1095 replies to this topic

[wickwire]

I don't like the arbitrary "Firepower" thing MWO uses, DPS & Alpha would be better.

Along the same line, why is Heat Efficiency a scale from 0 to 2?

Smurfy does this much better... and did I mention that I'd like to be able to see the loadout of the *whole* Mech please?




Edit:
Just saw this old mockup on reddit. Are we getting this too? Would be great!

Edited by wickwire, 23 October 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Mazgazine1]

From what I've seen on the video demonstration -

No Strip mech of X button - need a remove all "weapons" , "ammo" , and "heatsinks" option.

[Roland]

The reality is, while cleaning up the UI is important, it's inherently less important than actually implementing community warfare, which was promised back prior to closed beta. It was this grand vision, which attracted most of us to this game.. many of us, because we have already seen such a system implemented in earlier mechwarrior games, whether from the old MPBT game that never made it out of beta, of the online leagues that we set up in mechwarrior 4.

The fact that, even at this point, the core aspects of community warfare aren't even designed yet, much less implemented, is tragic. The fact that it's gonna take so long to actually get that stuff into the game really makes me doubt the long term viability of MWO. If for no other reason than the fact that I'm starting to think that even with the huge headstart PGI had, that Chris Roberts is gonna get a functional game world out in Star Citizen before we see even the most primitive elements of real community warfare in MWO.

Honestly, at this point I doubt that I'm even going to be able to play with members of my own unit easily, much less engage in epic struggles for the Inner Sphere. I just don't really have any faith any more when it comes to that stuff.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

The reality is, while cleaning up the UI is important, it's inherently less important than actually implementing community warfare.

You can't have CW without UI 2.0. There is no place to plug it in in the current interface.

You can't have any of the things we want so badly without UI 2.0. Lobbies, gifting items, unit affiliations, private matches, etc, etc. CW is just one component of a TON of things UI 2.0 will allow. It's the fundamental architecture that will make future expansion of the game possible.

So no, CW isn't more important than UI 2.0 right now. Nothing is more important than UI 2.0.

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

You can't have CW without UI 2.0. There is no place to plug it in in the current interface.

You can't have any of the things we want so badly without UI 2.0. Lobbies, gifting items, unit affiliations, private matches, etc, etc. CW is just one component of a TON of things UI 2.0 will allow. It's the fundamental architecture that will make future expansion of the game possible.

So no, CW isn't more important than UI 2.0 right now. Nothing is more important than UI 2.0.

No man, that's nonsense.

Adding new tabs to the interface to handle those things does not require a complete redesign of the existing stuff.

All of the new info about mechs and stuff is real nice.. but it's totally NOT required for those new features.

It's certainly not required to DESIGN those features, and have totally concrete ideas about how they will work. I mean, hell, you could do all of the design and most of the implementation work for CW without actually making the front end in the client. Most of the issues that will need to be dealt with aren't issues with the front end client... certainly not ones which couldn't be addressed in design.

Saying that you need to have UI 2.0 in place before you can do that stuff is simply wrong.

[Musashi Alexander]

I could only manage 2 minutes with UI 2.0 before I was overwhelmed with disgust. First impression is that this is absolutely awful and I hope to never see it ever again.

Edited by Musashi Alexander, 29 October 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

No man, that's nonsense.

Adding new tabs to the interface to handle those things does not require a complete redesign of the existing stuff.

All of the new info about mechs and stuff is real nice.. but it's totally NOT required for those new features.

It's certainly not required to DESIGN those features, and have totally concrete ideas about how they will work. I mean, hell, you could do all of the design and most of the implementation work for CW without actually making the front end in the client. Most of the issues that will need to be dealt with aren't issues with the front end client... certainly not ones which couldn't be addressed in design.

Saying that you need to have UI 2.0 in place before you can do that stuff is simply wrong.

You need APIs to plug everything in. UI 2.0 is about having an interface that can interact in a flexible, scalable way with the APIs (probably also were all redone) so that you can grow in the future. Need to add a metric? A properly designed interface can handle that. Recompiling the whole damn thing each time is NOT scalable or flexible.

If you have {Scrap} architecture, your building can only go so high. This is the foundation for a lot more than just buttons to click.

[Pup]

How about double-click?
Drag-and-drop looks toooooo ugly, when draggin one item from left side to right side of the screen.

[Metalfyre]

Few points. Hope this helps.

- Looks really cool.
- You can rename and rearrange your 'Mechs.
- You can turn your 'Mechs anytime.
- Comparisons can be made.
- A lot more data is available (I.E. torso twist range). Personally, this had the most meaning out of all the functions tested.
- Weapons groups can now be assigned in the 'Mech lab.
- Armour allocation data no longer available; you'll have to switch between legs to see if their armour values match.
- Too much space devoted to the 'pictures' of the weapons and equipment, while vital information such as tonnage remaining are hidden to the bottom right; the numbers are small and gray, with emphasis given to the yellow bar rather than the text. The text labels on the weapons and equipment suffer from the same fate.
- Can't find the place to upgrade the 'Mech yet...DHS, ES, FF etc...maybe not implemented yet?
- The buttons are small. Critical space window could be bigger vs the weapon/equipment window. As with the first point, PGI's priority seems to be the graphics in the UI rather than ease of use.
- Can be overwhelming for the beginner. Maybe applying the filters to only display Trial 'Mechs rather then showing them all the 'Mechs they can get might help. Text labels in weapons hardpoints may help, vs the pictorial representation of the laser beam/missile/3 bullet used in the demo...maybe even both.
- Under skills, filters could be provided so that the player can choose to view all owned 'Mechs, and all the 'Mechs he owned before and worked on.
- Didn't see a pilot tree.
- Skill tree window was fine when I selected Locusts (bottom of the row), but became wonky when I selected Catapults (top of the row).

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

You need APIs to plug everything in. UI 2.0 is about having an interface that can interact in a flexible, scalable way with the APIs (probably also were all redone) so that you can grow in the future. Need to add a metric? A properly designed interface can handle that. Recompiling the whole damn thing each time is NOT scalable or flexible.

If you have {Scrap} architecture, your building can only go so high. This is the foundation for a lot more than just buttons to click.

Dude, I have designed and implemented systems that consist of over a million lines of code. I know how to design and implement large scale, distributed, scalable systems.

Stuff like the fundamental underpinnings of Community Warfare should be modular to the extent that they are severable from the user interface. You don't freaking build your underlying architecture based on the UI framework that is going to ultimately provide a view into it.

The UI architecture would be required for design and implementation of the UI components of community warfare.. they should not be required for design and implementation of all of the actual stuff involved with making CW work behind the scenes.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Stuff like the fundamental underpinnings of Community Warfare should be modular to the extent that they are severable from the user interface. You don't freaking build your underlying architecture based on the UI framework that is going to ultimately provide a view into it.

Yes, but it WASN'T, which is why they need UI 2.0. This is essentially a rewrite of the entire game. That is why it is taking so long.

[Syrkres]

UI 2.0

• I like the general look of the UI.
  
• The mech on the Home needs an indicator that it is the current selected mech?
  
  • Is this just a mech for display? or the one I am going to play with (not clear when first log in).
    
  • Also like the older UI would be nice to have a "quick select" mech option. (basically the old "READY" mechs). While I have a lot of mechs, I usually only play with a few.
    
  • Lastly move/remove the Stats/Redeem code buttons unless you plan to pull this in game.
    
    • Clicking on these things and jumping out of the game is the MOST annoying thing ever.
      
    • Redeem code should logically be an option under Store.
      
    • Stats should be in game (not a web page). Other wise remove it.
• Filter should have check boxes?
  
  • Can't I select more than one option - would like to show both owned and unowned.
    
  • This would allow you to add more features to the filter and make it more complex filtering.
    
    • Like different weight groups, Clan Mechs .vs. Innersphere., Hero mechs, Founders, etc.
  • Also by adding check options you could easily extend the filter to the configuration pages.
    
    • Weapon filter, (balistic, missle, energy) etc. rather than drop down.
      
    • Engine Filter (type Std, vs, XL)
  • Also Add Favorite mechs) making me select all the different catagories all the time is a pain.
    
    • Or as suggested re-implement "READY" mechs from home page.
• Configuration
  
  • Setting armor, would be nice to be able to input value rather than click/up down
    
  • Alternative Section selection would be by clicking on the mech (sort of like current UI) on the right hand side. I can see the mech, and since my mouse is over there why do I have to move it all the way to other side to select a section. (just click on mech).
    
  • Do not like the selection (left drop down) of weapon types? Think it would be much better as "filters" from top. if I am configuring a mech it's very inefficient to have to select each type, why cant I show all and then filter if I need to (see Filter above thoughts).
    
  • Mech Overview status? The display options in the mech display area (bottom right(left)) where it displays the mech speed, structure, etc. The numbers seem reversed. When my eye first caught this area, I looked at the "white/right" of the settings, where they are the "max values". I think it should either be reversed or highlighted (white/gray) from current.
    
    • The current value is what I am interested in (not max).
      
    • So my eye should go immediately to the current value (which is currently gray and mashed between the display name and "graph bar".
      
    • I would move the current values to the right and MAX values to the left (or just put them in parens next to current value). Also highlight them more (white) rather than gray and make the MAX values gray. I am interested in MY MECH settings not max...
  • Currently no way to set up options like Double heat sinks? Endo stucture, etc. This should be somewhere under Loadout, but since you have things broken down by Mech location no where to apply "high level settings"
    
    • Suggest you add another level (to left selection) MECH, then under Mech you have the different Locations. This again would work with the filter concept, allowing you to remove the subselections under Mech Location (and moving it to filters.)
      
    • Because Again I don't want to have to select Mech Location (Left Arm) then select Energy, then select Mech Location(Right Arm) then select Energy. By having the Mech locations and then filters, it saves me 2 clicks, only if I want to filter things would I need to click a 3rd click.
  • Adding/removing equipment.
    
    • I can add by dragging and dropping, but it would be nice to single click to remove an item.
      
    • Right now you have to select the item and drag it off? Just have a remove icon on the item (once it's added) or double click will remove it (or both). Having to drag an Item off to remove it seems too much effort. Has anyone looked at the smurfy site for configuration.
  • Saving Configuration? (Checkout Really?)
    
    • I didn't buy anything? Plus it makes it too much like "Store" (unless you are moving to that - bad).
      
    • I would #1 change checkout to save.
      
    • Also you can exit a mech without it saving (or prompting you to save).
      
    • Also what does VIEW do? Why is this even needed?
      
      • Only thoughts is if it either highlighted the mech doll and showed me whats new or brought up new sub page with list of what is changed.
        
        • What I am buying
          
        • what I am equiping from inventory
          
        • What has been removed.
          
        • What is being sold?
• Weapon Grouping - it would be nice to add Location of weapon to this screen since you now have so much more room.
  
  • If I have an LRM 20(Right torso), LRM 15(Right torso) and LRM 15(Left torso) I may want my LRM 20(right torso) and LRM 15(Left torso) on one group and the second LRM 15(right torso) on a different group because of tubes, or some other reason, Right now there is no way to know that when setting up weapon grouping.

Again Overall I do like the new interface, but feel things are a bit inefficient the way you are currently forced to do things. Could easily make it cleaner/easier.

Edited by Syrkres, 29 October 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Yes, but it WASN'T, which is why they need UI 2.0. This is essentially a rewrite of the entire game. That is why it is taking so long.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here.

Community Warfare is apparently not designed. It doesn't need UI 2.0 to be DESIGNED. You don't actually need UI 2.0 to be implemented in order to design (and implement) all of the complex stuff that is under the covers that makes CW work. Hell, since they are already implmenting UI 2.0, they should already know exactly how it works, and thus they really should be able to design even CW's integration with the UI at this point.

That's the point of designing stuff. You figure out how everything works BEFORE you implement it.

Saying that you can't design how CW will work until after you have implemented the UI is nonsensical.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here.

Community Warfare is apparently not designed. It doesn't need UI 2.0 to be DESIGNED. You don't actually need UI 2.0 to be implemented in order to design (and implement) all of the complex stuff that is under the covers that makes CW work. Hell, since they are already implmenting UI 2.0, they should already know exactly how it works, and thus they really should be able to design even CW's integration with the UI at this point.

That's the point of designing stuff. You figure out how everything works BEFORE you implement it.

Saying that you can't design how CW will work until after you have implemented the UI is nonsensical.

And they STILL won't be able to implement CW until they have UI 2.0. In fact, after designing something based on an interface that doesn't exist, they will probably have to go back and redesign things, creating even more work for themselves.

UI 2.0 comes first. Then everything else can proceed. A design is just something they'll have to sit on until they have something to implement it for.

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

And they STILL won't be able to implement CW until they have UI 2.0. In fact, after designing something based on an interface that doesn't exist, they will probably have to go back and redesign things, creating even more work for themselves.

UI 2.0 comes first. Then everything else can proceed. A design is just something they'll have to sit on until they have something to implement it for.

Look dude, I know that you probably have no experience with this, so I'm not gonna get upset with you, but you are trying really hard to defend something which is clearly incorrect.

Community Warfare is not a giant monolithic block. It is composed of numerous complex subsystems, only ONE of which is the user interface. From a perspective of development, the user interface is an abstract subsystem which you can design against without any actual implementation. Again, this is the point of actually doing software design rather than just hacking {Scrap} together.

For instance, consider things like how the contracting system will work, or how matchmaking will work. Such components have numerous elements which can be considered and worked out. None of that requires actually having a working UI. The decisions that are made in terms of that design will drive requirements for the user interface, and those requirements will then need to be designed against the UI framework... but you don't actually need a fully implemented UI framework to develop the design for those subsystems, because they are severable from the actual UI.

This is why well designed software is made in a modular fashion. You would never want to make a system which has its backend tightly coupled to the user interface, because such a system would be a nightmare to develop and maintain. You design those subsystems with exposed interfaces so that you can work on them without needing a specific implementation.

In order for the most fundamental aspects of CW to be designed, such as how it's actually going to work, you do not need to actually have a UI front end implemented. Hell, at the beginning you can just work with a CW mockup, and then later design how that interface will be implemented on top of the UI framework.

In reality, I probably would have thought that community warfare would be designed FIRST, since presumably it's going to drive requirements for the user interface... Suggesting that UI 2.0 needs to be implemented first indicates that you are expecting some element of CW design to come up, and have folks say, "Oh, well the UI 2.0 framework can't handle that, so we have to design CW differently." which is exactly the WRONG approach.

CW should be designed around making a fun, compelling game, and then the user interface just needs to facilitate that game... You don't make a UI framework and then design your game around the user interface.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Look dude, I know that you probably have no experience with this, so I'm not gonna get upset with you, but you are trying really hard to defend something which is clearly incorrect.

*sigh*

Requirements -> Design -> Code -> Test. Let's start with a simple waterfall development method, although we know they use Agile at PGI. We'll keep it methodology independent this way. We've seen the requirements document for CW phase one Merc Corp. They may have the requirements through CW phase 3 and possibly the other design docs for the other sections done as well, but they haven't released it to us. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it just means they haven't shown it to you.

But what is the point of having any of this? Should they create CW for interface 1.5, then *recreate* it for 2.0? Because they'll have to go through every single last line of code to make sure it interfaces properly with 2.0. They'll create a huge amount of unnecessary regression testing if they implement CW first, THEN UI 2.0. Their development pace is slow enough that essentially doubling their work is just a stupid idea.

I get it. In your mind there are unlimited resources available to work on these concurrently. But if they have to pick and choose which area to focus on due to very limited resources, getting the architecture right is more important than CW. Going back over old code to fix a buggy spaghetti slop will exponentially increase the resource costs.

[KingNobody]

Not to seem grouchy or restate the obvious, but UI 2.0 is the latest "late summer" release that has ever been late. I think by "late summer" they meant "when summer is dead"

Also, off topic, but WTH happened to the Flea? It was set for release in July. I realize they have to "balance" MASC so that it can be included with the Flea, but at this rate, we'll have Clans first and I won't want the Flea.

The pace of development in this game has in my opinion greatly hampered it's ability to appeal to the market, and the "launch" before implementing core game systems such as CW and UI 2.0 (not to mention the game modes) was quite likely a Terrible Idea.

Granted, I'm not aware of the unforeseen challenges that may have popped up in the development process, and I am very aware of how dev teams can be pushed by management to release a product before it's ready. I'm only wondering what kind of damage has already been done to this game's potential by the fact that many who have tried it haven't seen the full capabilities and may not be inclined to return?

[NextGame]

Played with it briefly, whats with the fascination for motion blur when spinning the mechs? It's horrendous, tie it to the option in the settings for turning it off so we can turn it off.

The text seems a bit squashed up too, and my resolution is 2048x1152.

Seems ok other than that, but didn't really have time to give it a more serious look

[DirePhoenix]

First I'd like to say how awesome this is to finally have a fullscreen mechlab and actually be able to see my mechs big and up close!

On the HomeScreen - this is probably obvious, but it needs... more. That's a pretty big open space of nothing there. I expect the various sale/event banners/ads will be on this screen, but I'd also like to see your 'ready' 'mechs here as well. Maybe a CW Inner Sphere Map.



Resolution - the default is 1280x<something>, pictured below:



When increasing the rez to 1920x1080 however, the UI text doesn't change, making the text illegibly small (especially when playing on a 40" TV that's sitting about 12 feet away)



So a big request from me would be some sort of "UI scale" that is separate from the game resolution, so I can still get the high rez, but scale up the UI so I can actually read it from across the room.

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

But what is the point of having any of this? Should they create CW for interface 1.5, then *recreate* it for 2.0? Because they'll have to go through every single last line of code to make sure it interfaces properly with 2.0. They'll create a huge amount of unnecessary regression testing if they implement CW first, THEN UI 2.0. Their development pace is slow enough that essentially doubling their work is just a stupid idea.

Heffay, what you are saying here doesn't make any sense. You seem to be thinking that designing CW means "implement it with the existing UI". That isn't right.

The design process for CW is not an atomic action which takes place instantaneously. It's also not centered around the user interface. The user interface is one part of the overall CW system.

You don't need to wait for UI 2.0 to be implemented to design how CW itself actually works. Indeed, given that UI 2.0 is presumably already designed enough to be implemented, you should be able to design CW's interface against the existing UI design.

The only thing that hinges on UI 2.0 being complete is the final implementation of the CW interface elements.. but everything else can be done in parallel to the UI 2.0 implementation. You can know how CW will work, in terms of the fundamental interaction between different unit types, matchmaking, economics, etc.... all without actually having the user interface implemented. The UI is just a view that sits on top of the underlying data that makes the system work. The two are severable.

Presumably, PGI is doing SOMETHING in terms of actually designing CW at this stage, beyond the fairly vague talk about different lifestyle choices or whatever for players. Making those kinds of design decisions most definitely should not be hinging upon completion of UI 2.0's implementation, because UI 2.0 should be able to easily facilitate the introduction of ANY user interface that Community Warfare requires.. and if it can't, then something has gone terribly wrong.