Dead game already?

[WheatSnackBread]

No noise from the devs about future patches or DLCs(COUGH COUGH THE MOUSE CLICK HOTAS BUG). Not that DLCs are needed right now considering how dis-jointed the base game is.... but yeah.

[orcaa]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

No noise from the devs about future patches or DLCs(COUGH COUGH THE MOUSE CLICK HOTAS BUG). Not that DLCs are needed right now considering how dis-jointed the base game is.... but yeah.

game has not been out all that long.................give them some time.

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

No noise from the devs about future patches or DLCs(COUGH COUGH THE MOUSE CLICK HOTAS BUG). Not that DLCs are needed right now considering how dis-jointed the base game is.... but yeah.

you know, it's kind of unreasonable that a bunch of folks keep expecting PGI to support their expensive and highly nonstandard input methods.

i mean, i get it. i also understand that before PGI got the license, it was pretty standard to support HOTAS. what people fail to consider was that it was microsoft doing things, back then, also the folks behind microsoft flight sim.

i dont know if you can see where i'm going with this, but consider: if you already have the support being implemented into a thing where it is expected, you can just adapt that work already done to other projects for little to no cost.

PGI i'd classify as "only" AA, not AAA with the resources to actually support all these exotic HOTAS people want to use. they dont make a flight sim that expect HOTAS support, so they cant get a codebase that way.

as for DLCs, i'd expect some announcement in the first quarter of next year, if not right around christmas. i mean, they have not announced the last mercs DLC yet, and we know there's one last one coming.

[WheatSnackBread]

Originally posted by Thundercracker:

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

No noise from the devs about future patches or DLCs(COUGH COUGH THE MOUSE CLICK HOTAS BUG). Not that DLCs are needed right now considering how dis-jointed the base game is.... but yeah.

you know, it's kind of unreasonable that a bunch of folks keep expecting PGI to support their expensive and highly nonstandard input methods.

i mean, i get it. i also understand that before PGI got the license, it was pretty standard to support HOTAS. what people fail to consider was that it was microsoft doing things, back then, also the folks behind microsoft flight sim.

i dont know if you can see where i'm going with this, but consider: if you already have the support being implemented into a thing where it is expected, you can just adapt that work already done to other projects for little to no cost.

PGI i'd classify as "only" AA, not AAA with the resources to actually support all these exotic HOTAS people want to use. they dont make a flight sim that expect HOTAS support, so they cant get a codebase that way.

as for DLCs, i'd expect some announcement in the first quarter of next year, if not right around christmas. i mean, they have not announced the last mercs DLC yet, and we know there's one last one coming.

I'm not a software or game dev. I'm just a simple mechanic, but it doesn't seem very "exotic" to support something as routine as an X, Y and Z axis without conflicting with the mouse input.

I can map my own inputs and axes through the configs that's not a big deal, but when the input conflicts run deeper than what I can access, I consider it a failure on the dev's part.

[Mountain King]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

Originally posted by Thundercracker:

you know, it's kind of unreasonable that a bunch of folks keep expecting PGI to support their expensive and highly nonstandard input methods.

i mean, i get it. i also understand that before PGI got the license, it was pretty standard to support HOTAS. what people fail to consider was that it was microsoft doing things, back then, also the folks behind microsoft flight sim.

i dont know if you can see where i'm going with this, but consider: if you already have the support being implemented into a thing where it is expected, you can just adapt that work already done to other projects for little to no cost.

PGI i'd classify as "only" AA, not AAA with the resources to actually support all these exotic HOTAS people want to use. they dont make a flight sim that expect HOTAS support, so they cant get a codebase that way.

as for DLCs, i'd expect some announcement in the first quarter of next year, if not right around christmas. i mean, they have not announced the last mercs DLC yet, and we know there's one last one coming.

I'm not a software or game dev. I'm just a simple mechanic, but it doesn't seem very "exotic" to support something as routine as an X, Y and Z axis without conflicting with the mouse input.

I can map my own inputs and axes through the configs that's not a big deal, but when the input conflicts run deeper than what I can access, I consider it a failure on the dev's part.

You can consider it whatever you want, the game isn't advertised as supporting the controller you insist on using.

[Spatan555]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

No noise from the devs about future patches or DLCs(COUGH COUGH THE MOUSE CLICK HOTAS BUG). Not that DLCs are needed right now considering how dis-jointed the base game is.... but yeah.

Still new. Give it time. I do expect a DLC in the future after the end game.

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

I'm not a software or game dev. I'm just a simple mechanic, but it doesn't seem very "exotic" to support something as routine as an X, Y and Z axis without conflicting with the mouse input.

I can map my own inputs and axes through the configs that's not a big deal, but when the input conflicts run deeper than what I can access, I consider it a failure on the dev's part.

it's not.

controllers are not just a group of buttons you're hooking up to some leads. this is all modern controllers. they all have software that's required in order to interface with your operating system.

most controllers use "xinput" these days, though sony persists in using the depreciated "dinput" instead. as for HOTAS, it's all over the place, by brand. i dont doubt some use dinput or xinput, but i've also seen them use custom proprietary things, which in turn require specific programming from the devs to support.

but, trying to explain this in the most basic level made me realize something: the stick affecting the cursor is a thing that happens in xinput controllers too..... when steam's controller support is active.

have you tried turning it off for this game, then using your stick?

[WheatSnackBread]

Originally posted by Mountain King:

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

I'm not a software or game dev. I'm just a simple mechanic, but it doesn't seem very "exotic" to support something as routine as an X, Y and Z axis without conflicting with the mouse input.

I can map my own inputs and axes through the configs that's not a big deal, but when the input conflicts run deeper than what I can access, I consider it a failure on the dev's part.

You can consider it whatever you want, the game isn't advertised as supporting the controller you insist on using.

https://mw5clans.com/resources?support

4. Does MechWarrior 5: Clans support HOTAS?

We have updated MechWarrior 5: Clans to recognize numerous additional controller peripherals. Please note that while the game will recognize the products listed, not all have been tested and may require configuration through the HOTASMappings.Remap file. The supported products include:

THRUSTMASTER Throttle
THRUSTMASTER Joystick
Logitech Extreme 3D Pro
Saitek X52
T.Flight Hotas X
Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals
Saitek Pro Flight X-56 Rhino
Saitek Pro Flight X-56 Rhino
Saitek X52 Pro
Joystick - HOTAS Warthog
Throttle - HOTAS Warthog
Fanatec ClubSport Pedals V3
Logitech Attack 3
Logitech Extreme 3D Pro
Logitech Force 3D Pro
Logitech Freedom 2.4
Logitech Wingman Extreme Digital 3D
Logitech G13 Advanced Gameboard
Logitech G940 Joystick
Logitech G940 Throttle
Logitech G940 Pedals
MFG Crosswind
Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2
Microsoft SideWinder Precision Pro (USB)
Microsoft Sidewinder Precision Pro 2
Saitek Cyborg 3D USB Gold"
Saitek Cyborg Evo
Saitek Cyborg Graphite
Mad Catz Pro Flight Cessna Rudder Pedals
Saitek Pro Flight Combat Rudder Pedals
Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals
Saitek ST290 Pro
SAITEK X45 STICK
Saitek X52
Saitek X52
X-55 Rhino Joystick
X-55 Rhino Throttle
Logitech G X-56 Rhino Stick
Logitech G X-56 Rhino Throttle
Logitech G Pro Flight Rudder
SLAW Rudder
THRUSTMASTER WARTHOG Joystick
THRUSTMASTER WARTHOG Throttle
Thrustmaster TCA Sidestick A320
Thrustmaster TCA Quadrant Airbus Edition
Thrustmaster T.16000M Joystick
Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS ONE
Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS 4
Thrustmaster T.Flight Stick X
Thrustmaster T.Flight Rudder Pedals
Thrustmaster T150 Racing Wheel
Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle"
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder
Titanwolf Cobra
Nostromo n52 Speedpad2
CH PRODUCTS COMBATSTICK
CH PRODUCTS COMBATSTICK USB
CH PRODUCTS FIGHTERSTICK
CH Flightstick
CH PRO PEDALS USB
CH PRODUCTS PRO THROTTLE
CH PRODUCTS THROTTLE
Turtle Beach VelocityOne Flightdeck
Virpil VPC MT50-CM2 Throttle
Virpil WarBRD Rudder Pedals
VKB Gladiator MkII
VKB Gladiator NXT
VKB Gladiator NXT EVO
VKB T-Rudders Rudder Pedal

[Darth_Lopez]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

Originally posted by Thundercracker:

you know, it's kind of unreasonable that a bunch of folks keep expecting PGI to support their expensive and highly nonstandard input methods.

i mean, i get it. i also understand that before PGI got the license, it was pretty standard to support HOTAS. what people fail to consider was that it was microsoft doing things, back then, also the folks behind microsoft flight sim.

i dont know if you can see where i'm going with this, but consider: if you already have the support being implemented into a thing where it is expected, you can just adapt that work already done to other projects for little to no cost.

PGI i'd classify as "only" AA, not AAA with the resources to actually support all these exotic HOTAS people want to use. they dont make a flight sim that expect HOTAS support, so they cant get a codebase that way.

as for DLCs, i'd expect some announcement in the first quarter of next year, if not right around christmas. i mean, they have not announced the last mercs DLC yet, and we know there's one last one coming.

I'm not a software or game dev. I'm just a simple mechanic, but it doesn't seem very "exotic" to support something as routine as an X, Y and Z axis without conflicting with the mouse input.

I can map my own inputs and axes through the configs that's not a big deal, but when the input conflicts run deeper than what I can access, I consider it a failure on the dev's part.

I would just like my mouse to work in general, mine won't interact with menus at all with or without peripherals attrached, I haven't even tried to use my hotas

[orcaa]

Originally posted by orcaa:

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

No noise from the devs about future patches or DLCs(COUGH COUGH THE MOUSE CLICK HOTAS BUG). Not that DLCs are needed right now considering how dis-jointed the base game is.... but yeah.

game has not been out all that long.................give them some time.

oh look a DLC !.......................................how about that....................next week.

[WheatSnackBread]

Originally posted by orcaa:

Originally posted by orcaa:

game has not been out all that long.................give them some time.

oh look a DLC !.......................................how about that....................next week.

A DLC offering... to split an already small playerbase? "If you want more of what should have already been included, pay us more money."

[orcaa]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

Originally posted by orcaa:

oh look a DLC !.......................................how about that....................next week.

A DLC offering... to split an already small playerbase? "If you want more of what should have already been included, pay us more money."

what is there to split ?.............I could care less about multiplayer.................hope they give us more content in singleplayer ( more mechs and variants would be nice ). More single player missions would be nice as well.

[Shibby]

Originally posted by orcaa:

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

A DLC offering... to split an already small playerbase? "If you want more of what should have already been included, pay us more money."

what is there to split ?.............I could care less about multiplayer.................hope they give us more content in singleplayer ( more mechs and variants would be nice ). More single player missions would be nice as well.

For PVP to actually take off it needs players and if most of the players have moved on then it's going to be a tiny amount of players and the PVP will never take off and then it makes people wonder why it even exists and is being sold. A free PVP update might bring some people over but asking $70 and then $20 to play PVP is asking for low sales and even bad reviews.

[orcaa]

Originally posted by Shibby:

Originally posted by orcaa:

what is there to split ?.............I could care less about multiplayer.................hope they give us more content in singleplayer ( more mechs and variants would be nice ). More single player missions would be nice as well.

For PVP to actually take off it needs players and if most of the players have moved on then it's going to be a tiny amount of players and the PVP will never take off and then it makes people wonder why it even exists and is being sold. A free PVP update might bring some people over but asking $70 and then $20 to play PVP is asking for low sales and even bad reviews.

understood...........................thing is Mechwarrior Online is already out there ( never played it myself ). So to me the PvP part is worthless, but for other people I can understand the appeal . It does sound like they are trying to widen their customer base beyond just single player. Will people come for PvP ( I guess ) is the big question.............A bigger question is will they pay for it. You do raise valid points.

I was hoping for more single player content.......................it remains to be seen if they will provide more.

[WheatSnackBread]

Originally posted by orcaa:

Originally posted by Shibby:

For PVP to actually take off it needs players and if most of the players have moved on then it's going to be a tiny amount of players and the PVP will never take off and then it makes people wonder why it even exists and is being sold. A free PVP update might bring some people over but asking $70 and then $20 to play PVP is asking for low sales and even bad reviews.

understood...........................thing is Mechwarrior Online is already out there ( never played it myself ). So to me the PvP part is worthless, but for other people I can understand the appeal . It does sound like they are trying to widen their customer base beyond just single player. Will people come for PvP ( I guess ) is the big question.............A bigger question is will they pay for it. You do raise valid points.

I was hoping for more single player content.......................it remains to be seen if they will provide more.

I think you identified a lot of what is already wrong with this DLC, there is no market for what they're trying to sell.

[Omnes Interficere]

Originally posted by WheatSnackBread:

I think you identified a lot of what is already wrong with this DLC, there is no market for what they're trying to sell.

This DLC might sit on my wishlist for a looooong time.