814 replies to this topic

[kuma8877]

justcallme A S H, on 09 February 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

'LORE' builds in FP, don't work. Simple as that.

And logically, why would you select multi weapon tiers over better armour/structure? You're instantly putting yourself at a major disadvantage by doing so. Structure/armour/twist are massively important than a mixed loadout.

No one said "lore", thanks. I said a blended and efficient ROLE friendly loadouts.

I would also logically choose nodes that augment deficiencies in specific chassis. Some variants don't need much extra twist, or much more armor than is available in the base variant's stats to be effective. And the points could be better spent in areas that further enhance overall combat effectiveness, playing to available hardpoints on specific chassis (not every variant has great layouts for simple boating but are quite good chassis regardless) or adding extra speed where it wasn't available in the old system, extending sensor range or narc coverage. It's more versatile than you give it credit for. People just haven't had enuf time to see it yet.

Edited by kuma8877, 09 February 2017 - 12:14 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

kuma8877, on 09 February 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

How exactly? It's the class of weapons (All AC's, All lasers, all LRM etc.) you are spending SP on. The current system is one or two weapons (ML, or AC5 or PPC etc). It's now less specific and more open to choice in your actual build. Your small lasers get the same bonus as your ML's LL's and PL's, and your AC2 gets the same as your AC-5,10,20.... on the same chassis variant.

Why would you run a mix of ML / LPL if you can run a boated mech of just LPL that is now better than before?. It's going to work better than current, provided you know how to play it.

How do you not understand this?

Edited by justcallme A S H, 09 February 2017 - 12:06 PM.

[Charli3 Tang0]

Made a thread in the sub forum... thoughts?

https://mwomercs.com...theorycrafting/

[justcallme A S H]

kuma8877, on 09 February 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

No one said "lore", thanks. I said a blended and efficient ROLE friendly loadouts.

Lore, "role" whatever.

Anyone that says "my role" generally thinks bringing lrms and sitting back giving "supporting fire" is actually helping, when, they're not.

[Ravenlord]

Prosperity Park, on 09 February 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

The previous module system encouraged boating a single weapon (AC/5 for example) because modules were weapon-specific, with Mechs that had weapon-specific quirks.

The current system encourages boating classes of weapons (Autocannons, for example).

I don't see any reason to complain about how the new system encourages boating more than the last system, and the Hunchback 4P would like to speak with you about your boating complaints.

But with the old system you could easily swap out your modules for no cost and also were more limited in the benefits you could give your weapons, only cooldown or range. You couldn't for example put heat quirks on the mechs that didn't already have them or ppc velocity quirks. This means that the disadvantage of not having the corresponding modules to all your different weapons wasn't as big or put another way, it was more viable to bring a mixed loadout.

[Racerxintegra2k]

After almost uninstalling the game. I actually went and played on the MWO portal. I choose my Warhammer to test out. Playing it without skills was unbearable so 160k xp and 8 or 9 million cbills later .. it felt normal again. Although i had a really hard time trying to kill a Dragon .. .kept overheating and the Dragon just kept taking hit after hit.

To be honest there is no way i'm grinding all my mechs again. I already did it once. I have 108 mechs at the level that i want to play them at. For this system to be a success it needs to allow people to put there mechs back to the same exact level as they are now WITHOUT charging anything more. Otherwise this is simply resetting the game. Some people are fine with restarting everything. I am not.

[EXEOBUREC]

SuperFunkTron, on 09 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

That's fine by me. If you think its all about who has the most armor, you've clearly not dealt with opponents who use cover and mobility to create an advantage, or scouts who provide intel in FP which helps their team set up in a more favorable position. I'd love to see teams start taking advantage of mobility quirks that will allow them to get behind the armor giants and take them out as a group rather than going juggernaut vs. juggernaut and not allowing variety.

Those who want to find new tactics will have that available, those who don't want to don't have to.

just lets agree that instead of creating normal skill tree with black jack and ..ores where all skill are +-equially good depending of your playstyle pgi just fills too many banches with useless or low effected skills like 5 skills of +0,8% instead of 1 skill +5% and i only try to suggest real way for pgy to fix some fail -they for sure cant do normal skill tree and current situation are even worst with so limited amount of skill point restriction

[BLOOD WOLF]

justcallme A S H, on 09 February 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

Why would you run a mix of ML / LPL if you can run a boated mech of just LPL that is now better than before?. It's going to work better than current, provided you know how to play it.

How do you not understand this?

because it's up to him what he wan't to run and what loudouts he finds effective. Why do people constantly project their own views as if their is only 1 option

EXEOBUREC, on 09 February 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

just lets agree that instead of creating normal skill tree with black jack and ..ores where all skill are +-equially good depending of your playstyle pgi just fills too many banches with useless or low effected skills like 5 skills of +0,8% instead of 1 skill +5% and i only try to suggest real way for pgy to fix some fail -they for sure cant do normal skill tree and current situation are even worst with so limited amount of skill point restriction

you can fill mutiple trees with the skill points. I find myself only doing 3 or so, to suit my mechs needs. Unless I use an omnimech but then there are plenty of skill points available. Unless in the future they reduce them

[Tallyslav]

This is absolutely a progress wipe. More than a thousand hours played down the toilet.

It also punishes people who actually bought and played lots of mechs. (ya know those people who buy mech bays, collectors packs, etc)

I can't understand why they thought this was a good idea, even from a financial point of view. From the looks of it they plan to try to monetize the grind. Yeah that should keep the already small playerbase in their niche game.

[kuma8877]

justcallme A S H, on 09 February 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

Lore, "role" whatever.

Anyone that says "my role" generally thinks bringing lrms and sitting back giving "supporting fire" is actually helping, when, they're not.

You really like putting words in other people's mouths don't you? I have no LRM boat builds in my stable at all, so that doesn't apply to me. But LRM's boats are helped by those who take on the role of narc or ECM coverage, there are roles to be played that help teams win above and beyond maximum damage output.

And to answer your statement about what you think I don't understand, heat efficiency and dps are good reasons to boat more than 1 kind of laser, especially if the bonuses apply across the board to all lasers (or ac's or missles etc.) and you can blend the lasers to actually output more damage quicker than the monoboat approach.

[Thoummim]

Sonny Black, on 09 February 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

And how many of those mechs do you play regularly? Take you top 10(?) master them, then as time goes on (and the spirit moves) work on the 2rd 10 favorites....and on and on.

If I have to re-grind my mechs into master I'll just stop playing period. And I'll pirate mw5 instead of buying it, just to spite pgi.

For your question :

When I play solo 4 (used to be 5 but spider got nerfed into oblivion). I sometimes run unusual build or old mechs but that rare.

When I play in group I use way more than 10 and I use a lot of mechs I dont usually use sometimes just for 1 match but they perform well because they're mastered, I also change a lot of my build to try my friends' build (part of the reason I have no cbills)...

[SpectreTheWizard]

I believe this is an answer to everyone complaining about the 9.1 millon balance needed to change your mech.
Remember, this is FULLY mastering a mech. FULLY as in grinding the cbills for 2 other mechs, setting them up, and playing them till you had every one of your variants basic'd. I would take 9.1 mil over the 20+mil to fully invest in 3 variants of a mech, and especially certain variants who I pick and choose.

[BLOOD WOLF]

kuma8877, on 09 February 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

You really like putting words in other people's mouths don't you? I have no LRM boat builds in my stable at all, so that doesn't apply to me. But LRM's boats are helped by those who take on the role of narc or ECM coverage, there are roles to be played that help teams win above and beyond maximum damage output.

And to answer your statement about what you think I don't understand, heat efficiency and dps are good reasons to boat more than 1 kind of laser, especially if the bonuses apply across the board to all lasers (or ac's or missles etc.) and you can blend the lasers to actually output more damage quicker than the monoboat approach.

Also with the new skill tree it doesn't differ between large and small they are all under the same unbrella

[WildeKarde]

Maybe I missed this already but what happens to mechs that you've mastered and no longer own. Where does that xp go in case I decide to rebuy a mech?

And it doesn't mention where the GXP for module skills gets refunded to. It only mentions GXP spent on mechs

Also having multiple of the same variant share the xp? WTF - that means a mastered mech which now only gets 38 nodes for just being mastered, might be split into 19 nodes if you have two of the same mech.

[BLOOD WOLF]

WildeKarde, on 09 February 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

Maybe I missed this already but what happens to mechs that you've mastered and no longer own. Where does that xp go in case I decide to rebuy a mech?

And it doesn't mention where the GXP for module skills gets refunded to. It only mentions GXP spent on mechs

Also having multiple of the same variant share the xp? WTF - that means a mastered mech which now only gets 38 nodes for just being mastered, might be split into 19 nodes if you have two of the same mech.

Multiple of the same mech don't share,exp. Where did you read that? that would imply that they did?

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 09 February 2017 - 12:39 PM.

[Ravenlord]

Spectre1998, on 09 February 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

I believe this is an answer to everyone complaining about the 9.1 millon balance needed to change your mech.
Remember, this is FULLY mastering a mech. FULLY as in grinding the cbills for 2 other mechs, setting them up, and playing them till you had every one of your variants basic'd. I would take 9.1 mil over the 20+mil to fully invest in 3 variants of a mech, and especially certain variants who I pick and choose.

Except if you actually WANT those other variants you now have to do 3 times the grind AND spend cbills on it while before it was free..
I never saw the need to basic 3 variants of a mech as something negative forced upon me, quite the opposite, I found it to be part of the fun and a nice challenge to get used to and try to get the different variants of a chassis to work, even the "inferior" ones, maybe even particularily those. Basically you were forced to adapt, learn the pros and cons of your chassis instead of just slapping the best quirks on the chassis with the most/best hardpoints, in my conviction ultimately making you a better player.
Sure you had to come up with the cbills for multiple mechs, but you have to pay cbills with the new system, too and get only 1 mech for it..
In some cases like lighter IS mechs the cost for just one mech now is even higher than it was for all 3 mechs before!

Edited by Ravenlord, 09 February 2017 - 12:49 PM.

[Brandiment]

Probably Not, on 09 February 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

Alright. I would argue that ballistic and missile boats don't particularly help with supply lines, as while you may be consolidating your ammo dependencies into one type of ammunition (say, AC/5 ammo) you are probably chewing through that ammo pretty fast anyway and are taxing your supply lines in that manner at least as much as a more "diverse" build. That said... ammo dependency isn't a particularly pressing issue given MWO's battle formats anyway, so (energy)boats don't really tip the balance that hard there. Ballistic boating and missile boating don't really tip the balance terribly hard either except in egregious cases like Dakkabears (oh my god Dakkabears are going to be horrendously OP with this skill tree system dear gods why.) and with the KDK-3 Dakkabear that's a case of one ridiculously-good variant of an already solid chassis. I don't think anyone's going to say that AC5-boating Maulers are OP, or Boomcats/Boomjagers, or even Chaingun Direwolves, right?

Well here's the thing with lore ballistic builds, they actually put out good damage in lore, and without heating up your mech too much either. As for the supply lines, If your unit was involved in a major push on Huntress to destroy clan Smoke Jaguar (which actually happened in 3060) you don't really have to worry about supply lines because of the amount of resources being pushed out to take said planet. However if you are on some small back water planet that the closest supply depot or production facility was a few months away you wouldn't put mechs that required a lot of resources to keep in the fight now would you. Also from my understanding you would not see many mechs that were LRM or SRM dependent in these backwaters either unless they were kept only for defense of strategic areas and the planet would have a enough LRM reloads for them to last until relief arrived. But even as the timeline progresses you see more and more energy boat builds coming from the clans and even the IS so that either side wouldnt have to push as many resources out to take or hold a planet.

Edited by Brandiment, 09 February 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[xe N on]

The costs would be ok, if the system wouldn't be about specific skills to unlock. If instead you could buy "generic" points per mech and distribute those points freely and without respec costs between all skills it would be ok.

However, fixed skill tree with respec costs sucks.

[SuperPignouf]

Hi there. To give some perspective to my feedback : I'm playing the game on a regular basis since a bit more than two years and had the time to grind most of the things I want. I did not play the PTS but watched some reviews on YouTube. This has already been said by others with other words but here I go: I've got two big concerns with the new system.

1. Money drain. If I understand well, each skill point costs 100000 cbills to buy, 25000 to free and 100000 to buy again. This will make respecing and changing loadouts pretty costly, while a great deal of fun in this game comes from screwing around with mechs builds. This will be frustrating for vet players and this may turn new ones away from the game, when they will invest millions of cbills doing and redoing their tree based on their inspiration and limited understanding of the game and the "meta". I really have no issue with the base cost, as eliting a single mech will be cheaper than buying two other variants or buying radar derp and seismic. However, money drains are a bad game mechanism and should be avoided. Please let us buy our pool of skill points for each of our mech then allocate and reallocate them freely with no extra fee.

2. More overspecialisation. Mechs focusing on a single weapon type will have more spare skill points to spare for other trees than mechs with several weapon types (given that they invest points in all their weapon trees). Usually single weapon type builds are already pretty good and I don't see why giving them an extra advantage.

Cheers!

Edited by SuperPignouf, 09 February 2017 - 01:04 PM.

[Michal R]

This is not new skill tree.
You want to give us modules and quirks instead of skills.

Hocus pocus... modules and quirks disappear.... Hocus pocus you have new skill tree.

Nothing new, antoher dead end from you....