368 replies to this topic

[C64Ultra]

Good work! Very good changes!

[Garegaupa]

This sounds great! I really liked the original idea for the new skill tree, but it was obvious that it needed quite a bit of tweaking. With these proposed changes I think you've really nailed it! Hopefully the next PTS round will iron out the last minor tweaks and details before it's ready to go live.

I almost can't wait for March to come so that I can try this stuff out on the live servers! I believe this will really revitalize MWO as far as I'm concerned!

[Tul Duru]

Looks like a good run of ideas. The weapons reworks really helps, and pushing the armor/structure further in will force more choices since no one is going to avoid that.

The biggest thing right now is that I'm dubious of the engine change, cause it could go amazingly or destructively terrible for mechs depending on the values each weight class gets.

So right now, things like the Warhawk need it, cause you can't change the engine, and the Mad 2c is really good for the same weight.

On the flip side, the Timber wolf also can't change engines, and if that slows down too much it loses much of its value.

But things like that can wait and see. The biggest problem is really just omnimechs which are unable to change engines, be it getting too good, unplayable, or being brought in line. It's hard to say until we see the hard numbers.

[RudWolf]

Very good changes. I am looking forward to next round of PTS and I am ready to provide feeedback.


Also...

Disassociating ‘Mech Mobility Attributes from Engine Ratings

... is huuuge, and one would like to shout "finally". Now remove that silly 10 heatsink requirement and we can start talking about how to get this game balanced for real!

Good job!


Also should not be more convenient to rename "Skill tree" to "Mech upgrades" or something like that, does not seem that any of those things have to do anything with "skill"

Edited by RudWolf, 21 February 2017 - 03:39 AM.

[Odanan]

AnTi90d, on 20 February 2017 - 09:40 PM, said:

PGI listened to feedback!

It's happening!

And I remember it was you the guy who first suggested the Firepower changes.
Thank you so much! (and PGI for listening)

All praise the prophet!!

[MovinTarget]

Not *exactly* what I was hoping for, but changes in the right direction...

I actually respect the... respec?

You see, taking customer feedback is one thing, letting the inmates run the asylum is something else entirely... My own wishlist may have made me happy but perhaps not others, so I'll take what I can get If PGI tried to make every last player happy b/c we all think we have a voice in this, they'd never get anything done and no one would be be happy with the product.

This PTS, while interesting in its baseline seems to be working as intended.

Edited by MovinTarget, 21 February 2017 - 03:50 AM.

[J0anna]

Most changes sound like they are moving in the correct direction, however we'll have to see once they are released what PGI considers "standard mobility" to be acceptable. "Standard mobility" like the originally released HGN-IIC, which made the mech unacceptable for any close range work, will not be enjoyable.

[MrKvola]

Liking most of the changes, especially the SP cost reduction. Athough I still believe that 40% of the originally suggested costs would be fair, not the suggested 60% as that would bring the grind back to what it is now. And the statement that the grind does not change would be actually true.

Not liking that the SPs are not an unlock. Again, you are punished for whatever experimentation and re-spec you'd like to do with your 'mech.

Why PGI? WHY? Why do you need to make the people grind if they want to rebuild or change anything? Tricking out 'mechs to your liking, tweaking performance and all that other good stuff is one of the selling points of this game.

With the latest numbers, re-speccing 15 nodes would cost 6k XP. That would be on average say 6 matches worth (unless you have a really bad run, or an insane killing streak) which is over an hour time spent just earning re-spec XP. At that time we already invested significant time in earning XP with said 'mech. And that being said, I would sincerely like to understand the push for the increased grind. It just does not make sense to me.

I'll definitely give the PTS a spin again, liking the changes that go with community feedback.

[aGentleWarrior]

Seems like a step in the right direction!


Good you noticed the favorism of one weapon type builds!

Edited by aGentleWarrior, 21 February 2017 - 04:37 AM.

[DeeHawk]

DaveKell, on 20 February 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:

So the new tree system isnt for release on the 21'st of feb?

As you've probably figured out by now, the decision to delay the release of the skill tree, was vaguely presented in a PTS update topic in the related sub forum, and linked to in the first line of this topic.

[Sky Hawk]

I'm still don't like the "You losing Mech-XP EVERY TIME, when you change Nodes"-part... Losing CB is one thing, but losing XP... sounds, like losing brain cells...

But.. the one Firepower Tree and the new Engine/Mobility stuff sounds interesting...

[banana peel]

Oh mama, that is unexpected. Outside of firepower changes (reducing of customization is not the right direction, imo, different amount of nodes for different mechs would be the "boating" solution) everythings looks very promosing. Anticipate new lots of feedback and keep up the process of perfection, guys. We are on to something.

[Aleski]

It is really a step in the right direction, good job PGI ! And good job to the community to talk about the problems of the first iteration of the new skill tree.

The new system with the engine seems very promising. Direwolf and Atlas will be happy and it will nerf some very dreadfull mech (Kodiak, Timberwolf, Marauder IIC). It will also add more diversity beetween chassis : the exemple of the Phawx and Blackjack seems really promising. Now all of the 55 tonners of the IS will have some differences ha ha ha

I am waiting to test these changes in the new PTS

[Bud Crue]

One the one hand the economy and node tree changes sound like a step in the right direction.

On the other hand, as always, PGI is trying to do too many things at once. The skills tree changes alone present a plethora of variables that just by themselves are nearly impossible to test and reasonably judge their individual or collective impact on the game; but adding engine decoupling at the same time adds yet another factor that is going to impact our perception of the other changes thus, making it impossible to objectively determine what is affecting what for good or ill.

Bad testing environment with too many variables is bad.

[Eldaran]

Looking good! I can't wait to see it live!

[MovinTarget]

Bud Crue, on 21 February 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

One the one hand the economy and node tree changes sound like a step in the right direction.

On the other hand, as always, PGI is trying to do too many things at once. The skills tree changes alone present a plethora of variables that just by themselves are nearly impossible to test and reasonably judge their individual or collective impact on the game; but adding engine decoupling at the same time adds yet another factor that is going to impact our perception of the other changes thus, making it impossible to objectively determine what is affecting what for good or ill.

Bad testing environment with too many variables is bad.

You are right that there are many, many dependencies here, however, take a moment to remember that glorious 6 month period where the clams were first dropped on us and the IS mechs had *no* chance 1v1...

While the skill tree is taking a step in the right direction, so is the PTS usage.

Besides, I'm not sure how they could have limited the PTS more than making it 4v4 (MAKE THIS A THING ON THE LIVE SERVER!!!!)... If they limited the selection of variants we'd have questions about implementation on unrepresented variants.

I would posit that it would be difficult to gauge any individual or collective impact regardless because of all the variables PGI can't control, like who plays the PTS, how much they play, what matchups occur and even if the the player's hardware is high/average/potato quality.

I think the primary thing they wanted to test was the viability of switching in the skill tree to offer an individual mech progression that is clear, flexible, and acceptable.

We see the the stats given and have pointed out to them how some bonuses would need to be tweaked. That's the nice thing here, we are playing with numbers, this transcends individual gameplay. Flags can be raised (and have been) when the numbers favor one variant more than others.

[Bud Crue]

MovinTarget, on 21 February 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

You are right that there are many, many dependencies here, however, take a moment to remember that glorious 6 month period where the clams were first dropped on us and the IS mechs had *no* chance 1v1...

While the skill tree is taking a step in the right direction, so is the PTS usage.

Besides, I'm not sure how they could have limited the PTS more than making it 4v4 (MAKE THIS A THING ON THE LIVE SERVER!!!!)... If they limited the selection of variants we'd have questions about implementation on unrepresented variants.

I would posit that it would be difficult to gauge any individual or collective impact regardless because of all the variables PGI can't control, like who plays the PTS, how much they play, what matchups occur and even if the the player's hardware is high/average/potato quality.

I think the primary thing they wanted to test was the viability of switching in the skill tree to offer an individual mech progression that is clear, flexible, and acceptable.

We see the the stats given and have pointed out to them how some bonuses would need to be tweaked. That's the nice thing here, we are playing with numbers, this transcends individual gameplay. Flags can be raised (and have been) when the numbers favor one variant more than others.

While there are certainly problems with the PTS, I am certainly grateful that they are deigning to use it. No, my concern is not with the PTS itself, but the fact that they are doing to many things at once in this single PTS. They made the same mistake in ever other PTS with the result -in every instance- of the thing of primary interest being pulled; all because it was impossible for the testers to give rationale, objective feedback because too many variables were in play. Be it info-tech that got side tracked by ghost damage; or ED that was side tracked by PGIs confused seemingly random changes to nearly every weapon value during the run of the PTS, to many changes at once makes it impossible for anyone, no matter how well intentioned to understand what the hell is going on.

In the present case, I think the skills tree changes are way, way, too many variables to effectively test simultaneously; and now they are adding engine decoupling on top of it. That worries me. I certainly hope I am wrong, but history around here suggests otherwise.

[shopsmart]

Everything read I liked. Tried to PTS, but hard drive sizes prevented any install. Almost inefficient installer, but youtube helped me watch and make evaluations.

Biggest thing I read is decoupling mobility from engine. So I torso twisting on a 60 rated urbie will now be the same speed as a 180? Hallejuia!!!

[MovinTarget]

Bud Crue, on 21 February 2017 - 05:31 AM, said:

While there are certainly problems with the PTS, I am certainly grateful that they are deigning to use it. No, my concern is not with the PTS itself, but the fact that they are doing to many things at once in this single PTS. They made the same mistake in ever other PTS with the result -in every instance- of the thing of primary interest being pulled; all because it was impossible for the testers to give rationale, objective feedback because too many variables were in play. Be it info-tech that got side tracked by ghost damage; or ED that was side tracked by PGIs confused seemingly random changes to nearly every weapon value during the run of the PTS, to many changes at once makes it impossible for anyone, no matter how well intentioned to understand what the hell is going on.

In the present case, I think the skills tree changes are way, way, too many variables to effectively test simultaneously; and now they are adding engine decoupling on top of it. That worries me. I certainly hope I am wrong, but history around here suggests otherwise.

again, I agree its a lot of moving parts, I'm just not sure how they could test a smaller section without opening themselves up to possibly missing things by omission.

Edited by MovinTarget, 21 February 2017 - 05:49 AM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

I'll only be satisfied if getting my mechs to the same level they are now doesn't cost me anything additional. I have spent Time and real money getting my mechs the way they are. To make me grind out more to get them to where they are presently is a slap in the face.


Now ... i'm willing to do what it takes to get nodes that i currently dont have. For new players i feel this system will be great, but dont screw those of us that have paid into the system already.