169 replies to this topic

[Uncleclint]

Will this be the big new feature for the first patch in december? *yawn*... cant wait for it to zzzZZZZZZzzzzz...

How about content instead?

edit: OK ok ok, here´s some real feedback - totally unnecessary.

Edited by HAS UncleClint, 20 November 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[POWR]

Sable Dove, on 19 November 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

So you've taken a good suggestion (tie Artemis specifically to launchers/ammo), but decided it wasn't a bad enough idea, so you kept the upgrade/downgrade cost. So now if I buy a CPLT-C1, instead of costing 750000 CB to upgrade to Artemis, it'll cost 1150000, plus the cost of ammo. So the cost for switching back and forth is reduced to 33%, while the initial cost of the upgrade is 50+% more.

At least make the upgrade cost one-time, if you're not willing to remove it entirely. The game does not need CBill-sinks. The grind is bad enough that it's hard to even keep a balance.


Except that if you take the Aretemis launchers out of a mech now, you can use them as non-artemis launchers. With the new system, you'd have to buy them all over again. Which wouldn't be so bad, but there's no reason for the upgrade cost when the system is tied to the launchers. It should be one or the other. Both is just nonsensical.

In my book 250000 is less than 750000.

[John MatriX82]

Ok, what about changing SRM fire trajectory as it was before you introduced the tube-like one? The older flightpath rewarded players who got closer to their targets and allowed to have a decent capability to concentrate, or at least trying, to hit specific sections of the enemy mechs, especially under 150m/@75-80m and utterly destructive under 50m.

That trajectory made brawling AWESOME. Now you don't get any reward for maneuvering to get up close, you spread damage all over, you can't hit specific sections; bigger maps made both things extremely difficult, but if srms would revert back to that trajectory.. well one could take the risk to do that, because once you get close they would make the difference.

Right now you don't have any single benefit in trying to brawl only with SRMs, AC 20 dominates, long range pinpoint builds dominate, making brawling an old habit.

Oh and when do you plan to fix Splash damage? How many months do we have to wait until we hear about this again?

[Thomas G Wolf]

Like the idear Paul, would be nice if those of us with Artemis mechs would get a refund in credits for the difference though, and also for the DHS once they get to be cheaper nudge nudge wink wink. I have started to play more and more over the past 2 months because I like which way your going and that you are trying to please the player base even though that is an impossible task as you cannot ever please everyone and most of these youngsters here have not been around the block enough to understand that life is a compromise and that you have to accept that you will never get all that you wish for. I can only speak for myself when I say that I am happy with what and how you guys are going about the whole project, it shows that you are in it for the long term and not just for a quick pee and boo.

[Thariel]

So this means i can upgrade to Artemis but don't have to use Artemis ? No more downgrading necessary ? I can only swap Artemis/non-Artemis Launchers, once I have unlocked Artemis ?
Can I Use Artemis on LRM and have non-Artemis SRM on the same Mech ?

[Lord Perversor]

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

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.....

Well he's saying now LRM boats provide better salvage.. in fact 25k c-bill per launcher (it doesn't matter if it's lrm 5 or 20 since the Artemis ones cost 100k C-bills extra)

This means an 6x LRM 5 A1 with all 6x launchers intact it's just a 12k extra for you!!

[NextGame]

My feedback on artemis changes is this: Fine, but whats the point? Get CW, UI2.0, DX11 out instead of procrastinating on them. Oh, and bin ghost heat while you are at it. Artemis is a non-issue, so I don't understand the reason for using it as a sideshow.

Edited by NextGame, 20 November 2013 - 02:28 AM.

[CarpetShark]

Since you guys are doing work on hardpoints, can we finally get the ability to place specific weapons in specific hardpoints and have them stay there?

Thanks.

[Blurry]

DragonsFire, on 19 November 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

This isn't a change to the LRM's specifically but to the Mechlab side of the system. Either way, it's part of UI 2.0, which is where the content will be coming from once it is done.

um no. sorry.
fixing a ui isnt content. More maps and variations on gameplay. new game modes and a persistent universe with planets to conquer ect - that is content.
Hell adding a single mech isnt content - that is shiney - that is a reward. For what milking people without providing any new content?

Fixing the ui will enable them to sell things better and faster so for them it is content - they need to learn what players see as content not what they see as content.

There is a massive disconnect in what they think people want and require priority over what players really want. Being able to sell things faster and better and adding new shiney every 2 weeks isnt content.

and again they are doing this to increase the grind so they make each system separate in order to spend more money and increase the grind. The wrong way to go. I dont think they get it at all.

[Galil Nain]

Blurry, on 20 November 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

Fixing the ui will enable them to sell things better and faster so for them it is content - they need to learn what players see as content not what they see as content.

I can see where this misconception is coming from, and it is an apparent, prevalent opinion here in the forums, but...

Whilst, yes, an overhaul of the UI will allow for faster and better sales (bundle delivery without having to bounce the servers for account injection, for example) this is not the main reason they are doing it.

On the face of it, yes, the UI overhaul is of benefit to the devs more than the player-base, but that is an over-simplified perception of the situation.

At the moment, the UI is made up of a monolithic mess of frankencode, as a lot of the code that is doing the work is in the UI itself, not abstracted out into separate modular layers of code that talk to each other.

To do it right, the UI should be a very light code layer responsible for one thing and one thing only, displaying the information. The work should be done in lower layers of abstracted, modular code. Code to handle things like CW, Planets, Maps, Inventory, Friends lists, Chat, News delivery, "Shops", Clan/Faction/Merc-Corps membership, Load-out modification, etc should each be separate code modules that talk to each other and to the UI (display-only) layer. This will allow any future patches to be standalone, meaning smaller downloads for updates (after the initial behemoth of code re-organisation on release of the new UI) and less chances of new content releases to one thing damaging something else. In other words, this project benefits us just as much, maybe even more so, than the devs.

As things are now, adding things like CW to the current UI will make a bad situation worse. UI1.5 is a mess of frankencode, adding to which will make the code-base even more un-maintainable, slow and buggy. As such, until the UI overhaul is completed, the new content you (and of course, all of us) are waiting for just ain't going to be possible.

Doing this will also mean that the code for each module (programming module, not cockpit module) can then be written in the most efficient language for that particular task, rather than all having to be done in ActionScript or whatever language it's currently cobbled-together with. This will likely result in an out-of-game UI that does things like change between screens faster, loads your list of mechs faster, allows you to sort your mechs easier, loads faster initially, and puts less of a load on your system (how many times have I seen people on the forums complain that their machines are under far more load in the MechLab than they feel is reasonable?!?).

In simple terms, it's some of those on the forums that "don't get it", not the devs, but I'm guessing that this is largely down to a misunderstanding of what UI2.0 is all about. The devs know what people want, but delivering it without a complete overhaul of the underlying code that is currently bodged into the UI with chewing-gum and duct tape hacks is simply neither possible, nor advisable. Should the UI have been written the new way in the first place? Of course it should. Did the devs make a mistake by coding it in a monolithic fashion originally? Yes. Have they admitted their mistake and put effort into correcting it? Damned right, they have, and such an admission, whilst giving us forumites ammunition to bash them, was a rare and brave thing to do. They could, instead, have decided to simply work on UI2.0 in the office without even mentioning the reasons why and released it when it's done, but decided that being honest with the player-base was a better option.

Sure, they could have handled the communication about it a little better, but they know that there are enough of us out here that understand the process involved (maybe not the nuts and bolts, but at least the broad strokes) to keep the game alive until its ready. Even if they did communicate better on this matter, there will still be plenty of forumites who will misquote, misrepresent and generally troll about it, so they're better off maintaining the level of communication they are doing and concentrate on getting the job done (which is, after all, what we're paying them for with the content they are selling to us). They could, just as easily, have either not communicated anything about it at all, or have done an even worse job of communicating about it.

And as for them doing this to increase the grind, if properly planned for, this change will REDUCE the grind. Even more so now that we have advance notice it is coming and can plan for it in advance. Also note the bit in the OP about how the current situation isn't being changed because they decided they could do it better, it's because it was never meant to be doing it this way in the first place (and, if I'm reading it right, neither they, nor anyone here in the forums, had noticed until they were re-writing that part of the MechLab code as part of the UI2.0 project).

TL;DR:

• UI2.0 is a necessary priority without which nothing new can ever safely come to this game.
  
• Is it taking a long time? Yes, but only because it's a mammoth task and too important to screw up again.
  
• Is it just for sales? No, although they freely admit (again, something that they don't have to do) that it will make their lives easier.
  
• Are there other teams working on new content like CW in parallel so that its display and work code modules can be "plugged into" UI2.0 once it's in place? Yes.
  
• Would they be able to jury-rig CW or other new content onto UI1.5 without making an even more horrific mess of the code? Not a chance.
  
• Is complaining about UI2.0 on the forums going to make it any faster / better a process? If you think it is, you're that special kind of stupid that the devs are constantly accused of being.

Edited by Galil Nain, 20 November 2013 - 05:05 AM.

[Autobot9000]

This is nonesense. It's putting developer time on something that is close to irrelevant, when there is a LONG list of things that are really trouble. The one thing you get guaranteed out of this is to annoy everyone who already owns LRM launchers. Having LRM launchers without Artemis is a waste anyhow (apart from LRM5 troll builds which's screen shake trolling you deny to fix (how many lines of code? 10? change a single variable??)). So what is the whole purpose of this ? Waste in the end our money?

This is actually a parade example of how developers fix stuff that is technically unaesthetic, but completely irrelevant for customers. Maybe time for a management board??

Edited by Autobot9000, 20 November 2013 - 05:17 AM.

[NuclearPanda]

Also chiming in here like others to say the following:

1) Not sure why this was such a "priority" to roll out compared to other things that need fixing, ie Hit Detection, SRMs, Pulse Lasers, Flamers, etc.
2) More content please, and soon. We need something to DO in our mechs. The pretty much constant TDM-only game is getting stale, and quickly.
3) Considering the amount of mechs that I own that HAVE Artemis already I would also like some sort of refund for the difference in cost as others have suggested.


Thanks for at least communicating to us PGI. That much is appreciated. You really need to double down on new content though for the community.

Edited by NuclearPanda, 20 November 2013 - 05:17 AM.

[HydroSqueegee]

Kashaar, on 19 November 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

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.

I agree the description of what was in the OP is a little unclear, but i have hopes!

We need some clarification (ideally with illustrations) as to what the chage actually is. Many people have interpreted the change differently.

[CeeKay Boques]

Please give us a heads up when this is happening to make sure all my stripped Artemis Mechs are fully equipped for roll over day...

[Ransack]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 19 November 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

this seems fine to me, but would it not simply be easier to have lrm 20 normal & lrm 20 artemis shown as 2 different items in mechlab and if in fact the mech has artemis enabled to then force the pilot to install artemis launchers rather than convert them forcing a constant repurchase of standard missiles instead?

this makes the most sense to me. Make them distinct and separate items.

[Black Templar]

overall good idea. it would also be nice if you could decrease the cost for all the other upgrades like DHS, Eno-Steel and Ferro too, since they are basically a flat tax on any given mech. 90% of your current mechs are not viable without DHS/Endo. an adjustment is overdue....

also, are we getting the "spiraly" flying formation for ASRM launchers anytime soon (like the LRMs)? i know somebody in PGI talked about that back the Closed Beta.

[CeeKay Boques]

Psst, hey guys? They rolled it out because it was done, and an easy fix, not the monster of networking, time and pixel manipulation hit detection is. What do you think there are a bunch of code monkeys chiseling at a code wall with electric pick axes and taking a guy off to fix this real quick is setting us behind?

[Galil Nain]

HydroSqueegee, on 20 November 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

I agree the description of what was in the OP is a little unclear, but i have hopes!

We need some clarification (ideally with illustrations) as to what the chage actually is. Many people have interpreted the change differently.

My understanding is thus...

Present situation:

• The Artemis upgrade costs a flat 750K C-Bills
  
• You can't have LRM-A or SRM-A on a mech that has Artemis installed
  
• You CAN have LRM+A (and/or SRM+A) and SSRMs on the same loadout (due to a bug, SSRMs will get a lock-on time buff)
  
• If you have LRM or SRM launchers on the loadout when you upgrade to Artemis, they magically upgrade to LRM+A or SRM+A for free
  
• If you have a bare mech and upgrade it to Artemis, you're able to mount LRMs or SRMs you have in your inventory and have them magically upgrade for free
  
• If you remove launchers from an artemis-equipped loadout, they will magically convert into non-artemis variants upon arrival in your inventory
  
• If you sell an artemis-enabled launcher from it's installed position on an artemis loadout, you will get 50k more for it than if you sell it from inventory when browsing your inventory from a different, non-artemis loadout
  
• If you have artemis and want to add additional launchers that are not already in your inventory, you'll have to buy the +A variants from the MechLab at the +100k C-Bills cost

Proposed change:

• The Artemis upgrade costs a flat 250K C-Bills
  
• You can't have LRM-A or SRM-A on a mech that has Artemis installed
  
• You CAN have LRM+A (and/or SRM+A) and SSRMs on the same loadout (due to a bug, SSRMs will get a lock-on time buff)
  
• If you have non-artemis LRM or SRM launchers on the loadout when you upgrade to Artemis, they un-mount and drop into your inventory
  
• If you have a bare mech and upgrade it to Artemis, you're able to mount LRM+As or SRM+As you have in your inventory
  
• You will no longer be able to take non-artemis launchers from your inventory, mount them on an artemis-equipped loadout and have them magically upgrade themselves free of charge to artemis variants
  
• If you have artemis and want to add additional launchers that are not already in your inventory, you'll have to buy the +A variants from the MechLab at the +100k C-Bills cost

[Galil Nain]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 19 November 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

this seems fine to me, but would it not simply be easier to have lrm 20 normal & lrm 20 artemis shown as 2 different items in mechlab and if in fact the mech has artemis enabled to then force the pilot to install artemis launchers rather than convert them forcing a constant repurchase of standard missiles instead?

This IS what they are doing. The complexity of the post was to clarify that they are also reducing the initial cost of the upgrade and are fixing a bug where launchers would magically convert themselves for free from one type to another on their way in and out of the inventory.

I believe the comment regarding "converting" launchers is not at the point of adding Artemis to the mech, it's at the time the patch making these changes is released, otherwise, if +A launchers are +100K C-Bills each, upgrading a 6-launcher catapult for the new 250K upgrade cost will net you three and a half free launcher upgrades. I'm guessing that, like the current SHS/DHS mechanic, enabling or disabling Artemis will cause all currently equipped launchers to drop back to inventory.

Also note that this does not appear to be a discreet change, its part of cleaning up the borked UI1.5 code as part of the UI2.0 project, so it's not diverting resources from critical issues.

[Xeno Phalcon]

*Stuffs as many launchers as he can into his ARTY mechs just before patch O.O*