814 replies to this topic

[Calebos]

The game is technically in prealpha status and PGI amateurs want to fiddle with the game system? Simply LOL. :op

Wake up, PGI. There is zillions issues much more important to perform than this cosmetic minority ...

[LordLosh]

• 91 points is to many.
  
• Some mechs should have different amount of points IE: Kodiak3 should have LESS then others
  
• should be way more simple choices. force you to pick a few categories
  
• Level system in the more simple categories. IE you want to spend all points into armor. each point after the 1st boosts less stats then previous
  
• system you have now promotes boating and you say it does the opposite? the more simple choices and less points would help with this
  
• if all my 150 plus mechs that are all mastered majority outfitted with modules dont convert over to having all the points you need to remaster each mech you didn't something horribly horribly wrong.

Please just listen to the community. you hardly ever do and thus why majority of us are so salty and upset.

[Kael Posavatz]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 11 February 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

Speaking of "good feedback" ... paying to unlock a SP and re-use it, no problem. Paying to unlock a node, and then having to pay to buy a new one is a bad move.

Are you suggesting that nodes be a one-time unlock, sort of how GXP only has to be expended once to skill-up current modules?

I can sort-of see that working for some mechs, but you're talking about potentially 30million+ c-bills on skill-nodes. Yeah, not every mech can field every weapon type, or has jump jets, but omnis (and with a timeline advancement IS omnis are on the horizon) can accommodate radical payload shifts that do make the vast majority of nodes at least not a total waste.

[Ravenlord]

Kael Posavatz, on 11 February 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

Are you suggesting that nodes be a one-time unlock, sort of how GXP only has to be expended once to skill-up current modules?

I can sort-of see that working for some mechs, but you're talking about potentially 30million+ c-bills on skill-nodes. Yeah, not every mech can field every weapon type, or has jump jets, but omnis (and with a timeline advancement IS omnis are on the horizon) can accommodate radical payload shifts that do make the vast majority of nodes at least not a total waste.

No, I think he speaks about SP, meaning you pay for a SP which you then can allocate and reallocate as you please. With 91 SP the initial cost would be the same 9.2 million (which is still far too much imo) while respecing would be possible to your hearts content without further cost.

[SuperFunkTron]

LordLosh, on 11 February 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

if all my 150 plus mechs that are all mastered majority outfitted with modules dont convert over to having all the points you need to remaster each mech you didn't something horribly horribly wrong.

If you have taken a closer look at the new system, you would see that there is not a 1 to 1 translation of the current upgrades to the new. Furthermore, the new system allows for upgrades above and beyond what is currently available, i.e. "more modules", selection of preferred upgrades, upgraded durability, etc.

As an example, lets assume that the current system's upgrades would equate to 70% of what the new tree offers in potential upgrades. It is grossly unreasonable that you receive increased value over what you already put in just because you reached one level of mastery. Them expanding the upgrade system gives you more upgrade potential, not the same or less.

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

Step 1 : Reduce overall heat capacity and dissipation.
Step 2 : Have MC only Coolant that is better than C-bill coolant.
Step 3 : Profit? or loss of customers?

[Zergling]

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Is that based on the current or PTS server? If it plays the same then you are generally correct on this point. But that isn't to say that there aren't inherent benefits to players who can take advantage of that more than you and I would. Making it necessary on the way to buying better nodes may function as a skill buffed on the way to making certain nodes more expensive, or it may legitimately be overkill if arms move that quickly to begin with in the PTS.

On both the current and PTS server.

I've tested upper chassis and jumpjet skill trees in the testing grounds, and the difference feels so small compared to the lower chassis and weapon trees that they just aren't worth bothering with.
Maybe the other trees need nerfs, but unless they are nerfed to the point of being near useless, it still won't make the upper chassis and jumpjet trees useful; those trees just need buffs.

Default arm movement rate is very high (frequently breaking 200 degrees/second; I believe the slowest is 100 degrees/second), so any buffs to it are pointless; they are better off changing that bonus stat to something more useful.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

I'd really like to know where you get these "facts". Did you read it on some "winners blog" somewhere? Being better at something does not equate to better knowledge. That is the same as saying weight lifters are inherently better physicist or physiologist because they know how to lift better than someone who studies the science of it. While that knowledge is of benefit to the lifter, his ability to lift more weight does not translate to scientific knowledge. In this game, there are behavioral, psychological, motor skill, and critical thinking factors to consider before even getting into the social variables that dictate how players perform.

Well duh, the skill and knowledge sets of a weight-lifter are completely different from a physicist.

In MWO however, there is only a fairly small level of 'motor skills' that make a player good; it is mostly knowledge and understanding of the game that makes a player good.

So when a player is demonstratively good at MWO, they are demonstrating a good understanding and knowledge of the game.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Playing with a group experimenting with builds, testing strategies... these are all things that have an effect on how the game is.

I don't play with a group; I'm a 100% solo player at the mercy of the random matchmaker teams like most players (and I'm due to hit Tier 1 within my next 100 battles).

I also do a fair bit of build experimentation (in fact, I rarely play the same mech for more than a few dozen battles), and try to develop better tactics all the time.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

To assume that a player is good based only on his damage output is a gross oversimplification , but I'll let you have this one, you're likely better than me.

I never assume a player is good or bad solely on damage output or average match score, as relying on a single performance statistic is never a good.

I weight a player based on their combined W/L, K/D, K/B and average MS on the leaderboards (there is no average damage stat on the leaderboards, but average MS is mostly influenced by damage).

W/L can be skewed by playing in a group, but the other stats, over multiple seasons and hundreds of battles, can provide a fairly accurate assessment of typical performance for that player.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Despite this, it in no way means that you are able to discuss game mechanics better than people who use their brains and look use more objective and analytical reasoning. You yourself pointed out that you are all about optimizing in a singular fashion and not wasting time on other things.

Except as I pointed out above, success at MWO comes from understanding the game mechanics at a deep level, so they do understand what works and what doesn't, what is important and what isn't, all at a better level that less successful players.

Logic alone isn't sufficient; knowledge is required too.


Note that even if a player copies 'optimal' builds, it won't make them score as good as a genuinely high skill player, because they lack the understanding and knowledge to make use of such a build.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

We can flop contest all day if it makes you feel better. I told you I'm constantly testing things out and I expect my score to be lower. Its good for you that you pull a high average score and are proud of it.

It wasn't just high average matchscore I pulled off in Season 6, but high W/L, K/D and K/B ratios.


And the same excuse about testing things applies to me too; unless I can pull off absurdly high scores like I did in Season 6, I'll be constantly testing out and trying to improve builds.

Eg, take the Executioner that I played in Season 4; I was never happy with my performance in that mech, so was constantly alternating between a variety of builds.
I still don't know what would be an optimal build for me in that mech, as I finished mastering it before I found anything I was satisfied with.

Or as an example of where I had terrible performance while testing, then considerably increased my performance once I found an optimal build, there's when I started playing my Blackjack Arrow again in Season 7, after machineguns were buffed.
For my first 4 battles I was testing various 6x MG builds, and I scored terribly, just 0.33 K/D, 0.25 K/B and 305 damage/battle.
I then gave up on trying to build the mech as a MG boat, and swapped to a triple ER Large Laser build; in the next 6 battles it took to finish mastering the mech, I averaged 4.00 K/D, 2.00 K/B and 748 damage/battle.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Still doesn't mean that your game knowledge is absolute and unquestionable.

Nobody has an absolute and unquestionable knowledge of any topic, and not just because there is always some better, but because nobody is perfect; people have gaps in their knowledge of subconcious biases.

Eg, I won't make any claims about the best ways to build specific mechs that I haven't played myself, unless I've heard other respected and knowledgable player opinions on the topic.
Even when I'm talking about mechs I've played, I'll sometimes defer to knowledge of others if I know some ways I do things simply come down to quirks in my playstyle, and won't apply to everyone else.

However, in an argument between a low/average skill and a high skill player, when the argument is based around understanding of game mechanics, (like what works and what doesn't work in the game), then it is highly likely the high skill player will be correct, because the high skill player has a much deeper understanding of those game mechanics.

Will the high skill player be correct all the time? Nope, but they usually will be. Or at least, they'll usually be closer to correct than the lower skill player.

SuperFunkTron, on 11 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Must've been that other Zergling then...

I've seen one or two players with similar names.

[Sergeant Miles]

I'm not able to imagine how much time will be lost in this new skill tree.

I have well over 30+ mechs.. each fill with maxed out modules.. I just can't imagine how much that's worth yet..wow..

I have every single mech and pilot module unlocked...ALL of them.

Am I able to unlock everything again? It's doesn't feel like it.

The countless hours spent matching the modules to the mechs..gone.

This feel like a rip off for me.. I'm looking at loosing out..

I just can't see unlocking everything all over again with what they give back.

This might be a better system .. but.. me and players like me aren't going to get them same value as new players.

Also, I think that players should be better compensated for time lost in game for the lose of the all the modules that are going away.

Players should get a kickback for each year they played and had any modules unlocked.

And honestly, I just don't think that piloting is like the skill tree that they are planning is NOTHING like a real pilot would us to build their talents.

I think that PGI should consult with real jet pilots and tank pilots.. then redo the skill trees.

[Uncle Totty]

I would like to see this skill tree thing just dropped, and for us to just get mods with pros and cons to them.

(I would also like Pin-point alphas to be nerfed with dynamic reticle shake, but we all know THAT will never happen.)

Edited by Uncle Totty, 11 February 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[SuperPignouf]

Hi there, 

I wanted to react to Fantastic Tuesday video about how skill tree should be all about making mutually exclusive choices and his comparison with World of Warcraft trees. Zergling already showed a few comments ago how it is possible for each mech to pile all defensive nodes with a good chunk of sensors, operation and mobility while leaving enough for one type of weapon. Not much customization indeed.
I'd like to discuss how a mutually exclusive tree should be implemented and I just built one rudimentary one for discussion basis.

Here is my reasoning :
1) wow like tree with stages of 3 choices each. The player can chose a single node from any floor without needing to have previous floors unlocked.

2) each floor has a defense node, an offense node and a more utility oriented node.

3) the nodes on a same floor should give comparably strong bonuses (choices between nodes should be non obvious), each tailored to further specialize the mech

4) to make it more "real", each stage represents a part of the mech, say cockpit, sensors or arms internals. It reflects the skill and understanding of the mech of a pilot and his repair crew.

5) my sample tree has been made mainly with IS mechs in mind. It aims to address IS versus clan and STD versus XL balancing by giving the opportunity (at the cost of other strong bonuses) to run XL without dying from ST loss, to buff tankiness and twist speed when running STD, to add free slots in arms and torsos (thus allowing an IS mech to bring ferro more often, or put two uac5 in a XL ST for instance)

6) there is a small take on information warfare by giving a node allowing to share results of seismic sensor on the minimap and target info (all members of a team could see a pop up near the target of a mech running said node with it's info, allowing to pinpoint weak component of a mech you did not even target)

7) clan mechs should receive a partially different tree

8) underpowered mechs like the hunchback, Victor, Orion, cataphract, highlander... Should still receive quirks or special nodes in the tree tailored to their specific needs

9) I did not put any number in my tree because that's where all the balancing goes and the content of my nodes are mostly placeholder. The whole point of this is to show that a WoW like tree is superior and allows better customization than a "grab everything you need without having to make difficult choice" tree like they are proposing

I wrote it one my smartphone so there is not much mise en page going on. Below each floor you have the three nodes separated by //.

_Legs internals
Structure buff // more ammo in leg mounted ammo// improved accel/decel

_Legs externals
Armor buff // improved turn rate // improved leg mounted jump jets

_Arms internals
Structure buff // 1 extra slot per arm // cooldown for arm mounted weapons

_Arms externals
Armor buff // increased heat dissipation for arm mounted heatsinks // projectile velocity and range for arm mounted weapons

_Torso internals
Structure buff // torso speed // 1 extra slot per torso

_Torso external
Armor buff // increased heat dissipation for torso mounted heatsinks (not including engine) // projectile velocity and range for torso mounted weapons

_Cockpit
Less shake and explosion blind // zoom + advanced heat and night vision // advanced com array (share results of seismic sensor and results of target info with team)

_Sensors
Target decay // target info gathering // seismic

_Engine
Speed tweak // engine mounted heatsinks heat capacity and dissipation // improved engine casing (extra torso structure, armor and twist rate from STD engine casing or no negative effect from losing one ST with XL engine)

_Paint
Camouflage (longer enemy targeting time) // radar deprivation // repulsive paint (slight reduction in incoming damage)

_Weapons operation
Weapons overload (cooldown and heat gen) // fine tuning (spread, jam chance and beam duration) // long barrels and refined beams (projectile velocity and weapon range)

Cheers!

Edited by SuperPignouf, 11 February 2017 - 10:25 AM.

[Arkhangel]

For all you guys whining about it, obviously PGI is listening somewhat, as this coming out has been delayed a month now, pending a review of things.

fact also remains, regardless of what they do, some of you are such vehement whiners at PGI you'll complain regardless. And while a lot of you say "this will cost the game players" I note no one's thought of the players who'll be coming BACK because this comes out, which WILL happen. You can never make everyone happy.

[Kael Posavatz]

Poptimus Rhyme Wallace, on 11 February 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Step 1 : Reduce overall heat capacity and dissipation.
Step 2 : Have MC only Coolant that is better than C-bill coolant.
Step 3 : Profit? or loss of customers?

Paul Inouye, on 08 February 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Regarding MC vs CB consumables.

You guys have found an error. It is not intended that the MC versions of Air/Arty/UAV outperform CB versions. This will be corrected prior to release.

So, yeah, something was left out and they plan to put it back in.

If it is a stand-alone set of unlocks all well and good. If nodes are tied to specific mechs, or are not otherwise 'restriction-free' then MC consumables become a very much play-to-win mechanic.

Ravenlord, on 11 February 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

No, I think he speaks about SP, meaning you pay for a SP which you then can allocate and reallocate as you please. With 91 SP the initial cost would be the same 9.2 million (which is still far too much imo) while respecing would be possible to your hearts content without further cost.

I could see that working, and if the case then I'd probably be willing to shell out even that many c-bills. But it's pretty clear that they want to monetize the game mechanic and to a degree I can't blame them. But as-is this is a bit much.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 11 February 2017 - 11:09 AM.

[Apollo777]

I like the idea that you can specializing your mechs,but this is too expensive (specially for new players), and in some cases you have to unluck some useless nodes to reach the one you really need!

[snipercam7]

Kael Posavatz, on 11 February 2017 - 11:06 AM, said:

So, yeah, something was left out and they plan to put it back in.

If it is a stand-alone set of unlocks all well and good. If nodes are tied to specific mechs, or are not otherwise 'restriction-free' then MC consumables become a very much play-to-win mechanic.

Honestly, I'd like to see a split in the current skill-tree plan.

Mech-tree and Pilot tree.

Mech tree: Mobility, Defense, Heat Management, Weapons.

Pilot: Consumables, Sensors.

Then we can start inventing new Pilot skills, and new Mech skills that have both positives and negatives.

For example: PPCs now generate 5 more heat, but splash damage is increased by 50%, or Gauss now draws an extra 5 energy, but fires as a click rather than charge mechanic.

Your mech can now twist 360, but the structure is reduced by 75% and the armour on the CT is now circular.

[Exbe]

I found xml files with skills in the game, but does anyone know where to find actual graph per class?

[mad kat]

After some more fiddling i've discovered that the historic xp doesn't transfer from the mech to the current mech in one go it always leaves a couple of hundred left over which you have to transfer again. Also i was under the impression that xp gained would of been for general use as GXP as per the previous messages from PGI to be applied where you want. Not locked to each mech again.

Now i've just tried my Awesome 8Q and decided to buff the ppc's and Armour and maneuverability even fully quirked it fired much slower and hotter than before. This thing is crap the supposed Meta of overpowering mechs clearly won't happen as the system can't even benefit boating properly. How on earth your'e supposed to optimize mechs with different weapon system like say a Zeus 6T with SRM's, AC10 and medium lasers.

[SuperFunkTron]

mad kat, on 11 February 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

After some more fiddling i've discovered that the historic xp doesn't transfer from the mech to the current mech in one go it always leaves a couple of hundred left over which you have to transfer again. Also i was under the impression that xp gained would of been for general use as GXP as per the previous messages from PGI to be applied where you want. Not locked to each mech again.

Now i've just tried my Awesome 8Q and decided to buff the ppc's and Armour and maneuverability even fully quirked it fired much slower and hotter than before. This thing is crap the supposed Meta of overpowering mechs clearly won't happen as the system can't even benefit boating properly.

I think all mechs across the board are running hotter than before. The heat management quirks also have a lower total dissipation effect and I think that is the new way they intend to encourage fire control.

[MovinTarget]

mad kat, on 11 February 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

After some more fiddling i've discovered that the historic xp doesn't transfer from the mech to the current mech in one go it always leaves a couple of hundred left over which you have to transfer again. Also i was under the impression that xp gained would of been for general use as GXP as per the previous messages from PGI to be applied where you want. Not locked to each mech again.

Now i've just tried my Awesome 8Q and decided to buff the ppc's and Armour and maneuverability even fully quirked it fired much slower and hotter than before. This thing is crap the supposed Meta of overpowering mechs clearly won't happen as the system can't even benefit boating properly. How on earth your'e supposed to optimize mechs with different weapon system like say a Zeus 6T with SRM's, AC10 and medium lasers.

They do this weird auto-calc thing as you are typing in the amount you want convert, you basically have to know how much you want to covert before you start typing b/c it starts shifting as soon as you start typing...

Yeah they took away a bunch of the quirks for the PTS... i am assuming they'll keep some of them or certain mechs will be absolutely screwed.

[Unnatural Growth]

Personally think the new skill tree is hot garbage. Too expensive in both xp and cbills. Plus being forced to "buy" certain skills you don't want or don't fit your mech role in order to drill down to the skills you do want. So much for being able to specialize. Poor model, poorly visualized, poorly implemented. Just PGI. Nothing to see here, move along.

HBS here comes my attention, my play time, and my wallet.

[MovinTarget]

OldOrgandonor, on 11 February 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

Personally think the new skill tree is hot garbage. Too expensive in both xp and cbills. Plus being forced to "buy" certain skills you don't want or don't fit your mech role in order to drill down to the skills you do want. So much for being able to specialize. Poor model, poorly visualized, poorly implemented. Just PGI. Nothing to see here, move along.

HBS here comes my attention, my play time, and my wallet.

I get what they are trying to do, slow down the over specialization with certain skills by forcing you to get (most) other skills before getting the best ones.

I still feel that if they are going to do skill trees it would make more sense to make the progressions discrete and linear for each skill sub-category but progressively more expensive so that the diminishing returns hit a point where you are either going "all in" to a fault, or you can have a relatively well rounded, robust skill selection, or somewhere in between.