SuperFunkTron, on 13 February 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:
Quoted from page 30:
"The last point to really address is the complaint that people won't be able to max out all of their current elite mechs in the new system. I understand the frustration, but I believe it is rooted in misunderstanding. The reality of the new system is not that the new upgrades are equivalent to the old system, but are rather an expansion on them. The tree grew, and thus allow for MORE improvement. I think that is a critical piece of information that wasn't made clear to those with large numbers of mechs and feel that they are not being fairly compensated for their earlier efforts."
Is there an intentional denial of skill tree growth in which people assume that a huge expansion of available skills and integrated modules is equivalent to what we have in the current system? This is at the very least, a COMBINATION of the current skill and module tree. We can all agree that excessive grind for each mech is a bit overkill, but why do people continue to think that just because you achieved all the skill in the current system that they should expect to automatically be full masters of a system that gives them MORE depth? To make it more clear, being angry that you can't max out all of your mechs right away is like upgrading a sports car to the max 600 hp the current system allows and then being upset that it doesn't translate into the new max 900 hp build. Since this is a computer game forum, an even more clear example would be buying the GTX980 graphics card and then getting pissed off when its not equivalent to the GTX 1080 when the upgrade comes in.
You've got a bigger tree so stop thinking that all of your already elited mechs are the same thing as the new 91 mode mastery. This gives us MORE TO DO and it has some how turned into an insult simply because a basic tenant of the expansion is denied. Divide the return you get equally amongst the mechs you have as a starting point, then progress in the EXPANDED tree.
Also, Hastur, do you think the KDK-3 explosion is going to happen because of massive UAC or LBX cooldowns? I just wanted to know which is providing the more game-breaking 5% cooldown bonus so I can be prepared.
I'm using KDK-3 as a collective noun for all meta mechs. Tbh, I didn't even invent the term "KDK-3 Online", someone else did and I'm simply reusing it, as it accurately describes the direction in which this change will push the game.
As for the expansion argument, it's kinda funny that you should mention 5% cooldown in the same post you bring up the "trees have expanded" thingy, because that 5% is a good example of how our 12.5% modules were actually nerfed to 5%, and considering that all weapon-related quirks have been removed from mechs, some mechs have taken a bigger nerf to cooldowns. Otherwise important quirks have exactly the same values: speed tweak is still 7.5%, seismic is 200m, ECM range is the same after upgrades, etc. etc. I'm too lazy to go and pull a side-by-side comparison of what we had before to what we get now when maxed, but other people have done it in this very topic already, so you can go and look.
Yes, we do get more of stuff like acceleration/decceleration, armor/structure and arm pitch/movement rate, but considering that we now have to unlock those for every single mech, and that not all stats will be same or more than before, while every mech now requires almost triple the grind + considerable c-bill investment + none of that is persistent for other/future mechs, I keep standing firmly by a position that we're gonna be getting considerably less for more effort.
SuperFunkTron, on 13 February 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:
Quoted from page 30:
"The last point to really address is the complaint that people won't be able to max out all of their current elite mechs in the new system. I understand the frustration, but I believe it is rooted in misunderstanding. The reality of the new system is not that the new upgrades are equivalent to the old system, but are rather an expansion on them.
Have you actually used the PTS?
If so, why haven't you realised that any benefits of the 'expanded system' are more than negated by:
you have to level nodes that you don't want, to get to the ones that you do want;
you run out of skill points before you are able to level all the skills you want;
the incremental increases in skills are overall much less than those provided by quirks+modules+skills now.
This is not "MORE improvement". This is "less in what you value" plus "improvement you don't want" adding up to "overall LESS". You grind 2.5X Mech XP, you pay 9.1M CBills, you end up with a Mech that's less leveled than the one in your hangar today.
Again, have you actually used the new system and compared the final values it yields to those of your existing Mechs?
People remember that instead of mastering 3 mech's you only need to master one.
and you will be getting reimbursed for most of what you paid for back.
STOP COMPLAINING ! ! !
With so many posts now by people who have actually used the new system, and taken the time to explain its gotchas in some detail, there's really no excuse for ongoing ignorance.
With so many posts now by people who have actually used the new system, and taken the time to explain its gotchas in some detail, there's really no excuse for ongoing ignorance.
I have used the new system and I like it.
It is not perfect by any means. and PGI will and should continue to tweak the system.
I also bought a car with an air conditioning system.
By your "logic", that air conditioning system was a priviledge (sic) and I shouldn't be concerned if the car company decides to replace it with a desk fan at the next service.
How much have you spent on MWO, incidentally?
Your reasoning is flawed as well.
You have not bought MWO. Sure, you have paid money - you've paid money to use their software, their servers, their game.
If they turn off their servers and shut down the game, what have you got? Nothing but the experience of using their game.
You are paying for the privilege of using their game.
The mechs you have "bought" are merely an example of paying for the privilege of using different mechs in their game, for either a different experience or for perceived advantage.
In your example, you own your car.
If your mechanic changes something on your car without your permission, you can sue them. You cannot sue PGI for changing something in their game that you are using.
Property now some of my MAD-IIC to level as they are currently in the hangar.
"Thanks" to the many "garbage" we have to level with, i need at least 22 points more than the 91.
And even then some values (Cooldown only 4% and not 12% for module and 5% for old Skill Tree) would be worse than before.
People remember that instead of mastering 3 mech's you only need to master one.
and you will be getting reimbursed for most of what you paid for back.
STOP COMPLAINING ! ! !
FYI, in the old system players didn't need to master 3 variants of the same chassis, they only had to basic 3 to unlock elite skills. So players would buy three variants, level them all to basic, sell the two variants they didn't like and then master the third.
That would be 57,250 XP to master one mech, and 14,250 for each of the others, for a total of 85,750.
In the new system, it costs 136,500 XP to master a single mech, some 59% greater than the total XP cost of the old system.
So it seems people are perfectly entitled to complain.
People remember that instead of mastering 3 mech's you only need to master one.
and you will be getting reimbursed for most of what you paid for back.
STOP COMPLAINING ! ! !
Its less complaining but more helping pgi keep their player base. If they implement a system that most players dont like and quit playing, they will go broke. Thats why they did the Beta Test an now wait for the Feedback.
Sure sometimes emotions take over and the frustration of many other decisions and not fixed long-term bugs can be seen in some posts, but pgi still needs that feedback more than you might think.
ouch- 9 million cbills to master up one mech? <checks current cbills> well that's 3 of my 163 mechs I can remaster- of the 150 or so of them that currently are mastered. woohoo?
If so, why haven't you realised that any benefits of the 'expanded system' are more than negated by:
you have to level nodes that you don't want, to get to the ones that you do want;
you run out of skill points before you are able to level all the skills you want;
the incremental increases in skills are overall much less than those provided by quirks+modules+skills now.
This is not "MORE improvement". This is "less in what you value" plus "improvement you don't want" adding up to "overall LESS". You grind 2.5X Mech XP, you pay 9.1M CBills, you end up with a Mech that's less leveled than the one in your hangar today.
Again, have you actually used the new system and compared the final values it yields to those of your existing Mechs?
Let me start by pointing out wher we agree. I have repeatedly agreed with the notion that the xp and respec costs are too high, but I would also like to hear PGI's thought process as to why they believe it a fair number (mastering 1 vs 3 variants is not a good justification when the grind for a single mech is excessive.) If they were planning on increasing XP pay out to offset the new requirements it'd make sense, but we have to wait for the next iteration to know where they are going with it.
To answer your question, I have in fact used the PTS. I made sure to use it extensively before voicing opinions on how it plays and then spent even more time analyzing the information in the original post as well as exploring the logic and reasoning as to why the trees are built the way they are.
In regards to the new system, here is an exploration into why the trees were most likely built the way that they were.
Spoiler
In the context of the live server, they seem to be more problematic than helpful. However, in the context of the PTS where heat is much more prevalent (which will eventually reduce # of alphas before overheating), durability is increased, weapon crit increases, and an over all quirk reduction across almost all mechs, the game dynamics will be quite a bit different that what we currently have.
The weapon tress, for example, require more investment to get the full heat reduction or weapon cooldown or heat reduction benefits of a measly 5%. Range benefits are at about 10%, which are something, but not overwhelming at the same time. Even if someone maxes out a tree as opposed to spreading those nodes across multiple, it just translates to an edge over those who spend their nodes in other ways. Choosing mixed weapon trees will provided a milder benefit, but could help extend ranges of shorter range weapons so that they can extend their utility. Maxing a single tree, for example lasers, will give someone an edge if they can maintain range, but they will also be over heating because they just run that much hotter now. The laser boats will actually NEED the that extra 5% heat benefit in order to be able to keep on firing instead of overheating too quickly. I really don't think boating lasers is going to prove to be so much benefit as heat management will increase the time they need to deliver the same amount of damage as the live server.
In the defensive skills tree, an argument can be made that fall damage is a wasted node for many players, but if you were to compare it to a tree in which you increase the cost of more advanced nodes (i.e. a level 4 node would cost 2 SP instead of 1), we are really getting away with a bonus of reduced fall damage in the PTS tree. Yes, it does appear as a waste, but it also provides a benefit that we would not get if nodes had varying SP prices. I am more than happy to get fall damage reduction for free rather than more pay more SP to get only that which is mistakenly perceived as a better deal.
Upper Chassis upgrades are a much trickier area to analyze. Arm Pitch and Speed are questionable nodes to force on clan trees as they have a lot of mechs that can only track up and down and not side to side. Aside from that particular issue, this tree will go undervalued for a long time until people start to think more abut torso twisting and fighting and and torso/arm ranges. Using a summoner with an unskilled torso in the PTS made it feel incredibly sluggish compared to what we have on the live server, which demonstrated that being able to track an enemy wit your torso alone is going to be a slower process. Depending on how it starts to play out in matches, it may become a significantly more valued skill for tanks and brawlers so they ca better distribute damage taken and to generally track faster moving enemies.
The Operations Tree is one that looks to some questionable nodes, but a few make some sense when examined specifically in the context of XP. Quick ignition clearly is most applicable to mechs that will be overheating. Though many will dismiss its value, the fact that heat will play a bigger role in the system means that mechs prone to shut down need to consider that buff more. Heat Containment and Cool Run become an extension of the Quick Ignition as those buffs are not required for builds that are very heat efficient, but are increasingly valuable for those that need all the heat dissipation they can get. Hill Climb and Speed retention are other skills that seems to be unnecessary at first, but if you consider that mechs that need to be careful with their heat will benefit from keeping more of their speed when going over terrain. It is a subtle difference, but its application will lead to those extra fractions of a second being reduced while moving to cover. That coupled with increased overall durability of mechs translates to longer survival and a chance for hot mechs as they gain further benefit from choosing nodes aimed to help cope with heat management. The justification for Magazine Capacity being in this tree only makes sense to me in the context of it being a "mechanical operation". It can be argued that there are a lot of unnecessary nodes required to get this and it should just be a high cost node in a linear tree, but in the PTS system you would gain a lot of benefits, even if just subtle, on the way to unlocking that node.
Infotech and Auxiliary trees mostly offer the acquisition of battlefield intel at an increased rate. By reducing the general effectiveness of those two fields across all mechs, these trees create an important role for scouting and info gathering mechs. It will become less worthwhile for dedicated high damage output mechs to invest in these fields instead of more battle oriented nodes. With ECM currently being a small cost for large benefit, the node cost requires a reasonable investment requires a significant investment to bring out its full potential. Again, the idea of "unnecessary nodes" on the way to get the ECM buffs are really provide better battlefield intel for a mech and its allies to take advantage of. Seismic censor being high cost further adds to the important role of "info" mechs providing that intel benefit but at a cost. Realistically, mechs specializing in infotech will likely end up with smaller weapons perk as the cost for their ability to provide faster targeting info, better ECM coverage, and longer locks to name a few.
I think the people who are claiming that this system wasn't thought really haven't put any time into actually trying to figure out why the trees are set up they way that they are in the context of the new heat and base health values in the PTS. Is it a lot to figure out? Hell yes. This has taken me days to look at different trees, questioning what value they bring to the game and if the ones that people will naturally gravitate to at first are really as valuable as they seem. Filling the majority of the Survivability tree will likely remain a standard, with only 14 out of the 17 nodes needed to get all the armor and structure benefits (2 ams and 1 fall damage node would remain unfilled), it makes sense that those becoming priority nodes. Even if they follow through with the initial costs of 100k per node, 1.4 million is a reasonable cost for 15% more armor and 25% more structure (could potentially be used to free up critical slots on IS mechs that need them instead of using Ferro).
The last point to really address is the complaint that people won't be able to max out all of their current elite mechs in the new system. I understand the frustration, but I believe it is rooted in misunderstanding. The reality of the new system is not that the new upgrades are equivalent to the old system, but are rather an expansion on them. The tree grew, and thus allow for MORE improvement. I think that is a critical piece of information that wasn't made clear to those with large numbers of mechs and feel that they are not being fairly compensated for their earlier efforts.
If you are trying to specifically recreate the benefits of the old tree, you are understandably going to be very disappointed. If you have played on the PTS, you surely would have noticed already the huge change in the game play feel. Mechs feel tankier, run hotter, and lose weapons more often, just to name a few differences. What the over all game play changes translate to is a very different experience over all. Applied percentage changes will not directly translate from the Live server experience to the PTS. A side by side comparison of numbers alone however, does not do justice to the gravity of the changes implemented.
When you consider the PTS as a separate experience rather than trying to translate the Live server experience into the PTS, you can much more clearly explore the value and thought put into the PTS. Combat roles are introduced and given value in the new system. Investment in specific tech provides greater potential benefit than just placing the item itself on the mech to reap the full benefits. Scouting and infotech are by far the clearest examples of the new system's strengths. ECM for example, requires investment in order to get its full benefits, benefits that affect team mates more as they are invested in. Target info gathering speed, target decay, target retention... these are skills that are very useful, but not every single mech needs them if you have one or two players on a team providing that information for mechs that are more concerned with putting out damage. Auxiliary nodes extend scouting value by requiring an investment to provide improved intel gathering. These are things that are generically efficient across mechs in the live server. If the goal was to improve everything compared to the live system, we'd end up with a big jump in power creep as opposed to the PTS addressing power creep by providing a general nerf then allowing players to decide what they believe to be most useful to a specific mech and its intended use. If you need more examples just refer back to the spoiler notes, I've provided a lot in there.
TL, DR:
Don't try to recreate the Live system in the PTS, it leads only to disapointment.
Do look at it as a new system of how you upgrade your mechs from the beginning and consider the context of why PGI thought to place the nodes the way they did. That will allow you to see the thought, complexity, and value the new system provides.
Quote
Again, have you actually used the new system and compared the final values it yields to those of your existing Mechs?
You are trying to drag the old into the new. You are correct that the final values are different, but the application of those values to the two systems yields profoundly different effects. Humor me and take an objective read through the spoiler notes while considering a ground up approach to the new ugrade tree rather than trying to compre end values from the Live server. I'd like to hear your thoughts afterward.
I played a Lot of Video Games in the Last 25yrs. Skilltrees work best in RPGs with actual Character Skills grouped in Tier Levels to unlock gradually when lvling Up the character. In MWO it's in fact a Mech Efficiency Boost/Quirk System. So a Skilltree doesn't make much Sense (why Force it?). On top of it, prices are too high, all this makes the grinding and mech (Re)Configuration expensive and complicated.
My suggestion: Don't do a Skill-"TREE", do it as a Skills-"GRID", no dependencies, just invest some XP-Points to unlock the Skills, and then simply invest XP-Points into Level Ups with a hard Cap of possible Skill Points, so you cannot overpower the Mechs/ have to make tradeoff decisions.
Just undo the Dependencies to avoid wasted Skill Points, can filter Skills (i mean Quirks) for Balancing Matters, can group the Skills by Mech Roles (Scout, Brawler, Tank, Support) so it's visually clear /beginnners friendly what can be a viable Combo. Make it easy to understand/learn (in the UI, Mech Configuration, Skillpoint System, (Ghost)Rules, etc.) but difficult to master (on the Battlefield by Strategie/Tactics).
SuperFunkTron, on 13 February 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:
/detailed thoughtful post
I appreciate your detailed thoughtful response. It's clear you and I have been looking at the new Skill Tree through completely different lenses.
I have the perspective of someone who has played this game with the objective mostly of leveling Mechs, optimising them, and gaining diverse experience of different chassis. From that perspective, the new Skill Tree is a big backward step because Mechs take much longer to level and are less optimised at the end.
On the other hand, you have the perspective of how the the skill tree, in a broader context, drives a different gameplay experience.
We are both 'right' from our own different perspectives.
In fact, I appreciate your perspective on how the skill tree and quirk changes make the game feel and play differently to current. When I look at the changes that way, I'm less depressed about the changes to come. I just need to reorient my approach to the game.
Apologies for not understanding your different perspective at first.
Have been playing this game every day since September last year and have already spent more money on it than any other game i own as i want premium time each month. PGI have been milking me but its ok as I enjoy the time i put in as i can buy mechs with Cbils and modules when i feel like splashing out. Played on the PTS... like the skill tree... but now my old style of play is broken. I have to choose between a new Mech or unlocking NODES... no thanks. My friends who I pulled into the game and myself are moving on. Im guessing im not alone but the grind is just too much.
Edited by StonedMason, 13 February 2017 - 10:15 AM.
Hastur Azargo, on 13 February 2017 - 06:57 AM, said:
I'm using KDK-3 as a collective noun for all meta mechs. Tbh, I didn't even invent the term "KDK-3 Online", someone else did and I'm simply reusing it, as it accurately describes the direction in which this change will push the game.
As for the expansion argument, it's kinda funny that you should mention 5% cooldown in the same post you bring up the "trees have expanded" thingy, because that 5% is a good example of how our 12.5% modules were actually nerfed to 5%, and considering that all weapon-related quirks have been removed from mechs, some mechs have taken a bigger nerf to cooldowns. Otherwise important quirks have exactly the same values: speed tweak is still 7.5%, seismic is 200m, ECM range is the same after upgrades, etc. etc. I'm too lazy to go and pull a side-by-side comparison of what we had before to what we get now when maxed, but other people have done it in this very topic already, so you can go and look.
Yes, we do get more of stuff like acceleration/decceleration, armor/structure and arm pitch/movement rate, but considering that we now have to unlock those for every single mech, and that not all stats will be same or more than before, while every mech now requires almost triple the grind + considerable c-bill investment + none of that is persistent for other/future mechs, I keep standing firmly by a position that we're gonna be getting considerably less for more effort.
You can laugh at my claims of expansion, but if you consider the starting and end points for the PTS vs Live server, you'll see that they are different. PTS starts with many values reduced compared to the live server, creates roles, emphasizes the development and specialization of roles, allows mechs to still accentuate their inherent benefits or compensate for weaknesses, all at the discretion of the player. It even allows you the chance to put a wide variety of modules on each mech for a much lower cost. The catch is that it makes you think about what is most important and thus a priority for each mech. Chasing all the old upgrades from the live server will leave players with a bad taste in the PTS. Your distaste for its understood, but that is also the underlying problem. The PTS isn't trying to achieve the same thing as the Live server. Its presenting an entirely different system of upgrading base values to achieve a very different goal; differentiation of build outs and mech roles through the the improvement of specific upgrades that enhance features of that role's needs. That is in stark contrast to the Live servers goal of making each mech as high damage output as possible. This is evidenced by the across the board improvement in skills with no trade off beyond the actual equipping of the item. High percentage quirks are necessary to make the live system work so that mechs like locusts, spiders, mist lynxes, and kit foxes can maintain value through damage output since scouting and locking mechs for allies is of minimum value.
"While a significant number of Quirks have been removed from various 'Mechs in this PTS, many Quirks do still remain for a number of 'Mech chassis and variants.
In this PTS you'll see a specific focus toward ramping down Offensive Quirks in particular."
This is a quote from the first post where they explain that not all quirks have been removed and that it is a first past at that.
Furthermore, the 2 links below show the IS and Clan quirks adjustments for the first wave of the PTS. It shows that there are still weapon related quirks on many mechs and that "reduction" does not equate to elimination. http://static.mwomer...TS_ISQuirks.pdf http://static.mwomer..._ClanQuirks.pdf
The fact that module benefits got taken down from 12% to 5% appears upsetting at first, but when you consider that this is applied to all mechs equally, it remains a balanced adjustment. Looking through the quirk adjustments, you will notice that there appears to be an attempt to retain the uniqueness of some of these builds, but an over all reduction looks to be the result of tweaking the game mechanics from the ground up.
This clearly is not an erasure of all the previous quirking they did but rather a means to adapt it to the PTS mechanics. Basing your position on a percentages comparison doesn't provide it any strength because it doesn't account for the systemic changes that affect the entirety of game play but rather the mechs alone. That means it lacks the appropriate context it requires to be properly evaluated. Take a look above at post #644. It provides a look beyond just numbers and discusses the nodes in their actual context as opposed to comparing a dog to a cat and being upset the dog poorly climbs trees.
As for cost/grind. I agree wit you there. It shouldn't be overwhelming.
30
SuperFunkTron, on 13 February 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:
