169 replies to this topic

[Galil Nain]

Heffay, on 21 November 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Because with 50 people and various areas of expertise, nobody should be working on anything else until the 3 guys working on UI 2.0 are done...

Close... My understanding is that this IS being done by the UI2.0 team as part of the UI rewrite.

Now, if your comment was being used to counter a complaint that CW is being delayed by this, you'd be spot on.

All this being said, yes, it could be argued that making changes like this during the rewrite are going to delay UI2.0. My counterpoint is that, if the whole point of rewriting the UI from the ground up is to correct the mistakes of old, when you come across a mistake like this, you fix it as you go, you don't re-write that bit in the same borked way, then patch it later. To do so would mean you're rewriting the same module of code twice as often as you need to.

[Galil Nain]

Void Angel, on 20 November 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

• Artemis and non-Artemis launchers are now unique items and cannot be mixed and matched.

It's in the original post, bud.

To be fair, since the OP talked a lot about how in the current system you can mount a standard launcher on an Artemis-equipped chassis and have it automatically convert, then convert back to standard on un-mounting it, a lot of people, myself included, assumed this was what he was referring to by no mix-n'-match and that he didn't cover at all the hybrid-loadout questions that continue to be asked here.

In other words, because the communication wasn't worded as well as it could have been, that question is still one we are having to guess on!

[BlackDrakon]

Flight path will be the same for SRM's with Artemis or are they going to change?

When is this going to take place? I dont think I read a date or if its going to happen on the next month?

Any news on HSR/HBD for SRM's?

[Macbrea]

So, I have a silly question with this. Does this mean the following mech will be legal?

Catapult-C4 (2LRM5+Art, 2LRM15, 1 ERLL, 275XL, BAP, 2 Tons Artemis LRM ammo, 6 Tons Regular LRM ammo, 2 JJ)

That way you get fast locks for your 2 LRM 15 launchers off the 2 LRM5 art launchers.

[Void Angel]

BlackDrakon, on 21 November 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Flight path will be the same for SRM's with Artemis or are they going to change?

When is this going to take place? I dont think I read a date or if its going to happen on the next month?

Any news on HSR/HBD for SRM's?

Macbrea, on 21 November 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

So, I have a silly question with this. Does this mean the following mech will be legal?

Catapult-C4 (2LRM5+Art, 2LRM15, 1 ERLL, 275XL, BAP, 2 Tons Artemis LRM ammo, 6 Tons Regular LRM ammo, 2 JJ)

That way you get fast locks for your 2 LRM 15 launchers off the 2 LRM5 art launchers.

When the change goes live with UI2.0, any launchers you have installed in an Artemis-equipped 'mech will be converted for free to Artemis launchers. Artemis launchers will be an additional type of launcher, and the cost to upgrade your 'Mech to Artemis is drastically reduced. Everything else is still the same, and this change concerns the UI - there's nothing about fixing the Artemis Streak bug, or hit registration, involved here.

Niko Snow, on 19 November 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

• Artemis and non-Artemis launchers are now unique items and cannot be mixed and matched.

Edited by Void Angel, 21 November 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[Death Mallet]

Regardless of TT rules. . .

Artemis should be a 1-way upgrade.

You should be able to install standard launchers on an Artemis eqiuipped mech, they just don't get the Artemis benefit.

[Scromboid]

wut?

[Void Angel]

Why?

In terms of theory of operation, it's a totally next-generation fire control system. Sure, you could physically cram the old launchers in, but the new system isn't compatible with the old, so your targeting systems can't talk to the old launchers.

In terms of game balance, it's easier to balance missiles effectively when you can separate the precise weapons being used more easily. The only benefit to players would be using non-Artemis missile salvos to distract AMS for the following Artemis barrage - making anti-missile systems even MORE of a hit-and-miss countermeasure.

There's no reason you should be able to mix Artemis and non-Artemis launchers: such a change would make balancing more complicated than it needs to be, and the only "benefit" would be better served by adjusting AMS directly - if that were warranted at all.

[Jacob Side]

Macbrea, on 21 November 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

So, I have a silly question with this. Does this mean the following mech will be legal?

Catapult-C4 (2LRM5+Art, 2LRM15, 1 ERLL, 275XL, BAP, 2 Tons Artemis LRM ammo, 6 Tons Regular LRM ammo, 2 JJ)

That way you get fast locks for your 2 LRM 15 launchers off the 2 LRM5 art launchers.

No, this build would not be legal. once Artemis is on a mech all launchers have to be Artemis equipped. At lest that's how TT rules read.

[Void Angel]

Doesn't matter what TT says - in MWO, you can only equip one kind of guidance system - Artemis or Standard - and the corresponding launchers.

[Galil Nain]

Death Mallet, on 22 November 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Regardless of TT rules. . .

Artemis should be a 1-way upgrade.

You should be able to install standard launchers on an Artemis eqiuipped mech, they just don't get the Artemis benefit.

Regardless of the TT allowability, existence in lore or any other argument for or against mix-n'-match, the biggest problem is that in order to support a mixed loadout, even to fix having SSRMs mounted with Artemis, you would need to have seperate reticles for Artemis and non-Artemis launchers with seperate timers for lock-on. This is not currently part of the code-base, would need to be written in, and would need yet another HUD element to represent it.

Or are you hoping to buy Artemis just for the lock-on time bonus and fit standard launchers across the board, simply to take advantage of the bug?

Void Angel, on 22 November 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Doesn't matter what TT says - in MWO, you can only equip one kind of guidance system - Artemis or Standard - and the corresponding launchers.

You do realise you're agreeing with the point of view, but just arguing over semantics now, don't you?

[Atheus]

Dear PGI:

Here's another idea on how to go about dealing with Artemis: Get rid of the upgrade/downgrade cost completely (as has been suggested time and again), make the Artemis FCS an inventoryable item which can be installed as needed. While you're at it, remove the pathetic and wortheless single heat sinks from the game, get rid of the cost of upgrading to ferro-fibrous armor other than the cost of purchasing the armor by the ton, and make endo-steel cost a one-time expense of buying an endo-steel version of the chassis, which acts as an inventory item you can switch in and out without additional costs.

Customization is one of the big appeals of this game, and it's fun to do little tear-downs and try out different designs. There's really no good reason to add all sorts of extra costs to the process. If you want to screw with the economy, do it on the earning side, not these stupid gold sinks that make people hesitate to make adjustments to their mechs.

Love,
Atheus

P.S. Modules are absurdly overpriced. Fix that too.

[Void Angel]

Galil Nain, on 23 November 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Regardless of the TT allowability, existence in lore or any other argument for or against mix-n'-match, the biggest problem is that in order to support a mixed loadout, even to fix having SSRMs mounted with Artemis, you would need to have seperate reticles for Artemis and non-Artemis launchers with seperate timers for lock-on. This is not currently part of the code-base, would need to be written in, and would need yet another HUD element to represent it.

Or are you hoping to buy Artemis just for the lock-on time bonus and fit standard launchers across the board, simply to take advantage of the bug?



You do realise you're agreeing with the point of view, but just arguing over semantics now, don't you?

No, I'm insisting on an important point of logic - the rulebook for the other game isn't authoritative here. Perhaps you've missed all the "(insert mechanic here) is WRONG because Tabletop and the Holy Word of Fasa!" threads? I try to oppose that kind of thinking when I find people falling into it.

It's not that tabletop isn't important - but it's important for flavor, not substance.

[Stardancer01]

Please don’t fiddle with something that isn’t broken.
Artemis is fine the way it is.

[DeadlyNerd]

so... when are you going to fix the actual mechanic of artemis instead of beating around the bush? you know... GET TO WORK.

[Void Angel]

Begging the question is a classical logical fallacy which, when used deliberately, is one of the mainstays of sophistry. The fallacy involves assuming facts not in evidence, often as part of a question. If the listener accepts the question, they must also accept the assumption - without the speaker having to justify it.

The classical form of this fallacy is, "When did you stop beating your wife?" If the intended victim accepts the question and answers in any way, he has admitted to beating his wife without the accuser having to give reasons for the accusation - even if the victim is unmarried. Other forms of this fallacy include unstated assumptions - such as that a video game design team is simply not working on their game because a certain mechanic has not been "fixed." The accuser in this case may assume that the development team is merely being lazy instead of allocating scarce resources to more pressing issues, and rudely tell them to "get to work."

This and other fallacies are often used, inadvertently and otherwise, to shore up self-centered thinking and plain wrong conclusions - and recognizing these invalid thoughts for what they are is an essential skill to anyone who wishes to communicate on the internet without becoming a vegetative husk.

[ImagineDwagons]

I read Paul's post several times and still do not understand the purpose of this change and what is so relevant in it that it requires attention of lead designer ?
I do not know what was initial intention with Artemis but it works perfectly fine as it is now. You want to make Artemis upgrade cheaper? Make it cheaper and do not waste time on what is working fine while you have loads of other balancing problems to address. That is my feedback. Thank you.

[Void Angel]

The purpose is to make missile launchers more intuitive as well as to allow cheaper switching. The change basically means that it's cheaper to upgrade, and you'll be using different launchers for the different guidance systems - just as you use different heat sinks for the different heat dissipation systems.

This change is part of the new UI upgrade - this is not a balance issue at all. What this means both that it is something that needs to be improved (as part of our outdated UI,) and that fitting this minor change into the UI 2.0 rework doesn't take any resources away from balancing (different teams.) In point of fact, game balance at this juncture is more dependent on things like hit-box reworks and hit registration debugging than the functionality of most BattleMech systems.

PS: A lead designer has to pay attention to all aspects of game design, particularly when mjajor projects like UI 2.0 are involved. Aside from that, the only attention that you or I know he's put into it is what's required to make an announcement post.

[Marodeur]

Hallo,
I also think it would be a good change because it gives you more degrees of freedom to configure your mech and you can eg. mix normal SRM launcher with LRM-Artemis launcher to save some slots for other weapons or ammo. Freedom is always good!

[Jman5]

I just played with the new SRM artemis changes and I wish you would go further. You have basically decreased the cost of upgrading and unupgrading Artemis. That's better, but not good enough. Why are you still charging people to upgrade and unupgrade Artemis every time a player changes his mind? That is the opposite of what a game that fosters customization should be going for. What fees like this do is make people more hesitant to change their builds and experiment. They don't want to unequip artemis only to discover it was a mistake. They are now forced to bite the bullet and repurchase the upgrade.

I say keep it at the original price so you have your cbill sink, but don't nickle and dime the player every time he wants to play around with his build. Encouraging customization is the key for a mechwarrior title. I can't stress this enough.

I feel the same way about Endo Steel and Ferro Fibrous.

Edited by Jman5, 28 November 2013 - 01:14 PM.