15 replies to this topic

[Skribs]

All this talk about problems with the new skill tree got me thinking...does MWO need a skill tree at all? Let's look at it from the perspective of a player and from sales.

From the player's perspective, XP requires a grind. The current XP model forces you to buy Mechs you wouldn't otherwise get, as part of the Rule of 3. This makes players with limited number of Mechbays suffer, especially since you start with 4 Mechbays, and is largely considered one of the dumbest things about MWO.

XP provides a way to progress your Mech, but it also feels like your Mechs are weak until mastered. You don't go in a different queue with a new Mech, and you as a player have to learn to pilot it anyway. The current XP model doesn't do a whole lot for us but cause us annoyance.

The new XP system has it's own problems.

From PGI's perspective, XP is a way to sell additional variants of Mechs, and it is a way to encourage Mech Bays and sell champion Mechs (and possibly premium time). However, XP is a reason for players to NOT buy Mechs, because they're still leveling something. There already exists a grind in the hunt for C-Bills, so players still have a reason to play to earn more money.

PGI has a money sink in place in the form of new Mechs only being available for real-world money. It doesn't matter how many C-Bills you have if you have to buy Mechs with $$ or MC because they're not available yet.

Do we even need a skill system? We could just make champions get 10% C-Bills, and then balance Mechs around a 0-skill system.

[Tiantara]

- Well... we need. That system make mech more role based and in same time better performing vs other builds\skill mech in game. Provide better possibility to make your mech for your playstyle.

[Chound]

Skribs, on 17 February 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

All this talk about problems with the new skill tree got me thinking...does MWO need a skill tree at all? Let's look at it from the perspective of a player and from sales.

From the player's perspective, XP requires a grind. The current XP model forces you to buy Mechs you wouldn't otherwise get, as part of the Rule of 3. This makes players with limited number of Mechbays suffer, especially since you start with 4 Mechbays, and is largely considered one of the dumbest things about MWO.

XP provides a way to progress your Mech, but it also feels like your Mechs are weak until mastered. You don't go in a different queue with a new Mech, and you as a player have to learn to pilot it anyway. The current XP model doesn't do a whole lot for us but cause us annoyance.

The new XP system has it's own problems.

From PGI's perspective, XP is a way to sell additional variants of Mechs, and it is a way to encourage Mech Bays and sell champion Mechs (and possibly premium time). However, XP is a reason for players to NOT buy Mechs, because they're still leveling something. There already exists a grind in the hunt for C-Bills, so players still have a reason to play to earn more money.

PGI has a money sink in place in the form of new Mechs only being available for real-world money. It doesn't matter how many C-Bills you have if you have to buy Mechs with $$ or MC because they're not available yet.

Do we even need a skill system? We could just make champions get 10% C-Bills, and then balance Mechs around a 0-skill system.

One problem you missed. PGI needs REAL money not C bills. The way to get it is the sale of mechs in the packages or MC. MC is primarily obtained by useing real money. Premium time is mainly obtained with MC. C-bills are meaningless for PGI

[Nesutizale]

I don't see the Skillsystem as a strong selling point for people to spend money on.

I mean PGI makes money by selling you

- Mechbays
encouraged by the "rule of 3" but can be bypassed by either selling the mechs you don't want after Mastering or by faction warfare mechbays. Only people who play PokeMech will most likely need to buy Mechbays.
I think from the 30+ bays I have I only bought 5 or so. Others came with the mechs, faction warfate or won them in an event

- Colors, paintjobs, decals
You can get them via money or events. I count colors you get via Mechs purchased also as money. Little you can do to get them for free.

- Mechs
Either you wait and grind or you buy them.

- Modules
Grind

-Skills
Grind, except for the impationed who pay money to get prime time

So Yah there is a point to Skills beeing "payable" but you can also grind it. To me that is not realy a selling point...I got lots of patience.

Mechbays, Colors, Paintjobs, Decals and Mechs...all these things are more interesting to buy with real money then spending money on prime time to me....as I can't get, at least some of them, via playing.

Frankly I think Mechbays should be removed from faction warfare. Its a real importend asset you will most likely need at some point and the bays themself aren't that expansive. I could life without fancy colors or decals but mechbays are a must have.

Still I don't see the skillsystem, old or new, as a big point for PGI to make real money with.


As for "Do we need a Skill system...see this threat https://mwomercs.com...we-need-skills/

Edited by Nesutizale, 18 February 2017 - 07:17 AM.

[Skribs]

Tiantara, on 18 February 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

- Well... we need. That system make mech more role based and in same time better performing vs other builds\skill mech in game. Provide better possibility to make your mech for your playstyle.

The new system will feature a cookie cutter. There isn't much role to be found. You get structure, movement, and sensors, and fill the rest of your points to boost whatever weapon you're boating.

Chound, on 18 February 2017 - 12:52 AM, said:

One problem you missed. PGI needs REAL money not C bills. The way to get it is the sale of mechs in the packages or MC. MC is primarily obtained by useing real money. Premium time is mainly obtained with MC. C-bills are meaningless for PGI

Yes, and one of the big reasons I don't buy new Mechs is because I still have Mechs to level. Why buy the Bushwhacker pack when I've got 3 packs worth of Mechs that I've barely touched and I have a bunch of heroes I haven't leveled because I got them on sale and don't have the others? Okay, if Rule of 3 goes away, I'd still have a bunch of heroes I got on sale and haven't leveled yet.

So what is my incentive to buy new Mechs? If leveling slows down, I will buy even less Mechs.

PGI needs MC sales for Mechbays or to sell Mech Packs, and XP is making me buy less things, because I still need to grind XP. There's no point in paying to unlock more things that I will wait to level, when I can level what I have now and wait for them to come for C-Bills.

PGI needs us to want the shiny new thing, and not be blocked by the old things we haven't quite polished.

[MechaBattler]

Need? No. But it's been asked for since they introduced the skill.

And I don't think they care that much about customization. I think they're just raising time to kill in the face of all of their other efforts being lambasted with forum outrage for trying to mess with people's alphawarrior online.

Also, money. They want to make some money off it.

Edited by MechaBattler, 18 February 2017 - 09:34 AM.

[Livaria]

The simplest answer is that it provides flexibility. Skills can be changed while Quirks can't. If a player needs something that quirks can't provide, then skills can give that to players.

Edited by Livaria, 18 February 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[Nesutizale]

Quirks can change, they have in the past, they will very likely in the future.
Skills, in the current and tree form are simple buffs, no risk realy. Diversity...a little bit but in the end people will allways choose a fixed path of survivablity (armor/structur), sensors (whats is basicly also survivability ) and their weapon of choise.
There is little to no diversity or a need to have it.

A selection of well balanced weapons from the Total Warfare ruleset can provide a lot more to the game then the simple buff system we have.

[Skribs]

Nesutizale, on 19 February 2017 - 12:15 PM, said:

Quirks can change, they have in the past, they will very likely in the future.
Skills, in the current and tree form are simple buffs, no risk realy. Diversity...a little bit but in the end people will allways choose a fixed path of survivablity (armor/structur), sensors (whats is basicly also survivability ) and their weapon of choise.
There is little to no diversity or a need to have it.

A selection of well balanced weapons from the Total Warfare ruleset can provide a lot more to the game then the simple buff system we have.

I think he meant that you can't change your quirks.

[Tiantara]

- The greatest sides of Skill System is:

1. New player gets improvements to his mech right after purchase skill nodes for XP+C-bill. Not after long farming and buying pretty expensive module for mech with low module capacity. Even 1 node already give mech some improvements. In old system you play longer on mech with less abilities vs more advanced mech and get a little disbalance in battle.

2. More advanced player like tier 4-3 can choose skills more suitable to his playstyle and make better his own mech. Without restriction like - buy 3 mech and make them all basic. Also - take not only nodes which he need, but also some support nodes which make some skill work better (like speed tweak + hill climb)

3. Mech with better structure can sacrifice survivability skills to weapon\sensor side. Weak mech - can get some armor and become more durable.

4. You can place more "modules" than before and make one weapon better on range - other better on cooldown and get balanced mech for your specific play tactic.

5. Scout mech become really scout. But without improvements in scouting reward and some intell-activities - mostly useless. But - we'll have less "ECM umbrellas" and less over-sensored mech.

6. Also some mech can use only few weapon type and only with one type it work better than other. Like pretty durable side torso of Cyclops which allow to put there big-gun-for-any-enemy. Or srm for Atlas. Both get some boost by the skills and some addition bonuses from movement skill.

[Livaria]

When I say that quirks can't change I mean they are not going to change for the player. They will change every once in a while and only by PGI's decision, not the player.

[Kyle Kowalski]

the skill system is a huge disadvantage to new players. the old timers have XP and cash piled up and will be fully leveled.
new players will go to the grinder. literally.
people who bought more then one mech of the same type and no modules (because grind) - basically those who spent most cash - will be the ones suffering the most under the new system.

go figure.

FW 4.1 - i have seen a lot of people leave.
this skill tree will do the same again. less people. :/

kill skills all together. just have modules. thats it.

[Bellum Dominum]

Kyle Kowalski, on 20 February 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

the skill system is a huge disadvantage to new players. the old timers have XP and cash piled up and will be fully leveled.
new players will go to the grinder. literally.
people who bought more then one mech of the same type and no modules (because grind) - basically those who spent most cash - will be the ones suffering the most under the new system.

go figure.

FW 4.1 - i have seen a lot of people leave.
this skill tree will do the same again. less people. :/

kill skills all together. just have modules. thats it.

Lack of a skill system when it'd been discussed since before launch is one of the reasons people have left. Then you have the quirkening... I could go on and on.

Modules and quirks have always been at PGI's whim where as a skill tree gives players control, or at least some, over their mech specializations which is what has been wanted again since before launch.

Players like myself who have multiple copies of mechs from spending real cash, yes even hero mechs, aren't being penalized in anyway.

Every game is 'unfair to new players' that is why there is such a term as 'learning curve'. Part of what has made MWO good is that it's been a high learning curve.

Grind has always existed. Games will always have some kind of grind, well the ones that stand the test of time anyways. Finding a balance between grind and enjoyment is always difficult for a game developer.

If you spent real cash on more than one copy of a mech and haven't moduled it.... that is most certainly not PGI's fault. If you did this because the grind for modules was too much for you... honestly I'm curious why you even play this game. That 'so called grind' is simply playing the game. Not like you have to go out and find a moon or asteroid and spend hours pushing one button to collect materials and then run back to your mechlab forge and turn that material into other materials.. etc etc etc.

[Livaria]

Kyle Kowalski, on 20 February 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

the skill system is a huge disadvantage to new players. the old timers have XP and cash piled up and will be fully leveled.
new players will go to the grinder. literally.
people who bought more then one mech of the same type and no modules (because grind) - basically those who spent most cash - will be the ones suffering the most under the new system.

go figure.

FW 4.1 - i have seen a lot of people leave.
this skill tree will do the same again. less people. :/

kill skills all together. just have modules. thats it.

I understand that notion. It's also why I'm wanting skill trees that literally cost no experience. All a player has to do, is buy a mech and spend up to the maximum allowed skill points, no grinding requirement.

If this were the case, then I would be completely fine with a moderate sum for respecs. Say 675,000 c-bills and we'd be square. PGI can keep their C-bill sink. And players are much less pressured to fufill the experience requirement.

Edited by Livaria, 20 February 2017 - 04:37 PM.

[tokumboh]

Bellum Dominum, on 20 February 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

Lack of a skill system when it'd been discussed since before launch is one of the reasons people have left. Then you have the quirkening... I could go on and on.

Modules and quirks have always been at PGI's whim where as a skill tree gives players control, or at least some, over their mech specializations which is what has been wanted again since before launch.

Players like myself who have multiple copies of mechs from spending real cash, yes even hero mechs, aren't being penalized in anyway.

Every game is 'unfair to new players' that is why there is such a term as 'learning curve'. Part of what has made MWO good is that it's been a high learning curve.

Grind has always existed. Games will always have some kind of grind, well the ones that stand the test of time anyways. Finding a balance between grind and enjoyment is always difficult for a game developer.

If you spent real cash on more than one copy of a mech and haven't moduled it.... that is most certainly not PGI's fault. If you did this because the grind for modules was too much for you... honestly I'm curious why you even play this game. That 'so called grind' is simply playing the game. Not like you have to go out and find a moon or asteroid and spend hours pushing one button to collect materials and then run back to your mechlab forge and turn that material into other materials.. etc etc etc.

I agree there has always been grind. What I think is that the skill tree makes a number of changes that affects what simply put is a small community of players that play the most and have invested the most in this game, I say that as one of the players whom would not be able to remaster all the mechs I have with the refund of the modules, XP and Cbills I would have. it might mean that I sell some mechs to do the mastering or will be happy not to master all or any of them. since the quirks beyond some of the basics are pretty much underwhelming ( I say that in a good way)


However my concerns actually are rather more than just the skill tree. Currently if you look at the overall leaderboard there have been 60204 accounts that have played at 1 game to qualify in the overall leaderboard.
The person at the top of the tree has played 1900 or so games close to 80 a day, to get in the top 50 you would have to have played 1000 matches this season to get in the top 1000 you'd have had to played nearly 500 matches the top 2000 would have played at least 380 games the top 4000 have played 280+ games the top 8000 have played 180+ matches, half the population have played less than 20 games this season.

Now the real problem is if we take what you have said at face value we should ignore a good proportion of the community that play very few games and not try and get them to play more games. The skill tree essentially needs to reward people for coming back to the game again and again but no such that they completely outstrip people whom are new to the game. The reason this is important is that we do not have a enough to separate out the beginners from the expert players I play as a tier 4 and have several time played with and against tier 1 in solo queue so you are pitching highly skilled versus beginners so no wonder people play less which makes the situation worse

Not addressing why bulk of player play less than one game a day is something that seems to be a problem for many in the community it is as if the game is exclusively theirs and I'd caution that this make mean that less people play it. Now it could be that the learning curve is high, so how to we help people get over it, it could be that the rewards are basically loaded against the new player. It is not the Marine Corps where we are weeding out to get a select few. ( the old get gud!!!!)

On the skill tree itself I think that the fact the cooldown quirks have been lowered with or without the armour/structure buffs would make time to kill longer and that for the less skilled is a boon. it means they stay in the fight longer and are not insta killed on the first mistake. Basically insta kill breeds hesitancy and an even poorer game experience in my view, I have watched beginners sniping from distance in Assault mechs with hardly any armour lost becuase that gets them more damage and thus more C bills than mixing it and getting insta killed. it helps them some but does not help the team. The academy does not teach team skills or indeed rudimentary role play and it appears that the academy has completely stalled. andyet we have been given several PTS which have come to nought.

As to the Skill tree itself I think that some things are rightly nerfed making the same mech 20% better than stock is not really when going against someone with less skill is using a trial mech is just going to hurt and together with the meta builds unavailable to new players just makes things worse for the new player experience,

Having said all that the fact that the PGI headed down this path of using the skill to give a general buff to a mech. I can see trying to roll that back would p155 people off. players would have crafted and done the grind =on their mechs only to have them basically nerfed.

Personally I think the rationale needs to be given as to why PGI did what they did what they were hoping to achieve and why they believe they would achieve it with some examples and data. Often it seems they are doing a set of changes arbitrarily and the skill tree while I think it is a good idea see one of these attempts.

Lastly one persons grind is another persons super grind. If I had the time to play 1000 games in a season even if I lost every game 40000 XP 4000 GP and around 25M C bills at a minimum, that is with no damage no in play rewards nothing, without premium time. Now put that player with that level of resources directly competing with a weekend warrior of 10 to 15 games on a weekend (which is what 50 game per season is) then then you are looking at an unfair battle. We need enough numbers such that these two players do not meet and currently we don't have enough so I still be a massive recruiting drive is necessary to build a wider player base. Now if we had 100K players with the player at the 50K mark playing 100 games a season I think that would be a different game hell half the player played 50 games a season rather than 20 that would make a huge difference too.

[Bellum Dominum]

tokumboh:

You make some valid points and I'm actually not ignoring those that don't play as many games as others (Heck I fall into that category now). Tier 4 vs Tier 2 is rough enough for you, tier 1 is just adding insult to injury . I honestly don't get the gripe over the cbills... low average of 250k cbills (which only takes 300+ dmg) a match at just 10 matches = 2.5million cbills. cbills have never been something that was hard to get. Now I've been just pugging the last almost year now and I will say that not nearly enough people meet that 300 dmg a match 'goal'. (It was figured out early on in the game that if just each player did 300 damage and had at least 3 assists on a team that the team should win the match. This was back when the only 'game mode' was skirmish.) TTK going up as it has since then perhaps that 'goal' should be pumped up to about 350 dmg per match.

Now higher TTK, which would be an across the board change, actually is only going to further reward those that are already meeting that per match dmg goal and greater penalize those that aren't. I'll explain: higher TTK means longer matches. While those that don't meet the goal now might be able to with a higher TTK (assuming they live longer AND are putting out dmg while living longer) it also means they are going to get in fewer matches during that same small amount of time that they are able play. So honestly the best they can hope for in terms of cbill earning will be to average what they already are which is going to require that they put out more damage. DMG = cbills. (I primarily play lights and my dmg average over the years is probably right at about 425 a match. It is generally pretty slow earning cbills in a light for me versus if I hop into one of my assaults or heavies relatively speaking anyways).

In regards to all of your points of low time in game player versus a player with a lot of time in game... well the Tier system was supposed to help address those issues but the amount of players actually in game at one time plays a huge role in the Tier system even applied. IE: if only 19 Tier 1 players are on playing pug matches (all solo que'd) they are not going to get a Tier 1 match like they are supposed to. The game is going to have to fill those other slots hopefully pulling from Tier 2 first (and generally it does seem to do that). This is the case because of wait times to be able to even play a match. Not really fair to the lower tiers, especially Tier 4, but the Tier 1s certainly deserve to be able to play as well. So in short really the game needs more players again and hopefully this skill system is going to do that.

Why they are doing the skill tree: largely because a complex skill set like this has been requested by the player base since closed beta. It wasn't hugely screamed for because there were many other technical issues that needed to be addressed with the game before adding in even more possible issues. Then because they want to draw in more players. Not so much to help fill the tiers out properly (although I'd be surprised if that wasn't a 'secondary goal') as much as more players = better bottom line.

Those of us that have been around since beta... have lost a lot of things that we at one time liked very much. It is an unfortunate side effect of forward game development. Some of the things we've lost truly improved the game, others not so much, and some... well I'll just leave that to your imagination.

As far as why the bulk of the community only has 'one game a day' largely is because the bulk of gamers are casual players. Breaking their game time down into a 'per day' format isn't reflective of many possible variables for each individual player. New accounts and 'closed accounts' are much more reflective of the state of the game in terms of if the players are liking the game or not. Not perfect surely but definitely better than thinking 'if you like the game you should be playing it every day at least 10 games'.

More time in on anything is always going to equal more out of it. Just a fact of life that can't be gotten around. The more it's made easier to get more out of something faster people are going to get bored with it and then you just end up an even larger bulk of casual gamers. PGI has to consider their bottom line.. and casual gamers while being the bulk of the player base aren't the bulk of their income.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 22 February 2017 - 04:33 PM.