101 replies to this topic

[Aegis Kleais]

wanderer, on 28 November 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

The Trial 'Mech mechanic is a mechanic by which new F2P players are stuck in inferior machines with a matchmaker that pits them against experienced opponents in superior customized designs, who then play kick the can with their shiny metal butts until they grind their way up to something they can actually rebuild themselves. Which nowadays, you see people rapidly not-playing to get to the point of having their own customs, because any fool can figure out in a hurry that the guy in the custom is playing at a clearly different level than they are in a Trial.

The entire experience would be entirely superior in player retention if they'd just have smiled, given new players a Commando (later, the Flea as another option) and let them build their own ride from the ground up. Like they originally planned. And hey, they'd have more people already ready to paint their own ride and slap a hula girl in it.

Cause y'know, that sorta microtransaction is useless to people in Trials. Oopsie.

Then suggest an alternate system which has the same limitations in place (Players without money to buy Mechs or afford repairs have an ability to earn money by putting time and effort into a process rather than having something handed over to them)

I don't see placating to the "I want something for nothing" crowd. It's like people saying "Why am I not a rock star" when they haven't even learned how to play a guitar yet. You gotta walk before you can run.

And at ANY given point they can spend money for the convenience of getting the Mech they want.

I'm not saying there may not be a better way vs. how PGI has implemented it, but nobody has even suggested a viable alternative IMO.

Killkie, on 28 November 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Dude, that's what we're arguing for. We couldn't even see this fact until we started getting paid less. We're on the same team.



When I triple the damage of my next best teammate, It's kinda obvious who carried the match. 800 points is not an exaggeration.

I'm not sure what it means to quote me after you make a response (usually you quote someone and provide a response after it) but assuming your statement before my quote was in response to my message:

Yes, damage is a more accurate method of determining your value in the game. My point is that kills are not. A lot of people put emphasis on their KDR, but a Kill in this game simply means "I got the last shot in". I'd be more interested in knowing a person's DDR (Damage/Death Ratio) as an indicator of their abilities.

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

I support that because it means there is a reward for accuracy. I mean, if there was some accuracy measure, like "we pay for your ammo that successfully hits", then that would reward accuracy. In fact, if I hit 100%, I should make a profit.

Listen, the reason I get can get 800+ damage in a game is because I have high accuracy. I am very good at selecting which target is most likely in range and is uncovered and which has a solid lock from my team mate (this takes looking at the map, watching the behavior of my target and my spotter, considering my spotter's tactical situation, and THEN pulling the trigger.)

Face it, that's WORK!

Some laser filled jenner or hunchback doesn't have that level of effort. It's run, point, shoot.

So we're paying for being tactical and getting no reward for playing a role while other people can run around and play "robot call of duty".

And this "Free to play" nonsense is meaningless. This is just like any other team deathmatch game, but they are charging us monthly for it. Don't delude yourself.

Vechs, on 28 November 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I've said since closed beta that the money earned from dealing damage should at least cover the cost of ammunition.

This would mean they can greatly increase money earned from damage, while at the same time lower the money earned just from showing up. Would reward people trying hard, and punish AFKers.

Also toss in the Spotting Bonus for money earned, to reward scouts that don't deal lots of damage.

Balancing something by the maintenance cost is just outright stupid, because you can't balance it that way. Money in this game is simply how fast we unlock content.

If you are economical, you unlock content faster. If you had a special Guass rifle that deals 30 damage instead of 15, but the slugs cost 25,000 each, that's not balanced by cost. When you're getting shot with that weapon, you're not going to care that the guy using it has to go play a match with a trial mech later to earn cover the rearm cost.

I think the forum software stacks posts if the poster is responding to two different people in series. That's not me, that's the software

Aegis Kleais, on 28 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Then suggest an alternate system which has the same limitations in place (Players without money to buy Mechs or afford repairs have an ability to earn money by putting time and effort into a process rather than having something handed over to them)

I don't see placating to the "I want something for nothing" crowd. It's like people saying "Why am I not a rock star" when they haven't even learned how to play a guitar yet. You gotta walk before you can run.

And at ANY given point they can spend money for the convenience of getting the Mech they want.

I'm not saying there may not be a better way vs. how PGI has implemented it, but nobody has even suggested a viable alternative IMO.


I'm not sure what it means to quote me after you make a response (usually you quote someone and provide a response after it) but assuming your statement before my quote was in response to my message:

Yes, damage is a more accurate method of determining your value in the game. My point is that kills are not. A lot of people put emphasis on their KDR, but a Kill in this game simply means "I got the last shot in". I'd be more interested in knowing a person's DDR (Damage/Death Ratio) as an indicator of their abilities.

[canned wolf]

Killkie, on 28 November 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Dude, that's what we're arguing for. We couldn't even see this fact until we started getting paid less. We're on the same team.



When I triple the damage of my next best teammate, It's kinda obvious who carried the match. 800 points is not an exaggeration.

This is amazing. You've put together a design using some of the most expensive gear in the game, but that 800 damage is all you! How often do you take a hit for a teammate? or cap? Or do anything actually useful?

My damage is usually around four or five hundred, but I also brawl and take hits. I've been in plenty of matches with the 800 damage LRM boat where we lose anyway, usually because said LRM boat is useless for anything but spamming LRM's. If you're in a squad performing a role, great, but pure lrm boats in a pug are like **** on an Atlas. Completely useless.

On the point that damage = usefulness, garbage. Damage is a factor, but srm cats and lrm boats have artificially high damage because their weapons spread it around. I've had matches where I cored two or three mechs but only had about three hundred damage at the end, I've also had six or seven hundred damage matches with one or two kills. That's called bad shooting, or in some cases crippling mechs then moving to the more dangerous target.

Edited by canned wolf, 28 November 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Havyek]

I run a C4 now with twin 15s and 5s, 1000 rounds and usually use it all and I haven't found that I'm losing money without the Founders OR premium bonuses.

[wanderer]

Aegis Kleais, on 28 November 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Then suggest an alternate system which has the same limitations in place (Players without money to buy Mechs or afford repairs have an ability to earn money by putting time and effort into a process rather than having something handed over to them)

Leave Trials in place. Give F2P people the aforementioned Flea/Commando to start with as well. Drop Trial earnings to 66% rather than 80% of full, or simply put Trials in their own matches away from customs. Since all players will have at least one customizable 'Mech, they can play in the big leagues from day 1 if they choose, or stick to Trial matches while they learn to operate a 'Mech that would actually cost them big money to fix if they had to do it themselves.

Voila. Players now have their own baby to raise and Trials are no longer the only horrid option to play for new F2P types- because right now, we see what people do with them. They suicide, kamikaze, or get used for target practice by players in customs. See also my sig for a simple matchmaker fix to go with it- if 20-25 ton 'Mechs are in their own "tier" for the matchmaker, then new players in superlights won't end up being devoured almost without fail by a similar but clearly superior opponent on the other side (ie, Trial Commando vs. Jenner getting it's daily target practice in).

Quote

I don't see placating to the "I want something for nothing" crowd. It's like people saying "Why am I not a rock star" when they haven't even learned how to play a guitar yet. You gotta walk before you can run.

Right now, we're handing the new player a kazoo, putting them on the stage in front of 20,000 fans and telling them to open for Def Leppard. While expecting them to be able to make a 6-song set out of their gonzo new instrument. Or for that matter, if it's a bigger Trial 'Mech we're handing them the guitar and expecting them to win the Battle of the Bands when they're the 6th-grade band class and their opponents are Dragonforce. Through the fire and flames, indeed.

It's not placating the "I want something for nothing" crowd. We're giving them the wonderful privilege of being a shooting gallery for the rest of the game and then wondering why they aren't enjoying it and -leave the game-. And if that isn't fixed, we don't have a game in a hurry other than one someone's using as a made-to-fail tax writeoff.

Quote

And at ANY given point they can spend money for the convenience of getting the Mech they want.

I'm not saying there may not be a better way vs. how PGI has implemented it, but nobody has even suggested a viable alternative IMO.

F2P games thrive by making the new player enjoy what they get and want more. MWO right now makes the new player hate what he has and generally regard the paying player as some kind of evil mocking tormentor lording it over the smoking ruins of any effort he happens to make. That's pathetic for a new player experience and lousy for encouraging them to invest in the game. And you NEED new players invested in the game, that's how F2P games survive and profit.

As for alternatives not being suggested? Bull. People have been making viable suggestions for MONTHS at this point, myself included.

Edited by wanderer, 28 November 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[AlanEsh]

I understand the idea that "Artemis and Streak are for the wealthy", but neither of those systems truly dominates the battlefield, so why are they expensive? OK Streaks maybe, but they are rather broken right now.

My point is, if X weapon does Y damage, and Z weapon also does Y damage, why would the fact that it took Ammo + Artemis to reach Y be a reason to burn holes in the pilot's wallet?

I can go out and murderize stuff with my Pulse Cat and my LL Cat, have a good match doing high damage, and rake in huge profits simply because I'm not using Ammo. I performed equal to my team's missile mechs who are making a fraction of what I just made. What is the logic in that?

If you people (yes YOU! ) want Ammo weapon systems to be difficult to maintain financially, then they need to do LUDICROUS damage in return. Anything else is just arbitrarily penalizing someone for using one weapon type over another.

/edit for typoze

Edited by Angelicon, 28 November 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Radar Jammer]

Aegis Kleais, on 28 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Then suggest an alternate system which has the same limitations in place (Players without money to buy Mechs or afford repairs have an ability to earn money by putting time and effort into a process rather than having something handed over to them)

I don't see placating to the "I want something for nothing" crowd. It's like people saying "Why am I not a rock star" when they haven't even learned how to play a guitar yet. You gotta walk before you can run.

And at ANY given point they can spend money for the convenience of getting the Mech they want.

I'm not saying there may not be a better way vs. how PGI has implemented it, but nobody has even suggested a viable alternative IMO.

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. Its not about giving someone something for free as it is just trying to get them into the game. Have you ever played a racing game where you weren't given a starter car? Or any first-person shooter where you didn't at least start off with a pistol? If you look at every popular racing game they always give you a crappy car in the beginning of the game. Later on as you win with that car you can upgrade it and purchase new ones. Why should this game be any different? It would do well to introduce new players to the game, especially the mechlab, and allow them to get attached to something that's theirs. That would only serve to help PGI not hurt them.

The only other thing I have to say is that how are newer players supposed to even know what mechs they would want to purchase with real money when they have few ways to try most mechs (not even including each variant and their configurations) and how it handles/plays?

[Aegis Kleais]

wanderer, on 28 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Leave Trials in place. Give F2P people the aforementioned Flea/Commando to start with as well. Drop Trial earnings to 66% rather than 80% of full, or simply put Trials in their own matches away from customs. Since all players will have at least one customizable 'Mech, they can play in the big leagues from day 1 if they choose, or stick to Trial matches while they learn to operate a 'Mech that would actually cost them big money to fix if they had to do it themselves.

Voila. Players now have their own baby to raise and Trials are no longer the only horrid option to play for new F2P types- because right now, we see what people do with them. They suicide, kamikaze, or get used for target practice by players in customs. See also my sig for a simple matchmaker fix to go with it- if 20-25 ton 'Mechs are in their own "tier" for the matchmaker, then new players in superlights won't end up being devoured almost without fail by a similar but clearly superior opponent on the other side (ie, Trial Commando vs. Jenner getting it's daily target practice in).



Right now, we're handing the new player a kazoo, putting them on the stage in front of 20,000 fans and telling them to open for Def Leppard. While expecting them to be able to make a 6-song set out of their gonzo new instrument. Or for that matter, if it's a bigger Trial 'Mech we're handing them the guitar and expecting them to win the Battle of the Bands when they're the 6th-grade band class and their opponents are Dragonforce. Through the fire and flames, indeed.

It's not placating the "I want something for nothing" crowd. We're giving them the wonderful privilege of being a shooting gallery for the rest of the game and then wondering why they aren't enjoying it and -leave the game-. And if that isn't fixed, we don't have a game in a hurry other than one someone's using as a made-to-fail tax writeoff.



F2P games thrive by making the new player enjoy what they get and want more. MWO right now makes the new player hate what he has and generally regard the paying player as some kind of evil mocking tormentor lording it over the smoking ruins of any effort he happens to make. That's pathetic for a new player experience and lousy for encouraging them to invest in the game. And you NEED new players invested in the game, that's how F2P games survive and profit.

As for alternatives not being suggested? Bull. People have been making viable suggestions for MONTHS at this point, myself included.

It's been almost uniformly agreed that the game in its current state, is actually a bit punishing to new players, and I both sympathize with new players and lament that fact. Trial by fire has never been the best way to learn a game, and being sans a training/tutorial system in tandem with a poor UI only compounds the issue.

As for alternatives suggested, the vast majority don't even qualify as one, merely asking for another hand out or "give me something for free" under the guise of it requiring actual work to do. The only bull is what they're selling. I'd like to see your suggestion implemented, but it's the exception to the rule, and segregation of the community, as well as only giving them access to the lightest of the lights, might not prepare them properly for the game. If we want to ensure they fight other "Trial Mech" users, they could just come into the game with a "Trainee" tag, allowing them to play other trainee tier matches; but the moment they take off that tag, it cannot be put back on; they are stating "I'm ready for the big leagues".

Either implementation would be interesting to see.

[Aegis Kleais]

Radar Jammer, on 28 November 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. Its not about giving someone something for free as it is just trying to get them into the game. Have you ever played a racing game where you weren't given a starter car? Or any first-person shooter where you didn't at least start off with a pistol? If you look at every popular racing game they always give you a crappy car in the beginning of the game. Later on as you win with that car you can upgrade it and purchase new ones. Why should this game be any different? It would do well to introduce new players to the game, especially the mechlab, and allow them to get attached to something that's theirs. That would only serve to help PGI not hurt them.

The only other thing I have to say is that how are newer players supposed to even know what mechs they would want to purchase with real money when they have few ways to try most mechs (not even including each variant and their configurations) and how it handles/plays?

I've always been a proponent of properly getting players into the game via training, and it is a sad fact of the matter that MWO does not have this, instead forcing new players to "join the fray" and invariably get killed repeatedly (significantly reducing the entertainment value in the process), so I'm all for a system that would help to offset this; it's just that one doesn't exist.

Someone new to MW in general really gets punished. Aside from getting info from the forums to fill in all the blanks, that UI does not lend itself to helping the player understand what they are doing, and in fact, it can actually be very punishing, requiring users to make purchases for things they may find they did not mean to purchase, or could not fit onto a loadout.

I agree with you, these things need to be addressed; many players are getting turned off due to this; a good UI is paramount to both novice and expert players. There was talk a while back of a UI overhaul, but I've not heard a thing about it; and I fear the actual overhaul won't be big enough to resolve the issue.

[canned wolf]

I like the Def Leopard analogy, except change that kazoo to a Gibson. The instrument does not matter if you don't know how to play. I could hand a newbie any one of my custom mechs and they would still get torn apart. Hell, I could hand an experienced player one of my mechs and the result would likely be the same. Mech designs are highly personalized, even gaussapults and lrm boats have variations based on personal preference. I have played with trial mechs and I don't do as well with them, but I have also played on my friends accounts with their mechs and the result is the same.

I like the trials only game mode, but I would call it stock class and allow anyone with a stock build to participate.

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

I always take a forward position early in the game, somewhere in the middle, and manage targets from all sides. In the event that there is an opportunity for a cap, I take it. In the event that there is an enemy capping, I withdraw and take care of that. In Frozen Valley, I run all the way to the other end of the map and rain damage from behind the enemy, and when the enemy is soft enough, cap.

So, the answer to "how often" is...generally, always.

canned wolf, on 28 November 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

This is amazing. You've put together a design using some of the most expensive gear in the game, but that 800 damage is all you! How often do you take a hit for a teammate? or cap? Or do anything actually useful?

My damage is usually around four or five hundred, but I also brawl and take hits. I've been in plenty of matches with the 800 damage LRM boat where we lose anyway, usually because said LRM boat is useless for anything but spamming LRM's. If you're in a squad performing a role, great, but pure lrm boats in a pug are like **** on an Atlas. Completely useless.

On the point that damage = usefulness, garbage. Damage is a factor, but srm cats and lrm boats have artificially high damage because their weapons spread it around. I've had matches where I cored two or three mechs but only had about three hundred damage at the end, I've also had six or seven hundred damage matches with one or two kills. That's called bad shooting, or in some cases crippling mechs then moving to the more dangerous target.

Edited by Killkie, 28 November 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[AlanEsh]

New players should get a prime HBK or Commando to feed and nurture. If that player pimps out his freebie and never buys another mechbay for an additional mech, the game of MWO is out absolutely nothing. Where is the loss?
What it does is provide more ways to engage and ensnare the customer. Cheapskates will always be cheap. But the current situation with trial mechs is not good marketing. You don't hook players with that ****.

[CMGrendel]

With the vacuum of the meta-game yet to be fulfilled, making comments about "fair costs" is meaningless.

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

Unless those testing the meta game can't because they are getting a negative income while they are winning

CMGrendel, on 28 November 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

With the vacuum of the meta-game yet to be fulfilled, making comments about "fair costs" is meaningless.

Edited by Killkie, 28 November 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Radar Jammer]

Aegis Kleais, on 28 November 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I've always been a proponent of properly getting players into the game via training, and it is a sad fact of the matter that MWO does not have this, instead forcing new players to "join the fray" and invariably get killed repeatedly (significantly reducing the entertainment value in the process), so I'm all for a system that would help to offset this; it's just that one doesn't exist.

Someone new to MW in general really gets punished. Aside from getting info from the forums to fill in all the blanks, that UI does not lend itself to helping the player understand what they are doing, and in fact, it can actually be very punishing, requiring users to make purchases for things they may find they did not mean to purchase, or could not fit onto a loadout.

I agree with you, these things need to be addressed; many players are getting turned off due to this; a good UI is paramount to both novice and expert players. There was talk a while back of a UI overhaul, but I've not heard a thing about it; and I fear the actual overhaul won't be big enough to resolve the issue.

As a new player myself I totally agree with what most people are saying here. I've only been playing for about 3 weeks and have had to use the forums to find out everything I wanted to know about the game. I think the biggest offender for me though has to be the mechlab. Just only last week I bought my first mech (a Cataphract 2x) and spent way too much cbills just trying to figure out which parts did what. This is coming from someone who still owns all the discs for MW4 and is an old CS player. The game needs a tutorial very badly, and the mechlab needs to give stats (like how much more range an ER weapon gets vs. the normal version, or how much turning speed you get from a bigger engine). I've read that some of that is coming down the line and I do hope it is a priority.

As for a better system for getting someone new into a mech without handing them a freebie (which face it, I can agree that handing them one won't entirely help them learn anything) the best suggestion I've seen within the current system would be to give a discount to the first mech purchased. This still allows them to learn the ropes of the game in trail mechs, but allows them to at least choose something they think they would play.

Edited by Radar Jammer, 28 November 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

I agree. Start them with something cheap. And the lighter mechs are a bit easier to manage. I'd say something with streaks or LRM's and a couple lasers so the new player gets exposed to the missile lock and heat mechanics.

Angelicon, on 28 November 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

New players should get a prime HBK or Commando to feed and nurture. If that player pimps out his freebie and never buys another mechbay for an additional mech, the game of MWO is out absolutely nothing. Where is the loss?
What it does is provide more ways to engage and ensnare the customer. Cheapskates will always be cheap. But the current situation with trial mechs is not good marketing. You don't hook players with that ****.

Edited by Killkie, 28 November 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[stVillain]

wanderer, on 28 November 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Are you out of your mind?

You do realize Artemis is, quite simply, designed to make missile carriers better at their job. Right?

The literal poster child for LRM boats, the Archer- the first upgrade for it in TT was very straightforward- so much so, you could do it in MWO if we had the chassis.

They added endosteel. Made the HS into DHS. Added Artemis and CASE to it's LRM 20's (oh, and the .5 tons it took to max it's armor from the near-maximum it already had).

So you're saying the original "LRM boat" in Battletech shouldn't for some weird reason have hadArtemis, despite it being precisely what it needed to do it's upgraded job? Perhaps we should only have DHS for special occasions when we want our laser to work extra well, or maybe only install UAC/5's when we want a little extra kick over an AC/5- but not all the time, because money you know.

Making a weapon economically unviable only turns it into a P2W option, and that's why having 60k/ton Artemis LRM ammo is facepalmingly bad at this point, with only the unholy armor-repair costs of ferro-fibrous being dumber. And that only because FF is the worst upgrade available in the game and it's virtually impossible not to take armor damage and the hideous expenses to go with it.

After all, you pay a significant sum just to be able to mount Artemis- and on top of that, you pay 54-60K/ton for it's reloads, depending on whether it's SRM or LRM. People already are depending on 75% freebie reloads to function on most LRM boats, because in TT, you didn't HAVE to mount 8 tons of ammo to keep an LRM carrier functional for an entire match. 16 shots for an LRM 15 launcher- that is, two tons - was considered normal, and 3 tons generous. Maybe if you mounted an LRM 20. 4 tons per launcher? Crazy. Who fired that many shots in a battle?

Now we're in MWO, where ammo loads are double the tonnage they are in TT (and that's AFTER increasing shots per ton, to boot!)- and hence, the cost-per-engagement as well. Artemis is just salt in that economical wound, and it's a Bad Thing at he moment.

man... cry about how this game isn't TT some more.

you'd be making some good points. if this game, MWO, was a computer approximation of tabletop: that being a game that simulated a 100+ page rulebook, a hexagonal battlefield, plastic figures, an omnipresent overhead battlefield view, a single player controlled more then a single mech, had dice rolls, was turn based, and took an hour + to finish a single match.

then yes. all the above crying would make sense.

but since this isn't tabletop.

nor does it look or feel like how you would play table top....

ya so...



onto another point.

from sarna.net

Introduced in 2598 by the Terran Hegemony. The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs, by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in teh same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components. In order to actually take the benefit of Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive then standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to it's target, indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.


HEY LOOK! if you'd like to use Artemis

PAY MORE FOR YOUR MISSILES! it's canon.

what is not canon is the fact you LRM boats get the Artemis bonus for indirect fire support.

SO I think we should all have that discussion now. let's talk about how Artemis should not apply to LRMs that hit players who the firing player can not see. because that is canon, and since it's like canon that should be exactly how it is in MWO...

Edited by stVillain, 28 November 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Radar Jammer, on 28 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

As a new player myself I totally agree with what most people are saying here. I've only been playing for about 3 weeks and have had to use the forums to find out everything I wanted to know about the game. I think the biggest offender for me though has to be the mechlab. Just only last week I bought my first mech (a Cataphract 2x) and spent way too much cbills just trying to figure out which parts did what. This is coming from someone who still owns all the discs for MW4 and is an old CS player. The game needs a tutorial very badly, and the mechlab needs to give stats (like how much more range an ER weapon gets vs. the normal version, or how much turning speed you get from a bigger engine). I've read that some of that is coming down the line and I do hope it is a priority.

As for a better system for getting someone new into a mech without handing them a freebie (which face it, I can agree that handing them one won't entirely help them learn anything) the best suggestion I've seen within the current system would be to give a discount to the first mech purchased. This still allows them to learn the ropes of the game in trail mechs, but allows them to at least choose something they might think they would play.

I don't envy the UI designer who has to organize the BEHEMOTH of information that MW has. It's a daunting task. But I get the feeling that either they rushed the designer with the current build "Just get us something for the time being", or they have made so many changes to the core mechanics that the current design just doesn't cut mustard.

Of course, if the latter is true, this is bad news, as the UI designer will have to try to futureproof a design to accommodate all the upcoming features, contents, etc. As such, a modular UI is probably best, but even then, a person can only do so much when it comes to predicting the FUTURE needs of a UI for a redesign today.

[PropagandaWar]

Killkie, on 27 November 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Oh look, I have to pay to get rid of them...wrong answer. If that is the "meta game", I'm screwed either way.

Regardless, why am I punished and energy weapons guys get off free? It screws up strategy completely.

I dont know why do energy/ ballistic users like myself have to really aim to hit rather than hide and hold down fire? You over P-I-M-P your mech you pay the price for it.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 28 November 2012 - 11:02 AM.

[wanderer]

stVillain, on 28 November 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

man... cry about how this game isn't TT some more.

You said "Mechs that are LRM boats aren't supposed to have Artemis". I refuted that. It's like saying you should only have DHS if you only pack a few lasers on there, but hey, that 4x LL boat really isn't meant for them.

Implying that is going down a road of short-bus conclusions neither of us really want to consider viable now, do you?

[color=#000000]

Quote

HEY LOOK! if you'd like to use Artemis[/color]

[color=#000000]PAY MORE FOR YOUR MISSILES! it's canon.[/color]

Sure. I ran a Mechwarrior RPG campaign for years. Believe me, I stuck my nose in the Mercenaries Handbook plenty.

Surprisingly enough, when we got to the point where people could use Artemis and did- they also had the brains to demand (and get) a bit more for their reload costs. Why? They were providing better equipment, they deserved better pay for it- the same way you put more into a merc contract when you hired a lance of assault 'Mechs vs. a lance of 20-ton Wasps. MWO lacks that whole "If you're a unit that takes more money to keep on the field, you get paid better for doing your job"- we don't throw the same money in the defense budget at a squad of infantry vs. the guy flying an F-16 around and expect it's enough to maintain the fighter the same way it does the dozen or so footsloggers. If we did, we'd have a pack of useless aircraft in no time- and if you don't pay the merc what it's worth to him to even keep his equipment working, why the heck would he work for you in the first place?

[color=#000000]

Quote

what is not canon is the fact you LRM boats get the Artemis bonus for indirect fire support. [/color]

[color=#000000]SO I think we should all have that discussion now. let's talk about how Artemis should not apply to LRMs that hit players who the firing player can not see. because that is canon, and since it's like canon that should be exactly how it is in MWO...[/color]

Actually, I'm all for that. I expected Artemis to function much like an auto-targeting TAG system rather than an automatic bonus to all shots, direct or indirect fire- and I wouldn't mind if they changed it to direct fire in the least. If I have LOS, Artemis paints the target and I get the bonus. If I don't, it doesn't work.