64 replies to this topic

[East Indy]

Let me preface by thanking PGI for being open about game design plans — especially works in progress. It's not easy to subject an idea to criticism. It's extremely helpful, all the same. I'd like to calmly and rationally explain why embedding quirks in skill trees is not a positive change for this game, and is so fundamentally flawed that no amount of testing can fix it.

So, again: hey, it's an idea, interesting concept. But it's not going to work.

1. It's a Solution in Search of a Problem
Why? Because MWO is not a game with a shortage of potential variety. If a player wants a certain style with certain weapons in a certain weight class moving at a certain speed, there are dozens of 'Mechs available, each with a half-dozen variants. And then each one can be pulled into the 'Mechlab.

Open-ended customization would make sense if MWO were a limited-roster title like Wipeout or F-Zero. But it's not. We have scores of choices to suit a playstyle, and as the Roughneck's unveiling suggests, if there's a burning desire for a loadout regardless of lore, PGI can oblige.


2. Its Logistics Don't Work With the Current UX
Several players have pointed out that skill purchases are totally at odds with a smooth Mechlab experience.

Let's say you've made a build with four LB-X autocannons. You'll show everyone! You pop your range and cooldown modules in. You're about to push "Quickplay" when you come to your senses, rip out the LB-Xs, and choose a sensible loadout. You hit tonnage, swap modules, hit solo queue and immediately earn Ace of Spades.

Now, let's try that with quirked skill trees. You rip out the LB-Xs and choose the sensible loadout. But you'd already invested in LB-X quirks. So, you go to Skills. You deactivate all the LB-X points. (You can, can't you?) Then you need to reactivate all the points for your new loadout. Well, actually — had you purchased them for this specific 'Mech? If you didn't, time for some button clicks, and maybe a microtransaction. Then you've got to work your way down trees, hopscotching to get the right combination of quirks. And you may need to do it three or four times for each system. What if it's not solo queue you're playing. What if four unit-mates are waiting? Heaven forbid you change your mind again and decide to go True Blue on the LBs.


3. Every Solution to Balance Weak 'Mechs with Strong 'Mechs is Awkward
Take the two 100-ton 'Mechs bookending Mech_Con's stage backdrop.

The Atlas needs its brains quirked out to be half-effective. The Kodiak is so powerful it's been nerfed once, and indirectly nerfed twice. In order for MWO not to fold in on itself the day quirked skill trees are released, the Atlas needs some way of at least keeping pace with the Kodiak.

Oh, there are options. But all of them stink.

a. Give the Weaker 'Mech Points to Start With. This is by far the most straightforward solution, and I imagine the first PGI will try in an effort to save the design. Whatever 'Mechs receive in skill points as a baseline, the Atlas receives more. But how many more does it need? The Atlas isn't slightly more quirked than the Kodiak. It's exponentially more quirked than the Kodiak. Does this mean it has four times the skill points? Five? Ten? Is that even enough to match today's (insufficient) quirks? Is a new player ready to invest scores of points? Awkward.

b. Increase the Bonus of Weaker 'Mechs' Skill. Instead of having a Scrooge moneybin of skill points, a skill point would purchase more than 2.5%, or whatever the bonus, so that the same number of skill points could allow the Atlas to reach its current level of quirks. One problem: many 'Mechs are better off than the Atlas but not as good as the Kodiak. A few 'Mechs are worse. This mean every single 'Mech will have a different bonus factor. Hey, our balance solution created a new balance problem! Awkward.

c. Give Weak 'Mechs Deeper Trees. The least baked of the solutions, it nevertheless needs to be identified. If an Atlas needs more quirk bonuses, let the player keep buying them! Except this saddles the player with a kind of 30-year mortgage where they pay their way out of performance debt and finally reach parity long, long after the Kodiak has been getting 1K games like it's breathing air. And, like increased bonuses, every 'Mech will have its own depth. What happens when a tree gets truncated — refund? Awkward.

--

Universalizing quirks is not going to work. Save your dev time and PTS electricity.

My own humble suggestion is to simply make quirks more uniform — less eclectic, looking at you AMS RoF — so that QUIRKS = BETTER all the time, which in turn makes them easier to understand. It doesn't matter if quirks are simple and similar, because MWO provides so many more dials for players to use for customization.

Just trying to help!

Edited by East Indy, 05 December 2016 - 04:25 PM.

[100 Tonne]

its point 3 that I have the major concern with. I thought the quirks mechanic was not only to differentiate the chassis but to buff and nerf if needed mechs.

Edited by Big Grimm, 05 December 2016 - 04:31 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

You have hit most of the issues on the money but I will add one.

The Grind.

Right now it is set at 10,000 XP per skill point or 750,000 XP to Master a mech. Now take your two examples, the Atlas and the Kodiak. As you point out, the Atlas needs a truly massive amount of quirks to make it competitive while the Kodiak really needs none. Even if they do some sort of asymmetrical bonus system where the Altas gains more power from skill, quicker, right out of the gate the Atlas is going to be at a massive disadvantage. The question then is how long before that Atlas will gain enough SP's to offset its initial disadvantage? 10 SP,? 30 SP? 50 SP? 75 SP? Even 10 SP will require about 66 matches if the Altas can earn 1500 XP a match. 50 SP will require over 300. That is a hell of alot of time playing a gimped mech.

[Bud Crue]

...and here come the folks saying "because community members have wanted a redo of the skills tree for a long time".

To which I answer: I thought it was a PILOT skill tree we wanted, not another mech based "tree". At least that is what I wanted. The game play sensation that I...me... was gaining experience and making choices that had real consequences in the game for good and ill. A skills tree where if I chose a path that benefited me in one way, it would cost or even potentially harm me in another. Instead, it appears we have Mech based Skill-Quirks or what I hence forth dub:

"squirks"

Not exactly what I was hoping for.

[MacClearly]

There are so many problems with scrapping not just one system but two and trying to integrate them together. I have no idea if there is any possible way to get PGI to really look at what they are doing and the effects it will have. The levels of complexity that this will add the possible consequences of making a bad decision in the skill tree. That it will limit mechs and screw thing up if stuff changes...

Also the idea of making the grind to achieve good performance out of a mech or not having at least radar derp is nausiating.

[Xzip]

Thank you for that posts. I am frankly worried for some mechs, if there will be any place for them if all skills will be made equal for all mechs and with removing current quirks.

I wrote more in this topic:
https://mwomercs.com...-tree-thoughts/

But to nail my problem - what is point of undergunned Spider if any other light can have same "quirks" and wield more weaponry? What is point of Victor? Of Hunchie with its massive unquirked hunch, Dragon with massive dakka arm, many mechs with bulit in agility boosts?

That system without deeper thought may end with few selected mechs being top because of best hardpoint layout and geometry.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Bud Crue, on 05 December 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

...and here come the folks saying "because community members have wanted a redo of the skills tree for a long time".

To which I answer: I thought it was a PILOT skill tree we wanted, not another mech based "tree". At least that is what I wanted. The game play sensation that I...me... was gaining experience and making choices that had real consequences in the game for good and ill. A skills tree where if I chose a path that benefited me in one way, it would cost or even potentially harm me in another. Instead, it appears we have Mech based Skill-Quirks or what I hence forth dub:

"squirks"

Not exactly what I was hoping for.

Yeah you hit the nail on the head there. I too wanted a pilot skill tree that allowed me to specialize my... lets call it, "Character's" individual skills and allow me to burn up all the excess XP I accumulate on my mechs. This would have been a positive thing that would only work to slowly buff everyone over time and give us a reason to play.

As is though, I can only see the change as being a huge negative. All my 100+ mechs lose their quirks, many of which I purchased specifically because of those quirks. Then based on what they showed at Mechcon, I will have to grind hundreds of matches on each of those 100+ mechs to gain back those lost quirks. The thought of this just sends me into a deep depression.

I mean sure, I would love to add some mobility quirks to my Huntsman or add some armor and/or structure quirks to my Viper, but not at the expense of having to grind out several hundred matches to do so and not at the expense of losing all my quirks on my Phoenix Hawk, Atlas, Linebacker, etc, again especially not when it will take me several hundred matches each to get them back to where they are now.

So I am really, really, really hoping PGI sees the light here and at the very least, reduces the SP cost down to like 1000 XP instead of 10,000 XP each because if they don't, I think we are going to have another Star Wars Galaxies situation where the players are going to leave in droves due to an ill thought out "Enhancement". SWG never recovered by the way.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 05 December 2016 - 05:03 PM.

[AnimosityMonk]

Another quick thought. After the Great Refundening every mastered mech needs to still be mastered. All 75 pts unlocked and enough c-bills to pay for their implementation. There is no way PGI can justify having players regrind mechs that have been mastered for years.

"Give me a 1 to 1 conversion or give me my money back!"

[Bud Crue]

Viktor Drake, on 05 December 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

Victor's comment above

All we can do is wait and see. I hope all our concerns are addressed and it isn't as bad as we fear...or maybe the heavens will open and PGI will bless us with some f--ing explanatory information before the shi7 hits the fan and this goes live.

[Jingseng]

the grind missed an important point.

These skill trees are apparently tied to individual mechs. Not to a chassis, or even a variant.

You will need to sink much more exp into each mech, even of the identical variant, than you already do.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Bud Crue, on 05 December 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

All we can do is wait and see. I hope all our concerns are addressed and it isn't as bad as we fear...or maybe the heavens will open and PGI will bless us with some f--ing explanatory information before the shi7 hits the fan and this goes live.

I wish I had that confidence. Not sure how long you have been around but I still remember being on the Island and Russ ignoring everything every Closed Beta Tester told them about the game. Actually I somehow think we are still on the Island, at least in Russ's mind.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Jingseng, on 05 December 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

the grind missed an important point.

These skill trees are apparently tied to individual mechs. Not to a chassis, or even a variant.

You will need to sink much more exp into each mech, even of the identical variant, than you already do.

Actually I said mech so yeah that includes each mech you own, even if it is the same variant. Of course the issue of having a desire to modify your build on a chassis and not being able to modify you skills to take advantage of that build without re-specing completely has already been brought up by the OP.

[Xzip]

Well, yeaaah, if that will be Russ pony like Long Tom was... it will take long time for us to have our bad mechs playable again. Oh, Spider 5V, I loved you so much when you had to each energy -30% - your 2 MPLs were quite viable with STD 250. Oh, 5K, what will happen to you without 50% cooldown and -25% duration?

[Bud Crue]

Viktor Drake, on 05 December 2016 - 05:22 PM, said:

I wish I had that confidence. Not sure how long you have been around but I still remember being on the Island and Russ ignoring everything every Closed Beta Tester told them about the game. Actually I somehow think we are still on the Island, at least in Russ's mind.

I have no confidence only the same desperate hope that I always have with this game and this dev...that whatever they do they don't f--k it up too bad. No. All I am asking for is information before they go and do what ever it is that they are going to do. Why is that so hard for these people. Wait a sec...you don't think that the reason they keep us in the dark is because they don't have a clue either? Nah...

[Kylere]

Has someone seen something that confirms exp refunded will be a 1:1?

If not, it would really make a difference.

[Deathlike]

The worst part isn't necessarily the grind (although, PGI saw fit to have a Merc XP tree for FW Phase 3... for reasons)... but really that you actually must own the mech before being able to apply efficiencies. I bet many people have sold off all the ugly variants they never plan on using ever again.

With that said, I feel these changes will be "grind to be superior", which would exacerbate the power differential between an ungrinded mech (trials included) vs an optimized mech...

This is the part where PGI has not really understood the grind mechanisms in this game, when applied to the power levels between each chassis. It's going to be self-evident once the Kodiak is still the dominant mech, with the Atlas being woefully behind by default, only barely being OK once "mastered" except the Kodiak's mastery would probably trump it outright.

[FireStoat]

As others have previously posted elsewhere, the time investment on mastering a mech is the key issue to this refund business. It's absolutely possible that the new skill trees will require more time to 'max out' a given specific mech in comparison to what is required with the current system.

It's absolutely UNACCEPTABLE if the refund conversion doesn't match the time taken by the player, hour for hour. It's also unacceptable for those players who spent MC on GExp conversion to not have that MC refunded or evenly addressed in some fashion.

If PGI drops the ball on either of those two points, this forum board will explode with older players with a great deal to lose taking up torches and pitchforks, laying waste to the company's reputation on far more than just this posting board.

[Wecx]

Bud Crue, on 05 December 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

...and here come the folks saying "because community members have wanted a redo of the skills tree for a long time".

To which I answer: I thought it was a PILOT skill tree we wanted, not another mech based "tree". At least that is what I wanted. The game play sensation that I...me... was gaining experience and making choices that had real consequences in the game for good and ill. A skills tree where if I chose a path that benefited me in one way, it would cost or even potentially harm me in another. Instead, it appears we have Mech based Skill-Quirks or what I hence forth dub:

"squirks"

Not exactly what I was hoping for.

I wanted the pilot tree to be faction based =(

[Dracol]

Bud Crue, on 05 December 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

...and here come the folks saying "because community members have wanted a redo of the skills tree for a long time".

To which I answer: I thought it was a PILOT skill tree we wanted, not another mech based "tree". At least that is what I wanted. The game play sensation that I...me... was gaining experience and making choices that had real consequences in the game for good and ill. A skills tree where if I chose a path that benefited me in one way, it would cost or even potentially harm me in another. Instead, it appears we have Mech based Skill-Quirks or what I hence

Not exactly what I was hoping for.

I can see what you propose in a RPG game were you have to make a brand new character to play a differant class. New name, new skills, new skill tree.

But for MWO? We're one pilot with access to a multitude of mechs. The "pilot" skills are our own skills. Aiming, piloting, situational awarness, map knowledge... these we inprove through practice and learning from our mistakes.

Then we have our mechs, our rides. These mechs, in lore, were not Walmart brand mass produced machines. Each one had a history and a character. With enough time in a single, particular mech, a pilot is able to eek out just a little bit more performance. For example, an improved speed for powering up in MWO could be discribed in a novel as "I know I couod cut a second off powering up by hot loading my heat sinks. The tecs will hate me, but my life is on the line."

That is what I always wanted out of the skills tree.

[FupDup]

For the bad mech issue, I think that PGI shouldn't completely wipe out the existing quirk system...They should still retain innate quirks that mechs don't have to unlock. Then, the player can just use the skill tree to stack on top of those default quirks.