169 replies to this topic

[Mycrus]

[Pezzer]

I haven't played more than a match in 1 1/2 months because of the rediculous C-bill grind.

Now you're saying LRM boats are going to be even more expensive? I wanted to play Enemy Unknown anyways, thanks for helping me make my mind up PGI. Really wish that Premium wasn't going to waste right now, but at least it's not my time being wasted.

P.S. Nice job not focusing on the SRM hit detection problems (sarcasm). I think these hit issues could be fixed if SRMs' blast radius was a teeny bit larger. But then again, being a gamer since I was 5 what do I know about glitches!? HAHAHAHA.....

Edited by Pezzer, 19 November 2013 - 08:02 PM.

[Roheryn]

How on earth did this make it up the list of priorities worth even minute of time when you are so unbelievably behind your production schedule.

Embarrassing.

Of course then again I can't even begin to tell you the amount of times my merc unit has heated discussions about the poor implementation of the Artemis system price structure and inventory items in this game.

Oh wait I can. It has happened zero times.

Good job on a "fix" to a non-problem.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

- So, this will begin the separation of missile systems and there targeting elements. Additional missile types and upgraded targeting elements will be easer to implement when this is in place.

We have yet to see MRM (medium range missiles) and the Clans will be arriving with larger streak systems (SSRM4 and SSRM6 packs), and the Clan ATM (Advanced Tactical Missile) . This separation of individual types should also allow the insertion of the Arrow IV add on to LRM launchers that we are currently missing.

And as stated the Artemis is a Fire Control System tied into the special missile guidance controls.

Reference:
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, by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components. In order to actually benefit from Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target; indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

- Better to have the changes made now before UI2.0 is fully implemented, get the testing completed and allow for new and upgraded launch elements.

9erRed

[Asmosis]

I only use atremis for lrm launchers.

I have a bunch of lrm5/10/15/20 in my mechbay (more than i could possibly fit to a mech) that i have purchased as atremis launchers since open beta launch. I have one of each launcher size for each missile hardpoint i own (on all mechs) basically.

Are you saying that when this goes live, those will be standard launchers (not atremis) as they are not currently equipped, so to use any launchers on my mechs I will either need to purchase duplicate new atremis launchers or remove atremis from my mechs?

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

In general, I think this is going to be a good change ... but it raises more questions than it answers, leaving us to speculate (which is bad) ...

Please clarify ...

• When a 'mech's fire control system is upgraded to Artemis, will we be able to equip normal SRMs or LRMs? (I'm guessing the answer is "no".)
  
• If we do want to downgrade a 'mech from Artemis to normal fire control, will it cost us C-BIlls (just like downgrading from Ferro to Normal, etc.)? (I'm guessing the answer is "yes".)
  
• Will this change affect how Artemis currently works in a match? (I'm guessing the answer is "no", which would mean that an Artemis FCS-equipped 'mech will still get a shorter lock-on time with Streak SRMs.)
  
• Will this affect our weapons stats pages after implementation? (I'm guessing the answer is "yes", since Artemis launchers and standard launchers will be different items ... this is good ... it will give us an opportunity to determine with actual statistics if Artemis is really a good upgrade for the cost in , tons, and crits.)

Now, it would make sense to be able to equip Artemis FCS, Art-LRMs, and Standard SRMs on the same mech (since SRMs are basically dumb-fired rockets, and the benefits of Art-SRMs are questionable, at best).

I am a little encouraged by the notice of the change ... I can imagine the code-jockey who was trying to figure out an elegant way to make Artemis work like "everything else" in the U.I., and then came up with the idea to just make it like everything else. It means you're making progress on U.I. 2.0, and that gives me a glimmer of hope.

(When can we can another update on CW?)

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 19 November 2013 - 08:48 PM.

[Kashaar]

HydroSqueegee, on 19 November 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Hush your mouth, boy! I dont care what the reason, this is a good change and provides more options in deciding what loadout to bring. "Do i need to bring artemis, or will the couple extra tons let me mount more/other equipment."

Being able to swap between regular missiles and artemis enabled racks without being charged 750k whenever you want to swap is a NICE change.

That would be nice, yes - but the way I read it, that's not what this is.

Unfortunately there is no clarification regarding whether you will be able to use non-Artemis launchers on mechs with the Artemis upgrade, or vice-versa. I would assume that you cannot. So you'll have to up/downgrade (for cheaper though, granted), and manually swap out the launchers, as opposed to just up/downgrading and having it automatically swap them.

[Galil Nain]

Roheryn, on 19 November 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

How on earth did this make it up the list of priorities worth even minute of time when you are so unbelievably behind your production schedule.

Embarrassing.

Of course then again I can't even begin to tell you the amount of times my merc unit has heated discussions about the poor implementation of the Artemis system price structure and inventory items in this game.

Oh wait I can. It has happened zero times.

Good job on a "fix" to a non-problem.

I know my post was rather long, but did you not even attempt to read it?

Let me sumarise it in simpler bullet-points for you:

• One of the highest priorities on their production schedule is UI2.0
  
• The MechLab is a core part of the UI, hence re-writing it from the ground up is part of this project
  
• As part of rewriting this code they noticed that this was somewhere they had screwed the pooch and, since they are rewriting anyway, decided to re-write the right way, not simply repeat the initial mistake and patch it later (with the frankencode risks inherent whenever you patch complex code)
  
• Once they realised that the re-write of this (/these) module(s) was going to result in a change in how the MechLab handles Artemis, they decided to give the player-base plenty of advanced notice so that they could plan for it and even decided to include it in time for the next PTS run of UI2.0 so we could see it in practice, rather than try to decipher the description (particularly handy for those with limited comprehension of English)
  
• Just because you and your merc unit have either not noticed this before, or have and deemed it not worthy of discussion, does not mean that it is not an issue that should be fixed (indeed, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a chance even PGI didn't realise that it was borked until they started analysing the old code in detail as part of the rewrite)
  
• Fixing this may open the door for further improvements to weapons, both in terms of availability of new weapons and in terms of balancing (note that I used the word may, NOT will)
  
• This has NOT diverted developer time from any of their high-priority tasks, it is a necessary by-product of UI2.0 (probably their number 1 priority at present) and qualifies as the devs doing things the right way
  
• The fact that they have given us so much advanced notice (or any, for that matter) is wildly out of character for the PGI of old... long may these improvements in communication continue
  
• It is to be expected, although in this case far from justified, that a noticeable minority of the player-base will see this as a discreet issue, and not part of the UI2.0 project, and will take to the forums throwing various toys out of the pram trying to make out that things like this are diverting resources from critical tasks and are why UI2.0 is so far behind, when, in fact, they are integral to the project and evidence of just how major a task it is and giving some explanation (note I used the word explanation, NOT excuse) for the time it is taking
  
• We can possibly (yes, I'm sure many here will read that as probably... and may even be right!) expect more of these revelations to come up as the devs work their way through the remains of the UI1.5 code-base as part of it's re-write under UI2.0

Edit: Spelling (Doh!)

Edited by Galil Nain, 19 November 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[Zyllos]

I am going to assume there is no functional change to go along with this update (IE SSRMs being effected by Artemis)?

There is an easy way to fix this, just add another lockon mechanic for SSRMs. Then make the locking crosshair be a "X" style lockon instead of the "O" style lockon of LRMs. Then we have separation of the mechanics so Artemis can be individually effect the right mechanics, and also allows for future balancing/mechanic/item changes.

Also, does this allow us to have a mixture of Artemis/non-Artemis items? For this, I would just have an inner/outer "O" crosshair to separate the different launchers equipped for lockon times for LRMs. SRMs doesn't need any changes as their "spread" is the differences and SSRMs will be a non-issue with the above mechanics changes.

Edited by Zyllos, 19 November 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Belorion]

It should be that an Artemis enabled mech can still use regular launchers.

[Flying Judgement]

9erRed, on 19 November 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

Greetings all,

- So, this will begin the separation of missile systems and there targeting elements. Additional missile types and upgraded targeting elements will be easer to implement when this is in place.

We have yet to see MRM (medium range missiles) and the Clans will be arriving with larger streak systems (SSRM4 and SSRM6 packs), and the Clan ATM (Advanced Tactical Missile) . This separation of individual types should also allow the insertion of the Arrow IV add on to LRM launchers that we are currently missing.

And as stated the Artemis is a Fire Control System tied into the special missile guidance controls.

Reference:
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, by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components. In order to actually benefit from Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target; indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

- Better to have the changes made now before UI2.0 is fully implemented, get the testing completed and allow for new and upgraded launch elements.

9erRed

thank you for the explanation it makes things clear before i was on the same opinion as the poster before you but now it all makes sense im getting exited waooo we do going to see a lot more new weapons and a lot more new play styles this is a nice indication of that cant wait but i know its going to take a LONNNG time but patience will pay off im sure
THX 4 the explanation

[Roland]

This change seems to add absolutely nothing of value to the game.

I don't say that to be snarky or insulting, but rather because I am at a loss to understand why anyone would bother implementing this change since it doesn't seem to make any significant impact in terms of any player experience.

[Past]

What i would like to know is now you can have the Artemis upgrade then equip a normal LRM launcher did non Artemis builds with LRM's just reap the benefit of the decreased lock on time of Artemis without any extra tons or slots taken up for one easy payment of only 250,000 cbills?

Seems to me if this is something unintended they really want to remove they should remove the decreased lock on time from Artemis and replace it with your LRM's will now arm at 140 metres instead of 180 metres then tie the decreased lock time to either the BAP or make a module for it.
Then to avoid the crying of everyone who put Artemis into mechs with nothing but SSRM in the missle hardpoints for the sole purpose of faster locks (I am one of those people btw) in the patch it takes effect strip Artemis from all mechs and do a full refund of the cbill puchase price of all the Artemis removed per account.

Bingo you fixed something that seemed somewhat of an exploit the faster lock times can still be achieved but now have either the cost of the tonnage/space for BAP or a module slot taken up/big cbill investment, Artemis was nerfed and buffed at the same time to equal out and no one would have a leg to stand on to cry foul due to the refund.

Edit: Just crossed my mind that making this change would pretty much remove the need for Artemis to be in the upgrade section in the first place and the decision to equip would rest solely in the weapon and ammo selection tabs making things much simpler (correct me if im wrong).

Edited by Past, 19 November 2013 - 11:13 PM.

[Project Dark Fox]

Past, on 19 November 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Edit: Just crossed my mind that making this change would pretty much remove the need for Artemis to be in the upgrade section in the first place and the decision to equip would rest solely in the weapon and ammo selection tabs making things much simpler (correct me if im wrong).

You still need to purchase the Artemis IV FCS upgrade (which will now be only 250,000 instead of 750,000) to use the Artemis launchers and ammo.
It's an in-lore cost if I remember right. Targeting systems need this upgrade to handle the Artemis IV FCS effectively.

Edited by Project Dark Fox, 19 November 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[Wispsy]

Please just stop it affecting SSRMS

[Past]

Project Dark Fox, on 19 November 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

You still need to purchase the Artemis IV FCS upgrade (which will now be only 250,000 instead of 750,000) to use the Artemis launchers and ammo.

Well the way I stands at the moment you would but could be simply fixed by increasing the prices of launchers and ammo to reflect the absence of the need to spend 250000 cbills on the upgrade. why should a mech with 1 missile hardpoint pay the same as a mech with 4 missile hardpoints anyway works better this way imo.

[MustrumRidcully]

FupDup, on 19 November 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

So, does this mean that Artemis might not affect Streak SRMs any longer, because there are no unique Artemis-Streak launchers available?

Does actually not sound to me like it would change that. I am actually still not quite sure what it will make as a difference? Can I isntall the Artemis upgrade and then later remove the Artemis Launcher and replace them with standard Launchers? If that was possible and the standard Launchers would not have the Artemis benefits, than it would be change.

The problem is he talks a lot about "current mechs" - what about a new mech? How does the upgrade work then?

Let's say I have a mech with 2 Standard LRMs and now upgrade to Artemis. Are the launchers replaced? Do I have to buy Artemis Launchers now? Can I have the upgrade installed and still install regular launchers?

Maybe I am also not quite sure how things work currently - if I uninstall an Artemis Launcher, and move to a mech without Artemis, is it now listed as regular Launcher, and vice versa (if artemis launcher prices are actually higher, that would be a way to get them for cheap - buy standard LRms on a non-Artemis mech, switch to Artemis mech, install the standard launchers as if they were Artemis Launchers.)?

[MustrumRidcully]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 19 November 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

Will this affect our weapons stats pages after implementation? (I'm guessing the answer is "yes", since Artemis launchers and standard launchers will be different items ... this is good ... it will give us an opportunity to determine with actual statistics if Artemis is really a good upgrade for the cost in , tons, and crits.)

This sounds interesting and would be quite useful.

[627]

Redshift2k5, on 19 November 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

you only have to "re-buy" if "you don’t have one in your inventory." (direct quite). This means that after making a one-time upgrade fee ( 250k per mech), and having both Artemis and non-Artemis launchers in your inventory, you will be able to swap free of charge.

Overall this will be a significant reduction of cost if you like to use more than one build and your different builds don't all use Artemis.

I think you're wrong here, completely.

As I understand it, the whole mechanic of the artemis upgrade stays the same. If you want Artemis, upgrade it (250k now) and equip Artemis-lurms.
Like Heatsinks, you pay the upgrade and add DHS only or you pay the downgrade and add SHS, both different items.

This will be the same for LRMs, and now you have different Items in the Inventory like SHS and DHS.

After a while it wll still be cheaper to change to artemis and back when you have some spare Lurms but until then, buy some more lurms

[Deathlike]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2931425

I posted some math there.

Here's a quick summary:

The old/current system penalizes you more if you switch from Normal to Artemis. LRMs/SRMs are can go either way (Artemis and not-Artemis), so they are considered "the same" in your inventory. You can compare a mech that has Artemis and a mech that doesn't and see the inventory # be the same.

The new system penalizes you more if you keep buying more Artemis enabled launchers. There is lower overhead if you already have an ample supply. Artemis+non-Artemis missiles are considered different, thus you are buying effectively MORE stuff of what you don't have if you are starting from scratch.

Edited by Deathlike, 19 November 2013 - 11:46 PM.