1095 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

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.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying with limited resources it makes more sense to spend them on architecture than coding something which will have to be (most likely) redone to meet the new standards.

You build a house from the foundation first, not the roof. Same thing with software.

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying with limited resources it makes more sense to spend them on architecture than coding something which will have to be (most likely) redone to meet the new standards.

You build a house from the foundation first, not the roof. Same thing with software.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between design and coding?

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Do you seriously not understand the difference between design and coding?

I do. Do you seriously think that CW is the only design work they have?

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

I do. Do you seriously think that CW is the only design work they have?

It is the single most important design work they have. It is what will make or break this game.

And if you understand that design work is different then coding, I don't understand why you keep babbling about how CW can't be designed until UI 2.0 is complete, because then it'd have to be reimplemented. That statement is nonsensical and false, given that designing CW doesn't involve implementation, and thus could not possibly require reimplementation.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

It is the single most important design work they have. It is what will make or break this game.

And if you understand that design work is different then coding, I don't understand why you keep babbling about how CW can't be designed until UI 2.0 is complete, because then it'd have to be reimplemented. That statement is nonsensical and false, given that designing CW doesn't involve implementation, and thus could not possibly require reimplementation.

CW doesn't require implementation??? Can you elaborate?

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

CW doesn't require implementation??? Can you elaborate?

You would DESIGN the system, prior to implementation. And there are numerous subsystems which wouldn't actually talk directly to the UI, and thus are severable from UI 2.0.

Even the parts which talk directly to the user interface could be designed prior to UI 2.0 actually being implemented, because you are talking about DESIGN rather than implementation.

[Heffay]

So you just want the design sans implementation until UI 2.0 is done?

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

So you just want the design sans implementation until UI 2.0 is done?

Yes. Design is separate from implementation. You do the design so that you know what to implement.

Even with an agile methodology, you don't just start implementing a huge system without doing serious pre-production work.

And how CW actually works really should be absolutely severable from the nuts and bolts of how the user interface is implemented. Otherwise it'd be a tangled mess with no modularity.

[Heffay]

I suspect any designer they have is working on the UI. I'd love too now more about CW myself, as all we have are the requirements phase for merc corps. Even the reqs for lone wolves and loyalists would be nice to have, but... Here we are.

Fortunately the gameplay is good enough to keep us around, right?

[Roland]

Heffay, on 29 October 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

I suspect any designer they have is working on the UI. I'd love too now more about CW myself, as all we have are the requirements phase for merc corps. Even the reqs for lone wolves and loyalists would be nice to have, but... Here we are.

Fortunately the gameplay is good enough to keep us around, right?

I honestly don't know.
The gameplay was good enough to keep me around through closed beta, and then open beta, and now after release.. but I think most of us came here for the promised epic struggle across the inner sphere, not two stale game types that we have played to death on a handfull of maps.

Star citizen is slated to release their dogfighting module in december, man. It'll just be combat, without any of the persistant world stuff... but that's basically what we got here.

So I dunno man. I dunno if the gameplay is enough to keep folks interested.

[NoBodie]

Things I do not like about the new interface.

1. Get ride of the annoying KerChing sound whenever you click the mouse. Get it gone! Don't even think about this, GET IT GONE! In order to remove it you have to zero out the effect volume, which removes effects sound during game play.

2. Every time I hit the skills button, client drops.

3. No way to change the key binding.

4. Increase the size of the lettering (words) for the different mech classes, the cb, mech bays and mc window. also increase the size of the mech information screen (speed, structure, heat sinks, etc. we now have full screen -- use it, so what if we can't see all of the lower legs. The size of the top bar of Home, mech Lab is a good size for the rest of the bars.

5. Make the mech info pop out screen bigger. Use the whole area for it. Again full screen use it. It's a temp mode so what if it hides all of the mech.

6. Make the mech thumbnails bigger, about half again. It a scroll bar area, make the most of it. when a person got to lean into a 24" screen to read the data .....................

7. Weapon grouping, very nicely done, nicely sized, easy to read. Get ride of the blue on blue bars though. Also add in the ability to select chain fire of alpha fire for each weapon group.

8. Love the "Full Screen" aspect.

9. All equipment available in a given area (Torso, Arm, Leg) should be available in the scroll area. Not having to select the type (missile, equipment, etc) to see what is available. Increase their thumbnail size also.

Edited by NoBodie, 29 October 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[Sky Ferrix]

Hopped onto the test server yesterday to get a look for myself. It definitely felt more responsive and quick, and the ambient music is perfect. But as others have said, you pretty much have to go on a "menu adventure" to get anything done. The individual chassis locations feel so separated in the UI that I often lost track of what was/wasn't installed on the Mech.

[DELTA111]

I would really like to be able to see a brief summary of the match results of the last match that any of my mechs where in. If it was a win and damage done would be adequate. Within the context of the current interface a window that pops up when u mouse over a mech in mechlab would be great. It is possible to partially obtain using the user mech stats and refreshing the page but this is cumbersome.

[Vorloni]

Roland, on 29 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I honestly don't know.
The gameplay was good enough to keep me around through closed beta, and then open beta, and now after release.. but I think most of us came here for the promised epic struggle across the inner sphere, not two stale game types that we have played to death on a handfull of maps.

Star citizen is slated to release their dogfighting module in december, man. It'll just be combat, without any of the persistant world stuff... but that's basically what we got here.

So I dunno man. I dunno if the gameplay is enough to keep folks interested.

Been playing during open beta and after release. Combat is really good and fluid. What keeps me going is leveling mechs and finding my way of playing and my favourite mechs. But like you said when you have played through the combat, the mechs and tuning the mechs it gets boring. (I'm not there yet but I see this) Freshness comes only with new mechs and maps until they get this UI 2.0 to work and CW.

So gameplay is "enough" but to keep this game going for years it really needs the meta part.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Vorloni, on 03 November 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

So gameplay is "enough" but to keep this game going for years it really needs the meta part.

Enough to say, that if the Meta never develops the game probably will not last for years.
And I am willing to bet the developers know it.

[Vorloni]

Shar Wolf, on 04 November 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

Enough to say, that if the Meta never develops the game probably will not last for years.
And I am willing to bet the developers know it.

I'm betting... ONE million CBills for that.

[Blurry]

So this will drop when april 2014? and we can move on to actual content?
unfortunately it isnt enough for me I have left.

even with the premium the grind is way too much to tolerate with pubstomps 12-1 24/7 there is no fun left in the game.
Combat can be fun but when so one sided all the time it is just a waste of time.
If they pull the match maker tighter and pull the premades from the q or have a solo q then things would be better. With better game balance comes better game play.

That alone would reduce the grind - as when you are having fun it isnt a grind. but 1 sided stomps and pull out to see you made 65k with premium and you look at that atlas in the window - not even decked out - well.

They work slow which is fine - give updates. They had a test a few weeks ago - how about a quick little report on how it went. Keep people invested in playing. Stop driving them away.

Edited by Blurry, 20 November 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[Hawk819]

what's needed is more 'Mechs in order for Matchmaker to work better. However, I barely understand how it works and all that. I just know that if there were more 'Mechs involved in this game, and not just Clan either, but a more general sense of and different variety of Mechs to choose from. This game would get a little more interesting.

[Gopher Wood]

An added ability to arrange your Mech Bay would be a viable option.

[Night Fury76]

so whens UI 2.0 and cw dropping again?