456 replies to this topic

[Monsoon]

Awesome going there Garth!

Can't wait for AtD31, got me a couple of questions already.

[Wintersdark]

Shumabot, on 22 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

People don't really know what's going on with JJ's, heat, streaks, or ecm. A lot of PGIs communications imply that only very minor revisions are planned, and people tend to conflate minor with unimpactful. Appending a sentence to "minor tweaks" that explains your finalized intent would go very, very, far in placating 'haters'. Not doing so invites the idea that you're ok with these systems as they stand.

This is a very good point. A "minor change" by a game developer is typically a small value tweak... But small value tweaks can have enormous implications in gameplay.

For example, consider one of the minor tweaks that's already happened to ECM: You can now target nearby ECM covered mechs, and see friend/foe information (it just flickers).

Sure, it's a minor change, but it takes ECM from being outright horrendous in PUGs to largely irrelevant if you're not packing lock-on weaponry (yes, yes, there are still issues, but the FF blocking initially was particularly bad).

[Jetfire]

I just want to reiterate this is precisely the kind of honest and comprehensive information these Q&A's need to bring. While the 5 fleshed out ideas was a nice concept, I think that makes more sense for the chosen Command Chairs as the information is there to do so.

This covered almost every pain point with a Yes, No, Soon, Maybe, Never or Much Later answer.

Do I want DFA now, sure, but I know it is coming when the supporting code is ready for it. Holding up CW for some other netcode fixes makes no sense I will admit. Sometimes the cart comes before the horse, but when they are both being delivered by train it's not that big a deal.

I am so glad to hear you are taking the community advice of unlockable colors, patterns and decals. I have lots of MC lined up and waiting for this. Unless the prices are impossibly high I can basically gaurantee I buy out the whole shop day one.

[Cache]

1 question answered, 1 not answered, and 1 not going to be answered (which is kind of an answer... and is good to know). Will be waiting for ATD31 to re-post.

That's a huge amount of good information this time around. I'm very grateful that you gave us so many answers.

[vectorpirate]

Three cheers for the Devs! Thanks for the answers and I'm looking forward to the new maps.

[Dukarriope]

I'm not happy with all the answers, nor am I happy with the lack of detail of some of them, but I am more than satisfied with this AtD result. Plenty of questions answered and information given. The next few months look set to be a significant improvement, too.

As always I want to commend PGI for their pretty great work done in getting this game out in just about a year's time, but want to remind them that the recent decisions being made and the future outlook is often why the community (including myself) can get very volatile and caustic.

Still no answer for a Asia or Australia server, or whether you're testing with long-distance-centric netcode?


Irregardless, this kind of comprehensive answer list is what AtD has always needed. Please continue, but rein in your CR team a little... It's not good to have an unready feature randomly announced as if it were already implemented.

Edited by Dukarriope, 22 January 2013 - 03:41 PM.

[Wintersdark]

I'd like to take a quick moment to thank Bryan Eckman for taking the time to answer all these questions.

There'll be disgruntlement about the vagueness of a lot of answers (re: "Soon" "Subject to review and rebalancing"), but I understand that anything not already committed to patches (and even then some) are still subject to (and likely to) change, making actual dates impossible to give. Add in community outrage when "Promised Features" are changed/removed/rescheduled, it's no surprise you can't be any more precise.

That aside, I'm very, very happy by the general contents of the Answers.

It's great to see PGI is still on track with Community Warfare, and I'm extremely pleased to see we'll be able to own colors/camo options. Seriously, PGI: The moment I own colors/patterns I buy, I'm dropping a huge wad of cash on MC and buying everything.

And, on a personal note: I'm utterly filled with Squee with regards to the plans for modules and BattleGrid improvements. Artillery/Airstrike/Sensor Drone modules? Give me a one-use-per-battle module that calls a random airstrike to a specified sector on the battlemap, and I'll carry PGI's babies.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I'm just getting home to see this but want to reinforce some of what's been said here already. This is exactly the kind of feedback we've been looking for as a community (not necessarily your specific answers...some of those will lead to lively debates I'm sure), and it really goes a LONG way towards garnering the goodwill of this community.

Ignore the haters and naysayers. Forumwarriors do not make up the bulk of this or any gaming community typically. Keep doing what you're doing, keep making progress. We appreciate it.

Regardless of its flaws, MWO is great game with a great following and it will get better based on your team's efforts.

Look forward to seeing this additional content and fixes as they come and hope you'll keep up your proposed pace of Q&A in the future. Good stuff. Now go hire some MWLL guys and speed this up

[Ryan the Lion]

LaserAngel, on 22 January 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

I just want the future today.

It's called delayed gratification...which no one seems to be good at anymore in our microwave society.

[Ulysses St Cyr]

S'good stuff. Thanks Garth!

Regarding the ongoing collisions discussion in this thread (wrong place to have it, but since it's well-entrenched already...):
Yes, collisions need to be fixed, and many of us believe that it should be a higher priority. However, there are a number of issues to consider over and above what has already been mentioned. For example, if a Raven (35t) runs into a Centurion (50t) at +30kph relative speed, do they both fall over, or just the Raven? What about if they collide at +150kph relative speed? Or +250kph relative speed? And should the collision damage change according to the speed? Should the Raven take 5 pts of damage to one (or more) locations, and the Centurion take 3.5 damage to one (or more) locations?

Multiply that by every possible weight and speed combination. And don't think that a simple "Yes, they both fall over" will answer it, because I would be pretty annoyed if a Commando can run into my Atlas and knock it over...

So, while I do believe that collisions need to be _a_ priority, I reckon that there is a whole lot of work _and_ programming to go into the topic, and I can see that things like CW (which also needs a whole lot of work and programming) may need to be higher up the list. In essence, all that I would suggest is that you have patience - they have said they will fix it, I have faith it will be fixed. It may not be quite as quickly as some people would like ("I want this done NOW! In fact, it should have been done last week!"), but then there would be a whole lot more people complaining (or, worse, just upping and leaving) if they announced a delay of extra months on new content like CW.

Oops, it turned into an essay. Sorry. Keep up the good work, guys, and we hope to see the devs/CRs/other staff members in more matches soon (referencing the match vs 4 members of HHoD a week or 2 back)

[Dirus Nigh]

Prosperity Park, on 22 January 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

I knew the Modules were the endgame, instead of the Leveling Skills!

Now I know instead of know. Thanks

Good thread allot of information in here. Even if many answers were no. I thank you for the time Bryan.

<sniff>
I want inferno ammunition for my streaks.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 22 January 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ulysses St Cyr, on 22 January 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

S'good stuff. Thanks Garth!

Regarding the ongoing collisions discussion in this thread (wrong place to have it, but since it's well-entrenched already...):
Yes, collisions need to be fixed, and many of us believe that it should be a higher priority. However, there are a number of issues to consider over and above what has already been mentioned. For example, if a Raven (35t) runs into a Centurion (50t) at +30kph relative speed, do they both fall over, or just the Raven? What about if they collide at +150kph relative speed? Or +250kph relative speed? And should the collision damage change according to the speed? Should the Raven take 5 pts of damage to one (or more) locations, and the Centurion take 3.5 damage to one (or more) locations?

Multiply that by every possible weight and speed combination. And don't think that a simple "Yes, they both fall over" will answer it, because I would be pretty annoyed if a Commando can run into my Atlas and knock it over...

So, while I do believe that collisions need to be _a_ priority, I reckon that there is a whole lot of work _and_ programming to go into the topic, and I can see that things like CW (which also needs a whole lot of work and programming) may need to be higher up the list. In essence, all that I would suggest is that you have patience - they have said they will fix it, I have faith it will be fixed. It may not be quite as quickly as some people would like ("I want this done NOW! In fact, it should have been done last week!"), but then there would be a whole lot more people complaining (or, worse, just upping and leaving) if they announced a delay of extra months on new content like CW.

Oops, it turned into an essay. Sorry. Keep up the good work, guys, and we hope to see the devs/CRs/other staff members in more matches soon (referencing the match vs 4 members of HHoD a week or 2 back)

As an aside, collisions do not necessarily have to mean adding knock downs. Collisions actually exist currently, what needs to happen is damage from collisions needs to be adjusted up to where it's substantial enough to make it bad to run into another mech. Especially for light mechs.

[Bushwick Bill]

Well done PGI, straight answers are the best. Not wasting developer time typing out lengthy responses was a wise move; speaking for myself I say keep it simple so I will understand it. On a side note, these responses should not have taken this long to post so please try to meet your own deadlines.

[CMGrendel]

I can't find any answer to this on another page.

Could you clarify what you mean by indirect fire being consumables?

Do you mean CBills, a finite ammo load per match (like current weapons) or a monetised weapon system?

Thanks if answered, if not I'll add it to the next Q&A.

Edited by CMGrendel, 22 January 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[ExAstris]

First, before being a picky snob of a player, I would like to express appreciation to those it concerns for the vastly improved communications.

Bryan Ekman, on 22 January 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Q: [insert question about ECM]
A: There are a lot of personal opinions about how ECM should work. ECM is currently under review and will undergo minor tweaks along with additions to help counter/disrupt the ECM effects. We are prepping a Command Chair post with details soon.

I was kind of hoping to get the official, lengthly statement for ECM, since the question revamp was originally going to be in depth on 5 questions. But I think the swap to this format was better overall, and I'm still looking forward to changes to ECM.

My only sour note is the mentioning of ECM undergoing "minor tweaks". I'm strongly under the impression that the equipment is worth 5x its crit/tonnage in its current state, and I would like to see its abilities somewhat normalized to its crit/tonnage costs. If it is to remain extremely powerful then I think we're still going to have the situation (which I percieve as unlikable, and therefore problematic) of needing to use ECM mechs in every drop, and needing every mech that can mount ECM to do so. In short, I would like it to be an option that can be worth its wieght, like AMS, but not a necessity (even for mechs that can mount it). And since my primary vote for changing it goes to removing the cloaking effect entirely, the phrase 'minor tweak' doesn't give me much hope for that change.

So clearly, ECM is my biggest concern with the game at the moment, and we have yet to see the official document detailing PGI's position and their plans to alter its behavior/counters. So this is just my apprehension speaking up. I look forward to the official Command Chair post, and to playing whatever changes its brings about.


Anyways, fantastic job on giving us a meaningful load of information about the questions the community cares about. It gives us a much better understanding for where the game is going, and alot more sympathy for the work it takes to get there.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

All i know is if these "consumables" require MC to purchase it's going to raise hell.

[Mighty Spike]

guys you re doin an awesome job.Go on and take the time you need for an amazing game.

[Mack1]

Now that was an awesome post Bryan, you have taken some heat, brushed it off and stepped up to the plate and delivered a great post.

[Dukarriope]

Some of the answers do seem a tad lacking in detail or skirting issues again (e.g. only mentioning that "tweaks" are due for ECM rather than specifics), but this is probably the better model for PGI to adhere to. i want to know about the future paint options! I've wanted to paint my mech blue for the longest time, but have strictly adhered to my paint system veto.

Oh well, time to prep questions!

[twibs]

I just had the weirdest urge to paint my trusty catapult in ultramarine and gold. FOR THE EMPEROR!!

As for the AtD, great job guys. Little communication goes a long way.

I hope we've all (players and devs) learned something from this, mainly that it goes a long way to tell the players your plans instead of just shutting up since the forums are full of hate, and that players can trust the devs in seeing the problems that we bring to their attention.