Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:30 AM
Oberost, on 10 February 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:
Can someone tweet Russ this thread link? Maybe this way he'll stop thinking that everything is awesome.
well, if he is reading the actual Skill Tree sub forum, I can't see how he can really believe what he's posting. I know as the boss, he has to cast things in as positive a light as possible... but the reason I'm being so vehement is because I do like this game. I've invested a ton of time and money into it, a lot of campaigning for it, etc. And I wan't to see them do something like this... but do it in a way that actually benefits everyone... whereas what I see now, is potentially BAD for almost everyone.
Probably Not, on 10 February 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:
Well, MechWarrior was originally an RPG system for BattleTech, and skill trees are kind of RPG-y.
I'm not necessarily against new things being introduced to MechWarrior as a franchise, but...
Except this is not the RPG. What we have here is more akin to a purely first person version of the regular Battletech game.
We are nameless pilots dropped onto a tabletop and thrown into the meat grinder. We have no face, no background. Nothing.
Dee Eight, on 10 February 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:
Not to mention, battletech has had skills (piloting and gunnery) since 1984 which affected mech performance on the battlefield.
But those were the only two skills needed for the original Battletech game. Piloting to keep your mech upright after a jump, gunnery to help you track and shoot a mech on the move. Obviously there's more than that, but you get my point.
Because the MechWarrior RPG let you create actual characters, besides your bog-standard mech jock, they needed a wider array of skills. Diplomacy, scavenging, repair, etc etc.
Some, or most, if not all of these skills would probably be better off in the new MW5 game instead of this game. Since, you know, MW5 is more akin to an RPG than a full-on war game like this.
Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:
Except New Players still don't win, because their initial experience will be terrible as they try to grind through Mechs, as I noted before, not even knowing what Nodes are truly important, and with the severe difference in viability between Locked and Unlocked being WORSE than it is now.
You're clearly biasing your statement around your imaginary version of a new player, with all your amassed experience/knowledge of the game and the real version of a new player who doesn't know that he/she needs to grind three mech variants of one chassis to elite level to fully master unlock any of them, and then repeat that for at least one chassis in each other weight class, and then after those four chassis, only needs to grind thru basic skills on 3 variants of each additional chassis to elite/master the variants they like.
Also you're ignoring the fact that the above only applies to new players who stick around to the point of buying their own mechs. The ones using the free trials still, don't benefit from either skill tree systems you cannot unlock skills for mechs you do not own, or do any customization to them with consumables and modules.
Quote
No hyperbole here, no drama for effect, just honest evaluation.
An honest evaluation with no knowledge apparently of what actual new players to the game are anymore.
Without doing a huge amount of work changing nearly everything, I think a lot of the problems would be eliminated if the total number of skill points per mech was cut down drastically.
Give us something like 30 skill points instead of 91 which is an absurd amount, and then after that just make some tweaks and it will probably be fine or at least acceptable
Cuts down on the grind, cuts down on nearly every mech taking the same skills, cuts down on the power creep, etc.
My opinion is still ultimately that I'd prefer not having a skill tree at all, but this is still workable.
Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:36 AM
DrxAbstract, on 10 February 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:
From the games I played yesterday with various specialized Ballistic, Missile and Laser builds across the Light, Medium, Heavy and Assault brackets it seems Ballistics get the most benefits from full-speccing, Missiles to a lesser extent and Lasers straight up get the short end of the stick.
There's no incentive to use mixed-weapon builds.
Laser and Laser-Missile builds get less cumulative benefits from cross-speccing than Ballistics+Anything.
Magazine perk further reinforces a Ballistic-centric focus.
Lights/Mediums with Ballistic hardpoints literally get nothing while Lights with Missile hardpoints got shafted with the SRM4 nerf (Not every Light can afford the tonnage or slots to even use Artemis and the tree doesn't fully recompense the change) while one of the best skills they could have benefited from (Magazine) ignores Missiles weapons.
Medium, Heavy and Assault Mechs kept their offensive, defensive and mobility quirks only to be compounded further by the skill tree bonuses, making for a very lopsided distribution of power that favors the heavier end of the tonnage spectrum almost entirely to such a gross extent that Lights are basically phased out now.
Those being a handful of my thoughts based on observation thus far. As others have pointed out there is virtually no differentiation and I kid you not every single one of my builds across all weight classes and chassis have the exact same skill tree layout sans their respective weapon type, which are invested in a single weapon type... Pretty sure my KGC doesnt need (And shouldn't have) +50% accel/decel and +30% turn rate as an assault that could strip ammo for an even bigger engine ontop of it.
I dont have much hope for this new system of theirs - Too much to do and so very little time.
Try running missiles. With the new spread node? Pariah was literally dumping 4 aSRM6 racks from his Huntsman all into ONE COMPONENT at 280 meters. Grievous literally was amputating the legs off of running Light Mechs with one volley of dual aLRM20.
Ballistics are really good too, but Missiles, especially SRMs are just insane, and will be the new go to short range meta. Why spend 14 tons on an AC20 when I can pack an AC48 instead?
Also, with the new, non existent component health on BOTH sides, once the armor opens, everything under it just goes.... and lasers now crit, for some ******* reason, which makes lasers very very effective at wrecking internals now... though admittedly hot.
It's just sickening to watch a Huntman literally stand toe to toe with a Kodiak or Atlas with FULL SURVIVAL NODES.... and melt it in a tradeoff.
Probably Not, on 10 February 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:
The more I think about it, the more I'm fairly sure that PGI is going to toss the skill tree, throw up their hands and say "we tried" rather than address our concerns about it. I say this because of the Mech Packs they're still trying to sell, which would become mostly moot if the Skill Tree system actually successfully got implemented.
That's almost always the case when you really think about it.
It is actually easy to argue that this change would be detrimental to their mechpack system. Instead of a reasonable grind for all the mechs you bought (assuming you're not going to fully spend on modules on variants you don't expect to use).. now it's more of a chore to get them all trickled out and "mastered".
Quote
The question that then follows from this line of thought is "Did they set out to fail from the get-go or was this actually the best they thought they could do?"
Quote
If it was the best they thought they could do, were they just hedging their bets by keeping the MechPack sales mechanic? How much time went into this skill tree system? Enough time that they would have/should have known better than to have MechPacks for sale at the same time this system was being floated past players?
I bet there was plenty of time spent doing it, but the overall planning for its design was likely to be minimal.
If one were to claim PGI was taking feedback/concerns even prior to its inception, you are better off getting laxatives for what you are potentially going to get.
Alan Davion, on 10 February 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:
Some, or most, if not all of these skills would probably be better off in the new MW5 game instead of this game. Since, you know, MW5 is more akin to an RPG than a full-on war game like this.
I doubt MW5 would exceed previous MW games... and will unlikely to have any sort of RPG elements.
Even MW2 Mercs is loosely not an RPG, despite having R&R with some varying missions (but could totally be avoidable, and in some cases forgettable, because "random missions" were just simplified fights to kill a number of mechs).
Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:39 AM
Pjwned, on 10 February 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:
Without doing a huge amount of work changing nearly everything, I think a lot of the problems would be eliminated if the total number of skill points per mech was cut down drastically.
Give us something like 30 skill points instead of 91 which is an absurd amount, and then after that just make some tweaks and it will probably be fine or at least acceptable
Cuts down on the grind, cuts down on nearly every mech taking the same skills, cuts down on the power creep, etc.
My opinion is still ultimately that I'd prefer not having a skill tree at all, but this is still workable.
that might work... except to avoid almost constant shutdown with even ballistics, you need to spend 20 something on the Operation tree, alone, literally.
If you cut us down to 30, I promise you, that will be fully maxxed by everyone, and then the rest of the Trees become a bigger joke because it will be effectively (as in practice, vs theory) pointless to have the upper ends of skill trees on any other Skill Path because to achieve them would mean sacrificing your Operations Nodes..which are now absolutely essential to operate.
Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:
Except New Players still don't win, because their initial experience will be terrible as they try to grind through Mechs, as I noted before, not even knowing what Nodes are truly important, and with the severe difference in viability between Locked and Unlocked being WORSE than it is now.
I am not trying to sound dramatic, but with the now even steeper learning curve (You see anything said about adding a skill tree tutorial to Mechwarrior Academy? I honestly don't recall if they plan to. Do you even think, if they do, PGI will explain that in their "diversification" if they want to compete they HAVE to spend 50+ pts on very specific skill nodes on every single mech?), The amount of time it takes to get that one robot ground (it's pretty nuts, I've been here since may of 2012... and have tons of mechs without enough historical XP to even achieve half the 91 nodes... let alone the billion cbills coming since I found Modules to really be NON mandatory before... and now these features are built into my progression)... i would expect our already low new player retention to absolutely tank within the first month of the new skill tree going live.
No hyperbole here, no drama for effect, just honest evaluation.
Yeah, setting aside how disastrous this looks for new players I also feel completely hamstrung by these current changes. I honestly don't know how I am going to pay for and unlock enough of these nodes across all of the mechs I own to even begin to get to a place similar to where I am now with the mechs. It honestly feels like everything I have done in this game for years has been negated. I certainly can't see buying anymore mechs any time soon if ever as they would only add to the absurd grind I am in store for as it is.
Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:
Try running missiles. With the new spread node? Pariah was literally dumping 4 aSRM6 racks from his Huntsman all into ONE COMPONENT at 280 meters. Grievous literally was amputating the legs off of running Light Mechs with one volley of dual aLRM20.
Ballistics are really good too, but Missiles, especially SRMs are just insane, and will be the new go to short range meta. Why spend 14 tons on an AC20 when I can pack an AC48 instead?
Also, with the new, non existent component health on BOTH sides, once the armor opens, everything under it just goes.... and lasers now crit, for some ******* reason, which makes lasers very very effective at wrecking internals now... though admittedly hot.
It's just sickening to watch a Huntman literally stand toe to toe with a Kodiak or Atlas with FULL SURVIVAL NODES.... and melt it in a tradeoff.
I have--SRM builds have always been good on heavier Mechs. I'm referring to Lights being completely ignored by the Missile and Basllistics trees. Try running an Oxide post-SRM4 nerf... Yuck.
Without doing a huge amount of work changing nearly everything, I think a lot of the problems would be eliminated if the total number of skill points per mech was cut down drastically.
Give us something like 30 skill points instead of 91 which is an absurd amount, and then after that just make some tweaks and it will probably be fine or at least acceptable
Cuts down on the grind, cuts down on nearly every mech taking the same skills, cuts down on the power creep, etc.
My opinion is still ultimately that I'd prefer not having a skill tree at all, but this is still workable.
I don't think that would change things that drastically.
People haven't truly understood the effects of our CURRENT skill tree.. let alone what our PTS has to offer.
I mean, we have someone that doesn't understand that "list" that was put up - had we listed what you get as a bonus for our existing tree, it wouldn't be that dramatically different - yet it's just more "visible" in the new tree...
It's like saying something is "on sale" for 50% off, when the regular price (before the sale) is literally 50% off the retail price... but it's just to get people to pay attention to the word "sale" instead of "this is our normal price dummy, you didn't notice it before".
Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:46 AM
WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:
Yeah, setting aside how disastrous this looks for new players I also feel completely hamstrung by these current changes. I honestly don't know how I am going to pay for and unlock enough of these nodes across all of the mechs I own to even begin to get to a place similar to where I am now with the mechs. It honestly feels like everything I have done in this game for years has been negated. I certainly can't see buying anymore mechs any time soon if ever as they would only add to the absurd grind I am in store for as it is.
Especially since we were told, time and again, that if we had them mastered in the current system, the reimbursement woul dget us back there in the new system.... and that is categorically untrue, as I have dozens of mastered mechs that upon converting historic XP end up with maybe 2/3 of the requisite pts to achieve full mastery? And that's before one even counts the Cbill cost... which most of us serious players, won't see near the lottery windfall Russ thinks because we were swapping Modules to begin with.
Hell, if anything it almost feels like a little intentional spite, (Paul style) saying a loud "Eff you! You didn't want to be suckered into the grind system we devised by buying new modules for every mech? Well how do you like it now, you cheapskates!".
LocationIS News Flash Breaking [:::]___[:::] News: at morning /(__)\ a patrol unit has (:)=\_ ¤_/=(:) seen the never /)(\ before witnessed [] . . [] strange designed /¥\ . /¥\ 'Mech
You're clearly biasing your statement around your imaginary version of a new player, with all your amassed experience/knowledge of the game and the real version of a new player who doesn't know that he/she needs to grind three mech variants of one chassis to elite level to fully master unlock any of them, and then repeat that for at least one chassis in each other weight class, and then after those four chassis, only needs to grind thru basic skills on 3 variants of each additional chassis to elite/master the variants they like.
The old (current) skill tree being obtuse & grindy doesn't excuse the new (upcoming) skill tree from being less obtuse while being far more grindy.
Quote
Also you're ignoring the fact that the above only applies to new players who stick around to the point of buying their own mechs. The ones using the free trials still, don't benefit from either skill tree systems you cannot unlock skills for mechs you do not own, or do any customization to them with consumables and modules.
And you're ignoring that new players are at a huge disadvantage when they don't gain any benefit from the skill tree.
Quote
An honest evaluation with no knowledge apparently of what actual new players to the game are anymore.
So what's the real deal then? All I'm seeing is you blowing smoke out of your ***.
Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:49 AM
DrxAbstract, on 10 February 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:
I have--SRM builds have always been good on heavier Mechs. I'm referring to Lights being completely ignored by the Missile and Basllistics trees. Try running an Oxide post-SRM4 nerf... Yuck.
I ran them in the PTS...they are insane. With maxxed out SRMs you are sticking all those SRMs into a single component, at 300 meters. Even without artemis the spread is minimal. Oxide is not just viable in the PTS, it's a fracking bionic piranha at a range it never was effective before.
Gosh, thanks Mods. Too much traction to the topic, so got to try to bury it I see. Well, have fun burying the game with it.
Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:
I ran them in the PTS...they are insane. With maxxed out SRMs you are sticking all those SRMs into a single component, at 300 meters. Even without artemis the spread is minimal. Oxide is not just viable in the PTS, it's a fracking bionic piranha at a range it never was effective before.
I'm sure you were aware, just something to keep in mind, 4v4 is brawl heaven. Like I tried pointing out to our wonderful BLOOD WOLF in the other thread, number of people on the field impacts strats and 4v4 makes brawl easy.
Dee Eight said (An honest evaluation with no knowledge apparently of what actual new players to the game are anymore.)
Honestly Dee I tested this multiple times over 4 years taking players fresh off of my blog that had never played MWO and had them install this game as a test usually a group of 6-10 players.
The first thing I noticed is most did not even complete the tutorials and jumped right into a hellstorm of focus fire in solo MM and died in under 1 min. Having them all on my TS3 channel helped me hear them in frustration as they tried to figure out why they died so fast and when you explained to them they needed to finish the tutorial outfit a new mech and try again most did but told me later they just uninstalled or quit playing because there length of playing time per battle was so low it was not worth playing anymore.
So if you would like to test this yourselves be my guest I found the same core problems with the game being mostly overcomplicated for new players right off the bat and most just wanted to go fight for 3-5 minutes per battle win or lose but getting some rewards almost all the players in the groups did not even use a skill tree as most stayed with there trial mechs or bought a first time mech and did not even care to level it up.
I know this sounds incredible even to me I thought most of the players wanted to dig into the game and learn its full potential but only a few in every group even tried to get deeper into the game maybe 2 out of 10 and those few played only for a few months.
Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:56 AM
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:
I'm sure you were aware, just something to keep in mind, 4v4 is brawl heaven. Like I tried pointing out to our wonderful BLOOD WOLF in the other thread, number of people on the field impacts strats and 4v4 makes brawl easy.
I am more than well enough aware. And 1v1 is the only way to get a solid unbiased test on effectiveness. Which is why I ran 4v4. then we spent much of the night in private lobbies, 1v1, 2v2, etc. Evey unit still has to take Lights. Those Splat Lights can now focus their SRMs into a single component at more than TWICE the range they could before.
I don't give a damn if it[s 4v4 or 12v12, that makes a hell of a difference. Whereas as many lights default to SPL now, the SRM has totally replaced that in the PTS, because of power and sustainability, something the lasers lack.
But I guess I should just shut up and wait for Gman and Metamechs to say the same thing, to make it true, right?
Davegt27, on 10 February 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:
OP looks like they ignored your request and moved the thread anyways
well, what a shock, that it lasted that long. But note the amount of views it got in 12 hours or so, vs the actual posts in this ******* subsection. Point was made I think... and of course, yes, that being the case, they have to try to bury it.
Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:
Especially since we were told, time and again, that if we had them mastered in the current system, the reimbursement woul dget us back there in the new system.... and that is categorically untrue, as I have dozens of mastered mechs that upon converting historic XP end up with maybe 2/3 of the requisite pts to achieve full mastery? And that's before one even counts the Cbill cost... which most of us serious players, won't see near the lottery windfall Russ thinks because we were swapping Modules to begin with.
Hell, if anything it almost feels like a little intentional spite, (Paul style) saying a loud "Eff you! You didn't want to be suckered into the grind system we devised by buying new modules for every mech? Well how do you like it now, you cheapskates!".
Agreed. The XP and C-bill costs are just insane. In fact they are so bad it keeps distracting me from other problems I have with the skill trees in general. Maybe that is intentional? For the most part I never needed modules, but the ones I bought I did buy for a fair number of my mechs because I was too lazy to swap them often, but even then I am going to be massively short XP and C-bills under this system. I have 230+ mechs, and I probably won't even be able to fully unlock more than 10 of them. I can't see grinding out another 220+ mechs essentially from scratch. They can pretty much forget me making any purchases on new mechs.
Considering the previous iteration required purchasing (But not necessarily equipping) 3 Mechs just to master one... But being completely fair here, the 2 extra Mechs people bought were typically as viable as the one they were focused on and would utilize offshoot builds, like the old TDR-5SS and TDR-9SE, as an example. The 3-Mech system often required a larger initial C-Bill investment and, for the wary buyers, typically meant grabbing equally useful variants provided the chassis had more than one.
The new system is far and away cheaper on C-Bills, but the XP requirement is nearly identical... Almost as if they took the combined XP of 1 Master + 2 Basic variants as their baseline.
8
Oberost, on 10 February 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:
