11 replies to this topic

[Spunkmaster]

WARNING!!! Long post!!!

I hope everyone is having a great weekend!

Let me openly recognize that there are many pilots in the MWO universe that have invested a lot of time, money, heart and soul into the game. What they have contributed to the community is immense and undeniable. This post, by no means, is intended to alienate them or be disrespectful.

I'm going to give PGI some benefit of the doubt and assume the entire company is not staffed by morons as some are suggesting in this forum. We're playing a public test server. Does anyone think that, prior to the PTS, a couple dozen of the top pilots and "community celebrities" didn't put time on a private test server? Does anyone think most of the PTS criticism PGI is hearing from us is new and unexpected? They may not have guessed the specific details we would actually sink our teeth into. However, they expected some ranting. Why did PGI release this PTS, knowing full-well the kind of reaction they would get? Let's examine this...

Piranha Games has to try to maintain a game that keeps the competitive crowd happy, the factions happy, the casual pilots happy, the rookie pilots happy and attract and retain new pilots. This is not a simple FPS. It's fairly complicated as action/shooters go. PGI has a tough row to hoe. Yet, they seem to be trying.

How large is the MWO ACTIVE player base? I've never seen the figure published, but I would guess it to be in the low-to-mid 5 figures. Let's call it 35,000, for the sake of argument (and that might be generous). Compared to other FTP MMOs, like Path of Exile, MWO's community is small. Just look at STEAM. PoE has over 10x the number of reviews as does MWO. This is why new complete 'Mech packs are $70 as opposed to maybe $5. There are FAR fewer people spending money in MWO than other FTP games. Yet it costs roughly the same amount of money to develop and maintain MWO as it does those others. PGI has to attract and retain new pilots, without alienating its current base. Good luck with that.

We should be concerned how any new skill system effects brand new players too. We always need new blood. Remember that new players get dropped regularly with Tier 3 pilots. Perhaps a fully mastered 'Mech, under the new system, will be easier to face than a mastered and moduled 'Mech under the current one. I don't know. I'm not a game designer, but I can see arguments where that would be the case.

Let's try to be a bit patient while PGI works there way through this. They've already extended the patch date to March, as they change some things. The only way that balance and form can be determined is by putting the system in pilots' hands. Throwing PGI staff, 228 pilots, Snuggles, Sean Lang, M4J35T1C and Baradul on a test server is not going to answer many questions of balance.

Yes, the c-bill cost of this PTS is onerous. It could be tweaked to bring it more in line with the old system and how a far majority of pilots actually play. Very few pilots equip their entire hangar with permanent modules. We do a lot of swapping and module hunting. Yes, things could be tweaked to reduce the number of unwanted skills we're forced to take. Yes, node costs could be reduced and, perhaps, tiered. I also think that once a node has been purchased on a specific 'Mech, it should be permanent and toggle-able, as long as there are no more than 91 nodes enabled at any given time. Yes, the XP requirement seems excessive too. But is it and by how much?

Only a bit more than a third of my 'Mechs have enough HXP to be "mastered" under the new skill tree. These are the 'Mechs I really like and mostly play. It does stink, however, since, except for my recent purchases, all my 'Mechs are at least elited. As I think about it though, I often take my 'Mechs into PUG drops with no modules at all. Heck, I wouldn't know how to module some of the derp builds I take into quick play. Do all my 'Mechs HAVE to be fully mastered under the new skill tree to continue enjoying them in battle?

I look at my hangar today and it's beginning to look like my mother's Hummel collection, hanging on the wall collecting dust. Perhaps, under the new system, only actively played 'Mechs need to be "fully mastered". How many "invalid" 'Mechs do you have in your hangar? Perhaps, I should avoid the hoarding my grandparents suffered, have a yard sale and get rid of my dusty 'Mechs, using the proceeds to buy new 'Mechs and re-master those I actually run.

Let's discuss the skill tree itself. It has been discovered and discussed in the past that time-to-kill (TTK) is a bit fast now. We're told that increasing TTK will benefit a far majority of pilots. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind a greater TTK. Of course, I'm no competitive pilot. As such, PGI has essentially nerfed all weapon systems by reducing heat management and cooldown times. Armor and structure have also been significantly buffed. Crit chance and damage has been reduced on some weapons. LRMs have had their range reduced. All missiles have increased spread. All these things play a hand in increasing TTK, love it or hate it. Increased TTK will require greater skill and teamwork to fight through. Is that such a bad thing?

I suggest that the new skill tree reduces boating over the current system. Why? Since the new skills are noticeably weaker than current skills and modules, many pilots will realize that the SP is better spent outside of the Firepower tab. The only reason to boat then will be the hardpoint types and locations on our 'Mechs. If I continue to boat, I will gain far fewer benefits under the new system. In fact, I may run into heat issues that may encourage me to diversify my builds or at least play or build them cooler (ie lower alpha and/or DPS). This is exactly what PGI was trying to do with the ED system. This way is far more elegant and less intrusive to actual gameplay. "Meta tryhards" may be the biggest losers under the new system. Doesn't preventing multiple weapon systems from being maxed out encourage boating? I don't know. Do you want to be on the receiving end of a fully maxed dual ER-PPC/dual Gauss build?

Ultimately, PGI needs to keep their pilot base happy. They also need to be able to attract and retain new pilots. PGI's business plan is none of our concern. However, they have to turn a profit large enough to make further development and support worthwhile. If PGI is unable to evolve the game to where new pilot retention is acceptable, MWO may go offline completely. What would we have then to show for the thousands of hours and dollars invested?

Good luck and happy hunting!


TL;DR - Patience is a virtue. Let's give PGI a real shot at this. Constructive criticism is awesome. Support of and understanding the process is welcome. While some of us have some serious resources invested, let's try to keep things in perspective. MWO, while providing a cool community, is simply a game.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong...

[Ruar]

I think you'll find the vast majority of the posts are constructive. They explain what isn't liked and how it can be fixed. You can support a game and disagree with how the dev's are guiding the game all at the same time.

Saying things like "if this goes live I won't be playing anymore" is also constructive because it shows the devs just how frustrating the proposed changes can be.

All in all I've been very impressed with the amount of feedback seen in these posts considering just how much people are not liking the proposed changes.

[Fox2232]

Very good and realistic writeup, sir!

[VitriolicViolet]

i personally think there is way too much focus on how much the skill tree costs and not what it does, at least half the threads here are solely focused on the cost. How about the fact that the Orion IIC ends up being tankier, as fast as, nearly as cool and more flexible than the Zeus? the tankest Zeus, 5S, ends up being less armored than any of the Orion IICs, holds less firepower and moves at comparable speed. the only aspect where the IIC doesnt either match or beat the Zeus is on cooling.

I assume there will be several instances like this across most mechs.

[Spunkmaster]

VitriolicViolet, on 11 February 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

i personally think there is way too much focus on how much the skill tree costs and not what it does, at least half the threads here are solely focused on the cost. How about the fact that the Orion IIC ends up being tankier, as fast as, nearly as cool and more flexible than the Zeus? the tankest Zeus, 5S, ends up being less armored than any of the Orion IICs, holds less firepower and moves at comparable speed. the only aspect where the IIC doesnt either match or beat the Zeus is on cooling.

I assume there will be several instances like this across most mechs.

I think we'll see chassis tweaks continue as the new system goes live. I purchased a CTF-1X during the last chicken leg sale. It has basic skills completed. Since I only have one variant, I'm building XP up for the new system. It has a simple build of 2xLPLs & 1xLB10. On the PTS, it now has the armor of a Kodiak, heat mngmt of 1.53, a generous LB cooldown and runs 83 kph. In other words, it runs really good. A brawler it ain't. It is, however, a great skirmisher or fire support build, able to share a fair bit of armor. The LB10 is great at destroying components. I like it better than my TBR that is nerfed and feels a little sluggish under the new system. As do my favorite HBRs feel nerfed. The heat mngmt & cooldown nerfs in action. We may find new favorite 'Mechs under the next system. That's kind of exciting!

[Spunkmaster]

Ruar, on 11 February 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

I think you'll find the vast majority of the posts are constructive. They explain what isn't liked and how it can be fixed. You can support a game and disagree with how the dev's are guiding the game all at the same time.

Saying things like "if this goes live I won't be playing anymore" is also constructive because it shows the devs just how frustrating the proposed changes can be.

All in all I've been very impressed with the amount of feedback seen in these posts considering just how much people are not liking the proposed changes.

I agree that a majority of posts I've read have been constructive and respectful. I have, however, read a large number of (too many!) condescending and patronizing posts, suggesting that PGI is staffed with a bunch of morons who couldn't find a way to fry an egg without breaking its yolk. I believe that MWO is a particularly difficult title that would give the biggest and best of the studios a hard time. In some ways, it's amazing that MWO is as successful as it is.

I also believe that far too many posters are criticizing the Firepower branches too much; stuck on a misconception that it encourages boating. Experience & c-bill expense, forced/unwanted skill nodes, etc are all fair game to criticize and discuss.

Although unmentioned in the PTS notes, it is very clear of the desire to increase time-to-kill. A majority of pilots would also like to see TTK increased. Cooldown, that previously could reach a 17% bonus, is now limited to 5% (an almost 70% reduction!). Max heat dissipation was reduced by 33 1/3% Max heat containment has been reduced by 25%. Any further bonuses must come from a chassis quirk, if they still exist.

This has left the Firepower tab very boring. With perhaps the exception of the 15 & 20% "enhancements", the bonuses are very negligible at best, leaving the branches highly optional and simply a place to deposit your leftover SP after you've been through the other tabs. Bonuses of 5 and even 10% would rarely, if ever, be noticed by almost all pilots. Concentrate on the other tabs first.

In addition to its stated goals, this patch noticeably reduces damage output and increases defensive capabilities. I, for one, can live with that.

[Ruar]

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

I agree that a majority of posts I've read have been constructive and respectful. I have, however, read a large number of (too many!) condescending and patronizing posts, suggesting that PGI is staffed with a bunch of morons who couldn't find a way to fry an egg without breaking its yolk. I believe that MWO is a particularly difficult title that would give the biggest and best of the studios a hard time. In some ways, it's amazing that MWO is as successful as it is.

I also believe that far too many posters are criticizing the Firepower branches too much; stuck on a misconception that it encourages boating. Experience & c-bill expense, forced/unwanted skill nodes, etc are all fair game to criticize and discuss.

Although unmentioned in the PTS notes, it is very clear of the desire to increase time-to-kill. A majority of pilots would also like to see TTK increased. Cooldown, that previously could reach a 17% bonus, is now limited to 5% (an almost 70% reduction!). Max heat dissipation was reduced by 33 1/3% Max heat containment has been reduced by 25%. Any further bonuses must come from a chassis quirk, if they still exist.

This has left the Firepower tab very boring. With perhaps the exception of the 15 & 20% "enhancements", the bonuses are very negligible at best, leaving the branches highly optional and simply a place to deposit your leftover SP after you've been through the other tabs. Bonuses of 5 and even 10% would rarely, if ever, be noticed by almost all pilots. Concentrate on the other tabs first.

In addition to its stated goals, this patch noticeably reduces damage output and increases defensive capabilities. I, for one, can live with that.

Simply way to increase TTK is to increase armor or reduce damage across the board. Instead we see heat is nerfed but that doesn't affect all weapons. An AC5 runs cool so making it run 10% hotter doesn't do anything.

The current skill system does encourage boating a couple of weapons instead of building a diverse layout. I say this because they reduced/removed offensive quirks and then put them into the skill trees. Which means having diverse weapons is a bad idea since you can only boost one or two of them.

All in all this skill tree is a neat idea implemented poorly. It's trying to do too many things at once. We have quirks, use quirks as a method of customizing mechs instead of the skill tree. Use the skill tree for things like modules, mobility, and defensive boosts that weren't available before.

[Spunkmaster]

Ruar, on 11 February 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

Simply way to increase TTK is to increase armor or reduce damage across the board. Instead we see heat is nerfed but that doesn't affect all weapons. An AC5 runs cool so making it run 10% hotter doesn't do anything.

The current skill system does encourage boating a couple of weapons instead of building a diverse layout. I say this because they reduced/removed offensive quirks and then put them into the skill trees. Which means having diverse weapons is a bad idea since you can only boost one or two of them.

All in all this skill tree is a neat idea implemented poorly. It's trying to do too many things at once. We have quirks, use quirks as a method of customizing mechs instead of the skill tree. Use the skill tree for things like modules, mobility, and defensive boosts that weren't available before.

As for the skills that fall into the quirk category (increased velocity, reduced heat gen, laser duration, U/AC jam chance, LBX & missile spread, Gauss extended charge, etc), they are fairly minor as to what we are used to seeing as chassis quirks. They also fulfill pilots' requests of mech/chassis customization. It's really the only way we CAN customize 'Mechs in ways we couldn't before. I may be wrong, but I can't see good pilots boating any more than they already do, simply because of the minor quirks. ER/PPCs are generally too hot to boat effectively. Even more so now. Spread/velocity is not going to cause pilots to boat missiles or LBXs any more than they already do. I can't see any "quirks" that will cause a pilot to say, "I've got to boat 6 Gauss riffles!" Remember, we also get quite the armor and structure "enhancements" too.

Are you really that concerned about AC5s? Have you run a dakka boat on the PTS? I don't own one. I have gone up against dakka boats on the PTS in my SCR, HBR & CTF. They weren't that scary. How many 'Mechs are capable of boating 4 or more AC5s to begin with? Even a JM6 can't do it; at least not well. It can only carry 3 1/2 tons of ammo, no back up weapons and it's SLOW, and that's with the XL engine. Those that can boat them well, already do, if not the U/AC5, specifically because of their heat properties. This leaves only assaults really able to boat ACs or U/ACs. Most of them have low hardpoints only suitable for brawling. Only the KDK-3 can boat 4 AC5s in higher mounts. Besides, assaults (especially the KDK-3) are supposed to put out some hurt. I'd certainly rather run into 4 AC5s than six SRM6s.

In 3 sec, an AC5 puts out the same amount of heat and damage as an AC10 does in a half second less. Over the IS AC/10, 2 AC5s take up 4 additional ton's and an extra slot.I'm not all that concerned about AC5s unless six are being boated by a DWF, which I don't want to facetank regardless of its loadout. I overheat on the current system, firing 4 AC2s in a mech un-quirked for AC heat or cooldown. AC2s create less heat per sec than AC5s. Remember, heat scaling (ghost heat) kicks in when firing more than 3 AC5s. Ghost heat ain't going away... for now.

I do get what you're saying. I simply think that your concern is extreme. If it ever becomes a problem, it can be addressed. I don't see the purpose of getting upset over a problem that doesn't exist... yet. There is nothing on the new skill tree that makes me want to boat any weapon system more than I have to already. My HBR, SCR, ACH & HBK IIC are nothing without their laser builds. Trust me. They are all crazy hot on the PTS, especially on the hotter maps. They have 1.21-1.26 HMgmt ratings. I think we're all going to have to rethink our builds. Aiming for 1.35 or higher HM may be the best bet. Either that or we keep our fingers off the trigger. Think what that means for meta builds...

Let's see what PGI comes back with next. Let the discussion continue then...

Good luck!

[HeresWhy]

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

I believe that MWO is a particularly difficult title that would give the biggest and best of the studios a hard time.

No, this is one of the easiest titles to develop for. Static weapons and equipment. If the framework were built correctly you could run it on a skeleton crew and pump out mechs with a couple modelers.

[Spunkmaster]

HeresWhy, on 12 February 2017 - 05:16 AM, said:

No, this is one of the easiest titles to develop for. Static weapons and equipment. If the framework were built correctly you could run it on a skeleton crew and pump out mechs with a couple modelers.

Agreed. The problem is the framework was adopted from a gaming universe played on table top. If the framework had been built from scratch to accommodate real-time computer gaming, we'd be having a different conversation. But then it wouldn't be "A Battletech Game". In order to make complete sense of the game, the framework would have to be entirely rebuilt. As it is now, it's primarily Battletech fans that support the game.

Previous MW developers only had to deal with single players. The MW2 franchise was pretty good. Three and 4 I thought went down hill. MWLL is no better than MWO, only different. The problems really started when a PvP/Team-v-Team, real-time computer game was structured too closely on a tabletop ecosystem. That was the honest mistake made by uber Battletech fans.

[Skribs]

You're right. MWO has a small player-base. Which is why they can't afford to price things so high that most players quit.

The players who have spent money on Mech packs are the ones who will suffer the most. PGI will upset their highest paying customers if they do this.

[Horseman]

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

Why did PGI release this PTS, knowing full-well the kind of reaction they would get?

I can tell you one of the possibilities: they gave us the terribad version on purpose, so that we'd treat almost anything as a preferable option. It's a very common psychology trick.

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

How large is the MWO ACTIVE player base? I've never seen the figure published, but I would guess it to be in the low-to-mid 5 figures. Let's call it 35,000, for the sake of argument (and that might be generous).

About 30k very casual players and 30k regulars, basin on the QP leaderboards (obvious caveat: not everyone plays QP)

https://www.reddit.c..._now_available/
To summarize:
August (Season 2) has seen

• 60 thousand players over the month
  
• 28 thousand of whom have played 30 or more matches in QP (or roughly at least one match per day)
  
• 10 thousand with 150 or more matches (that is, an average of 5 drops or about one hour playtime per day)
  
• 3.5 thousand with 300 or more matches.

November (Season 5) has seen

• 55 thousand players over the month
  
• 26 thousand of whom have played 30 or more matches in QP
  
• 10 thousand with 150 or more matches
  
• 3.5 thousand with 300 or more matches.

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

We should be concerned how any new skill system effects brand new players too. We always need new blood. Remember that new players get dropped regularly with Tier 3 pilots. Perhaps a fully mastered 'Mech, under the new system, will be easier to face than a mastered and moduled 'Mech under the current one. I don't know. I'm not a game designer, but I can see arguments where that would be the case.

The present implementation of the skill tree is not new-player-friendly either, especially with the C-bill costs.

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

Yes, the XP requirement seems excessive too. But is it and by how much?

A fairly good match can get you 2k XP. With this in mind, it would take around a hundred matches to node out a chassis ONCE.This is not new player friendly either.

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

I look at my hangar today and it's beginning to look like my mother's Hummel collection, hanging on the wall collecting dust. Perhaps, under the new system, only actively played 'Mechs need to be "fully mastered". How many "invalid" 'Mechs do you have in your hangar?

6 to 8 out of ... 45 or so.

Quote

I suggest that the new skill tree reduces boating over the current system. Why? Since the new skills are noticeably weaker than current skills and modules, many pilots will realize that the SP is better spent outside of the Firepower tab. The only reason to boat then will be the hardpoint types and locations on our 'Mechs. If I continue to boat, I will gain far fewer benefits under the new system. In fact, I may run into heat issues that may encourage me to diversify my builds or at least play or build them cooler (ie lower alpha and/or DPS). This is exactly what PGI was trying to do with the ED system. This way is far more elegant and less intrusive to actual gameplay. "Meta tryhards" may be the biggest losers under the new system. Doesn't preventing multiple weapon systems from being maxed out encourage boating? I don't know. Do you want to be on the receiving end of a fully maxed dual ER-PPC/dual Gauss build?

If you believe this, then you don't quite understand the mentality behind boating.
It's all in min-maxing: you want to maximize the benefits your skills will provide to the weapons, and you want to maximize the number of weapons that will benefit from the skills. That's exactly what got us the laservomit meta.
When you can buy all the skills in one tree, and you need to do it to get any tangible benefit, that just feeds into the min-maxing mentality.

Spunkmaster, on 11 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

TL;DR - Patience is a virtue. Let's give PGI a real shot at this. Constructive criticism is awesome. Support of and understanding the process is welcome.

If you look around, most of us are giving PGI meaningful feedback as to what they'd prefer to see in the tree system - or else at least what they think is bad with the current one.

Edited by Horseman, 13 February 2017 - 11:36 AM.