9 replies to this topic

[Skribs]

PGI, the biggest defense I see for your new skill system is the Rule of 3 is going away, so everything is cheaper. But that's a faux argument because if you want even 2 variants or a second copy, you're going to pay through the nose in C-Bills and XP to master both of them.

Just remove the rule of 3, and then change Pinpoint to a 10% armor increase, and call it good.

Keep the quirks. Keep the current skill system. Keep the modules. Just make these changes that are 4 years overdue and you'll keep the most players happy.

[cazidin]

Please, don't give PGI an idea for an easy way out. They'll always choose the worst, yet easiest way out.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Echos my first thought - just drop rule of three.

I like the customization allowed in the test server.

But it needs to be priced in comparison to a rule of one and not add respec penalties. Just seems petty.


PS. No reason they can't have saved profiles for skill trees.

[Skribs]

Cazidin, this may be the "easy way out", but it's actually what I would prefer.

Most people are going to go cookie-cutter anyway.

[EpyonComet]

Hi there, Skribs. Unfortunately, I very strongly disagree with you on that matter. I think even a badly-implemented skill tree would be better than the completely linear progression we have right now (not that I'm encouraging PGI not to try to improve it), and I don't even think this one is particularly bad. Could you list some of the particular issues you have with it?

[SmokedJag]

I disagree. Besides the Rule of 3, the current module system is nontransparent to new players and itself expensive as heck as an entry cost. The current system also involves unnecessary skill grinding; my "tank destroyer" HBK IIC doesn't need scout mobility traits. My scout stealth Raven doesn't need sustained combat traits.

And progression in this game is fairly flat so having a tree to pursue is itself an improvement. I hate the World of Tanks/boats model where you can't get the big headline vehicles without mandatory garbage vehicle grinding and MWO thankfully doesn't have that, but MWO *does* need something to progress 'Mechs after you buy them and the current system is poor to nonexistent.

[FireStoat]

I'd personally like to see the whole new skill tree scrapped, and the current system of 3 and Basic / Master / Elite to stay - with two changes.

First, all players could skill up their basic skills on a mech for free. Once they are all unlocked, the player must pay a reasonable Cbill cost to unlock Elites to be skilled up. Once that is complete, a second fee must be paid for the Master module unlock to be available for a skill point unlock.

Important part - all current mechs with full basic, elite, and/or master skills unlocked are grandfathered for no Cbill cost to a player. Example - A player purchased 3 Linebackers. The player unlocked all basic and elite skills on all 3, and then unlocked the Master extra module on a 3rd. The new system is introduced. The player doesn't have to pay a thing on any of them, excluding the two Elite Linebackers. The player would have to pay to make the Master extra module available for skill points to be allocated to it, as it hadn't been done before the change.


Next, nuke all current modules. All players are refunded GXP and Cbills for the modules. Introduce a wider range of modules, reduce their cost to a reasonable state, and have those modules locked to an individual mech when purchased to be put into that mech's inventory pool for use.

Bam. PGI is looking for a new way to drain Cbills (and useless banked Premium time Whales are sitting on) as well as get rid of the module swapping system. Players who played this game a LOT want to have their work grandfathered into the new era of the game. New players want something simple to understand when picking up this game. All areas of concern are addressed and everyone's happy.

[Skribs]

EpyonComet, on 11 February 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Hi there, Skribs. Unfortunately, I very strongly disagree with you on that matter. I think even a badly-implemented skill tree would be better than the completely linear progression we have right now (not that I'm encouraging PGI not to try to improve it), and I don't even think this one is particularly bad. Could you list some of the particular issues you have with it?

Well, we have non-linear customization in the Mechlab itself. To be honest, Mechwarrior doesn't even really need a skill system or leveling system as far as I'm concerned. The grind of C-Bills to earn new Mechs and furnish them is enough of a grind to keep players playing, and the game itself is pretty fun.

What are my problems with the new system?

• Cost, as has been mentioned many times over. Too long to level a Mech, C-Bills should not be required to level a Mech, and you shouldn't be punished for respeccing. This could easily be 3 points, but I've lumped it into one because it's being said over and over again.
  
• Encourages boating, with the most efficient use of weapons skills being if you are boating.
  
• Most players have already identified a meta "cookie cutter" build which uses 71 points.
  
• You have easy access to all of the old Mech modules. My Atlas has the equivalent of 9 modules right now, and could have a 10th.
  
• Removal of quirks undoes all of the balance work that they accomplished. A lot of IS Mechs will be bad again. I don't think the quirks are the best way of balancing and I have problems with that system, but at least they make most of the Mechs useful.
  
• Requirement to get useless skills (i.e. arm skills on a torso-only Mech) in order to get skills you want
  
• There's a lot of user-unfriendliness in the system. It's a complex system that new players jump into from the start...and have to pay for any mistakes they make. It's not very easy to use on lower resolutions. The XP conversion is confusing for a lot of people, especially in how it's displayed (as you type it in, the numbers change). Some of this can be fixed without altering the trees, but it's a problem nonetheless.

Firestoat, your suggestions basically take the worst of everything. Keep the rule of 3, keep the current trees but add C-Bill costs? That does nothing for people.

[Pjwned]

If they do end up dropping the new skill system, which I highly doubt will happen but I guess it could, then I'd rather see the skill tree abolished entirely.

That would save them more face too than reverting everything to how it is right now; if they couldn't come up with something actually better than the current ancient piece of crap despite working on the new system for multiple months then that would just be absolutely pathetic and truly show that they have no idea what they're doing.

[EpyonComet]

Pjwned, on 11 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

If they do end up dropping the new skill system, which I highly doubt will happen but I guess it could, then I'd rather see the skill tree abolished entirely.

I agree with this entirely.

Skribs, on 11 February 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

• Cost, as has been mentioned many times over. Too long to level a Mech, C-Bills should not be required to level a Mech, and you shouldn't be punished for respeccing. This could easily be 3 points, but I've lumped it into one because it's being said over and over again.
  
• Encourages boating, with the most efficient use of weapons skills being if you are boating.
  
• Most players have already identified a meta "cookie cutter" build which uses 71 points.
  
• You have easy access to all of the old Mech modules. My Atlas has the equivalent of 9 modules right now, and could have a 10th.
  
• Removal of quirks undoes all of the balance work that they accomplished. A lot of IS Mechs will be bad again. I don't think the quirks are the best way of balancing and I have problems with that system, but at least they make most of the Mechs useful.
  
• Requirement to get useless skills (i.e. arm skills on a torso-only Mech) in order to get skills you want
  
• There's a lot of user-unfriendliness in the system. It's a complex system that new players jump into from the start...and have to pay for any mistakes they make. It's not very easy to use on lower resolutions. The XP conversion is confusing for a lot of people, especially in how it's displayed (as you type it in, the numbers change). Some of this can be fixed without altering the trees, but it's a problem nonetheless.

1. I agree with you on this, but it's something that could be easily fixed without scrapping the system.

2. The game already encourages boating, both through the general meta, and through the module system.

3. Again, that's not a change. Meta exists already, and people already choose whether to go with it or ignore it. And maybe more to the point, it's impossible not to have a meta in this kind of game. People will always figure out what works best statistically, because there will always be something that works best. The only theoretical way to avoid this would be for devs to make drastic changes so frequently that people didn't have time to figure them out, which would be impractical and terrible for reasons that are obvious.

4. I don't think I understand what you are trying to say there, honestly. Or maybe I do, and just don't see why it's a problem.

5. I agree, quirks should stay in.

6. I can understand that one, and maybe the tree needs to be reshuffled to address that. I don't think it's a problem to haveto get some skills you don't want in order to get ones that you do, but regarding ones that are totally useless for the mech, like the example you gave, yeah, you're definitely right. But again, that doesn't require scrapping the whole system.

7. I don't think the idea of a skill tree is inherently complex, and I think its simplicity as a concept is part of why it's so popular in gaming as a whole. I agree with you that it shouldn't punish experimentation, but that;s one very specific and easy-to-fix problem. As for the resolution and XP display, those also seem like they should be very simple to fix, and issues like that are why the PTS exists in the first place.

Overall, it seems like there's a lot of kneejerk reactionism present in the response to this whole thing, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they actually like the module system, so I simply can't understand all of this resistance. Sure, it needs some work, but the release has just been pushed back a month for that exact reason, and wanting to totally deny the possibility of change to the way this works is just ludicrous to me.

Edited by EpyonComet, 11 February 2017 - 12:48 PM.