1095 replies to this topic

[Kesslan]

Actually I'll agree that pretty much every other MWO game had a vastly superior mech load out screen than MWO now possesses with UI 2.0.

Also the whole form over function thing mentioned a few posts above? Ya, that tells me they just gave this project to a programmer with zero experience in actually designing a useable interface that flows well, rather than assigning it to some one with actual design flow exerpeince and paird them with a programmer to tell them what was and wasn't possible.

I can honestly now see why there was such a hate on for the early builds of UI 2.0, and far as I can tell there were zero changes made since those previous tests.

[Aurrous]

WHY DO THE ENEMY'S Call letters keep changing?? is it k, l, k, l, r, o, no its L again... L died,, no here L is on the other side of the map.. whaaaat

[Imperius]

Waladil, on 06 February 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

I've seen several people make this argument and I do not get it. It's like you believe there are two possible options: Release a POS "feature," or release a good feature late.

But given the vast amounts of time they've had to work on it, and the several people who pointed out that there is little-to-no difference between the "public test" builds and the "full release" builds of UI 2.0, that brings us to question whether or not there was a third possibility:

DEVELOP. THE. GAME. Improve and tune the UI based on the community feedback people provided during the tests. People wouldn't be complaining so much if there had been significant improvements after the tests. Doesn't have to be perfect, but actually making stuff better would be nice.

Let me explain with an analogy. I'm a university student, and I'm sure there's a bunch of other people in similar situations around. If you're past that age, then recall your college years. Or maybe just recall some similar post-college situations. Anyway, imagine you had an assignment to write a paper. This assignment was given to you at the beginning of the semester, and was due on the final day. Two weeks before the end of the semester, a rough draft was due and you would have a meeting with the professor to discuss how the draft is doing and what could be improved before you hand in the final paper. So you write... something and go into your rough draft meeting. The professor reads over your paper, gives you a stern look, and proceeds to detail all the things you've done that were unacceptable to the guidelines of the assignment. Two weeks later you hand in the exact same paper that the professor had just torn to metaphorical pieces, except you fixed one run-on sentence. When he gives you a poor grade you complain, saying that you could either turn in a bad paper now or a better paper later.

You know what'd happen if I tried to pull that? I'd get a shit grade because I deserved it. There's no reason we should be nice to PGI after they've released a shit UI. And it's considerably worse: THEY set the deadline, THEY arranged the tests, and they've got the bollocks to tell us this shit don't stink.

Teachers don't threaten to kill your parents or you because you didn't meet "their" expectations. They give you a failing grade and ask to see you after class to "help" you not beat you down more. These are real people with the same feelings as you and I. They deserve a little respect.

Like I said it's not perfect but they did say it gots bugs and some features are being worked on, they did say it's not finished and is to be tweaked by user feedback over time. It's the back end stuff that took forever the stuff that you don't see that keeps the game up and running during hot fixes, sales, and anything else.

[GroovYChickeN]

Imperius, on 06 February 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

Teachers don't threaten to kill your parents or you because you didn't meet "their" expectations. They give you a failing grade and ask to see you after class to "help" you not beat you down more. These are real people with the same feelings as you and I. They deserve a little respect.

Like I said it's not perfect but they did say it gots bugs and some features are being worked on, they did say it's not finished and is to be tweaked by user feedback over time. It's the back end stuff that took forever the stuff that you don't see that keeps the game up and running during hot fixes, sales, and anything else.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

The amount of rude behavior towards the dev's is completely unacceptable. If I was in charge your would be banned from the game without a refund but I'm not so I don't throw a huge temper tantrum about it.

[Takeo]

I Hate the New UI. Enough said. I like the upgrade from the old but the New UI is to confusing. PLEASE make it easier to understand and work with the Mechs. I like how you can filter the Mech types but other then that I am not happy with how it is.

[Helmer]

Aurrous, on 06 February 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

WHY DO THE ENEMY'S Call letters keep changing?? is it k, l, k, l, r, o, no its L again... L died,, no here L is on the other side of the map.. whaaaat

I think it has to do with a UAV bug. (At least that's the only time I've seen it happen)

Will do some digging.


Cheers.

[Chronojam]

Victor Morson, on 06 February 2014 - 02:28 AM, said:

I did and I stand by it. To be frank, this mechlab would be worse than MW1's, but MW1 didn't have one. heh

I tend to agree. One thing I've been asking for but basically given up on ever seeing considered is an old-school engine selection-and-upgrade process. Engines are so expensive, and you end up with so many slightly-wrong sized engines. The older games simply let you toggle between STD/XL and then incrementally size up or size down your engine. No worry about "Where did I leave my 355, this is the 350!" and no worry about "Mech has no engine, whoops!"

It would make experimenting with your engine power a lot easier, because right now to feel the difference between a 300 and 325, you must simultaneously own both.

Of course, I've also been suggesting the ability to "TEST" instead of "CHECKOUT" for a long while so you can see how a mech performs in terms of heat before committing to purchase, because the MWO mech lab is woefully inadequate about mech performance when compared to any one of the community tools that provide helpful overviews and allow you to easily see your heat profile, damage-over-range-over-time, max sustainable weapons fire, etc.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Current state of UI is definately making fitting miserable and sucking the joy out of playing. It's that bad.

Looks, sure it's better than previous.
Better to sit out and wait a patch or two than deal with the aggravation that is ui2.0

Did they do something about filters? film grain or something seems better... oh, nevermind everything was on low, didn't realize it looked that clean on low

edcit: Oh and game kicked me out, then I nmoticed orion was on sale, maybe sale isn't quite seamless or something in conn stability has changed

Edited by Haakon Magnusson, 06 February 2014 - 11:02 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Imperius, on 06 February 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

Teachers don't threaten to kill your parents or you because you didn't meet "their" expectations. They give you a failing grade and ask to see you after class to "help" you not beat you down more. These are real people with the same feelings as you and I. They deserve a little respect.

They used to have it.

Do you know why it stopped?

"You're on an Island, bub."
"Working as intended, lol!"
"If you don't like what I do, you're the 2%."
"The forums/founders don't matter they're just a vocal minority."
"That was our position at the time."

Etc, etc, etc.

They are the ones that stared into the advice we've been giving since the beginning - match balancing (tonnage/BV), the importance of some features, a HUNDRED superior approaches to balancing this game even though we often disagree with each other - and spat directly into it's face.

We put up polls that go 85% against Ghost Heat, 90% against with thousand of votes, and what do they do? Remove the ability to make polls.

If they would let go of this.. EGO.. and listen to freaking anybody they could still fix this. But they don't appear to be willing to. They just keep proposing system after system of train wrecks. They show a continued lack of understanding of the game while at the same time constantly ignoring people who understand it as they break it.

Did you know there's a trial 'mech right now- along with this hyper confusing UI- that will create HUGE amounts of Ghost Heat? Are you aware there's not a single piece of information about "Heat Scaling" anywhere in MW:O, mechlab or cockpit? How can anyone who even understands their own systems put in a 'mech for newbies that kills itself in a couple shots?

Paul's been posting in the forums lately. Do you know what he did? Go read the Gameplay Balance forum on the Highlander. He makes some inflammatory comments, trolls some people, then says how much he enjoys "Poking the dragon and running off." He literally just said that the lead designer enjoys pissing off the user base.

That is why the respect factor is gone.

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 February 2014 - 11:03 AM.

[Chronojam]

Imperius, on 06 February 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

I have a feeling this thread will be 300+ rage thread by Sunday.
If they didn't release UI 2.0 this would be a 300+ rage thread about missed deadlines.

Summary: They are damned if the do damned if they don't.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't? You might be interested in what my esteemed colleague, myself, has been investigating.

Chronojam, on 04 February 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

There is a rumor of a third option, "Applauded if on schedule and to specification,"but PGI has had their Top Men investigating for a few years without turning up any results so far.

Scientists have been unable to pin down whether or not PGI is actually capable of achieving this position, this third quantum state, and it's unclear how long they can retain stability if they do indeed ultimately reach this "On schedule and to specification" state.

I will keep you posted, but the theoretical science appears very promising.

[Hellwife]

Victor Morson, on 06 February 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

"You're on an Island, bub."
"Working as intended, lol!"
"That was our position at the time."

I see nothing insulting about those statements. It's in developement, so what?

>>"If you don't like what I do, you're the 2%."
"The forums/founders don't matter they're just a vocal minority."<<

Link?


They don't change their game and make it the way some of us want. Man, talk about EGO....

[Rebas Kradd]

Victor Morson, on 06 February 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

If they would let go of this.. EGO.. and listen to freaking anybody they could still fix this. But they don't appear to be willing to. They just keep proposing system after system of train wrecks. They show a continued lack of understanding of the game while at the same time constantly ignoring people who understand it as they break it.

Except the game isn't broken to nearly the extent you believe, people are still playing it, and the ONLY reason people are really leaving is because CW isn't here yet. Just because you think the systems are train wrecks doesn't make it so.

My problem with PGI is that they don't tell us the reasons for the decisions. That doesn't mean there aren't reasons. And yeah, I took a little umbrage with Paul's casual tone the other day - they still don't apparently get that we're in the dark as far as the reasons for some of the major systems - but these are communication problems, not a programming issue.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 February 2014 - 12:13 PM.

[Ahja]

*BERP!* Two years to make a more convoluted Mech bay. Ahh...Cool.

[N a p e s]

I don't know if this has already been brought up but are weapon ranges clearly indicated anywhere in this build of UI 2.0? I see a small graph that visually represents a weapon's damage at optimal range and subsequent drop-off past that limit. Could we get a straight up number value? Are there plans for this?

[Victor Morson]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 February 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Except the game isn't broken to nearly the extent you believe, people are still playing it, and the ONLY reason people are really leaving is because CW isn't here yet. Just because you think the systems are train wrecks doesn't make it so.

My problem with PGI is that they don't tell us the reasons for the decisions. That doesn't mean there aren't reasons. And yeah, I took a little umbrage with Paul's casual tone the other day - they still don't apparently get that we're in the dark as far as the reasons for some of the major systems - but these are communication problems, not a programming issue.

Counterpoint: A newbie trial 'mech - some people's first experience - is setup to fry itself in a couple shots and the game tells them, absolutely nowhere, anything about it.

So yeah. Train wreck applies, man.

[no1madcow]

PGI changes the UI more often than Garth changes his underwear, this UI2.0 is the 3rd UI PGI has released.

Why do people feel they need to fix things that aren't broken. If PGI wants to fix something how’s about they fix the game play itself first. There are still several places that mechs still get STUCK and the advanced zoom still shows the targeting box for mechs that have already been destroyed.

Also the training grounds is just about useless since the target mechs don't move. people go to the training grounds to train and they hit their targets with every shot then they come to the game and can’t hit anything thats moving.

MWO has always had a big learning curve and this new UI has just made it much harder for new users to learn.

[Claive]

I remember reading the U.I. test feed back threads and seeing over and over, "please just mimic smurfy... we need a paper doll of the mech that shows us all the slots at once. We need to be able to see our current open slots and tonnage when configuring our mech." It seems they didn't listen, or didn't care. 3/4ths of the fun of this game for me is mech customization. I think I will sit out until I can have that kind of fun again. Hopefully it will be soon.

Edited by Claive, 06 February 2014 - 03:02 PM.

[Helmer]

Claive, on 06 February 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

I remember reading the U.I. test feed back threads and seeing over and over, "please just mimic smurfy... we need a paper doll of the mech that shows us all the slots at once. We need to be able to see our current open slots and tonnage when configuring our mech." It seems they didn't listen, or didn't care. 3/4ths of the fun of this game for me is mech customization. I think I will sit out until I can have that kind of fun again. Hopefully it will be soon.

Didn't know if you saw this here.


"The "Smurfy" layout that the community has been asking for will make its first appearance in March."



Cheers.

[Slaphammer]

The Smurfy layout isn't exactly a new idea, is it? Didn't the old Mechwarrior games have essentially the same thing? And the original tabletop game as well? It's been too long, can't remember for sure. That layout is so intuitively obvious that it's hard to understand why this game hasn't had it from the start.

At any rate, UI 2.0 for me is much worse than what we had. I have to do a bunch of clicks just to be able to see what my mech has loaded. There's nothing more important than that, so I shouldn't have to click through a bunch of screens to figure it out.

Also, trying to figure out where my skills stand with various mechs has become much worse.

The only thing I like but 2.0 is that I can see all my mechs at once, I don't have the annoying side-scrolling view where I have to click many times to cycle through my collection.

Edited by Slaphammer, 06 February 2014 - 08:32 PM.

[Sidekick]

Helmer, on 06 February 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Didn't know if you saw this here.


"The "Smurfy" layout that the community has been asking for will make its first appearance in March."



Cheers.

Well, thanks.

The current UI is completely unusable for me. All the extra "work" to get anything done just annoys me.
I won´t list it again because the big flaws have been stated over and over again.

If a smurfy-esque mechlab is there in March, I may be playing in March.

GGclose