Support NeoGAF

[Nickiepoo]

Joystick support finally in!? Sweet, will download when my cap resets, lol.

It's improved (so say the patch notes), but I still wouldn't expect the game to really be playable with one and that'll probably always be the case.

Compare to trying to play Counterstrike with a pad, it's possible, sure, but you're going to be dominated.

 

[Llyranor]

Apparently there's an uproar over LRMs properly armored mechs now. Might have to do with the splash damage crap.

The Jager can certainly be headshot by LRMs, happened to me at least once. Might have to do with how the head is in the middle of the CT.

I'm enjoying the jager. I've tried to do it with a non-XL, but it seems to decrease its firepower too much, and brawling would be more optimal on a Phract. I think I'll keep it as a longer range mech with an XL. A dedicated ballistic sniper. The XL is a risk given the size of the side torsos, though.

I'm not sure on an optimal build yet. I don't like boating. I tried dual AC20, but got bored of the one-trick pony style of play (ridiculously effective cheese, though). I'm maybe gravitating towards 2uac5 2 medlas 2srm4. I've tried builds with ac10 which seem to work too. LBX-srm combos don't seem too effective, as it's too slow a mech. Still messing around with builds, which is my favorite part when trying out a new mech.

 

[Zaptruder]

Overall, pretty great patch. Cept that they BROKE THE SHIT out of the game with whatever 'fix' they did that revealed the terrible LRM issue.

I mean, on one hand, I get that a large amount of it is due to player bandwagoning exacerbating the issues of broken LRMs.

But that doesn't prevent the reality of the game been one where LRMs are less of a tool for pinning mechs and softening up, and more of an omnipresent existential threat to the mech itself; where they're the primary weapon on the battlefield, and matches are boiling down to largely finding better cover than your opponent and holding LRM lock longer than they can.

 

[Nickiepoo]

It's LRM mutator week!

...yeah, they better hotfix this fast.

 

[teepo]

end me. hopefully it'll somehow be tied to some sort of UAV consumable.

 

[Nickiepoo]

And not used to peek over hills or whatever. I'm really not sure it's a great idea in general and I can't say I understand people who demand it, but eh, if it means more supporters of the game then I can't really complain.

 

[Arucardo]

3rd person? NNNNOOOOOO! It's not mechwarrior if it's not played from inside a cockpit .

 

[Zaptruder]

And not used to peek over hills or whatever. I'm really not sure it's a great idea in general and I can't say I understand people who demand it, but eh, if it means more supporters of the game then I can't really complain.

I'm pretty indifferent to having third person myself.

On one hand, I'd love to have it so that I can look at my mech! All those expensive paint jobs justified!

On the other, if it's going to break the balance and flow of the game and force players into third person to stay competitive, it's not really worthwhile.


But there's plenty of room to implement without stepping on the toes of the first person view in competitive games.


The easiest way is probably just to leave out of online mode; anytime you're online, you're in a competitive environment, or so the thinking goes.

That still leaves training grounds and lan mode when that comes around. In lan gaming; it's much easier to allow for and enforce a third person toggle on/off mode.


The method I personally prefer is to rebalance the advantage that grouped players have with communications... by only allowing solo dropping players to utilize the third person camera.

That way, you recognize the advantage of both group play and third person camera; but the incentive for group play (been able to play with competent players and shoot the shit with buddies) still outweigh third person camera view (which is really now just a counteract of the tactical advantage that grouped players have).

 

[Nickiepoo]

Given the nature of this game, anything other than a full and free implimentation (though possibly requiring the use of a module slot or whatever) will probably generate just as many complaints and 'boycotts' as no implimentation at all.

It's a fair point though, I WOULD like to be able to look at my mech in map lighting while animated and it would be a huge boon for people who want to make videos for youtube, which in turn can increase hype for the game.

But like Arucardo says, for actual gameplay, first person 4 lyfe.

 

[Zaptruder]

Given the nature of this game, anything other than a full and free implimentation (though possibly requiring the use of a module slot or whatever) will probably generate just as many complaints and 'boycotts' as no implimentation at all.

Thoroughly disagree with that assessment.

The current state of affairs is that there is no 3rd person view (obviously). Any boycott or complaints about the lack thereof has already occurred; the only noise left active are those that would want only 1st person view.

Full and free implementation would draw the most verbose amount of criticism, at least until the playerbase rebalanced to the new norm (i.e. people get used to it and the people that would quit over it has quit).

But addressing the community's concerns with the desire for some form of third person view would yield the best results.

The key is to understanding what is important and what isn't... to sort the signal from the noise so to speak.


In my opinion (and determination); that signal is that first person needs to be kept competitive and viable (or even as the primary form of gameplay), without forcing players to compromise between toggling 3rd person on and off (similar to the issue with pay 2 win consumables; essentially not creating a system where players are without competitive option to keep with only F2P items).

Everything else is just a form of noise; ruins the immersion, against what was stated in their initial development posts, etc. The game isn't fully immersive, although it trends towards it, and obviously developers should reserve the right to reassess their designs upon new information and directions.


Bearing that in mind; keeping it offline is one solution, and making it available only to solo players is another (although somewhat compromises the absolute wall of keeping first person competitive - but I think it's a pretty acceptable one).

The main problem at this point is that anyone that really wants 3rd person has already been driven away; their voices are silent, so most people that remain are the 1st person die-hards that demand that the game stay exclusively 1st person... and as a result are in something of a fevered echo chamber where a large proportion of members aren't even willing to listen to anything to do with third person view (whether or not it can be implemented in a manner that doesn't impact upon their gameplay).

 

[Nickiepoo]

I should clarify that I meant 'to people who actually want third person'. As in, if it's done in a way which isn't freely allowed in normal gameplay (and honestly, restricting options to people who want to play in groups is a horrible idea in general) then it sort of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place as far as they are likely to care. These are people who want to play normally (possibly with friends) from a 3rd person view. That's what their overall enjoyment seems to be dependant on.

You're right though, backlash against it will probably outweigh support for it unless it's done in a restrictive and 'immersive' way (need a module to launch a camera drone out of your arse for example), and even then....

There is a question of how much a mech sim should be trying to reach out to people who don't want to play it like that, but we're also talking about a game where what 'should' be the normal expected input (a joystick) is almost completely useless vs a kb/m.

 

[Zaptruder]

I should clarify that I meant 'to people who actually want third person'. As in, if it's done in a way which isn't freely allowed in normal gameplay (and honestly, restricting options to people who want to play in groups is a horrible idea in general) then it sort of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place as far as they are likely to care. These are people who want to play normally (possibly with friends) from a 3rd person view. That's what their overall enjoyment seems to be dependant on.

You're right though, backlash against it will probably outweigh support for it unless it's done in a restrictive and 'immersive' way (need a module to launch a camera drone out of your arse for example), and even then....

There is a question of how much a mech sim should be trying to reach out to people who don't want to play it like that, but we're also talking about a game where what 'should' be the normal expected input (a joystick) is almost completely useless vs a kb/m.

I believe the impetus behind the inclusion of 3rd person is to allow newer players an easier time to acclimatize to the controls of Mechwarrior.

Limiting it to solo players only generally captures newer players who are far less likely to be grouped up than a more experienced player (who generally gets sick of playing alone and finds some friends and a unit to join up with). The pro of doing this method is; experienced players can still have access to 3rd person cam; but not with the tactical advantage of been grouped.

Other possible methods of providing such a third person functionality include limiting it to trial mechs, or players under a certain Elo ranking.

Perhaps the most graceful method would be simply to have a view cone in first person; dynamic elements not in this view cone are not shown to the player in third person. But this is also the most technically challenging method; requiring some degree of ray tracing calculations to find out what is and isn't in view for the player.


In general, any workable solution has to either create a wall between third person/first person view modes (e.g. selected game modes enforcing first person or not)... or provide some sort of tactical compensation for not using third person view. Maybe a seperate Elo queue for third person use or no third person use.



But solutions purely in the vein of better player acclimatization can be more restrictive (and pragmatic) still; limit it to offline play. And make torso heading indicators far more obvious in the hud (for starters by moving the torso twist heading indicator down off the compass into a more visible area).


*edit*
http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/10...-mwo-twitter/page__view__findpost__p__2100002
Looks like they're going with: Available in offline mode only.

Good choice PGI.

 

[Nickiepoo]

*edit*
http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/10...-mwo-twitter/page__view__findpost__p__2100002
Looks like they're going with: Available in offline mode only.

Good choice PGI.

This is really the only way that I'd want it to be implimented (not counting fuzzy camera remote drones and stuff like that) so good stuff. Though it's got nothing to do with the people who want it for actual gameplay.

I'm not sure I follow the thinking of a 3rd person camera being specifically helpful to new players though. Which isn't me saying that you're wrong in theory (I'll tend to use such for driving games for example, the added situational awareness is really nice given that I'm not great at them), just that it feels like a weird and not 'player friendly' design desision to have something so fundimental as camera control linked to a players experience or grouping. It's the kind of thing that I'd instinctively say should be left free, consistant, or dependant on playlists (for which solo-dropping would count for as 'casual mode' if 4mans weren't mixed in with them).

 

[No_Style]

I just wanted to see 3rd person camera while spectating.

 

[Llyranor]

Missile nerf hotfix is in effect http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/107088-hotfix-march-212013-missile-fix-and-server-downtime/

 

[BattleMonkey]

I just wanted to see 3rd person camera while spectating.

That would be a cool option

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Not sure if it's been said already, but the game is coming to Steam. it was added to the registry.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

This is really the only way that I'd want it to be implimented (not counting fuzzy camera remote drones and stuff like that) so good stuff. Though it's got nothing to do with the people who want it for actual gameplay.

I'm not sure I follow the thinking of a 3rd person camera being specifically helpful to new players though. Which isn't me saying that you're wrong in theory (I'll tend to use such for driving games for example, the added situational awareness is really nice given that I'm not great at them), just that it feels like a weird and not 'player friendly' design desision to have something so fundimental as camera control linked to a players experience or grouping. It's the kind of thing that I'd instinctively say should be left free, consistant, or dependant on playlists (for which solo-dropping would count for as 'casual mode' if 4mans weren't mixed in with them).

Besides the situational awareness, third person would help newer players understand the difference between where your torso is pointing and where you legs are pointing. Like you're walking one way, but looking another and you hit a building and it can be tough figuring out how to navigate around something you're not looking at.

 

[teepo]

Not sure if it's been said already, but the game is coming to Steam. it was added to the registry.

figured that would happen soon enough since they've only started allowing developers to upload unfinished builds of their games

 

[Nickiepoo]

Besides the situational awareness, third person would help newer players understand the difference between where your torso is pointing and where you legs are pointing. Like you're walking one way, but looking another and you hit a building and it can be tough figuring out how to navigate around something you're not looking at.

No doubt. Like I said, I'll compare to driving games where third person helps me not hit things. The difference is that driving games won't arbiterally lock the camera past a certain stage (as is being suggested) unless I specifically select a realism mode. Fine for singleplayer, tutorials or online playlists but not in general matchmaking where some players in the same game have free access to it and others don't (as anything other than a balanced ingame system such as UAV modules).

That, and I'm not sure that letting people learn to play in a cirtain way then stopping them at a fixed point is helpful for anyone.

 

[Zen]

I don't see the point of third person mode during gameplay, you're never going to be able to play as well as first person in the setting. I guess if players want to cripple themselves because they can't adapt, more Xp for me. :\

Without the snark: Mech Warrior requires pin point accuracy to really shine and make the difference, pulling the camera further back still to a third person view would be problematic, I can't really see, conceptually, how a third person camera could work well in the game.

 

[Woorloog]

I don't see the point of third person mode during gameplay, you're never going to be able to play as well as first person in the setting. I guess if players want to cripple themselves because they can't adapt, more Xp for me. :\

Without the snark: Mech Warrior requires pin point accuracy to really shine and make the difference, pulling the camera further back still to a third person view would be problematic, I can't really see, conceptually, how a third person camera could work well in the game.

Pinpoint accuracy eh?
Nope. Not with missile mechs at least. For a LRM boat, third person view is only benefical, allowing better situational awarness or seeing over hills.
Close range brawlers with certain loadouts (streaks, SRMs, LB-Xs, not saying they're effective, just saying they don't need accuracy that much) don't need pinpoin accuracy either, and third person view is only benefical for those.

As far as i'm concerned, gameplay should be conducted from first person only. I don't mind third person view for spectators. In multiplayer.
Well... maybe completly HUDless 3rd person view, while it would allow peeking over hills and corners (and if rotateable, behind), it would be pointless for shooting and et cetera. Buyable via expensive camera drone module.

Alternatively, third person view in a screen-within-screen, replacing your aiming reticule and whatever else there was in the middle of the HUD. Trade your ability to fire (effectively) along with blocking your view partially for slightly greater situational awareness. Would be kinda useful for scouts at times, i reckon.

Either way, first person view must be the way to play this game, this is not arcade 'Warrior like MechWarrior 4 or MechAssault is.

 

[teepo]

or you know, they can get around to adding a tutorial that will walk new players through the different controls methods they've recently implemented allowing them to choose whichever one is better suited to their play style as well as teaching them the core mechanics of the game. hell, even throw in some c-bill rewards for going through the entire thing kind of like how they did it with hawken. hopefully this can be done before the eventual steam release.

 

[teepo]

and about that 3rd person mode...

http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/107095-3rd-person/

it seems to me that they're quite content with having their tutorials restricted to being only a series of youtube videos. they should've taken cues from Valve with how they handled easing new players into Dota 2 which is through a very comprehensive and thorough tutorial as well as in game guides and videos outlining the pros and cons of each hero. obviously i'm not happy with how they’re splitting their userbase apart and even more unhappy with the inclusion of a 3rd person mode but if they're intent on going through with this, then it's the only way i'd be somewhat happy.

i see two things which could've driven this decision and them backtracking even further away from their "uncompromising vision": either the userbase is large enough to support splitting the community into two with the benefit of possibly even growing further in size or IGP isn't happy with the current state of the game and the money it's pulling in. maybe Piranha is having trouble with implementing both the planetary conquest and dropship modes, their two clutches which would’ve been a draw for both old and new players? maybe they need to recuperate all the money they've invested in the dud that is Mechwarrior Tactics? maybe they're just getting greedy? or maybe the "first person community" will benefit from not having to deal with the type of gamers that a 3rd person mode will attract? who knows... either way they're backtracking from everything which had me sold on investing in a legendary founders package.

 

[Woorloog]

Play only against other first person player option? Great.
Not so great that they're splitting the playerbase.

 

[BattleMonkey]

It's only going to be in training grounds. Now it's going to be in the game but optional play lists? Make up your minds. It really seems like they got communication issues amongst the devs.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

If by implimenting the third-person queue only serves to bring in new players to the game then I really have no issue with this. Let them bring in new flesh, new wallets. But if all this does is fragment the current playerbase, then its not a good thing. I think its really a "wait and see" situation.

 

[ColonelSkills]

who knows... either way they're backtracking from everything which had me sold on investing in a legendary founders package.

Said more concisely and eloquently than I ever could. Couldn't agree more.

These constant flipflops make me wonder what the game will look like in 6 months to a year. I am no longer particularly confident in it.

 

[Nickiepoo]

Makes me wonder if they're having cash-flow problems.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

Makes me wonder if they're having cash-flow problems.

I guess this is just the flaw in F2P, the players expect a constant stream of new content, the developers need a constant stream of revenue. At some point, a new mech isn't going to pull the same amount of money as they did months ago. Boosters, new mechs, new cosmetics, whatever it is, interest will wane and eventually you'll have to reach out to new costumers.

Personally, I got into the $60 Founders and have definitely got my money's worth, but I really don't have any reason to put more money into the game. And honestly I'm not sure what they could add that would compel me to spend more money.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

I tried Hawken earlier today, it was really fun for a few hours, but the fact that you basically couldn't do anything except "Starter mech with starter outfit" without actually paying made me uninstall it. How's MWO in that regard?

 

[SUBZERO-08]

I tried Hawken earlier today, it was really fun for a few hours, but the fact that you basically couldn't do anything except "Starter mech with starter outfit" without actually paying made me uninstall it. How's MWO in that regard?

There's no need to pay for anything really, unless you want to buy new Mech Bays to have more Mechs. I have the $60 Founders Package, which came with 20,000 MC, but I've only used 300 MC (purchased one extra Mech Bay) in my several hundred hours of gameplay. The main incentive to spending money is having enough Mech Bays to allow you to buy 3 of one Mech variant and then Master the skills for the Pilot Tree.

Every new player gets 4 Mech Bays to start with, so you are able to Master at least one Mech without paying.

The other stuff that's available for MC are convenience items (Premium Time to gain C-Bills and EXP faster), decorative items (Paint, Camoflage, Cockpit Items), and Hero Mechs (Mechs that aren't available for C-Bills and offer different weapon hard points than standard variants, along with a 30% C-Bill boost).

 

[ColonelSkills]

I'm not sure what they could add that would compel me to spend more money.

Emblem editor would be dope. Sell layers/shapes/colours, much like skins. A few MC for a non-standard colour, a few for a non-standard shape, and a bit more for a layer.

Buy several layers and make the emblem you want. Would allow awesome customization, and would be a bit of a cosmetic revenue stream. (I'm thinking an end interface like a COD BLOPs Emblem Editor or something out of Armoured Core 5).

Hell, do two. One for a unit (for Community Warfare bits) and one for a personal marking.

I'd throw down MC to personalize the livery like that. It'd look boss as fuck.

 

[Darklord]

I haven't followed this in a while, is it out of beta yet or still not officially released?

 

[ColonelSkills]

Still open beta, and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[teepo]

Makes me wonder if they're having cash-flow problems.

with the large success of the founders package which we can safely assume made more money than a majority of the more successful kickstarter campaigns, the large number of Pretty Baby's i've seen charge head first into battle in nearly each and every game and the growing number of people sporting premium colors along with a skin of some sort... i'm guessing they're probably doing just fine especially since their real bread and butter, the upcoming clan invasions and planetary conquest modes, haven't even been revealed yet.

 

[JWong]

Makes me wonder if they're having cash-flow problems.

If that's the case, I don't get it. This game is like World of Tanks, except less shitty and grindy with more strategy.

World of Tanks is making gangbusters.

 

[teepo]

I'm not sure what they could add that would compel me to spend more money.

i can easily think of a few for the immediate future: more hero mechs, more skins, more colors, more cosmetics items both inside and outside the mech e.g different atlas faces, bundle packages, monetizing the pilot skill tree

and for the far future: clan mechs, a second founders like bundle for the upcoming clan invasion, gift cards, urbanmech exclusive mode...

 

[JWong]

Whoa that's a lot of patches.

Any balance work against LRMs?

 

[teepo]

Whoa that's a lot of patches.

Any balance work against LRMs?

i don't even know where to begin...

but in their current state, they feel much like how they did during the early part of the closed beta and imo, it's how the lrm's should've always been.

 

[BattleMonkey]

If that's the case, I don't get it. This game is like World of Tanks, except less shitty and grindy with more strategy.

World of Tanks is making gangbusters.

WoT has more pay 2 win options which I'm sure brings in tons of cash despite folks being against the idea. Also this is much more difficult to play personally and can see it being a huge turn off to newbies where as the tank combat is much more straight forward. A sim like this is going to turn off a lot of folks, it's not newbie friendly and the franchise itself kinda died off for a while outside hardcore fans supporting the table top game. Newer generations of players have never played a mechwarrior or are not familiar with the battletech universe.

 

[SUBZERO-08]

Whoa that's a lot of patches.

Any balance work against LRMs?

Yeah, all of the missiles got nerfed in a hotfix recently. LRM's are down from 1.8 damage per missile to 0.7 and SRM's changed from 2.5 to 1.5.

 

[JWong]

Yeah, all of the missiles got nerfed in a hotfix recently. LRM's are down from 1.8 damage per missile to 0.7 and SRM's changed from 2.5 to 1.5.

Serious? 8(

And I didn't even have much time with my LRM mech. It was gonna happen though. LRMs were so OP.

Gonna try a ballistic atlas when I get more points.

 

[ColonelSkills]

Serious? 8(

And I didn't even have much time with my LRM mech. It was gonna happen though. LRMs were so OP.

Gonna try a ballistic atlas when I get more points.

Even more important than the raw damage is the size of the individual missile splash radius, which has been reduced like no one's business.

IMO missiles are damn near PERFECT right now, and that's as someone who relies on SRMs as half of my light's damage output.

 

[Nickiepoo]

Heh, looks like that killed splatcats.

 

[No_Style]

What's your favorite drink when you play MechWarrior Online? I hear Belgian beer gets one in the team killing mood.

 

[teepo]

GET ON MY LEVEL

 

[No_Style]

So SRM nerf? I doesn't have the same punch but it's not that bad either. I'm still dealing decent damage.

Also: May the flory of Teepo will live on forever.

 

[Zaptruder]

So SRM nerf? I doesn't have the same punch but it's not that bad either. I'm still dealing decent damage.

Also: May the flory of Teepo will live on forever.

Yeah, it's down to about 1.5+1.5*0.4=2.1 damage on missle impact... and a small degree of splash around other components.

So the missiles should be doing around 2.5 damage on average each... for the ones that hit.

 

[teepo]

Community Consolidated Question 6: What point in the timeline will CW be implemented? Will time be rolled back?

A: CW will begin rolling out in May and through to the fall. We do not plan to roll back the timeline.

http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/107281-ask-the-devs-34-answers/