89 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

https://mwomercs.com...tree-pts-update

Thanks to PGI for trying something I've wanted to try for ages. Decoupling mobility from engine size will have the potential to improve both faction balance (Clans vs IS) and weight class balance (heavies vs lights and 75 tonners vs 60 tonners, for example). I'm not sure it will work as well as I am hoping, but I'm glad they're going to try it out.

Beyond that, I also want to give a preliminary thumbs up for the changes they've making to the PTS. I don't agree with everything. I'm worried that randomly scattering the valuable skills on bigger skill branches is a very poor method of making people invest sufficiently in a skill branch. I would prefer something like this:

Spoiler

But I'm happy they're at least trying to dampen the advantages of boating, I'm happy they're improving jump jet skills and I'm obviously happy that they reduced the cost of the skill tree by about half of their original price. Some people seemed to say that it was the community's fault that the Skill tree got pushed back. I would say that it's thanks to the community that the Skill tree will now be infinitely better than what we would have gotten otherwise. Though I can't really take a lot of credit for that, since I didn't really participate in the feedback process this time.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's all a big disaster. But then I will at least be content that PGI finally tried out some things I (and others) desperately wanted to see, and if it all goes south, I will accept that I'm not as smart as I thought I was.

[Bud Crue]

Agreed, their willingness to break out of the norm is refreshing.

That said, I am really worried that trying to "test" engine decoupling in the same PTS as the massive changes represented by the skill tree is going to lead to a big mess of confusion and contradictory assertions of this mechanic or that mechanic being broken, OP or undervalued. To many things affecting to many other things -all at the same time- in a short lived PTS that relatively few players actual participate in.

I'm sure it will go splendidly.
I certainly hope it does.

[JC Daxion]

Sweet... Looks like they listened to a ton of the great feedback... I feel PTS2 will be a huge step in the right direction.. Two thumbs up!

[Alistair Winter]

Bud Crue, on 21 February 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

Agreed, their willingness to break out of the norm is refreshing.
That said, I am really worried that trying to "test" engine decoupling in the same PTS as the massive changes represented by the skill tree is going to lead to a big mess of confusion and contradictory assertions of this mechanic or that mechanic being broken, OP or undervalued. To many things affecting to many other things -all at the same time- in a short lived PTS that relatively few players actual participate in.
I'm sure it will go splendidly.
I certainly hope it does.

There's a fair chance that the community will reject the change for a number of reasons:

• "My Timber Wolf is no longer as agile as a medium mech? Preposterous! We can't decouple engine size and mobility!"
  
• "There's two or three things I don't like, so we must... abort everything! No more testing, don't ruin my game!"
  
• "Light mechs are suddenly as powerful as my assault mech! This is a terrible mistake, PGI! This isn't how Battletech is supposed to work!"

And as you say, there's a fair chance of throwing the baby out with the bath water, as the community did with Infotech. "Ghost range is a mistake, so.... delete everything and start over!" When too much happens at the same time, a lot of people's kneejerk response is to demand that all progress is halted. But in the mean time, it sounds like the next round of testing will be the most fun one so far.

JC Daxion, on 21 February 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

Sweet... Looks like they listened to a ton of the great feedback... I feel PTS2 will be a huge step in the right direction.. Two thumbs up!

Indeed. Crossing my fingers.

[Bud Crue]

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2017 - 06:13 AM, said:

Indeed. Crossing my fingers.

Yup. This game is in desperate need of a shake-up or maybe just some change for its own sake. A lot of folks thought 4.1 was going to be that "game changer". Alas. I have nigh hopes for the skills tree though they just need to get the cost structure right and make it have trade offs and it sounds like that is what they are doing. Engine decoupling could be a blessing that adds depth to the agility tree or function as a premptive across the board nerf to just ensure that folks waste nodes on that agility tree (sort of like the near accross the board nerfs in the PTS to offensive quirks to force folks to use nodes on firepower tree). Guess we shall see. Fingers indeed crossed.

Edited by Bud Crue, 21 February 2017 - 06:45 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Aye, the PTS changes looks solid! Looking forward to trying them.

[TercieI]

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2017 - 06:13 AM, said:

There's a fair chance that the community will reject the change for a number of reasons:

I don't think so. This has been long and widely asked for.

It's one of the best things that can realistically be done to bring the KDK-3 in line, too.

[Jables McBarty]

Yes, this was very good news!

[Nik Reaper]

Hm, most of those sound as good ideas, let's hope they are implemented well.

I'd really hope it doesn't get rejected because they get super stingy with the numbers, like well now spend 10 points to get 2.5% cooldown reduction out of a maximum 5% for witch you need to pay another 15.....

I can appreciate not auto taking full defense but I don't like mobility being more demanding.. but we will see just how much of a change it is.. I feel that then mobility is going to be the new defense as a mandatory one to take on mediums and higher.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 21 February 2017 - 07:14 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

Now all they have to do is remove the 40KPH legged speed cap and the tonnage/engine/mobility matrix will be perfect!

[Alistair Winter]

TercieI, on 21 February 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

I don't think so. This has been long and widely asked for.
It's one of the best things that can realistically be done to bring the KDK-3 in line, too.

Assuming the community doesn't freak out, the only other thing that can go wrong is how PGI decides to implement the idea, even if it's a good idea. Decoupling mobility from engine size means that mobility will be based on some sort of arbitrary system or algorithm, and I hope they get that part reasonably right.

But I agree. It's the best thing to bring the KDK in line, and also bring the TBR and NTG in line, while indirectly buffing the mechs with low engine cap (e.g. DW, KGC and AWS) and also indirectly buffing the smallest mechs in each weight class.

It'll probably also let PGI get rid of so many mobility quirks for mechs like the PXH and QKD, or at least reduce them a little bit.

[Mawai]

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2017 - 06:13 AM, said:

There's a fair chance that the community will reject the change for a number of reasons:

• "My Timber Wolf is no longer as agile as a medium mech? Preposterous! We can't decouple engine size and mobility!"
  
• "There's two or three things I don't like, so we must... abort everything! No more testing, don't ruin my game!"
  
• "Light mechs are suddenly as powerful as my assault mech! This is a terrible mistake, PGI! This isn't how Battletech is supposed to work!"

And as you say, there's a fair chance of throwing the baby out with the bath water, as the community did with Infotech. "Ghost range is a mistake, so.... delete everything and start over!" When too much happens at the same time, a lot of people's kneejerk response is to demand that all progress is halted. But in the mean time, it sounds like the next round of testing will be the most fun one so far.




Indeed. Crossing my fingers.

Agreed. I too am crossing my fingers.

The game needs to improve. Some of these changes will make mechs feel slower, less responsive, perhaps less powerful.

The whines this may generate may be humongous but the game NEEDS changes like this to make it better in the long run. It is important to keep in mind that all mechs will be similarly affected. It is not just a favourite mech but all of them that will have changed. If the changes bring a better overall balance while retaining a fun and reasonably dynamic gameplay then they will have succeeded.

Also, many folks need to keep in mind that the changes won't be final ... values and structure can evolve to allow for evaluation of on-going balance issues. All we really need is a system that will allow for on-going balance issues to be addressed expeditiously.

For that ... I like my suggestion ...

Balance Idea: Extra Skill Points Or A Dedicated Quirk Tree

Edited by Mawai, 21 February 2017 - 07:26 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Mawai, on 21 February 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

The game needs to improve. Some of these changes will make mechs feel slower, less responsive, perhaps less powerful.

The whines this may generate may be humongous but the game NEEDS changes like this to make it better in the long run.

Hopefully a lot of players will stop whining about how unresponsive their heavy / assault mech is, and start playing light or medium mechs instead.

Lights and mediums have been the least popular weight classes for some time now.

[Cy Mitchell]

Bud Crue, on 21 February 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

Agreed, their willingness to break out of the norm is refreshing.

That said, I am really worried that trying to "test" engine decoupling in the same PTS as the massive changes represented by the skill tree is going to lead to a big mess of confusion and contradictory assertions of this mechanic or that mechanic being broken, OP or undervalued. To many things affecting to many other things -all at the same time- in a short lived PTS that relatively few players actual participate in.

I'm sure it will go splendidly.
I certainly hope it does.

While I understand your reservations about testing too many things at once, I think that in this case it is a good idea to put the engine changes in with the Skill Tree PTS changes for testing. The Skill Tree and Mech mobility needs to be an integrated system so people see how the whole will be affected. If you test the engine changes separately then you will get the "OMG, MAH Mech is ruined, WTF PGI?" reactions. If you test the Skill Tree first and people get used to the mobility quirks enhancements then you introduce the engine changes and people lose performance to that then you will get the "OMG PGI why you nerf my Mech?" responses.

Maybe by introducing the engine changes and the Skill Tree as a completely integrated package, one change will mitigate the other and we will not get the hysterical "The sky is falling!" reactions that have killed so many other initiatives that have been tried on the PTS.

I like nearly all the changes that have been outlines for the new Skill Tree. I saw many of them proposed by members of this community just like the changes that were made to FP in 4.1. I think it is time to put the "PGI never listens!" mantra to rest and I look forward to testing all the changes on the PTS. In fact, due to the lack of any changes on the live server, it is likely that testing on PTS is all I will do until we get some real changes in March or April.

[BlueFlames]

I'm on board with most of the changes, at least tentatively.

I'll admit that I'm most nervous about decoupling mobility from engine size, since top speed alone was rarely enough to get people to invest weight in bigger engines in previous MechWarrior games. Still, it's not something that's so stupid on its face that you wonder why it even wound up in a public test.

At the very least, all the items in these update notes are worth an experiment on the PTS and aren't so off-putting to make me wonder if I'll still be playing the game after the March patch.

[Tordin]

Aye! Agreed, sharing the sentiment regarding the changes. Its incredible.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TercieI, on 21 February 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

I don't think so. This has been long and widely asked for.

It's been widely asked for by the competitive community, the rest of the community however has been rather divided over this which is why I have argued with several people over this before. The Night Gyr does have me a bit worried though given how strong it already is.

[MacClearly]

This looks to be a huge leap in a much better direction.

[Jables McBarty]

Alistair Winter, on 21 February 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

Hopefully a lot of players will stop whining about how unresponsive their heavy / assault mech is, and start playing light or medium mechs instead.

Lights and mediums have been the least popular weight classes for some time now.

But why learn something new when you can go on the forums and QQ about how OP lights are and how they should be nerfed into target practice?

[Andi Nagasia]

beat you too it Alistair,
(New Skill Tree Changes! As Well As Mech Mobility Decuppled From Engine?)

but yes i think this will be a good chance that will bring some mechs up and others down for the better,