DaZur, on 03 March 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:
1. I'm noticing a clear and present up-tick in decent and derision regarding the PTS/Skill-Tree...
2. Clearly, we're creatures of habit as well as creatures who right wrong or different view change as a step back and not a step forward.
3. Just remember... Just because you do not personally agree with something, that does not necessarily =/= it's bad/wrong. Understand sometimes you have to break things in order to re-build and re-establish.
Numbered for easy reference.
1. Considering PGI's rather ham-fisted approach to the game in general, we, the players, are well within their rights to greet any decision by PGI with a hefty amount of derision and salt.
Example: PGI's PTS attempts always end up attempting to test a dozen different things all at once, while claiming they are trying to test just one thing. The current Skill Tree PTS. Instead of testing just the skill trees, they're now throwing engine decoupling//mobility nerf into the mix when the skill trees haven't even been fully tested.
There are literally a million things wrong with this game and every time they come close to fixing one thing, they break a hundred more things
They would probably need to spend a full year at least doing nothing but bug and general game fixes in order to make this game work properly. That means a full year with no mechs, no maps, no new weapons or tech, no skills, etc etc, yadda yadda.
Basically PGI has painted themselves into a corner with all the bad decisions they've made over the last 5 years.
2. In some cases, yes, you're right. People are creatures of habit, problem is, PGI is trying to force huge changes in peoples play styles all at once instead of more gradual, or incremental changes. Again, going back to PGI's ham-fisted approach to the game.
They are constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY swinging from one extreme to the other and back again, partly because the game is so completely and utterly borked, and has been since pretty much Day 1. It would likely require PGI resetting all in-game values back to their normal TT values and then slowly iterating balance from there in order to fix even half the problems the game currently suffers from.
Going back to the PTS subject though, when you advertise a PTS aimed at one specific thing, you test THAT ONE SPECIFIC THING~! Nothing else. Otherwise you get a bunch of confused, skewed data that only exacerbates all the problems the game suffers from.
3. I think I covered this in the other two sections, but I'll go over it again. It's become more and more clear to the players that PGI isn't capable of doing half the stuff they claim to want to do with the game. When they break something it often stays broken for months at a time unless the outcry from the players is so overwhelmingly vehement that they have no choice but to fix it immediately or risk further and even worse backlash.
We know that they are trying to re-build a rather lackluster portion of the games core mechanics with this new skill system, but as has been pointed out numerous times, they often go about it in the absolute wrong ways. The skill trees are a good idea, this much the player base is likely willing to acknowledge, but they are often going about it in the wrong ways.
The changes they made to the weapons and mobility trees were a good change from the previous version of the tree system, but there are further improvements that need to be made.
For instance, the trees need to be better organized, due to some mechs simply not having access to certain elements that some of the trees provide bonuses for. Now they fixed some of these problems from the last version of the PTS, but there are still some problems that linger on.
The consolidation of the mobility trees into one was a good start, as it eliminated certain skills that did nothing for certain mechs. Mechs like the Rifleman or Jagermech, the elimination of the arm speed skills was a good thing since their arms were incapable of moving side to side.
But, for mechs like, lets use the Commando Hero, Death's Knell. The weapons tree is an absolute mess due to several range and cooldown skills being locked behind a few ballistic and missile weapon skills that the Commando simply doesn't have access to, seeing as it only has 4 energy hardpoints.
The weapon skill tree needs to match the mech it's applied to. Mechs with only 1 hardpoint type would get the general skills such as range and cooldown, and then the skills specific to that 1 hardpoint type. So the Death's Knell would then also get the laser duration skills.
Mechs with 2 hardpoint types, lets use the aforementioned Rifleman and Jagermech, would get access to the general skills, and then whatever 2 hardpoint types they have access to. Ballistic/Energy generally speaking, while only one Jagermech, the JM6-A has access to all 3 hardpoint types.
That being said, PGI is, surprisingly enough, listening to the community on this PTS, but are they listening enough, and are they listening to the right people? Those questions send shivers down my spine, as they should with most people.
I for one think this version of the skill trees is a lot better than the first version, but as I pointed out, there are still changes and improvements that DESPARATELY need to be made for the good of the game, and some changes that desparately need to be avoided for the good of the game.
3
