814 replies to this topic

[Carl Vickers]

Kael Posavatz, on 15 February 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

I think 'very bad' is, perhaps, a bit strong. Perhaps 'not very good' would be better.

Still, I would have liked it as a fall PTS sequence since this feels like it might go somewhere worthwhile unlike InfoWar and Energy Draw. As it is, I worry that relative lack of time that can be dedicated to this will result in a product that is rushed and fails to reach its full potential.

Thats pretty much par the for the course with PGI. Id be happy for it to take another 2-3 months to come out, as long as it is actually ready and not rushed, guess we will just have to wait and see.

[Dee Eight]

Mechsniper, on 15 February 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

I currently have 160 mechs elited out in my hanger. At he current planned level I will only be able to elite 190/9= 20.87 mechs.

Are you referring to elited as mechs which have all the elite skills unlocked and earned the little green elite badge on the inventory, or mixing in the ones with the gold/orange master badge that unlocks the extra weapon module ? There is a difference between the two, and unlocking all 91 nodes on the new system is what they'll be calling mastered. I have about 165 "mastered" mechs under the existing skill system, 20 elited and 24 still in the basics.

Quote

A new player would have to play for months on average just to get a drop deck of mechs in order to play competitively in Facton Play.

How does 9.1 million additional over the mech price times four mechs come out as months of average play ? Who's average exactly ? Right now to be "competitive" in faction play you need to pay for the mechs you want, 2 extra variants of each, skill the four you that fits the deck tonnage limit to the master level to fit the maximum number of modules, and then buy 3 to 6 modules for each of those mechs in your deck.

Quote

There are much better ways to get my money and new players money PGI.
1) Let us choose camo in dropship. This seems to be obvious but you have never caught on. You would sell many times the amount of camo and colors if it meant anything.
2) Let us choose mechs in dropship. The guy spending MC on mechs will buy 2 or 3 of his favorite and kit them out. No one wants to be forced to run a ssrm mech in alpine or snow maps, yet you make them. That is not fun. Or an LRM boat in escort with the map ecm'd where they cant even lock to fire with tag, bap, and artemis all equipped. Also, no fun and this is why people disconnect or suicide on that mode. Again, why haven't you caught this. If I take a brawler to alpine, it should be because I plan on using cover and having fun ambushing ppc/gauss boats, not because you stuck me with it. No commander would send in brawlers in an open terrain willingly.
3) Modules should have been available for MC, as well as c-bills. Seems too easy, many people would have gladly paid 1000MC for a module rather than grind out 6 million MC. The same could apply to skill blocks. Available for cblls+xp, or pay MC. I have no issue with MC buying access to abilities in game as long as people can grind out the same abilities in appropriate amounts of time playing.

getting money out of you, one individual is not how PGI should be catering their game development, because you do not represent or speak for all players.

MovinTarget, on 15 February 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

Yeah i know the feeling... even with refund i am getting... (did I really buy over 300 weapons modules and 100 seismic/radar derp modules?)... i would only be able to master *maybe* 176 mechs (180 if i drain my current cbills too)... out of the 260 i own, most of which are mastered, the rest elited...

Don't forget other inventory of equipment, omnipods, weapons. I myself don't particular see a need to keep 60 C-ERML's in inventory...

[CH4CH]

1. This system is poorly design.
2. It's discourage the customized abilities, due to the very high costs and unswapped ability.
3. It's buffing the META, so that will be Meta Warrior Online after this system had been put in the servers.

How about each mech has its own AI core, like 12 slots that you can put in the varieties of skill modules in.
First it come with basic 3 slots, then working steps until reach 12 slots for full modules to put in. modules will designated how to build the mech to be, such as brawler, ranger, scout ect.

Each module should have pros and cons, ie module for adding armor level 5 = 15% and its will slow down the mech about 10% and heat capacity decrease 5% due to heavy load engine. or Guass rifle level 5 penatration = 15% but reduce range in 10% and need 5% more cool down time.

Edited by CH4CH, 15 February 2017 - 06:59 PM.

[Trev Firestorm]

Dee Eight, on 15 February 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Just because that's what you do and how you play doesn't make his/her statement baseless, nor mine, nor superfunk's, nor any other player who aren't in a crying tantrum panic over the new skill tree.

Arkhangel, on 15 February 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

basically goes back to what i said before. really, the only people who get punished by the new are metafags, and even then, not that much. i mean, hell, if you use the same mech in diff builds a ton, odds are you're going to get the xp on it and c-bills you need quickly anyways.

Try again. Casual collectors get ******, players that leave and return every so often dropping cash on the game now and then come back to find their mechbay gimped. Its all around bad. Ditch initial costs and up the respec cost.

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 15 February 2017 - 07:00 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Trev Firestorm, on 15 February 2017 - 06:54 PM, said:

Try again.

Pointless to bother if that's how you respond.

And as to your edit after you posted a mere "try again."

Quote

Casual collectors get ******, players that leave and return every so often dropping cash on the game now and then come back to find their mechbay gimped. Its all around bad. Ditch initial costs and up the respec cost.

Its especially pointless considering you're someone who clearly barely plays the game at all, and you're shooting down the opinions of those who actually DO play the game. You've had less than 100 QP games in 8 months... and none at all since December... and zero FW games since the Phase 4.1 reset of the leaderboards.

No game company should EVER put product development on hold because of casual gamers who disappear for months on end and will complain when they come back to find things not how they left it as far as their "mech garage" is concerned (or tank bays in WoT, or whatever other equivalent in Overwatch, Star Wars, etc).

Edited by Dee Eight, 15 February 2017 - 07:20 PM.

[CDaemon04]

I have one friggin radar deprivation module i keep switching around and ill be losing that one too. essential and existential modules/skills need to be accesible right off the bat. that radar deprivation module is the one thing that kept saving so many mechs lower torsos. especially mine. there has to be something good for this.

first it was use xp to unlock and then buy the module.
now it is both in one step which is a step in the right direction.

some of the mech-skill nodes are plain wasted xp and cbills. I think they have to become a little more seperated into a linear system. speed tweak at the end of the line at the bottom is a lot to grind.

weapon module wise it is the same. for instance range and spread and charge for gauss is something id never use (its more like a bow with the trigger-click-thingy)
has to become little more general or seperated. general would be more like all missiles energy weapons or ballistics. seperating the range from cooldown and spread and range and velocity would be more of a thing. this would make the mechs insta op for people getting refunds but more accesible to newer players. without some of the efficiencies some mechs and their loadouts will make it harder then it is already.

good intentions of pgi and i hope this overhaul will succeed positively rather than all the mishaps til closed beta and that founders thing back in the day.

[Arkhangel]

@Cdaemon: in fairness, IGP meddled far too much early on, or we woulda got that stuff. IGP forced them to release earlier than they should have, so they were forced to adapt. mean, hell, Quirks were only ever meant as a stopgap measure, they were never meant to make or break a chassis. IS guys used to do just fine against clans starting out, and we were without quirks for a good two-three months back then.

if nothing else, PGI's finally getting out what they meant to in the beginning, just like CW coming out a few years back, and it getting more involved and improved this year. there's a lot of whiners saying they'll quit, but I think some people don't realize this change will probably also pull other people back into it too.

[Dee Eight]

CDaemon04, on 15 February 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

I have one friggin radar deprivation module i keep switching around and ill be losing that one too. .

I have seven, three came from cache openings. One I bought. Three came with mech packs. As I understand it they'll be replacing modules in the caches with decals, thought not sure how that will work if you already own the decal you open. Personally I think they should reward more large cbill and GXP awards.

Edited by Dee Eight, 15 February 2017 - 10:13 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

Arkhangel, on 15 February 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

@Cdaemon: in fairness, IGP meddled far too much early on, or we woulda got that stuff. IGP forced them to release earlier than they should have, so they were forced to adapt. mean, hell, Quirks were only ever meant as a stopgap measure, they were never meant to make or break a chassis. IS guys used to do just fine against clans starting out, and we were without quirks for a good two-three months back then.

if nothing else, PGI's finally getting out what they meant to in the beginning, just like CW coming out a few years back, and it getting more involved and improved this year. there's a lot of whiners saying they'll quit, but I think some people don't realize this change will probably also pull other people back into it too.

One issue with what you have said, yes they are making the game better now after years of basic stagnation due to development of MW5 which appears to be having been being done in the background while MWO languished to its present state.

I will say that they now seem to be doing more, hope they keep it up.

[SuperFunkTron]

I keep seeing a request for more linear trees that increase node cost as more advanced nodes are purchased. Does anyone else see that this suggestion essentially says "I don't want to have to gain other bonuses to get what I want for the same cost"? If node costs were raised in a linear fashion, say from 1 to 5, by the time you hit level 3 you have paid 6 nodes for one skill and at 5 you have paid for 15 nodes. There are very few skills in this system that would take 15 nodes to max out, full speed tweak being the most noteworthy exception. You could come to filling out most trees with 15 nodes, but somehow there is a thought process convincing people that linear trees that increase cost with depth is a better deal. I am starting to question the quality of my teachers.

[Willothius]

SuperFunkTron, on 15 February 2017 - 10:24 PM, said:

I keep seeing a request for more linear trees that increase node cost as more advanced nodes are purchased. Does anyone else see that this suggestion essentially says "I don't want to have to gain other bonuses to get what I want for the same cost"? If node costs were raised in a linear fashion, say from 1 to 5, by the time you hit level 3 you have paid 6 nodes for one skill and at 5 you have paid for 15 nodes. There are very few skills in this system that would take 15 nodes to max out, full speed tweak being the most noteworthy exception. You could come to filling out most trees with 15 nodes, but somehow there is a thought process convincing people that linear trees that increase cost with depth is a better deal. I am starting to question the quality of my teachers.

The reason is that this way you really have to choose to 'specialize' (deep into a tree of expensive nodes), or to be an all rounder (unlock more and cheaper nodes).
Example: get your SRM cooldown aaaall the way to -15% but no laser buffs cause you're out of points, or settle for only -5% and plenty of points left for some laser and ballistic stuff. Right now, that's also possible, but increasing the cost strongly promotes this.
It's called Diminishing Returns, it actually is a proven principle. Science!

[Hastur Azargo]

So, in case you haven't seen this...



Yep, it's official. The system has been designed right off the bat to:

• destroy persistent/long term investment,
  
• tax experimentation,
  
• punish trying out specs that didn't work out,
  
• discourage variety,
  
• discourage non-meta mechs and builds,
  
• increase the grind and punish players that don't play a lot.

All like we said. All of the apparent negatives of this system are intended design. Also, Russ seems to think that adding to the exp may in fact bring in more players. I can't say I have actual metrics on this, but I have a strong impression that when f2p games increase the grind they lose players. I know I and others that don't like this system will feel less incentivized to play if the system goes live like this, but only time will tell if we're in the minority.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Hastur Azargo, on 16 February 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

So, in case you haven't seen this...

• destroy persistent/long term investment,
  
• tax experimentation,
  
• punish trying out specs that didn't work out,
  
• discourage variety,
  
• discourage non-meta mechs and builds,
  
• increase the grind and punish players that don't play a lot.

I don't know how you took him coming to he thought of maybe bringing the cost down to your brilliant list of bullet points.

Russ: Cost may come down but I don't want respecs to be free.
player: Let me start listing of a number of conclusions that could not have possible been translated from your post.

Nowhere did russ say that he wanted to increase the grind. As a matter of fact he said that it would be roughly the same. Granted they need to come down to a mill for respecs

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 February 2017 - 12:50 AM.

[Hastur Azargo]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 February 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

I don't know how you took him coming to he thought of maybe bringing the cost down to your brilliant list of bullet points.

Russ: Cost may come down but I don't want respecs to be free.
player: Let me start listing of a number of conclusions that could not have possible been translated from your post.

Nowhere did russ say that he wanted to increase the grind. As a matter of fact he said that it would be roughly the same. Granted they need to come down to a mill for respecs

Costs coming down from what we have on PTS is still costs introduced compared to zero costs we have now on live. Some costs >> zero costs. The rest of conclusions are plain logic. And Jesus H. Christ, do we really need to start the whole 136500 XP is more grind than 55000 XP thing again? It doesn't matter if Russ said the grind is roughly the same. The grind is more than twice the size, and has a c-bill overhead. These are plain facts.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Hastur Azargo, on 16 February 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

Costs coming down from what we have on PTS is still costs introduced compared to zero costs we have now on live. Some costs >> zero costs. The rest of conclusions are plain logic. And Jesus H. Christ, do we really need to start the whole 136500 XP is more grind than 55000 XP thing again? It doesn't matter if Russ said the grind is roughly the same. The grind is more than twice the size, and has a c-bill overhead. These are plain facts.

I think your right. No cost for re spec. As long as people lose the XP they used for spec'ing if they respec, maybe that's too far

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 February 2017 - 12:57 AM.

[Hastur Azargo]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 February 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

I think your right. No cost for re spec. As long as people lose the XP they used for spec'ing if they respec, maybe that's too far

What's too far is introducing costs for respecs without explaining why. XP grind is increased. This is a fact. C-bill grind is increased. This is also a fact. Russ says that he doesn't want free respecs, but he doesn't explain why. This is why we have almost 40 pages of discussing whether what's happening was intended (which is finally confirmed) and what was the possible reasoning behind this. This could be avoided if PGI stated the need to do this in the first place, or better yet, came forth and asked the community whether or not we want this before they started working on it.

As it is, it's just a considerable increase in grind attached to a skill tree system that could have introduced variety but didn't, because all mechs have the same skill-trees and the skills in them mirror the quirks/skills we already had (with values that aren't always higher), there is no groundbreaking innovation like distinctive roles or anything, so it's a non-solution to a non-problem, and it came completely out of the blue.

[Hastur Azargo]

Actually, I digress, there's a magazine size quirk in the skill trees, so that's gotta count for something. :DDD

[Ronald McDonald]

Just my 2 Cents:

If you (PGI) dont reimburse the old xp with the new xp AND credits you can shut down your servers right now.

[Fester Blatz1980]

BLOOD WOLF, on 16 February 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

Nowhere did russ say that he wanted to increase the grind. As a matter of fact he said that it would be roughly the same.

I'm reading this differently:
https://twitter.com/...756588747468804

[Thoummim]

No free loadout change and more grind. The grind was horrendous already. I wasted enough time on this game.


Dont expect me to buy MW5.

Edited by Thoummim, 16 February 2017 - 03:45 AM.