Jo, damit Assaults auch nicht mehr so extrem oft unterwegs sind... Vielleicht könnte man pro Mech eine Art Reparaturwährung einführen und die allgemeinen C-Bills gar nicht oder nur zu einem kleinen Teil für Reparaturen zur Verfügung stellen lassen.

Dann müsste man einen Mech häufiger spielen oder so konzipieren, dass er auch tatsächlich seine eigenen Kosten tragen kann.

Und? Haufenweise mittlere Mechs würde ja der Realtität in der Welt von Mechwarrior entsprechen^^

Man muss dann halt 2-3 Spiele mit den Mediums machen, um genug Kohle für eine Reparatur des schweren/Sturmmechs zusammen zu haben.

Ich werde mir auf jeden Fall mal den Quickdraw angucken. :)

grml kommt jetzt heute eigentlich ein neuer mech?! Ich hab irgendwo gelesen, dass der Orion gecancelt wurde und den wollte ich mir vermutlich holen! *motz*zeter*mordio*

aktuelles Meta?

2AC20
LRM boot
1 Gauss + 2-3 ER-PPC
4-6 PPC

Ich glaube das sind so die Standardbewaffnungen...

Ach ja, auch aktuell gefahrene Bewaffnung: 2 AC5/AC2 oder 2 UAC5/AC2

Wo sind die ganzen Medium Laser hin. Das war doch in der Beta der heiße Scheiss. xD

Ask the Devs #41

3PV
Vasces Diablo: Is it possible to rename the view modes? Specifically "Training" for 3PV and "Normal" for 1PV. It's semantics, true, but a portion of the community feels it's an important distinction. 1st person has been the "normal" view in earlier titles and it would create an indication to new players to that effect.
A: If you are referring to Normal and Hardcore descriptors for the matchmaking buckets, these are not final yet. Training and Normal would not work as this would imply an offline mode for 3PV which is not the case. 3PV is not only a great way for new players to learn to play the game, it’s actually a really fun way to play the game! Our early play tests have resulted in some interesting observations as hardcore 1PV proponents have taken a step back and seen the value and fun in 3PV. I expect once the 3PV view mode hits the Test Servers in the next 30 days, players will find it not as powerful as feared or as intrusive into the existing experience, rather accept it as an extension. Of course as promised out of the gates players will be able to choose 1PV and 3PV mixed or just 1PV.

Community Warfare/Clans
I’m holding off answering questions that were placed in this category for now, as we near a more official post regarding Community Warfare/Clans.

UI 2.0
Seth: Will the reticule get an update with UI2.0? At close range, it's perfectly fine, but when you zoom in, the reticle stays the same size and is quite large compared to a long range target. I'm hoping for a target reticle that gets smaller the more you zoom in.
A: UI 2.0 addresses the Front End experience (FE), so all the menus up to the and including the launch menu. After launch we plan to work on a new HUD experience.

Crimson Fenris: When could we expect to finally see more user-friendly communication systems, like integrated VoIP, or a command wheel (like the one in the Battlefield series) ?
A: No firm dates, we have a concept ready when the team has some free time after launch.

Flying Fox 333: Previously you mentioned that this was under consideration still, has there been any decision regarding storing Mech builds for each chassis in UI 2.0?
A: No decisions have been made either way yet.

`Mech's and Mechlab
Adridos: A question for Alex and the art team: How do you determine the proportions of certain mechs which don't have any canonical references to such traits?
A: Dennis (Art Director) works to set the appropriate scales. We have min-max heights for most weight classes, with some exceptions as canon dictate.

hawk819: With the Clan Weapons just announced in the last Ask the Devs, I (and maybe a thousand others) want to know: What will become of the OmniMechs? Mad Cat? Vulture? etc.
A: They will show up in the future at some point.

Littlelifter: Dear devs, here is my question: Why some mechs have true size of cockpit hitbox (all cockpit windows counts like a cockpit hitbox), and some mechs have false size of cockpit hitbox (only few or one window counts like a cockpit hitbox, rest windows counts like center torso hitbox)?
A: We’re working on an art pass right now to correct any oddities.

mailin: Is there any way to add a feature to the in game friends list so that we can see when the last time our friends logged on? My list is huge, and I would like to possibly delete some inactive players, but I don't know necessarily who they are
A: It’s a feature you can expect to see once UI 2.0 is out.

Strum Wealh: What are the plans and attitudes of PGI with regard to the in-game availability (or lack thereof) of certain BattleMechs (or individual variants thereof) that, in BattleTech, are generally or wholly restricted to specific organizations/units (such as the Hoplite not being produced at all in the Inner Sphere, and neither it nor the Annihilator not being available outside of the Wolf's Dragoons)?
A: You will however see some of this come into player through price adjustments based on faction availability in a future game update.

Gallowglas: I know this is getting WAY ahead of things, but it's an idle curiosity. If, at some point, you guys manage to get all the mechs into the game, would you consider adding your own designs to the existing canon? Are you allowed to do that with your license agreement? Would that be heresy? I know there's a certain group which would want to stone me for even suggesting this, but let's face it...a LOT of the designs beyond the Unseen were pretty hideous. Alex just happens to have a knack for pimping uncool mechs into something cool. I'd love to see what he could come up with unfettered by design constraints.
A: Yes. We have plans to make our own designs at some point, however as you mentioned, we have a ways to go yet before the best mechs have been released.

Weapons & Loadouts
Sable: Consumables to me seem to be lackluster in the sense that buying them every match cancels out what you just earned, making them unappealing. Don't get me wrong its handy to throw one on a mech to try them out without spending 15k gxp but... Is there any chance their could be a more expensive one time cost but limited to one use per match alternative module?
A: Consumables are designed and priced in a way that forces players to make a buying decision. They offer enough battlefield power to warrant having to sacrifice potential match earnings.

Rashhaverak: When a critical hit is landed on ammo, why is the chance for an ammo explosion only 10%?
A: Like most arbitrary values, this feels right currently. And like all arbitrary numbers, we tweak them occasionally to meet the design goals.

Jetfire: Can we look forward to smoke bomb consumables either as air drops or dropped from the mech? Seems like a good cheap tool to distract people and escape a situation or stage an ambush. Thinking something that fills about 200m radius for 10-30 seconds with heavy smoke.
A: Once we’ve tuned the existing consumables to be a bit more useful, expect to see some new items hit the battlefield.

Krizalius: For a long time, Ferro - Fibrous armor is not used. It does not work. When the installation is only 14 slots, and slightly reduced weight. No addition of armor points as it was in MechWarrior 4, or as in the description is not 12% of the armor. You'll do anything about it? Maybe instead of changing the characteristics of the weapons repair this armor?
A: It’s on the tuning list.

Son of the Flood: Any chance we'll be able to purchase ammo in half-ton increments?
A: I’ll look into it.

Flying Blind: What, if anything, is the plan for making SRM's a viable weapon system again?
In the last ATD the only srm question that was answered was answered by telling us to read Paul's command chair post on weapons balancing and such. The only such post in command chair by Paul or anyone spoke only of STREAK SRM's and their targeting of mech bones. While that was great information, it did not answer the question about SRM's. Can we please have a real answer to what is going to be done with SRM's?
I believe SRM's being so week is a major contributor to the lack of variety in our currently PPC/gauss dominated meta.
A: When we have the details on the tuning plans you will see it in the CC section. For now, hold tight.

Ed Steele: Any chance that you will allow us to remove actuators or add custom actuators to add custom "quirks" to our mechs? I personally would not even mind if I had to spend MC to do this, it would allow us to make a more personally customized mech.
A: It hasn’t been discussed internally yet.

Gameplay/Game modes/Meta
grayson marik: Is there an ETA on any feature, that would enable to drop one group against a specific other group ( no pug fillers)?
A: No ETA, but we have plans for something along these lines.

CutterWolf: Will the Dev team consiter using "Weapon Slot Limitations" as a game balancing tool?
A: It’s under review.

irony1999: Early concepts of the game that were released originally included modules that would interfere with enemies - modules that you termed Spoofers (fake targets on map), Disruptors (block locks, communication, HUD, or Vision information), and Surveillance (intercept enemy intel, comms).
Do you still plan on releasing modules of the above types - particularly Spoofers and Disruptors - which ECM had some aspects of (which have been since removed)?
A: We have more modules planned for after launch, some of the above are slated to be designed and tested.

Jern: Have you guys considered featuring secondary one-off objectives (one for each team) on the larger maps?
A: Yes.

MegaZordTrololo: You have mentioned in several recent "Ask the Devs" sessions that battle damage effects have been scaled back to improve game performance. Do you plan on adding a slider for individual users to adjust the fidelity/complexity of battle damage effects? This way people with high end machines can get the full intended experience and everyone is happy.
A: I would expect the rendering team will look into adding this functionality back, especially when we get the new UI out the door.

DEMAX51: You may have answered this before, but what are the chances of eventually being able to pay MC to "heroize" an already existing variant in order to get the 30% c-bill boost to it? I love the existing hero mechs with their unique hardpoints and paint-schemes, but there are several basic chassis I love to play and it would be awesome to get a c-bill boost with those as well.
A: It’s an interesting idea, and one we have considered.

Jman5: Once 12 v 12 arrives, will each Lance get it's own unique color shade to better identify them on the map? Currently there are only two shades of blue: Your lance (teal) and "the other two lances"(blue)
A: Not out the gates, but we are looking at adding this to the mix.

MeatForBrains: Are there future plans to match by tonnage as opposed to weight class? What are the pros and cons of this approach?
A: We endeavor to allow players to play the game however they chose. Putting artificial limits always tends to create other problems. Sometime it’s necessary to promote a more diverse ecosystem. In the case of tonnage vs weight class, tonnage is better for players, as they can field whatever they chose, and weight classes is better to guarantee match quality/equality. We’re working on striking a balance between the two.
Stjobe: What are your plans for getting more lights and mediums onto the field?
The current game is absolutely dominated by heavies and assaults, to the point where I'm often the lightest thing on the field - both teams included - when I drop in a Blackjack. I'd love to hear your take on this, and your plans on rectifying the situation (if you have any).
If I may make a suggestion as well as pose a question: I suggest you take a look at your reward structure; it's almost completely focussed on what heavies and assaults are good at, and almost completely neglects to reward what lights and mediums are good at - and the rewards we do have for things like spotting and capping are a pittance compared to what you get for dealing damage and killing.
A: You pretty much nailed it on the head. Rewards, along with expanded roles for lights and mediums, along with some limitations on drop weights, will all contribute to a more diversified battlefield.

Cockpit, HUD & Customizations
Krizalius: Are there any plans buttons quick commands, attack protection or assistance? For example, as it was implemented in MechWarrior 4. Because it is inconvenient to fight and write in the chat at the same time. Example: nickname [H7] - need help, nickname [C4] - enemy spotted
A: Yes.

Ilithi Dragon: Would it be possible to have the option to toggle between a paper doll and a bar graph display, like MW4 had?
A: We’re exploring this when we refresh the HUD after launch.

MoonfireSpam: Any chance of getting a more detailed damage log? Sort of similar to a Combat log (taken and given + pilot + location) as well as a summary.
A: It’s theoretically possible. I’ll have to ask if it’s technically viable. Lots of data would have to be transmitted from the gamer servers to the client.

Thariel: Can we have a permanent chat window, with a system messages (xy killed yz) above, and the chat below, sorted by general, team, lance (diff. colors)? so the chat history is always available and open up chatting with the Enter-key and writing into the different colors by slash command or sth like that (e.g. /l text will display text for lance, /t for team, /b for broadcast) and scrolling up down with the pgup/down.
A: It’s something we’d like to explore with the HUD refresh.

MajorChunks: Is it possible to get quick communication shortcuts, like "Attack My Target," "Form up on me," or "Hold My Position?" The simplest implementation would just dump the message in chat (MajorChunks Sez: Attack Target Alpha) and would really go a long way towards improving PUG team coordination when no commander is present.
A: Yes. We’re working on a design that would allow quick commands to be issued.

Maps/Environment:

MavRCK: Consider the ease of of use of the map editor for cryengine3 and some of the amazing mech designs by the community -- would you consider inviting the community to offer their maps and mechs for you to use? This would help the community become invested in the game outside of the monetary aspect!
A: We’re looking at ways to involve the community in content creation. Right now our focus is on launch, and then we can see.

NeonKnight: Has any thought been given to a what I perceive as a quick and fast way to instantly DOUBLE the number of assault maps we have to play? What I propose is this. Take all the maps we currently have, and utilize from the conquest maps the Epsilon and Kappa bases as the staging areas for alternative assault formats. In every Map, the Epsilon/Kappa bases are prettey much opposite each, have no direct LINE OF SIGHT issues (unlike the current starting locations for River City), and I believe this could really help to keep the game fresh and change the way certain maps play out tactically.
A: I’ll forward the idea to the level team.

East Indy: Have you considered varying base locations (e.g., among places reserved for peripheral Conquest nodes), to make deployments a little less predictable?
A: It’s an interesting idea, and one we could explore.

Graphics:
Slide: Are the continual delays and lack of fixes to net code for example, caused by deep seated issues within the Cryengine architecture? If so, why is there no support from the Cryengine developers the same as any other paying customer would get from a supplier?
A: I’m not sure exactly what net code delays you are speaking of. We’ve introduce a series of major changes over the last 4 months that fall all contributed to better performance all around. There can/will always be edge cases where performance may suffer. A lot of them are out of our control, player hardware, state of the global network, weather, etc..

Verbrand: Why was the in game FPS reading removed and will it return?
A:It's been reworked currently. No ETA on its return.

Miscenalleous
Dakkon: Whats been happening with the command Console? When can we expect to see it and what will it do.
A: Nothing currently. Design is playing with it.

Garagano: Will the game have music by the time of the launch or later? If yes, what genre will it be?
Can we have a preview track, please?
A: Sean is working on a series of scores that should be ready in time for launch. Preview.. hmmm…

Lentil: I've recently been rocking out to the original MW2:31st Century Combat music tracks (i.e. Jeehung Hwang's digital masterpieces) during game play. When I hear this music I can't help seeing the wire-frame 'mechs exploding in my mind's eye. Any chance of resurrecting these tracks in MWO?
A: I guess the best part is you can always toss that on your headphones or speakers and listen to it while playing MWO, the bad part, I’m not sure we could even license the music if we wanted to.

Kaldor: For those of us that want to either run big or multiple monitors, any ETA on Xfire and SLI support?
A: No eta yet.

Lukoi: It was confirmed that some kind of ingame chat mute or ignore is on the table. Any word on when?
A: After launch.

outlw6669: Would it be possible to have a FOV slider; similar to how we can now adjust mouse sensitivity? The stock FOV 60 is way to close for me and I only really feel at home with a FOV of at least 90. And can we have back the option to force stereo, 4 channel, 5.1, 7.1, etc. like in closed beta?
Many of us have headphones that use virtual surround and many games (possibly MWO?) do not properly recognize that they should output in surround.
A: Yes.

Dev insights
Steemship: Does PGI plan on making any attempt to improve public relations such as having developer live streams, YouTube videos made by PGI (instead of NGNG, most of the community doesn’t even know what you look like), or a general increase in direct involvement with the community?
A: We do a lot of official communication via NGNG, the website, Twitter, Facebook, and press interviews. We’re always looking at new ways to expand that information flow. See below for more.

Tekadept: Why don't you do Video Diaries which is the current trend for a lot of games from 1 man indie developers to bigger studios? ie ask the devs would be a good case for this, or is nobody there photogenic enough?
A: The simple and fortunate truth is the team has been extremely busy dealing with the success of MWO and trying to stay ahead of it. We have grand plans to build out a much more robust set of community engagements, but for now you can find us mostly in the forums, and twitter spheres. In the future we’d love to have a fulltime team dedicate to broadcasting dev activities and previews, along with other community engagements.

aniviron: How far from your ideal state of balance is the game at this time? It's a hot topic on the forum now as always, but I feel that the game is the most balanced it has been since the launch of closed beta, even if it has a ways to go yet. Are there many things that you still want to tweak? What would your optimal state of game balance look like?
A: Ideal balance would be a middle ground where most weapons, mechs, and equipment are very useful in specific situations, and weak in others. We need to tweak a lot of aspects still, so we’re definitely not there yet, but as you said, we’re getting closer and we continue to chart a course to a nice balance.

Hammerreborn: What do you think was/is your most ambitious goal that you realized would take far more work than you anticipated and why?
A: MechLab. It’s a beast of rules, and gotchas. We’re still working to perfect it, from and UI, to descriptions, to all the gameplay related balancing a near free-for-all system creates.

Praetorians: Does it bother you that the people who attempt to give feedback to the developers are getting more and more insulting and have the devs ever actualy used any of their Ideas or have you dissmissed them all out of hand like we feel that they have since closed beta?
A: Each dev handles is differently. I someone insults me I just ignore it, try and figure out what they are really trying to say, and give them answer. If they are being rude, then I just ignore them all together.

Onmyoudo: Is there any chance of more frequent communication? I rarely see staff in the forums and frankly the monthly Creative Director update isn't enough on it's own. I understand that it must be difficult to approach the forums when they are constantly raging about one thing or another, whether valid or not, but it would help PR if there was a bit more developer presence.
A: We communicate regularly, several times per day in fact. The forums are a really big place and we all spend time in different areas. Work load also plays a role, and we are sprinting towards launch right now.

Papar: Approximately, how many people were working on this game during Close Beta and how many are currently? Are you satisfied with that number or are you planning to recruit more members for the team?
A: We started with a team of 10-13 and now have a team in the mid-40s, not including execs, admin, etc. We continue to add resources as we find quality talent.

Forum/Website/Sales, Events and Tournaments:
Kell Commander: When are you going to have a tournament with teams? You would get so much more participation if you made solo, 2, 3, and 4man brackets.
A: It’s in the works.

Hellen Wheels: The Radio Chatter on the home page is eerily silent as of late. Were some filters added to quash the inappropriate and irrelevant posts, or has it been silenced entirely? Any plans to use it for game results, community warfare updates, and other similar announcements?
A: If you are referring to the Twitter feed, or devs talking on Twitter, I have been on Vacation for a bit. No filters have been put in place.

Blood78: Could we please have some sort of ranking information available to the public. Whether it is straight up ELO number, percentile number, ladder rank, and so forth. If answer is no, please explain why because you cannot have a healthy and a real competitive aspect to a game without such info being available publically.
A: Elo is not something that players need as a ranking system, it’s a number used by a really fancy calculator to match you against opponents. As for ladders etc, yes, we they are coming.

MrTarget: Would it be possible though to modify the prize that we receive to show that it was attained from completing the challenge? For example the 3050 logo glow red instead of the standard blue or the .50 cal bullet be gold, Or something that this was a unique to that challenge. Kinda like achievements for your cockpit...
A: Something along these lines is planned for big events.

Zuesacoatl: Will you be changing or adding times for your "win 25 matches" "win 10 and 10 matches" type challenges to include those of us who work odd and long hours? Such as weekends and Mondays?
A: These will move to achievements accessible within the client and be something you can do on your own schedule.

BarHaid: Can we please get a nice official chart of mech size and volume from the Art Department?
A: I’ll ask Dennis

Ask The Devs 42 - Answered!

Question from Homeless Bill: I'd like to get a realistic picture of what "release" will look like. Which of the following things can you guarantee to be in-game at launch? (Yes or No - this is what you guarantee, not what you hope)

A negative response is not an indication that it will not be in-game at release - it just means there's no guarantee that it will be. And that's what I'm looking for: Will X be in for certain or not?

Big Stuff
-UI 2.0:
-Achievements:
-Some form of Community Warfare:
-Territorial/planetary attack/defend in Community Warfare (more than just PUG matches with loyalty points):
-Some form of in-game training/tutorial:
-12v12:
-3rd person view:

Matchmaking
-The ability to drop against a specific opponent (private matches):
-Some sort of stricter class/tonnage limitations:
-Pre-game lobby:

Gameplay
-'Mech-on-'mech collision:
-Knockdowns:
-Passive sensors:

User Interface
-Some way to designate a primary target:
-Integrated voice chat:
-Minimap zoom:
-Toggle for TAG:
-Toggle for AMS:
-Ability to target friendly 'mechs:
-Functional 4x zoom module:
-Report button/functionality on Match End screen:

Miscellaneous
-DirectX 11:
-Options for more graphical fidelity (the stuff you've removed like inverse kinematics for the legs, etc.):
-Unit/Clan prefix tags:
-Decals:
-Proper map lighting (no more floating shadows):
-Being able to gift items or MC:
-Urbanmech:

Answer from Bryan: Rather than give specific dates, I'm going to answer in general terms. There are many factors at play that determine when a feature is ready for production, and with our new test servers, we have a new stage in our development pipeline that allows us to deliver a much more stable and balance product. Most of the features you have listed have or are being worked on, and are in various states of completion. Many have been reprioritized a number of times based on the live production environment and the more short term needs required to keep things running smoothly Other features, like 12 v 12, required months upon months of regular live updates (HSR) to be completed before releasing the main feature. Most of the larger features also require lots of behind the scenes work that players rarely see (CW), whereas features like UI 2.0 requires a complete rewrite of the entire UI system, no small feat or undertaking.

I often describe MWO as a pyramid to the team. We are building it from the ground up layer by layer. Some features require the previous layer to be built. For example 12 v 12 require HSR and other networking improvements, Community Warfare requires 12 v 12, matchmaking, UI 2.0, and a host of other features. Other features are like the temples around the great pyramids, free standing and can be built independently of others (3PV, testing/training grounds, consumables, etc).•Late stage design – feature has been approved, conditions of satisfaction are being worked on. Early engineering, artist, designers are scoping and building frameworks.

•In development – Engineers, artists, designers are working on building the feature.

•Ready for test – Feature is deemed complete and ready for internal QA.

•In public test – Feature has been approved for public testing, this is stage is designed to test major features that have a large impact on the stability or meta game.

•Early design – An idea has been presented and the team is brainstorming ways to make it.
Some features are so large that they are broken into phases and can inherit multiple stages as seen by CW being in both late stage design and in development.•UI 2.0 – in development.

•CW – late stage design, in development.

•DX11 – ready for test.

•12v12 – in public test.

•Tutorial (movement only) – ready for test.

•3PV – in development, nearing ready for test.

•Achievements – late stage design, in development.

•New Store – in development.

•Private Matches – early design

•Tonnage Limits – late stage design

•Lobby – late state design, in development

•Collision – on hold until launch.

•Passive Sensors – early design

•Decals – ready for development

•Gifting – in development

•Urbanmech – no eta

•Clan Tags – See CW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Question from BlackIronTarkus: Can you explain what is the reasonning/process for deciding what size a mech should be? More specificaly the quickdraw and the stalker.

Answer from Dennis: This is a tough one because no matter the reasoning, it’s largely subjective.
Addressing the Quickdraw and/or the Stalker specifically would be misguiding as all ‘Mech are subject to the same process.

When determining scale, we consider presumed mass and density as well as comparing silhouettes.
Many forum posters have used volume to determine what they believe to be the best method, but right from the start; we figured that this is not enough, and most certainly should not be the sole deciding factor. The main reasoning behind this is density. The missile boxes on the catapult, for example, have quite a bit of volume but not so much density; whereas the average fuselage is assumed to contain an engine which implies a lot more density despite the volume.

So, just because a ‘Mech is heavier (or lighter) than another, does not mean it should be taller (or shorter).
We also compare the ‘Mechs to at least two heavier and two lighter from the front, side and top; and adjust accordingly.

Earlier on, when we had only a handful of ‘Mechs on the roster, they were easier to scale as there were fewer comparisons to work from. As the population grew, it has become increasingly difficult, and now, even the smallest of adjustments makes a huge difference. As scaling is cubic (as opposed to linear), literally one foot of adjustment adds or removes what feels like 2-3 tonnes.

Admittedly; given the time, I would like to make a couple tweaks here and there, but it’s not as easy as one might assume.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Question from PeRRaKo: When are we going to have REAL lobbies (you know, the kind that every multiplayer game has where two teams setup a match) to play private matches against a team of our choosing, at the time of our choosing and what parameters will we be able to setup (map, tonnage limits, time limits, etc)?

Answer from Paul: Lobbies have always been part of the plan. However, it’s been part of the plan for Community Warfare. MWO was not planned to be a series of private matches/servers with player set rules and options. That style of lobby is reserved for FPS 1-off match play. As an online MP game, we have to restrict control over how servers are utilized and to maximize users per hardware installation.

However, that being said, we are planning to get a pre-launch lobby and a post-match maker lobby into the game for early CW implementation.

The pre-launch lobby is where players will be able to create their team, set up strategies, decide which Mechs to bring and set up lances and command structures. The post-match maker lobby is where two teams have been matched by the match maker are able to prepare for battle, chat and vote on map selection. Once everyone on both teams are ready to launch, the game will kick off with the desired mode and map.

After this initial implementation of the lobbies, we will look into the competitive league requirements for being able to select opponents in private matches. Private matches however will not affect the CW InnerSphere status and not count toward any meta-game rewards/achievements.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Question from Felio: How feasible is it for you to address Mech scaling? (such as mediums being large enough that they are just as easy to hit as assaults, even at top speed) Is this something you'd like to do in the future?

Answer from Dennis: To re-scale a ‘Mech is not as simple as most might assume; it’s not just: 1.) select geo; 2.) rescale to x%; 3.) save.

As far as art is concerned, there are quite a few steps that would have to be taken.

Rescaling the actual ‘Mech geometry is just one of the many steps involved. There is also the re-scaling of every variant module (weapon) and damaged versions of the geometry; then there’s the re-scaling of LOD’s and hit-boxes (which would need re-alignment) and then re-exporting.

Depending on the amount of re-scaling, ancillary geometry i.e. Ladder rungs, tie-down cleats etc. would have to be scaled independently to retain consistency. This would necessitate re-baking the AO as well as texture correcting.

There’s also re-scaling and exporting the skeleton, retargeting animation and correcting foot-slide and other inevitable animation adjustments.

FX origin nodes would also have to be re-aligned. Then there’s (pov) camera and cockpit re-alignment.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Question from BlacKcuD: Can we have a rough, but reliable release date for CW phase 2 (Fighting over territories and stuff) please?
(An answer something like "before Christmas" or "definitely 1st quarter of 2014 ends) would be awesome. Thank you. There is also rumors about "2014 for sure".)

Also CW related from Butane9000: When can we expect a serious and detailed command chair post about community warfare and the schedule for the final months of beta?

Also CW related fromstarkk: Could you confirm or deny that UI 2.0 and CW phase three will make it in time for launch?

Also CW related from Kraven Kor: Can we get some details on Community Warfare and post-release gameplay prior to the end of the "early bird" Project Phoenix sale? Many of us are hesitant to purchase without some idea of what future gameplay will be like.

Also CW related from mint frog:What do you plan on doing to retain players now that its been shared (NGNG) that we won't see CW until 2014? Do you expect people to stick around death-matching for another six months?
More challenges?
Achievements?
These kind of low-effort things have proven to be quite successful in bringing players back to the game. Why not implement them in the meantime?

Answer from Bryan: Please see answer in Question 1.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Question from Bigwig: Are you going to look at the hitboxes of those static map models that keep blocking my shots? (eg crystals on tourmaline, rocks on canyon, some buildings on rivercity)

Answer from Kevin: Yes.
Before getting into the plan, I want to explain what we are talking about to the other readers. There are many cases where the optimized invisible collision meshes extend further than the silhouette of the render geometry. This can result in the player lining up that perfect shot from behind cover, but instead of taking down the enemy Mech, the weapon explodes in mid-air beside the cover object – super annoying. Games use optimized collision proxies because collision checks can be quite expensive, the more complex the collision mesh, the more expensive the check. So, in general when a building has a curved silhouette, or small sections that stick out, it can be difficult to find the perfect balance of simplicity vs. accuracy.

We have a few other considerations that make MWO more challenging than some other titles when it comes to creating bug-free collision proxies:

* Many of our objects are very big, so in 3ds Max it could look like we are being quite accurate with the collision on a 1km long shard of tourmaline, but in the game that small gap can translate to multiple meters of invisible collision offset.

* Our game runs entirely off the server, and the server has no render geometry - the issue here is that by default ballistic weapons in cryEngine are designed to not explode directly on the physics proxy, but instead do another check toward the render geometry and explode against it IF it hits it, which would allow it to be perfectly accurate - sadly this is not a possibility for us as we have built the whole game around being server side only to severely limit hacking.

* The more complex the collision geometry is, the more likely a player will find somewhere to get stuck – different sized ‘Mechs LOVE finding places to get stuck.

In my opinion, a collision accuracy pass is a required level of polish before we launch. Here is the current plan that was set in motion earlier this week. In addition to normal bug reports, we now have an internal tester flagging all of the worst cases for us in order to tackle in one sweeping pass in the near future. We have recently found ourselves with an Art Intern who I will be focusing on resolving those bugs as soon as that list is completed. This could be started as early as next week. Thad fixed that one really bad rock type that is getting in everyone’s way in Canyon Network already, which will be released in the next patch (July 16th).




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Question from Icebergdx: Is there a plan to adjust the new movement situation on hills, as right now it appears to be broken in several ways. Examples include:
1. Small wrinkles in terrain that are not visible stopping or slowing mechs with no reason.
2. Inability to use jump jets to "hop" over terrain that stops the mech if the mech has been forced to stop due to terrain. (Per the books, and other Mechwarrior games, jump jets are directional in that if you are giving a direction input even though stopped against an obstacle, it will allow you to move int hat direction once the obstacle is cleared.
3. Lack of consistency in the terrain effects (areas that look no different in angle, but have different climb speeds, or one can be climbed, one cant.)
4. Direct statement of devs that "it its white, you can climb it" not being the fact of the matter in alpine.
5. Are maps going to be changed to remove areas that are ont he maps that are meant to look like paths up, so that people quit getting trapped there (the various brown paths among the rocks under and near the tall bridge in River City and River City night.)

This issue with movement has in many ways turned the game almost unplayable, and very unenjoyable. I feel that the idea of the terrain effects is good, but I think that it has been implemented in to severe a manner, and needs to be readjusted, and play-tested with the community to better tweak it.


Answer from Kevin: Definitely expect tweaks tuning and bug fixes, but no complete overhauls. This was a big change to how the game plays, dramatically altering how all players have to navigate the map and analyze their tactical situations. We continue to take a good look at critiques from our beta users and bug reports from QA in order to polish this feature – whether it is tuning on the archetype side, level design side, or art side.

In general, this is how we want it to work:

* ‘Mechs are slowed down on any significant slope (20/30/40 degrees).
* ‘Mechs are slowed down but not stopped when passing over small geometry (small rocks, cars, etc).
* ‘Mechs are stopped in their tracks when trying to climb a cliff steeper than 45 degrees.
* ‘Mechs travelling at high speeds could carry speed over small cliffs or slightly up large cliffs that are steeper than 45 degrees.

For the most part when playing, watching streams, or gameplay videos since the July 2nd patch, things are playing out really well. Is it perfect? No, and we’ll definitely be fixing bugs in the levels and level art in the coming patches.

We love walking around the lake in Canyon Network in order to climb up that large rock bridge, have a fight up there, jump down to help a lance-mate and then have to double back in order to re-gain the high ground. We dislike watching someone die as they continue to try and run up a 60 degree cliff, because I know they aren’t having fun right then - but I expect they’ll walk around that cliff next time and hopefully have a blast planning out their routes better in the future. We hate seeing someone stuck against a small rock and a small terrain slope – those are bugs and will absolutely be resolved as we continue to get reports of their specific locations.

For the specific sub questions:

1) Small terrain wrinkles stopping Mechs in their tracks – Internally, in the last week since implementation we have resolved many cases of small hills that juuuust stop the Mech from climbing over – many Tourmaline craters for example. We are always monitoring any negative effects that get reported and we address them as quickly as we can with each patch. If you are stopped to 0km/h on a very small object or terrain slope, please report that location via email to support@mwomercs.com , including a screenshot that includes your XYZ co-oridnates and ‘Mech (f9 to show XYZ coordinates).

2) Jump jet movement control – This is something we flagged internally when first implementing the movement slowdown. We do intend to give jump jets the ability to thrust forward, and we would like to get it in soon, but there is no current ETA.

3, 4, 5) Visual indicators for walkable paths – Although we can’t always clearly mark differences in slope angles in the world, especially between different slowdown angles, we’ll definitely continue to try and define gameplay paths and 45+ degree cliffs wherever possible. For a large part, 45 degree cliffs will have a cliff texture applied, but we can’t do this universally. I believe that “rock = block” rhyme for Alpine in response to the official post was just to help explain the type of cliffs we won’t be walking up anymore during those days before you got a hold of the patch, not as a 100% rule. We generally try to mark intended paths, but sometimes in creating pretty art before this system was implemented - a rockslide down a cliff to the left of the dam in River City for example – we can accidentally make things that look like paths even though they are on a sheer cliff. We don’t really have a lot of places that are meant as paths that are just at 44 degrees, so if you’re aiming for a pretty steep cliff and hoping to get up, you should feel lucky if you do rather than unlucky if you don’t. As official reports of these locations that look like paths despite their 45+ degree angle come in (again you can best help by sending reports to support@mwomercs.com), we’ll address these areas with art whenever possible.

In addition to level art, are currently looking into ways to make navigation as obvious as possible for players and will continue to implement/tune/tweak as the beta moves forward. As players of the game, we definitely appreciate how frustrating it can be to be stuck and not have any visual indicators telling the player why.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Question from Ed Steele: There have been rumors from PGI mutterings and forum chatter, that hardpoint limitations may be implemented in the near future. If so, could we get any details on this?

Answer from David B: We currently have no plans to implement any sort of hardpoint limitations. Our current system allows for flexibility in terms of customization, while being balanced by a weapon’s size and weight, in addition to the tuning we do to the weapon’s damage/heat/etc.
Answer from Paul: Not sure where this statement was made but there is no plan to alter hardpoint limitations at this time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Question from Suprentus: Similar to how commanders can mark the team’s maps with orders, do you plan to give scout ‘Mechs the ability to mark maps? For example, being able to mark enemy sightings (both individual and grouped enemies) and their current headings? I, myself, could see marking headings with a click and drag, leaving an arrow on the map or something. And if implemented, would such observations offer rewards if the scout is accurate?

Answer from Paul: Yes, you will see scout specific abilities appear on the Battle Grid. As a scout, the player should be able to mark multiple spotted enemies letting teammates know that there are a “bunch of bad guys over there!”. The same goes for more detailed commander tools that allow command players to mark waypoints, fire lines, defensive lines etc.

The amount of detail concerning enemies will be investigated to see what makes sense and doesn’t give away too much information. There may be needs for modules for advanced information on enemies but that’s to be determined once the systems come online.

We are planning numerous additions to role specific rewards including scouting actions. Expect to see more both before and after launch.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Question from Dude42: Do you have any plans to address instant convergence and give usefulness back to that pilot skill, or are instant pinpoint alphas here to stay?

Also along the same lines fromTypatty: What other ideas for balancing high alpha builds are being considered besides heat penalties for multiple weapons of the same type being fired simultaneously? (example: convergence, area damage dispersion, etc.)

Also along the same lines from IceSerpent: Can we get a detailed description of what exactly your vision of weapon balance is? I am not looking for generic "we want everything balanced" answer, but rather something along the lines of "weapon X should fit this role, weapon Y should fit that role, ideally there would be these pros ond cons of choosing X over Y, etc."

Answer from Paul: Weapon convergence is a tough nut to crack. We want to keep the number of random “dice rolls” to a minimum, and network synchronization can become unpredictable when trying to determine a convergence point that may or may not be moving. It will be necessary to make the convergence point calculation server authoritive and that can cause a desync due to the fact that the simulation runs at different frequencies on the server and client.

While this is something we’ve wanted for a while, it’s becoming more and more apparent that it is going to take some serious engineering time to address. Currently, the engineers who would be working on this are already tasked with other high priority features and investigations. Pulling them off their current schedule will have both short and long term negative effects on the game as a whole, so the chances are very low that they will be able to address convergence any time soon. Convergence will always be something we will keep on the drawing board but as to when it can be tackled is not known at this time.

Regarding the weapon convergence skill in the Pilot Tree, we will be implementing something else in that spot in the near future.

As for what is considered a balanced weapon, it is one that doesn’t stand out as the “be all end all, must have to succeed”. Nor should any weapon provide 0 benefit to the player. Not all weapons will be equal in damage per second or heat per second. Each weapon has its own positive and negative properties and quirks.

The direction we’re going with balancing is to allow maximum viable weapon configurations within the constraints of a Mech chassis’s hardpoints, and not have high Alpha strike builds being the only viable way of playing the game. Weapons should be available for any player wanting to play their favorite gameplay style with a little added skill.

For example, a player who plays as a brawler needs to have a variety of weapons at their disposal for both burning armor and hitting internals. The brawler can use any of the lasers and short ranged missiles to accomplish their tasks. Heavier autocannons will also help this play style. It IS however up to the player to adjust their play style to meet the intricacies of the weapons they choose to bring to the battlefield.

Another player may want to play long-range fire support. Long-range missiles and far reaching projectile weapons are better suited for that style of gameplay. A player who wants to scout may want mid to far reaching weapons but can’t afford the weight cost of packing ammunition so energy weapons would suit it better. But again, all of this requires the player to understand the weapon system and adapt to their behaviors.

We are balancing weapons so that there are multiple weapons systems that are useful to players, no matter what their play-style is.