78 replies to this topic

[Uncleclint]

If PGI would just at one time have said something official like "UI 2.0 is working but it´ll need a lot of work till it´s done" instead of "we are proudly presenting UI2.0 and think it´s just great and we consider it (more or less) done" - there´d be a lot less uproar right now.
If you say something like "the future of the UI is not necessarily set in stone" then it reads to me like "pray to whatever you believe in and maybe we´ll change it in a few billion years..." or without the sarcasm "there are currently no ongoing plans to change this mess that we call UI2.0". "Not necessarily set in stone" is a phrase that politicians love to use, please i know that Nikolai L. can´t lean out of the window to far without having to fear loosing his job, so it might be a nice idea if his boss could actually give an official statement about the UI2.0-100% discrepancy.

Just acknowledge that this is nowhere near perfect and nowhere near great and promise to do something about it, that´s all we want.

Oh, and please no twitters or facebooks but THIS VERY FORUM HERE!!!

Edited by HAS UncleClint, 08 May 2014 - 12:11 AM.

[Garegaupa]

HAS UncleClint, on 08 May 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Oh, and please no twitters or facebooks but THIS VERY FORUM HERE!!!

I agree that things like this should be posted on the forum. However, there is an official statement from Russ on Twitter from May 6th that is very encouraging as far as UI 2.0 goes:

https://twitter.com/...763855475081216

Edited by Garegaupa, 08 May 2014 - 12:33 AM.

[Draal Kaan]

Garegaupa, on 08 May 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

I agree that things like this should be posted on the forum. However, there is an official statement from Russ on Twitter from May 6th that is very encouraging as far as UI 2.0 goes:

https://twitter.com/...763855475081216

Hm, so the "100%" is just temporary? ....If so, and the UI changes are still on the road map, ok... But then please add something explaining to The Plan.

[Zuesacoatl]

Someone already did. The "Plan" represents the modules needed to go in for CW. The backend of UI 2.0 has been 100% installed for this, but the functions inside of the UI are not listed in "The Plan". It was created to show the progress towards CW, not each individual module. Read what others posted on page 1 and you may have received this information sooner.

I do not agree with posting EVERYTHING on the forums. This is the age of instant information, and spread out communities. I come on here every so often to see the mostly degenerate parts of this community spew their diatribe and hate, but most of my time is spent in G+ where the members are more level headed and can see more than just one side of an issue. Where discussion actually happens, and not just a bunch of trolls yelling louder than the last to be heard. I am happy they use any and all forms of communication, learn to use media other than the ancient forum setup and you will learn much. You guys sound like the old BBS users when the internet arrived "Why should I go on there, people need to bring these things to our BBS...." Really, get with the times.

[Harbinger Prime]

So I am guessing that G+ is there all the cool kids/apologists hang out? Yes I am an old fart but I do have a G+, Facebook and even a twitter account but why should I have to trek over Gods green earth to find out information that should be on this sight in these forums in the first place?

[RowanE83]

What may be MINOR changes could amount to MAJOR improvements.

I would have thought a separate button to save your loadout where NO NEW PURCHASES have been made, would speed up the UI considerably. Make people hate it less.

Similarly, perhaps a button where only cbills have been spent, need not take so long to process as the checkout; which must handle adjustments to a players MC balance.

A longer wait time for MC transactions is acceptable so the current checkout need not change.

Alternatively, or additionally, module prices should be slashed considerably. I believe this would actually result in MORE CBILLS BEING SPENT on modules. Which works in favor of both PGI and consumer. It also reduces the need to adjust loadouts so frequently.

Finally, it would be nice to have the ability to 'save' a few different setups for particular chassis. Rather than to be forced to manually retool the whole thing each time you get sick of a certain loadout.

[RowanE83]

RowanE83, on 08 May 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

Finally, it would be nice to have the ability to 'save' a few different setups for particular chassis. Rather than to be forced to manually retool the whole thing each time you get sick of a certain loadout.

Players may be willing to pay MC for this feature - similar to buying new mech bays.

[Cest7]

I like how they never removed the abysmal beep beep or re-arranged it into a configuration that doesn't marry-go-round our mouse pointers...

[Corvus Antaka]

Shimmering Sword, on 07 May 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:

It's pretty obvious that the UI will have many changes made, only "when" is what we don't know.

2019?

[ego1607]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 08 May 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

2019?

Probably. Problem is, it seems someone at PGI is just refusing to realize the epicness of a fail this interface is. Person in charge probably does not actually play this game enough and does not realize that these few extra clicks and lack of full layout availability is not just a minor annoyance but something that after a while becomes a deal breaker. Or perhaps the publisher is pushing the priority of the visual apeal of UI 2 above anything else, preventing the needed changes.

They have a double XP weekend and I loved those before, but this time I probably won't participate because the idea of reconfiguring my mech on this monstrosity feels like too much of a chore.

[Sparks Murphey]

Harbinger Prime, on 07 May 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

Odds you were not born or you were in diapers when I was playing Mechwarrior or more exactly back then it was called Battletech with Ral Partha lead figurines, paper pencil and dice. I went to the first Battle Tech center when it opened on navy pier, in Chicago, I have bought every Mechwarrior computer game that was produced. So don't cop that attitude with me and if I didn't love the game I wouldn't be here posting, I would have left like everyone else that has gotten pissed on and told it was raining.

I am afraid that you also lack reading comprehension since you completely glossed over my point about the store which should have been fixed before the release of 2.0 and since the cod exists for the Mech bay, not doing so is lazy and incompetent. I just wonder what FASA thinks of all this.

...Dude, are you aware of who you are attempting to call out for not being BT enough?

[eitsch]

Very promising talk you talk! Please continue your quest to be more transparent and informative in your feedback to the customer! Concerning UI updates for example:

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 May 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

[...]Indeed some have occurred, so practically speaking we could say we are now on UI 2.0.8 or UI 2.1 or such...[...]

... please get us a changelog, so that we can read through it and glee upon all the great little efforts you have and will put into the UI 2.x.x to make it more worthwile to us!

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 May 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

[...]There are still many aspects of the UI to continue working on and new UI features to consider implementing. The introduction of Private Lobbies is but one example of this and we're all too eager to keep you updated on further changes as they come along.

How about giving us moar information what is in the pipeline for UI 2.x.x+1 before shoving it down our throats? You might even geht some serious feedback concerning the greatest setbacks of current UI mess if you kindly ask.

Even if you just would need to read the forums and do some searches with easily selected keywords to find out what is really bugging everyone.

Sorry for being so harsh but i am kind of unnerved. Greetings!

[Harbinger Prime]

Sparks Murphey, on 08 May 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

...Dude, are you aware of who you are attempting to call out for not being BT enough?

No enlighten me, it might mean something if Shimmering Sword is Jordan Weisman or Ross Babcock . Just for the reccord I was not calling him out for not knowing BT, I was responding to his condescending remark about not caring for MW with my history with the franchise

Edited by Harbinger Prime, 08 May 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[jaxjace]

and zero, on 07 May 2014 - 01:00 AM, said:

I hope not. The current UI is ******* pathetic. If you disagree, you are either a PGI fanboy or, more innocently, simply naive regarding efficient user interface design. And that is simply all there is to it.

Seriously, choose an action (find an engine, move a module, open and close friends list/message etc.) and take note of how many times you must needlessly move your mouse from one end of the screen to the other, how many times you must x out or click yes on stupid, redundant prompts etc. Its a god damn shameful mess. But hey, at least the color scheme is pretty.

+1

[Lord de Seis]

Does it matter? They have done so much to turn me off this game I have zero desire to play it. The thought of CW doesn't even peak my interest anymore, I still check the forums from time to time to see if anything has changed but it seems like the same old same old.

[Jesushupfer]

Up to now I was thinking about spending some money on MCs to get premium time for private matches (which really are fun), but this changes everything.

So I will continue with my "no money for You IGP/PGI until you deliver what you promised" until you deliver a mechlab that is actually usable. Looks like this is the only language you guys understand.

[Kmieciu]

Lindonius, on 07 May 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

No. We wanted it OVER A YEAR ago when they initially said that it would be ready 90 days after open beta.

Now call me a bluff old traditionalist, but when a company promises that it's working on a feature, then reveals that it hadn't really been working on it at all actually, but then promises it is going to work on it now, but then provides not even the tiniest snippet of a screenshot of work in progress, I kind of get the feeling that it isn't really the players' fault that we might be a tad impatient.

In addition, when said company declares that the main reason for the delay in implementing community warfare is that they are spending all their development time on the UI, and then said UI looks like a couple of monkeys in a shed could have knocked it out in about 10 minutes, I think you can be forgiven for being a tad suspicious of said company's competence.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[EOD Operator]

RowanE83, on 08 May 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

Players may be willing to pay MC for this feature - similar to buying new mech bays.

STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS.

[Shimmering Sword]

Harbinger Prime, on 08 May 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

No enlighten me, it might mean something if Shimmering Sword is Jordan Weisman or Ross Babcock . Just for the reccord I was not calling him out for not knowing BT, I was responding to his condescending remark about not caring for MW with my history with the franchise

Thing is I didn't call you out for not being Battletech enough either, but you did bring it up. My point was that you're twisting information, either out of ignorance or to be a troll. I just wanted to stem the tide of misinformation, should there be anyone in here not aware of the level of forumwarrioring going on.

Also, google images of "battletech" or "mechwarrior", you'll be looking at a lot of my work.

[Troutmonkey]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 May 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

The full frontal development assault that was the Battle of UI 2.0 is indeed done. But that doesn't mean the future of the UI is set in stone. The very name should indicate to players the possibility of further changes. Indeed some have occurred, so practically speaking we could say we are now on UI 2.0.8 or UI 2.1 or such...

I don't want the "possibility" of this being corrected, I need certainty. Current UI is infuriating to use, and actually has less features than the old one. http://mwomercs.com/...issing-details/

As a games programmer myself, I can't see how any of these UI choices ever made it into production. Has anyone on your team ever done a HCI course? Did you even run the designs through QA? Why did you not take any of the feedback from the previews on board?

I really love MWO and want it to succeed, but I can't for the life of me work out why PGI keeps making terrible design choices like this. I would really really love to have some reassurance that UI2.0 is going to change for the better, but this isn't doing it for me.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 10 May 2014 - 07:05 AM.