105 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Appogee, on 21 January 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Yes, they could. In fact, that's why we are in here in 2014, enjoying not only a surfeit of bobble heads, but also with UI2.0 and CW.

Oh, wait....

The work load between the two isn't equivalent. One is a complete rewrite of the game. The other provides funding while that happens and just requires the art dept instead of programmers.

You know this though, so I will just assume that you want to complain in general.

[Appogee]

Heffay, on 21 January 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

The work load between the two isn't equivalent. One is a complete rewrite of the game.

They're not actually rewriting ''the game'', they are rewriting the front end, which principally comprises Mech configuration, player inventory, and a shop. And they are a whole year overdue on the CW workload, and 6 months overdue on the first planned ship date for the UI 2.0 workload.

Workload gets completed by resources. The reason the core game workload isn't is because they've invested half their headcount on graphic designers, and less than a quarter on engineers who have to not only code the game but also run the servers.

Once again, indicating where their skewed priorities lie - which is the point you wanted to take issue with.

You know this though, so I will just assume you want to argue for the sake of it.

Edited by Appogee, 21 January 2014 - 08:56 AM.

[Heffay]

Appogee, on 21 January 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

[/size]
They're not actually rewriting ''the game'', they are rewriting the front end, which principally comprises Mech configuration, player inventory, and a shop. And they are a whole year overdue on the CW workload, and 6 months overdue on the first planned ship date for the UI 2.0 workload.

It's not just the front end though. It's the middleware and database structures, creating APIs to access and manipulate the data, provide new tools for the support staff and developers to do their jobs, etc, etc.

Adding the ability to sell packages through the UI isn't just modifying the UI. And the number of tools necessary to support that one function alone is significant. The content creators need the ability to dictate what goes in the package, how long it lasts for, who is eligible to buy it. Support staff needs to be able to fix issues with the sales, refund money, gift them to valuable posters such as giving me a gold mech.

Just because the store has a "buy this package" button doesn't mean all they had to do was add a button to the screen. Every component has to talk with many other components, and creating the communication framework for that alone is a huge undertaking.

UI 2.0 is a horrible name for it. It should be called MWO 2.0.

[Kaemon]

N.O.P.E shirts will appear at some point, it's inevitable.

If PGI has taught us anything it's that profit can be made from failure.

[Heffay]

Kaemon, on 21 January 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

N.O.P.E shirts will appear at some point, it's inevitable.

If PGI has taught us anything it's that profit can be made from failure.

Your measurement criteria for a "failure" is suspect.

Giving (most) people what they want and providing them with a compelling product to spend money on isn't a failure. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't make it a failure either.

[Appogee]

Heffay, on 21 January 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

(points)

Your points are fair and valid.

But then, so is my core observation that the developers need to put more resources/focus on the core game experience. If they had/did, then we wouldn't still be playing endless variations of 10 minute death matches more than a year after the promised metagame was supposed to have been launched.

If I bought PGI tomorrow - and I wouldn't, because sadly MWO's reptuation is too damaged now - I would alter the resource mix to waaaay more engineers. And their mission would be to give the customers a reason to keep playing and paying.

Edited by Appogee, 21 January 2014 - 09:54 AM.

[Heffay]

Appogee, on 21 January 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

[/size]
Your points are fair and valid.

But then, so is my core observation that the developers need to put more resources/focus on the core game experience. If they had/did, then we wouldn't still be playing endless variations of 10 minute death matches more than a year after the promised metagame was supposed to have been launched.

If I bought PGI tomorrow - and I wouldn't, because sadly MWO's reptuation is too damaged now - I would alter the resource mix to waaaay more engineers. And their mission would be to give the customers a reason to keep playing and paying.

These are also all fair points. We don't know why they haven't expanded beyond their current size, especially considering how it could positively affect their ability to deliver content. It could be limited to the size of their current office space, and the cost of relocating could be prohibitive. Or they may be locked in by a lease.

So we get a trickle of content released as the gate of UI 2.0 holds everything up. And maybe once that rather significant project is complete, further content may flow far more frequently. If 80% of their engineers were supporting UI 2.0, that means they will now have a ton of resources available to deliver on future plans.

Feb 4th is going to be a big day for MWO.

[Sandpit]

Can't we all just make s'mores and shoot each other?

it's interesting to watch the community implode every time there is a release of information and then a week later see the same people complain "They never give us information"

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 21 January 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

it's interesting to watch the community implode every time there is a release of information and then a week later see the same people complain "They never give us information"

Whining has momentum. Newtons Fourth law. "A whine in motion requires twice as much energy to stop than start."

[Tombstoner]

Heffay, on 21 January 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

These are also all fair points. We don't know why they haven't expanded beyond their current size, especially considering how it could positively affect their ability to deliver content. It could be limited to the size of their current office space, and the cost of relocating could be prohibitive. Or they may be locked in by a lease.

So we get a trickle of content released as the gate of UI 2.0 holds everything up. And maybe once that rather significant project is complete, further content may flow far more frequently. If 80% of their engineers were supporting UI 2.0, that means they will now have a ton of resources available to deliver on future plans.

Feb 4th is going to be a big day for MWO.

Availability of talent is also a consideration. for some time an opening with cryengin experience was posted. presumably to help with ui2.0

What they are willing to pay and the possibility of having to mover vs. tell commuting may be somewhat restrictive. Internal concerns over pay may limit the later.

Edited by Tombstoner, 21 January 2014 - 01:37 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Heffay, on 21 January 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

UI 2.0 is a horrible name for it. It should be called MWO 2.0.

LOLZ, I thought you being serious for a moment there. Had me fooled, you betcha!

[Rebas Kradd]

Appogee, on 21 January 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

[/size]
But then, so is my core observation that the developers need to put more resources/focus on the core game experience.

That's Heffay's point. The reason they can't devote resources to the core is because of UI 1.5, not UI 2.0. The current UI is an integrated part of the game instead of a separate layer. That means that every time there's so much as a hero sale, the entire game need to be patched, servers recycled, and all the documentation and QA and busywork that goes into a patch no matter how small. Rewriting the UI as a separate layer takes that huge burden off the devs.

It wasn't just about writing the new UI, it's about how much productivity the old one was killing on everything else.

(This is my best understanding, anyway.)

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 21 January 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[Heffay]

Rebas Kradd, on 21 January 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

That's Heffay's point. The reason they can't devote resources to the core is because of UI 1.5, not UI 2.0. The current UI is an integrated part of the game instead of a separate layer. That means that every time there's so much as a hero sale, the entire game need to be patched, servers recycled, and all the documentation and QA and busywork that goes into a patch no matter how small. Rewriting the UI as a separate layer takes that huge burden off the devs. It wasn't just about writing the new UI, it's about how much productivity the old one was killing on everything else. (This is my best understanding, anyway.)

Pretty much. They *could* have just updated the existing UI to handle package sales, but it would have meant recompiling the whole thing, and changing a bunch of other parts unrelated to actual package sales. Then if they wanted to add gifting, they'd have to go over all the changes from the package sales too in order to make sure that the two don't end up stepping all over each other (add gifting, break packages). Not to mention changes to the database, duplicate tables (and even worse, duplicate tables with conflicting information, depending on which component updated which table), yadda yadda yadda.

Now that the underlying architecture is all fixed up and has a common framework, progress can be made on other fronts. Need a CW module? Just plug it in!

[Rebas Kradd]

Indeed.

Basically, "UI2.0" is a codephrase for "we're rewriting the entire game". If it weren't and it were just a new UI, we all should have been rioting months ago for real, because a user interface by itself is no more complicated than a three-week 200-level college project.

[Lord de Seis]

Nice summary, thank you.

Good to see they are sticking to their time table, I won't be returning to the game until DX11 though.

[Khobai]

Quote

When someone tells Russ a mech sucks, he's compelled to play it and prove them wrong.

Locust sucks.

[Appogee]

Lord de Seis, on 21 January 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

I won't be returning to the game until DX11 though.

What is it about DX11 that you find so important to the game...?

Edited by Appogee, 22 January 2014 - 03:06 AM.

[Ngamok]

Sandpit, on 21 January 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Can't we all just make s'mores and shoot each other?

it's interesting to watch the community implode every time there is a release of information and then a week later see the same people complain "They never give us information"

[Ensaine]

Appogee, on 21 January 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

[/size]Fair enough.

But have you ever heard Russ or any of the senior devs ever say anything about the shortcomings/staleness or repetitive nature of the core game...?

I honestly think they believe the core game is fine and that each element of additional eye candy is some kind of significant advance.

Don't get me wrong. I've played 4000 matches, and I still try to have a game every day. But I wonder for how much longer.

^ This. Last derogatory thing I EVER heard a dev say, was back in Closed Beta, when one of the PGI guys dropped with us, and said, in Teamspeak (Comstar EU) 'who made this UI/Social area anyways ...' referring to the clunkiness of the Grouping/Ready button clickfest.

That was it. I can't help but feel these guys are either ignoring stuff outright, or, have no real clue ......either way, not good.

[Lord de Seis]

Appogee, on 22 January 2014 - 02:57 AM, said:

What is it about DX11 that you find so important to the game...?

Nothing really, I want to see how well they can keep to their time table that they posted. Community warfare is what I want.