17 replies to this topic

[Cato Phoenix]

Look:

The Update to the PTS (By Alex Garden)

Very glad to see that you guys have taken the feedback into account - primarily regarding respec costs for XP and not cbills.



Now here's hoping all the players going 'omg game ruined!' - take a moment to breathe.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease...

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Now if we could just work on the choice options there. I'm worried about what they've said about spreading skills out a bit more so that you have to invest more to get the things you want. This specifically sounds like I'll need to purchase junk skills to get what I want. For example AMS skills on a mech with no AMS or arm skills on a mech with no guns in the arms.

[FireStoat]

I read through it twice. Initially, I'm seeing this as a very big improvement over what was first rolled out to us. The two key issues I was at odds with was weapon boating being outright encouraged (it was a middle finger to Omnimech users) and Cbill costs associated with respec'ing trees. I'm glad the topics were taken seriously by them.

Edited by FireStoat, 20 February 2017 - 08:31 PM.

[FupDup]

Cato Phoenix, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Now here's hoping all the players going 'omg game ruined!' - take a moment to breathe.

These players are the ones who motivated PGI to make these changes in the first place.

You should be thanking them if anything.

[Cato Phoenix]

FupDup, on 20 February 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

These players are the ones who motivated PGI to make these changes in the first place.

You should be thanking them if anything.

I thank the people who posted reasonable, calm commentary on the changes that outlined the unreasonable costs and unintended consequences in the initial PTS (promoting boating, wrecking ECM, JJs needing work, etc).

The people who posted barely-literate rage at the skill tree, even after the promised change to the system, the people who promised to uninstall and close their wallets, who wanted to toss it all into the bin before any reasonable changes could be made - yea, no. Sure, they probably left the impression that they didn't like the proposed PTS. Obviously. But I don't think they deserve to be head-patted for ranting.

[SmokedJag]

Initial costs slashed and respec Cblll costs removed eliminates a lot of the perverse results.

[Fox2232]

I can say that It is going quite well. I am happy that developers did not follow those bad ideas and pushed forward those good ones.

I can track some ideas down to hybridization of 1st PTS and good ideas of one or two people. Other ideas are just from one person and then there are those where devs seen pain and decided to make another variant by themselves.

All looks like moves in good directions. Now, time to jump in and see for ourselves again.

[Horseman]

Dakota1000, on 20 February 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Now if we could just work on the choice options there. I'm worried about what they've said about spreading skills out a bit more so that you have to invest more to get the things you want. This specifically sounds like I'll need to purchase junk skills to get what I want. For example AMS skills on a mech with no AMS or arm skills on a mech with no guns in the arms.

It's progress, even if the direction is still iffy. I think we can expect at least one more iteration of the PTS after this one.

[Skribs]

I was planning on quitting if the original numbers went live.

As is, I'll stay, but I won't be happy that I'll go from 80 Mechs mastered to around 30.

I definitely won't buy any Mech Packs for a while if I have to re-level the ones I already own.

[JC Daxion]

Fox2232, on 21 February 2017 - 04:46 AM, said:

I can say that It is going quite well. I am happy that developers did not follow those bad ideas and pushed forward those good ones.

I can track some ideas down to hybridization of 1st PTS and good ideas of one or two people. Other ideas are just from one person and then there are those where devs seen pain and decided to make another variant by themselves.

heh.. Just one or two people had these ideas, please be serious? The only bad idea is one not shared and discussed. Or those that repress others for having thoughts that disagree. But i do have to wonder how many of "your" ideas have made it into patch notes.

Skribs, on 21 February 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

I was planning on quitting if the original numbers went live.

As is, I'll stay, but I won't be happy that I'll go from 80 Mechs mastered to around 30.

I definitely won't buy any Mech Packs for a while if I have to re-level the ones I already own.

Come on be serious, how many of those 80 mechs have you even played in the last 6 months? Out of my 100 mechs i own.. I think half are not even leveled yet, and that's 4 years of play and i think 7 or 8k matches..

but the cost reduction is a bit better over all.

Edited by JC Daxion, 21 February 2017 - 06:40 AM.

[Icky Ike]

I think the problem of having to buy junk tech nodes is going to remain. My question is why the skill points tree needs to be a "tree" at all? Why not make a tier system where unlocking certain nodes can only come after a minimum investment into a skill set, and if need be even give some high impact nodes other prerequisites for other unlocked nodes. The hexagonal geometric map of nodes ("tree") is cute, but why limit something like mech design by an arbitrary tree structure.

[soapyfrog]

It's still completely unacceptable to me.

- my currently fully mastered mechs still need, in most cases, to have 10-15,000xp ground out to be again mastered in the new system. That is a commitment of thousands of hours just to re-do what I have already done.

- unlocking their skills would cost me well north of 1.5 BILLION CBILLS, and amount I simply don't have even after the module refund, and again representing thousands of hours of effort just to get back to a where I am right now.

- respeccing makes me lose XP, requiring me AGAIN to regrind mechs which I have already mastered

What is the point of all my commitment of time and money if PGI wants to arbitrarily remove 100% of my c-bills and require me to sell half my mechs and spend 1000+ hours just to get the remainder back to where I already was?

And then to add insult to injury if I want to respec I lose yet more XP?

It's insane. I am really struggling to understand why they want to make me feel like I have been suckered. That can't be a good business strategy going forward.

Edited by soapyfrog, 21 February 2017 - 07:34 AM.

[Fox2232]

JC Daxion, on 21 February 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

heh.. Just one or two people had these ideas, please be serious? The only bad idea is one not shared and discussed. Or those that repress others for having thoughts that disagree. But i do have to wonder how many of "your" ideas have made it into patch notes.

WARNING! Cognitive failure detected, PLEASE ABORT.

I bet you would like if I wrote that every single change was result of hybridization of dozens ideas.
No, sorry. Each of changes ideas can be tracked down to small number of people. (It does not imply that this small number of people stand behind all changes.)

It is same as statement: "Two people worked on each task." and "Our Group completed 24 Tasks."
And then you butt in and say: "Impossible, two people can't do it."
And I reply: "Dummy, our team has dedicated 48 people to those tasks."

[Oldbob10025]

Dakota1000, on 20 February 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Now if we could just work on the choice options there. I'm worried about what they've said about spreading skills out a bit more so that you have to invest more to get the things you want. This specifically sounds like I'll need to purchase junk skills to get what I want. For example AMS skills on a mech with no AMS or arm skills on a mech with no guns in the arms.

Yea that was one of my biggest issues with the skill tree.. One issue

[Skribs]

Probably 50+. However, I can swap an engine and some modules into them and they're at peak performance. I could play any of them. That's what the work I have put in so far is worth.

[JC Daxion]

Fox2232, on 21 February 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

WARNING! Cognitive failure detected, PLEASE ABORT.

I bet you would like if I wrote that every single change was result of hybridization of dozens ideas.
No, sorry. Each of changes ideas can be tracked down to small number of people. (It does not imply that this small number of people stand behind all changes.)

It is same as statement: "Two people worked on each task." and "Our Group completed 24 Tasks."
And then you butt in and say: "Impossible, two people can't do it."
And I reply: "Dummy, our team has dedicated 48 people to those tasks."

Go read some first impressions, and see how many people said the exact same things, before reading other peoples posts. these changes are hardly from one person. Along with a bunch of the changes that have talked about for years.



For instance, i'll grab a couple from my first impression post, but others said very similar things.. and i'll bet most like me, just patched up, dropped onto test,, played a few matches and made a post before reading what anyone else said, so we had an unfettered post about "our" impressions. So just a snip

JC Daxion, on 09 February 2017 - 11:04 PM, said:

I think things need more feed back as well.. what does +1 vector in jumping mean? Or burn rate? Does +1 mean one second? does +1 mean 1 meter? What does +3 turn mean? ext

Simplifying the tree to have less nodes, and give us more feedback to what they actually do, along with blocking certain trees on certain mechs and we really might have something that lets us customize our mechs, but keep them in a certain class so to speak.

A few mechs i did try, really seamed to liven up, and get more mobile for sure, but it makes me wonder if it does that with all mechs. For balance, it makes me think perhaps under-performing mechs should have a multiplier.

Patch notes..

• Creates greater value for Mobility-based Skill bonuses for ‘Mechs which possess naturally high Mobility attributes.

Streamlines the influence of the Skill Tree on ‘Mech Mobility, providing more transparency within the MechLab in terms of how Skill Nodes influence the Mobility of a ‘Mech




Certainly does sound exactly what i was talking about.. I can go pick out other posts with others that said very similar things, or talked about these issues.. Sorry bud.. one or two people did not come up with these changes. The community posted about them and then discussed them.

No they didn't block certain trees.. But i never said they had too, just a thought about how to balance.. Instead they decided to BOOST mechs with inherit quirks, making the skill nodes give them a greater boost, verse ones that didn't have a boost already. So Basically a Multiplier to some mechs. (which in the end the mechs that get inherent boosts through quirks are typically under performers, which is what the idea all boiled down to in the first place.. Getting greater boost on select mechs.



But what i would like, Is to have a civil discussion with others about how to make the game better, verse insulting others and ideas we don't like.. But it is 2017, that could be asking far to much..

Edited by JC Daxion, 22 February 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Skribs, on 21 February 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Probably 50+. However, I can swap an engine and some modules into them and they're at peak performance. I could play any of them. That's what the work I have put in so far is worth.

Well to be honest, i thought the whole skill thing was a waste of time in the first place and said so on many occasions over the years. But seeing they are going forward with it, if it makes the game more competitive, or balanced then i guess it would be worth it in the end. But i have been saying for years if they changed it, and took away the rule of three single mech prices would go up and that is exactly what happened. People said i didn't know what i was talking about,..


But hey, at least last PTS from PD, got an IS streak buff.. So +1 point..

This skill tree added ammo and JJ quirks, something i have made so many posts about over the years i can't even count.. so at least i am happy with that coming to light, even if it is in the Skill tree. Maybe finally my commando can finish a match before going empty in todays 100 ton kodiak world.

But in the end i just want this to work, and them take a step in what i think is a good direction for the game, and not get scrapped because some folks don't like it. I thought ED and infowars while not perfect in the first iteration was a step in the right direction on both, but needed to be fleshed out more. Not scrapped. Maybe finally they will take something to the end, and it will be a big step in improving the base game as a whole

Edited by JC Daxion, 22 February 2017 - 09:58 AM.