102 replies to this topic

[dominikabra]

I'm eager to see the new changes. The ST mechanics have a lot of potential, but the exhorbitant cost of respecing is insane and blatantly goes against diversity. Make us grind once, then once the nodes are acquired, are ours to keep and redistribute. Even if the initial grind is larger (which I suppose is inevitable if modules are to be removed).

As for the specialized trees according to classes, it has potential as well as it doesn't prevent me from playing my lights as lightning fast low ton assault mechs aimed at guerrilla warfare (for instance) and doesn't force me to play scout/narc/support. I see that taking a lot of effort from the design side, though.

[Arkhangel]

DangerousOne, on 17 February 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

I only wish you will turn down this crappy new "skill tree" idea. But who do I kidding.

you do realise this is something they promised before closed beta even started, right? it's actually a very OLD idea.

also, for the guys whining about how much it costs... bear in mind some of those skills are actually more like physically actually tweaking the mech itself, by technicians. that costs cash, and they've been getting engines in and out of our mechs instantly for free for years XD (doing that in lore is supposed to take nearly a week safely, if not longer. it IS a fusion reactor, after all.)

think of the underpaid bay techs!

Edited by Arkhangel, 17 February 2017 - 11:56 PM.

[Nightbird]

Unions ruin the future as well

[pacifica812]

Arkhangel, on 17 February 2017 - 11:51 PM, said:

you do realise this is something they promised before closed beta even started, right? it's actually a very OLD idea.

also, for the guys whining about how much it costs... bear in mind some of those skills are actually more like physically actually tweaking the mech itself, by technicians. that costs cash, and they've been getting engines in and out of our mechs instantly for free for years XD (doing that in lore is supposed to take nearly a week safely, if not longer. it IS a fusion reactor, after all.)

think of the underpaid bay techs!

Yeah, that was cooking up for some time now, just hope the underpaid techs don't form a trade union...

[Mochyn Pupur]

Meta builds are going to go into overload with the skills trees, after all, why work on three 'mechs and balance builds when you can focus on one and be the meta-clone someone else has figured out?

When you look to reworking the tree system (no good asking for it not to be implemented, as you have already decided it must go through to live), please make it so as to encourage diversity; keep specialisation costs manageable and ensure it's a case of "by once, keep forever" on the nodes, otherwise you've pretty much killed the whole concept of individual play styles which is one of the things that makes MWO fun to play.

[Arkhangel]

it DOES encourage it. just gotta look at it from certain standpoints, and for certain mechs. if nothing else, it at least ensures your mech bays are filled with different mechs more often.

in all honesty, we won't know how things'll be until it actually hits. metafags will ALWAYS be metafags, regardless of how the skill tree changes. the irony here is they'll always be extremely predictable too, though, which will allow those willing to actually experiment with the tree an edge on them. at the end of the day, what kills a mech most often is going to be precision fire and teamwork. lot of people seem to forget unbonused weapons still do the same damage per shot, and stuff not pertaining directly to weapons will allow them to actually get into the effective ranges to use them, either by sheer durability, speed, or evasiveness.

[Reno Blade]

Radkres, on 17 February 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

I Was thinking What if You could Unlock all the nodes on Every Tree.
But you could only turn on or off a set number after they were unlocked?
That Way You still have the Grind part and pay part of the new system but You the player control which nodes are on and which are off inside each tree?
So if You wanted to Respect You would just turn off some nodes and turn on Others?
Without having to rebuy them.
So You would have a set number of on nodes per mech maybe so that You could play around without having to rebuy nodes.
You would have already bought the ones you want to Switch On or Off for that build and if You want to change it all You have to do is turn some nodes on and others off till You meet that mechs limit of nodes?

Anyway an Idea that came to mind. o.O

Yes good idea.
Unlocking could cost Cbills and XP, and switching could be free.
Then the Refund on release could be just 91 free Unlocks for each of your mastered mechs (or the money/xp, as used for now).

[tokumboh]

Tina Benoit, on 17 February 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

No it will just be an update. Just as long as you don't uninstall it.

Why are you shutting it down, for many people it is the only way to test things, it has been of great help to me and many people in terms of even understanding what to do the mechs they have understanding the other issues and indeed understanding whether to purchase mechs.

A sort of trial before buy. The other problem I have with the test which I believe most people have is that the tests doing 4 v 4 does not emulate what we have in terms of 12 v12 in any way although I can clearly tell you it was fun even though as a tier 4 I got stomped a few times what it does not do is give you a full picture of the problem until it goes live.

Lastly to encourage people to play the PTS I would give all that complete a 10 matches a MC/C bill/GXP bonus of some kind. essentially playing the PTS means earning no C bills/XP and basically waiting as I did for 20 minutes for a match at one point is asking for people to essentially give up playing timing on the live server without any compensation. I personally would have a PTS weekend where essentially you swap the live server with the PTS and give everyone an uplift in C bills and XP earned in their time on the PTS transferred to the live server or basically give them a C bill bonus if the play 25 games or some such

[John McHobo]

Unfortunate that its shut down at the beginning of the weekend, since I don´t have much time even for regular play under the week, but it is nice to see that the INput is used.

Related question: Will the designers release the thought process accompanying the implemented changes?

[Arkhangel]

@Toku: they're not shutting it totally down, they're just taking it offline for now while they mull over some changes, it'll be back in about a week, is what they said, after they've messed around with it a bit due to the feedback already gained. that way we can get a second test and feedback before it actually goes live in March.

[Bud Crue]

Dear PGI,

I get that you are going to do what ever it is you are going to do. No matter what we say or how much we, your customers and players, howl and complain, in the end, you are going to do whatever you want with the skills tree and the subsequent PTS. But no matter what it is that you do, take say...30 minutes...thinking about how you could present whatever it is that you do to us in a way that helps us understand WHY it is you are doing whatever it is you are doing.

Think about your stated goals in the last PTS and then go further than just a statement. Example: Promote greater build and 'Mech diversity on the battlefield by enabling broader control over specialized roles." Going forward, if that is still a goal, explain to us how a system that gives every mech the same choices, and a system that inherently makes many of the choices a forgone requirement, actually meets that goal. We may simply not be getting "it", so explain it to us. I mean maybe you foresee some players not taking the defensive tree, or some that actually use significant node numbers for arm speed. Explain to us when such things would be a good idea in your eyes. If necessary provide a tutorial.

I know, I know, its your game and you dislike having to explain anything in it or about it, but really I think a lot of this would go over a heck of a lot better if you just took a few moments to explain not only WHAT you are doing but WHY. Explain to us the rationale for nerfing already poorly performing mechs while leaving some current meta builds largely alone. Tell us how you think the skills tree actually increases mech diversity. Share with us the reasoning for why we should be okay with losing mastery status in all but a few of our most played mechs. Etc.

Help us understand the goals, the rationale and the vision that you have for whatever it is you come up with and then maybe we can help give more productive feedback on it. I want to understand. I want to help. I want to be excited for change. Help me understand so I can.

[Appogee]

Bud Crue, on 18 February 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Help us understand the goals, the rationale and the vision that you have for whatever it is you come up with

I can save them the trouble.

Design goal: "supplement MWO's falling revenue til MW5 is finished".

Strategy: "increase time and cost of leveling, add new cost to respec, and encourage payment to avoid grind".

Vision: "same minimally viable BT-skinned FPSer, but with existing players paying to do what they used to be able to do for free".

There you go.

Edited by Appogee, 18 February 2017 - 07:29 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Bud Crue, on 18 February 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

...

Think about your stated goals in the last PTS and then go further than just a statement. Example: Promote greater build and 'Mech diversity on the battlefield by enabling broader control over specialized roles." Going forward, if that is still a goal, explain to us how a system that gives every mech the same choices, and a system that inherently makes many of the choices a forgone requirement, actually meets that goal.
...

I think that part is exactly that, choices.
While you get fixed quirks on your Hunchback 4P for lasers, you can now decide if you rather skill for pulse laser, or PPCs.
That means every HBK-4P can be different.

I understand the question for the non-weapon skills (as most ppl will master all the Mech-branches for more survivability and mobility), but this is basically it. Your choice what to take and what to skip.

Ofc, being able to master all the mech based branches (survival as a must) will make most builds similar, but that doesnt reduce the validity of "your choice to spec" whatever you prefere on each of your mechs.

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

I have some guesses as to how they foresaw this working:

Component health reduction; This makes it easy to crit out equipment once armour is gone, this would hopefully force players to carry weapons on many bodyparts, hopefully negating some zombies, corner pokers, hill humpers and sword n' board builds, as well as increasing the risk of carrying large amounts of ammunition.

Overall mobility bonus max-values multiplied by factors of 3-8, except for torso speed.
The hope here was to promote arm weapon use over pure torso highmounts, again an attempt at negating zombies and hill humpers.
By having the assault mechs torso weapons near useless against fast moving targets in close range a broader weapon layout was hoped for.

Reduced heat containment and dissipation.
Increases use of Ammo dependant weapons, forcing more careful balancing of the threat of criticals and overheating versus big alphas. This Could help to make people use auxillary weapons for engaging outside the optimal range conditions.

Quirks tied to 8/8 omni bonus: Again promotes retaining a varied loadout of hardpoints to some degree, by having the highest possible bonus not be available if switching pods to boat better.


I believe these have been the aims and motivation for at least these changes, but as far as implementation goes and communication of intend to the userbase, they leave a bit to be desired for sure.

Edited by Poptimus Rhyme Wallace, 18 February 2017 - 07:05 AM.

[Deltree Zero]

3 pages in and not one single person is wondering why potential changes aren't FIRST discussed, and then implemented and tested in the PTS besides me?

Why are the changes a huge secret? Why cant PGI say: "These are the changes we are planning to make based on the feedback from our player base and data from the PTS. What do you think of these changes?"

Is it because the changes made are a "compromise" between what the players want and what PGI wants so PGI can increase grind and make more money, but still seem like they are listening to the players and making the game they all want to play? The same tactics used when PGI collects data and feedback from the round table discussions right? Take perfectly good ideas and put your own odd twist on them for no good reason? Then claim the new changes are what the players asked for????!

It seems like a massive waste of time and money to continue to implement changes first and just let everyone find out on day one. "Surprise F***ers! Its the new skill tree!" It saves time and resources to just communicate ideas before doing tons of work. What if its a bigger mess than before? What if the players riot and you lose paying customers due to stupid changes and have to change everything yet again? A simple discussion could save so much BS.

But you don't care what I think, do you?

Edited by Deltree Zero, 18 February 2017 - 07:46 AM.

[MovinTarget]

I've said this for a while, as of right now, a high percentage of the time it seems arm mounted weapons are a liability rather than an asset... about the only time i miss arm weapons is shooting UAVs and ankle biters that actually know how to counter the high torsi mounted meta...

Right now they often too low-mounted or too easily removed (save for exceptive outliers) to be useful on many mechs in comp/fp/high tier play...

Give arms in general a bit more love... be it a tree for armor/struct bonuses, heck, maybe even weapon heat reduction for arm-mounted weapons (better air circulation?)... I dunno...

[SuperFunkTron]

Bud Crue, on 18 February 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Dear PGI,

I get that you are going to do what ever it is you are going to do. No matter what we say or how much we, your customers and players, howl and complain, in the end, you are going to do whatever you want with the skills tree and the subsequent PTS. But no matter what it is that you do, take say...30 minutes...thinking about how you could present whatever it is that you do to us in a way that helps us understand WHY it is you are doing whatever it is you are doing.

Think about your stated goals in the last PTS and then go further than just a statement. Example: Promote greater build and 'Mech diversity on the battlefield by enabling broader control over specialized roles." Going forward, if that is still a goal, explain to us how a system that gives every mech the same choices, and a system that inherently makes many of the choices a forgone requirement, actually meets that goal. We may simply not be getting "it", so explain it to us. I mean maybe you foresee some players not taking the defensive tree, or some that actually use significant node numbers for arm speed. Explain to us when such things would be a good idea in your eyes. If necessary provide a tutorial.


Help us understand the goals, the rationale and the vision that you have for whatever it is you come up with and then maybe we can help give more productive feedback on it. I want to understand. I want to help. I want to be excited for change. Help me understand so I can.

I totally agree with this. Providing the goal and explaining how they see the goal being achieved would really add a lot of clarity and understanding while reducing the number of perspective arguments in the feed back threads. It would also be nice to not play detective and try to deduce what the reasoning behind some of the more complex changes.

1 major point I forgot to ask about is target lock times. Will they be affected in anyway by the new system or is it just target info gathering that will be adjusted? Target lock time increase with range would really encourage the increased utilization of NARCS and TAGS as well as having missile boats and scouts find more value out of their related nodes if they know that it would make a substantial enough difference.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

Base idea of skill tree sounds like : pick your own quirks to specialize mechs! Yay!

Implementation be like : Grind more for the same skills everyone will unlock while we nerf your mechs. Disappointed.

Seriously they've gone about a good idea in the worst possible way.

[SuperFunkTron]

Krocodockle, on 18 February 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

Base idea of skill tree sounds like : pick your own quirks to specialize mechs! Yay!

Implementation be like : Grind more for the same skills everyone will unlock while we nerf your mechs. Disappointed.

Seriously they've gone about a good idea in the worst possible way.

How would you go about it?

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

I've liked a lot of the comments recommending a grid rather than a tree.