43 replies to this topic

[TankBadger42]

If you have a spare 30 min this is worth your time.

I think I agree with everything he has to say on the subject.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Good list of what's wrong with the tree, good ideas how to fix it.

[NeoCodex]

+1

[Nesutizale]

+1

[Ragedog4]

+1

[Buehgler]

+1
Really good analysis and suggestions.

I am not clear on what the plan is for quirks as we go forward, so I think there is significant flexibility there to achieve balance, but that is going to continue to be a difficult task.

[LordLeto]

Kanajashi is a damn treasure. I feel people also need to see his cost comparison video as well. That's been a big gripe I've been seeing and I think people are throwing that aspect out of preportion to the more important issues(such as balance).

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=eRfAhGHTTz0

[Gas Guzzler]

LordLeto, on 13 February 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

Kanajashi is a damn treasure. I feel people also need to see his cost comparison video as well. That's been a big gripe I've been seeing and I think people are throwing that aspect out of preportion to the more important issues(such as balance).

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=eRfAhGHTTz0

The cost issue is worse than balance issues. With how much cash I have spent buying mechs, to say that after being an active player for years I will only be able to master ~25% of my mechs? That is... ridiculous. Why can't we have an improved feature without the monumental costs?

[Kael Posavatz]

All of his videos on this test server have been gold.

I especially like this one:


He really hits the nail on the head about how to construct a test.
This is something PGI has repeatedly failed at.

[Cy Mitchell]

Yes, some great comments and observations. However, you have to be careful with some ideas. The idea about pairing up certain weapon attributes to force you to make a choice could actual hurt diversity. He gave one example of a laser quirk being paired up with weapon spread. Depending on what the laser quirk is that could really hurt someone who is running SRMs and MLs to the point that they would say, "OK, I guess I just have to boat SRMs then but this Mech cannot carry enough SRMs due to hardpoints so it is no good and I will have to take that Mech that can boat SRMs."

Now, pairing up SRM attributes and forcing you to choose only one of the two might work because you could not completely optimize your SRMs so you might need to take an additional weapon like a ML.

There are just so many pitfalls if you do not analyze everything from as many angles as possible.

[LordLeto]

@Gas Guzzler
The cost issue disproportionately affects one set of users over others. I think that needs to be made clear. It's good for newplayers getting into the game over the current rule of three. It's bad for established players who will lose some of their mastered mechs. It's especially bad for those players with dozens of mechs and relatively few modules who will lose scores of mastered mechs.

A lot of players responding aren't taking this into account I feel and they should.
It's not all bad and people need to focus their criticism to the most important things. IE the shafting of the established and consistent customer base. The current values would be fine, hell a improvement, IF there is consideration for players like yourself and myself that will lose masters they've earned.

Edited by LordLeto, 13 February 2017 - 12:43 PM.

[50 50]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 February 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

The cost issue is worse than balance issues. With how much cash I have spent buying mechs, to say that after being an active player for years I will only be able to master ~25% of my mechs? That is... ridiculous. Why can't we have an improved feature without the monumental costs?

Master under the new system or master to the equivalent of the old mech tree?

[DAYLEET]

LordLeto, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

@Gas Guzzler

Learn to quote it's not hard.

LordLeto, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

The cost issue disproportionately affects one set of users over others.

So far ive seem everyone from 100% Whales to the guy who only owns 14 mech and everyone in between complain about the cost. Because obviously we're all affected by most of our mech being put behind a cbill pay walls and needed twice as much xp.

LordLeto, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

It's good for newplayers getting into the game over the current rule of three.

It's not better for them. New players can't afford 19million per mech more than i can but they will still want to own mech. Instead of the progression being "own two more mech of the same chassis" it will be "buy the mech you want" it's still there, it's better for sure, except for the fact they wont be able to afford it more. But at least now they wont be able to afford a mech that they want rather than a mech they dont want amirite? PROGRESS!

It's worse for new players just like everyone else. It's worse for everyone because the system now is designed so you DON'T have to pay for the modules more than once, you pay for the mech the gear and the mechbays. In the new system, everyone if forced to pay 19millions for all the mech that they want. It's insane. The cost don't need to be tuned down, or just for new mech not previously owned, but removed entirely. Remember how new players started with medium and light mech because they were cheaper? AHAH now they ALL cost more than an 100ton Clanner ffs.

Right now only module cost cbills. After PTS EVERY skill will cost cbills. A newplayer could skip modules in this system and be at a disadventage. In the next system he will have to skip everything, this will go well with the complete lack of tiering since there isnt enough people to make it happen. This will be the golden age of even more less people.

Edited by DAYLEET, 13 February 2017 - 01:24 PM.

[naterist]

forget cost, thats its own thing to worry about. mechanics wise, this hits it on the head. especially the you pick one path or the other thing idea for the trees, and comboing all the firepower. those are especially good ideas that i would love to see put in.

the thing is that its tricky, because balance just barely got to a good-ish level. pgi needs to limit the freedom ALOT to begin with, and experiment with lightening it up as time goes by, the other way around would be a PR nightmare.

[Gas Guzzler]

LordLeto, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

@Gas Guzzler
The cost issue disproportionately affects one set of users over others. I think that needs to be made clear. It's good for newplayers getting into the game over the current rule of three. It's bad for established players who will lose some of their mastered mechs. It's especially bad for those players with dozens of mechs and relatively few modules who will lose scores of mastered mechs.

A lot of players responding aren't taking this into account I feel and they should.
It's not all bad and people need to focus their criticism to the most important things. IE the shafting of the established and consistent customer base. The current values would be fine, hell a improvement, IF there is consideration for players like yourself and myself that will lose masters they've earned.

Lose SOME of our mastered mechs? More like MOST. Anyone who has a lot of mechs (I have 303) is going to be wrecked by the costs. I don't think I will have enough C-bills to master even 25% of my mechs, and as someone who has spent a ridiculous amount of money buying mechs and being an active player with premium time, for years, it is deeply insulting and frustrating. It means I'm guaranteed to not bother playing unskilled mechs that I only play once in a while to break up the monotony, and that's a shame.

naterist, on 13 February 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

especially the you pick one path or the other thing idea for the trees,

Exclusive tree paths? Sounds like a bad idea...

50 50, on 13 February 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Master under the new system or master to the equivalent of the old mech tree?

Master under the new system what else? Are you going to say I should just leave it to 6-7 million C-bills and pretend I don't have modules? No thanks.

[naterist]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 February 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

Lose SOME of our mastered mechs? More like MOST. Anyone who has a lot of mechs (I have 303) is going to be wrecked by the costs. I don't think I will have enough C-bills to master even 25% of my mechs, and as someone who has spent a ridiculous amount of money buying mechs and being an active player with premium time, for years, it is deeply insulting and frustrating. It means I'm guaranteed to not bother playing unskilled mechs that I only play once in a while to break up the monotony, and that's a shame.



Exclusive tree paths? Sounds like a bad idea...

or, if they rework the costings for the next pts, they become mechs you have a lot of fun skilling up, and reskilling becomes like changing ferro cost wise, but more intense time and thought wise.

[Gas Guzzler]

naterist, on 13 February 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

or, if they rework the costings for the next pts, they become mechs you have a lot of fun skilling up, and reskilling becomes like changing ferro cost wise, but more intense time and thought wise.

I don't care about re-skill costs tbh. Its an extra cost sure, but itts primarily going to only be the weapon trees so that's pretty minor. The overall general cost is what is killer.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

LordLeto, on 13 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

@Gas Guzzler
The cost issue disproportionately affects one set of users over others. I think that needs to be made clear. It's good for newplayers getting into the game over the current rule of three. It's bad for established players who will lose some of their mastered mechs. It's especially bad for those players with dozens of mechs and relatively few modules who will lose scores of mastered mechs.

A lot of players responding aren't taking this into account I feel and they should.
It's not all bad and people need to focus their criticism to the most important things. IE the shafting of the established and consistent customer base. The current values would be fine, hell a improvement, IF there is consideration for players like yourself and myself that will lose masters they've earned.

THE RULE OF THREE does that... so complain about how crappy it is (which for new players it is) instead of the removal of an artificial placeholder as a benefit for the dumpster fire that is this PTS.

[Alan Davion]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 February 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Exclusive tree paths? Sounds like a bad idea...

So you'd rather stick with the current system that forces people to pick the same trees to buff their mechs defense, speed and auxiliary systems, then choose one single weapon tree that best suits their mech under the boating meta?

Generalization instead of specialization... Yeah, promote more stagnation in the game. Great plan.

The game needs to have skill trees that are specific to certain mechs instead of the same trees available to every mech. For instance, the Cyclops could very well be built as either a brawler mech, or a sensor laden command mech that enhances certain abilities of other mechs.

[naterist]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 February 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

I don't care about re-skill costs tbh. Its an extra cost sure, but itts primarily going to only be the weapon trees so that's pretty minor. The overall general cost is what is killer.

9 games of FW will generally get you enough cbills to fully spec it out. sounds OK to me.