a way of balancing, but then why bring out the Stalker? A Mech that weighs 15 tonnes less than an Atlas, but somehow has a ridiculous amount of hardpoints. Also what is up with the repeating variants, why are there so many copycats but with 1 hardpoint moved from its face to its knee?

Also -

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Question 0 is about your definition of "best". Does best mean the one most liked by the community or is it still just the ones you feel like answering?

Question 1 is about ECM)
How was it considered balanced to introduce a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that does all of the following?:

i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint

Going by tonnage and critical space the ECM should be about as useful as a small laser plus a regular heatsink.
Or a medium laser and a little armor,
Or an AMS and a ton of ammo
etc.

Here's a link to the existing unanswered question from 'ask the devs' 29:
http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry1598770
And another to the same in 'ask the devs' 29A:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1640301

The former question has 230 likes at last count, while the latter has another 94, and neither have been addressed yet.


Question 2 is about game outcome statistics versus number of ECMs on each team:
Put simply, are the outcomes measured here representative of the current state of the game? If not, how far off were my results?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

tl:dr I gathered enough match outcome data that with >99.999% confidence (statistical not subjective) I can say that ECM superiority is a predictor of victory. Also I can say with >97% confidence that a team with more ECMs is at least 2x more likely to win than the team with less.

What this man said!!

Edited by Hellboy561, 12 January 2013 - 06:57 AM.

[Marcus Tanner]

Stormwolf, on 12 January 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

And in a related matter, will you even have to integrate C3 networks in the current incarnation of the game? All units already share data on their targets, it seems rather redundant to implement a unit that does the same thing.

C3 makes it easier to hit. It might be implemented as an aimbot or special zoom mode or something, but it does make the shots of mechs at long range connect more easily.

The information we have now is less than basic tabletop data sharing functionality, let alone C3.

Hellboy561, on 12 January 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Why does my Atlas - a 100 ton monster - have the same number of critical slots as a Commando - a 25 ton leg of an Atlas?

Because in the source material n Atlas and a Commando are much closer to being the same size. Most mechs are about the same size. The weight of a mech in Battletech is more a function of the load that the skeleton is designed to handle rather than the size of the machine. That's why you can move an engine or PPC between an Atlas and a Hunchback - same housing size.

MWO made lights much smaller and heavies much bigger, and there are a number of good reasons to do this. I'll leave the essay to Garth though if he wants to talk about this.

---

When can we expect a training area for new players? It was frustrating and lame to simply be thrown to the wolves before I could learn the controls.

Edited by Marcus Tanner, 12 January 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Dyson Ring, on 12 January 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

I'm not sure if this has been asked already (don't really want to go through 12 pages to find it).

Is there any information about whether there will be alternate munitions (Inferno SRMs, Thunder LRMs, and dare I ask, LBX slug ammo), and how they may be implemented (such as - all ammo must be of that type, or multiple ammo types can be mixed)?

If they can be mixed, what method of switching ammo type may be implemented?

It was confirmed in Ask the Devs 10 that the LB-X ACs will eventually have the ability to fire both slug and cluster rounds, and stated in Ask the Devs 17 that there will be alternate ammunition sources at a later point in MWO's development.

Quote

Q: WIll we be able to switch between cluster ammo and slugs with LB-X autocannons? [DerMaulwurf]
A: We plan to have this functionality eventually, but currently it is not available. Who doesn't want lots of different Ammo types, right? [GARTH]

Quote

Q: Will alternate ammunition like Inferno missiles be available for missile systems and autocannons? [Solis Obscuri]
A: I believe this is the third time I'll have answered this, but yes, there will be alternate ammunition sources at some point, though they'll be later in development. [Garth]

[trebormills]

New player here

THIS!!!!!!

Red squirrel, on 12 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

I'm not asking if, I'm asking when will you introduce a tonnage limit.
And how will you implement this.

Fighting in Assault only teams gets quite boring.
There are just too many drops where the majority of mechs are D-DCs or RVN-3Ls.
So much more than a pure tonnage limit is required e.g. something like

8 mechs
max 2 Assaults
max total weight 500 tons.

(But then it might just end in 2 D-DC and 6 RVN-3Ls anyhow)


So here comes the question:
How are you going to balance lances so we do not have FOTM spam all the time?

The game needs a decent lobby and in game chat option- Im thinking xbox live type of game and chatting. Also a lance creation lobby for teams and PUGs would help here. Also helping balance issues- to many lrm boats means you need ecm or luck. To many ecm means you need ecm +1. Can be seriously unfun, I was in one game where it was me + all ecm atlas or ravens (well it felt that way for sure)

Maybe also add a price limit option... xx Mcr/cbills for creating a group

Edited by trebormills, 12 January 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[Mordin Ashe]

What is the progress on community warfare? Any ETA? When can we hope to see this key feature implemented? Last info we got on this topic was under the headlines saying "Plans for August and forward", which was awfully long ago.

Edited by Mordin Ashe, 12 January 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[Kaptain]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Question 0 is about your definition of "best". Does best mean the one most liked by the community or is it still just the ones you feel like answering?

Question 1 is about ECM)
How was it considered balanced to introduce a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that does all of the following?:

i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint

Thanks again Tolkien. Developers please don't ignore your customers most popular question.... again.

Edited by Kaptain, 12 January 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[Strucker]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Question 0 is about your definition of "best". Does best mean the one most liked by the community or is it still just the ones you feel like answering?

Question 1 is about ECM)
How was it considered balanced to introduce a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that does all of the following?:

i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint

Going by tonnage and critical space the ECM should be about as useful as a small laser plus a regular heatsink.
Or a medium laser and a little armor,
Or an AMS and a ton of ammo
etc.

Here's a link to the existing unanswered question from 'ask the devs' 29:
http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry1598770
And another to the same in 'ask the devs' 29A:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1640301

The former question has 230 likes at last count, while the latter has another 94, and neither have been addressed yet.


Question 2 is about game outcome statistics versus number of ECMs on each team:
Put simply, are the outcomes measured here representative of the current state of the game? If not, how far off were my results?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

tl:dr I gathered enough match outcome data that with >99.999% confidence (statistical not subjective) I can say that ECM superiority is a predictor of victory. Also I can say with >97% confidence that a team with more ECMs is at least 2x more likely to win than the team with less.

This

Also maybe we should rename this thread "Ask the Devs 30 - Tolkiens Question"

[Litzkrieg Radick]

Assault seems to be degrading into quick-capture races, and Conquest tends to turn into Assault, with both sides focused on kills rather than capture points. Are there any plans to remedy this? I.E. Taking the base capture out of Assault, or adding 'Mech repair bays to Conquest to keep the round going and focused on maneuver?

[Krazy Kat]

Why don't you implement more small changes every patch? I know some suggested changes would require huge amounts of work. But some small changes could be done easily.

For example. Each patch, buff machine gun damage a little bit. Buff flame thrower heat/damage a little bit. Make NARC duration a little longer. Make jump jets a little stronger. After several patches and several buffs, these items will eventually reach a state where they will actually be used by players.

These small changes shouldn't be too hard.

[Daverex]

In terms of collisions, in MW4 (because that's the only series I've played, sadly) large projectile weapons can sometimes topple smaller mechs. Will this be included in the near future? I know I've used that tactic to stop careless scouts in their tracks on many occasions, saving the lance from being overrun.

Edited by Djmack2011, 12 January 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Drakeblade]

What is being done to get Community Warfare to your fans?

Possibly the 2nd largest promise that the community needs info on besides, fixing the netcode.

[Peiper]

First, answer the ECM questions.

Then answer this stuff:

Right now my men are bored out of their mind with the game because we're fighting the same battles on the same maps, and the battles always turn out the same.
"Want to go right, left, or up the middle?"
"Doesn't matter, we'll end up meeting them at close range and blowing them up again."
"So what about role warfare? I'm in a scout? Want me to scout?"
"No need, the map is smaller than a back yard for a condo, we'll see them within a few seconds just standing still."
"I'm in a hunchback."
"LOL, *****."
"I'm in a catapult with LRM's. Oh crap, where did all of those come from? Oh, it's 3 Atlas DC's! Opps, I'm dead."

The point is: the maps are really, really tiny, and especially with ECM, we just end up brawling in every match. There's no tactics. There's no room to maneuver. There's no scouting beyond 'they're on the right, left or middle side.' There are no objectives other than "kill and cap" them in both match types.

The problems are listed above. (We're bored on our tiny maps, and with the SAME objectives every time.)

Your essay questions:

1. When are we going to get some GIANT maps where we may take a long time to find an engage giving roles to scouts, fire support, skirmishers? (Think of Coventry and Isle of Skye maps from mektech/MW4.)

2. When are secret objectives going to be implimented? (One unit must defend critical locations, escort civilians, take dropzones, defend the fort with less tonnage than the opposing team, etc.)

3. Why not have the conquest mode have DECAYING nodes, so you have to take and hold them, or you lose them, and the ONLY way to win is through capping - so - if you kill the opponents before you cap, you draw instead of win? Make it a race with tactics rather than 'assault mode' with extra base caps to go after after you find and decimate your opponents.

When I play, I don't care if I win or lose, because its the same crap over and over. Secret objectives and SUPER SIZED maps are necessary for the longevity of the game.

Edited by Peiper, 15 January 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[Tolkien]

Drakeblade, on 12 January 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

What is being done to get Community Warfare to your fans?

Possibly the 2nd largest promise that the community needs info on besides, fixing the netcode.

There's some information on Community Warfare in the podcast here: http://nogutsnogalax...happy-new-year/

[von Pilsner]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Question 0 is about your definition of "best". Does best mean the one most liked by the community or is it still just the ones you feel like answering?

Question 1 is about ECM)
How was it considered balanced to introduce a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that does all of the following?:

i) Counters Artemis
ii) Counters BAP
iii) Counters TAG bonuses and the whole system inside of 180m
iv) Counters NARC - a system which weighs more and requires real skill and teamwork to use
v) Counters other ECMs
vi) Destroys LRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
vii) Destroys SSRM locks (absent holding a TAG laser on a potentially lag shielded mech)
viii) Ruins information sharing via minimap
ix) Scrambles HUD display of enemies
x) is a better AMS than AMS itself
xi) Requires no exploding ammo
xii) Generates no heat
xiii) Costs less than a much less useful module by a factor of 15
xiv) Doesn't use up a weapon hardpoint

Going by tonnage and critical space the ECM should be about as useful as a small laser plus a regular heatsink.
Or a medium laser and a little armor,
Or an AMS and a ton of ammo
etc.

Here's a link to the existing unanswered question from 'ask the devs' 29:
http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry1598770
And another to the same in 'ask the devs' 29A:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1640301

The former question has 230 likes at last count, while the latter has another 94, and neither have been addressed yet.


Question 2 is about game outcome statistics versus number of ECMs on each team:
Put simply, are the outcomes measured here representative of the current state of the game? If not, how far off were my results?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709146

tl:dr I gathered enough match outcome data that with >99.999% confidence (statistical not subjective) I can say that ECM superiority is a predictor of victory. Also I can say with >97% confidence that a team with more ECMs is at least 2x more likely to win than the team with less.

Please answer Tolkien's questions re: ECM.