358 replies to this topic

[NRP]

I just don't quite get what problem this whole exercise is supposed to solve.

As it is, it seems to primarily make the game less fun. I think PGI is on dangerous ground here.

[SuperFunkTron]

Todd Lightbringer, on 05 March 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

To begin, I have not personally tested this system out, but I have watched streamers fiddle with it.

To me it seems far to overly convoluted. I'm all for customization, options and such, but only in my RPGs. I feel like I'm staring at the Path of Exile's (PoE) skill tree when I look at this..... mess (nothing against PoEs skill tree).

I feel that quirks should be eliminated, keep the mobility system engine specific, and call it a day. I don't even feel like I'm being rewarded with anything by unlocking something that grants me a whopping 1% to whatever.

I can't agree about the system being convoluted. The trees are clearly labeled and stick to the topic.

If you are referring to "unwanted" nodes, those are a means to creating an extra cost for the highly desirable nodes while providing us some benefit (even if most don't apreciate it) rather than charging multiple points per node.

If you are referring to the weapons tree, it is the cleanest way to encourage mixed loadouts instead of just boating a single weapon type. If we really want to be pessimistic and say its too complicated, it means that the basic principles are simply being overlooked. A mixed build gets easier access to a variety of generic nodes because each weapon specific node will apply to fewer weapons. A boat has easy access to a reasonable number of generic nodes while improving their specific boated weapon.

In regard to the whopping 1% comment, it completely ignores the context of what is being adjusted, its impact, and the additive property of those nodes. If you look at it in its context so that you have some actually meaning to the number, 1% is the Heat Gen node. A single 1% reduction is agreeably minor, but if you stack even just 5 of them, then couple that with the relatively cheap 10% heat dissipation and 15% heat cap increase from almost maxing the operations tree, you are looking at a significant pay out in heat management.

You can complain all you want about the 1% nodes, but it doesn't really mean anything when you single out 1 out of 91 nodes and claim that its stacked effect has no impact on the game.

The only thing you are really arguing is that the system encroaches on laziness and that thinking of how to use limited resources to improve a mech's performance for a particular role adds excessive burden to a mech sim that is based on a strategic/tactical board game. You may not see the benefit of the PTS with laziness as the main excuse, but a lot of the people who are actually testing out the PTS are enjoying what it brings and don't mind that some thought goes into customizing their mechs and enhancing traits that they prefer.

[Ninjah]

PGI : We'll try to balance the game and reduce meta with Power Draw.
Player base: k, let's see it.
PGI: here's PTS.
Player base: nooooooooooooo, wtf PGI?!
PGI: k, nevermind, we'll do other stuff.
Player base: k.

.... [resources/time wasted]

PGI: We'll try to balance the game and reduce meta with the Skill Tree.
Player base: k, let's see it.
PGI: here's PTS.
Player base: nooooooo PGI, wtf!?
PGI: sigh, k, we'll do something else.
Player base: phew, k.

.... [resources/time wasted]

Give it up already and do some real work!

Edited by Ninjah, 05 March 2017 - 11:10 AM.

[cougurt]

SuperFunkTron, on 05 March 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

Those less useful nodes are the equivalent to nodes costing more than 1 point an are there to intentionally increase investment costs. For those fighting for a more linear, costly tree, you are really fighting for a lousy deal that would reduce all those "unwanted" benefits for those of us who don't mind them, just so you can get a simple tree. Is thinking a game really that off putting?

i really don't see any compelling reason to have individual nodes for things like +6% arm pitch. that level of granularity in skill selection is just ridiculously unnecessary. you're not losing out by having those things included as part of a single, all-encompassing skill node.

[Arkhangel]

Ninjah, on 05 March 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

PGI : We'll try to balance the game and reduce meta with Power Draw.
Player base: k, let's see it.
PGI: here's PTS.
Player base: nooooooooooooo, wtf PGI?!
PGI: k, nevermind, we'll do other stuff.
Player base: k.

.... [resources/time wasted]

PGI: We'll try to balance the game and reduce meta with the Skill Tree.
Player base: k, let's see it.
PGI: here's PTS.
Player base: nooooooo PGI, wtf!?
PGI: sigh, k, we'll do something else.
Player base: phew, k.

.... [resources/time wasted]

Give it up already and do some real work!

yes, the whining players should get jobs.

[Trev Firestorm]

Arkhangel, on 05 March 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

yes, the whining players should get jobs.

The problem is we give real feedback then PGI says, well **** it and scraps the whole thing. Infowar, powerdraw, both had good components but they dumped both completely.

[Weeny Machine]

Wintersdark, on 05 March 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

As I've said, I think lighter mechs need more agility than heavier mechs, for all the reasons we agree on.

However, I will say, there's a problem here.

If your light mech can simply run in circles around a bigger mech and stay out of it's firing arcs, that tends to lead to play that really doesn't sit well with anyone but the light pilot. I respect that lights in particular need some help, they're the least played class and the weakest of the lot, but it's a dangerous line to cross making them literally invincible vs. a slower target. They DO need lots of agility, but they need to use that to actually outmaneuver utilizing terrain and cover, hitting and fading, rather than simply circling their target.

I've never advocated that Assaults should simply win fights vs. lights, and that can be an issue. I'm certainly not one of those ridiculous "lights are OP" guys. Just that people need to understand that it's a very difficult balance to strike, and crossing that boundary to where lights can simply auto-win is bad as it leads to poor gameplay overall.

You just talk in extremes. You say lights are not supposed to just stay in the back of heavies. I agree with that. However, at the moment (live server) we are at the exact opposite end of the scale: a light cannot stay out of a heavy's firing arc. But that's seems to be totally fine. Especially for the munchkin heavy and assault crowd - who shouts anyway that they are supposed to win every matchup because they sit in the heavier mech. Which is... ah well

That harassing you mention is good and well but it makes for bland gameplay. It is just a slightly different version of sniping peek-a-boo.

And let's assume for a moment the target mech cannot shake of the light mech. The light mech needs still uptime on the target and is far from invincible (note: I never ever said that lights are supposed to stay out of a firing arc forever. I just say that they should be able to decrease enemy dps on their mech by moving well).

Then there is the matter of the target's teammates. Considering the armour and structure quirks on heavies and assaults (live server again) they need a certain amount of uptime which is extremely dangerous when other mechs intervene. Lights like Panther, Wolfie, FS etc are so easily peppered with LRMs or simply shot at with PPCs and Gauss - which is the meta anyway - while trying to stay on target. And one good alpha hit can ruin a light's day.

That is what I meant: nothing will change after the PTS. Most likely lights will have it even harder due to more mechs getting access to velocity buffs and laser burn time decrease. At the same time the brainless peek-a-boo gameplay will go on.

I think at this point I will simply stop debating this topic. As I said before: PGI is hell-bent on pleasing the heavy and assault crowd.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 05 March 2017 - 12:10 PM.

[MovinTarget]

Trev Firestorm, on 05 March 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

The problem is we give real feedback then PGI says, well **** it and scraps the whole thing. Infowar, powerdraw, both had good components but they dumped both completely.

They did not scrap them completely, if you remember, some ancillary components of each PTS was kept... I'm thinking it will somehow be the engine/agi desync this time around....

Fact is, most players are going to be adverse to any change because:
1) They are good at the system now and like rolling opponents as it is.
2) They feel it will be too much work/cost prohibitive to reclaim the functionality they currently have.

If PGI can somehow convince the players in group (1) that their skill will still be effective in the new environment and (2) that people will not be penalized for being non-module-purchasing whales (i.e. no refund to help pay for speccing their mechs out) and it won't be a headache for the ones that do spec their mechs...

..maybe then people will chill the heck out and give it a go.

[Nightbird]

Well, PGI is nerfing quirked mechs, mechs with high engine caps, weapon cooldown, heat efficiency, lights agility... etc. Only a minority of players visit forums and even fewer PTS, and pretty much everyone will have whatever they have FUN playing nerfed in this patch. We're cutting PGI a huge break with the skill tree because of the improvements we saw them make, but the main gist of it is nerf everything, it'll be great for player retention I promise! Another case of PGI biting off too much at once.

[Lucky Rookie]

NRP, on 05 March 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

I just don't quite get what problem this whole exercise is supposed to solve.
As it is, it seems to primarily make the game less fun. I think PGI is on dangerous ground here.

That's exactly how I feel about it.

[Wintersdark]

NRP, on 05 March 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

I just don't quite get what problem this whole exercise is supposed to solve.

As it is, it seems to primarily make the game less fun. I think PGI is on dangerous ground here.

Really? I should think it's obvious. I mean, the name is on the tin. It's a skill tree replacement to allow players to customize their Mechs and experience, replacing the 5 year old partially non-functional placeholder system we had. The old skills where simply broken.

*Shrugs* as to "makes the game less fun" I don't see how that figures. What, specifically, makes the game less fun for you? Keeping in mind that "fun" is extremely subjective and what makes it less fun for you may make it more fun for someone else.

When all is said and done with the new skill tree, gameplay isn't going to change much. You won't need to buy three Mechs of a type to skill the one you want up anymore, but there'll be a much higher cost to get Mechs to the "mastered but no modules" level (full mastery+modules being comparable however). Agility isn't particularly different in the PTS, though there are certainly winners and losers with initial values. Mediums are making out pretty well, 100t assaults, not so much. Heavies are virtually unchanged, while lights are... Different. Still fast, but more inertia while maneuvering at high speed.

But, now you can choose where to specialise - or more accurately, where NOT to specialise.

[James Argent]

One feature I would like to see is the ability to take your mech into the testing grounds after selecting nodes but before committing to purchasing. This is a significant commitment we're making with our C-Bills and XP, and while it can't fully replace seeing it perform in combat, it's really important to get a feel for how your mech will run with the selected upgrades before pulling the trigger on them.

[Bluttrunken]

Trev Firestorm, on 05 March 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

The problem is we give real feedback then PGI says, well **** it and scraps the whole thing. Infowar, powerdraw, both had good components but they dumped both completely.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sick of seeing this player base destroying all these approaches forward. There were things about the infowar patch I did like immensely and I just had to watch how a playerbase destroyed it which couldn't wrap their heads around it. I was excited for these changes.

The main fault here doesn't lie with PGI but with a playerbase which is not able to discuss things constructively and shouts everything down which doesn't fit into their small sense of how the game is supposed to be(or plainly doesn't understand what PGI is trying to do).(Much like people+the world in general)

I'm playing this game for 3 years on and off, much like many, many users which try to critise everything what PGI is doing, here in on this forum. But if I played a game that long, how can I not like it? There's something PGI does and did right.

The problem is, as you indicated, that good concepts were scrapped completely because the first iteration was lacking in some aspects.

Parts of Infowar + Higher TTK would have made the perfect mechgame for me, besides a more nuanced physicality and sense of scale in the mechs, which is a graphical thing.

Edited by Bluttrunken, 05 March 2017 - 02:20 PM.

[MovinTarget]

Bluttrunken, on 05 March 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

Yeah, and I'm pretty sick of seeing this player base destroying all these approaches forward. There were things about the infowar patch I did like immensely and I just had to watch how a playerbase destroyed it which couldn't wrap their heads around it. I was excited for these changes.

The main fault here doesn't lie with PGI but with a playerbase which is not able to discuss things constructively and shouts everything down which doesn't fit into their small sense of how the game is supposed to be(or plainly doesn't understand what PGI is trying to do).(Much like people+the world in general)

I'm playing this game for 3 years on and off, much like many, many users which try to critise everything what PGI is doing, here in on this forum. But if I played a game that long, how can I not like it? There's something PGI does and did right.

The problem is, as you indicated, that good concepts were scrapped completely because the first iteration was lacking in some aspects.

Parts of Infowar + Higher TTK would have made the perfect mechgame for me, besides a more nuanced physicality and sense of scale in the mechs, which is a graphical thing.

Part of the problem is PGI needs all the customers it can get and we all want different things...

FPS =/= BT simulator... there are different expectations on both sides.

[Bluttrunken]

You can't cater to everyone.

You decide on a direction and follow that.

[Wintersdark]

Bush Hopper, on 05 March 2017 - 12:07 PM, said:

You just talk in extremes. You say lights are not supposed to just stay in the back of heavies. I agree with that. However, at the moment (live server) we are at the exact opposite end of the scale: a light cannot stay out of a heavy's firing arc. But that's seems to be totally fine. Especially for the munchkin heavy and assault crowd - who shouts anyway that they are supposed to win every matchup because they sit in the heavier mech. Which is... ah well

Yes; and I agree. However, as I said, the danger is when you're trying to do this, when the light meets an Assault, that assault is right screwed. Not on live, but on the PTS? Absolutely. Have you played an Assault on the PTS? Some "fast" Assaults on the pts are not too bad, but bigger ones? A direwolf/king crab/atlas/kodiak takes 14 seconds to turn 360 degrees at full speed. That's a huge leg up for lights as it stands. It's really dangerous to make lights an auto-win "hard counter" for assaults, and that's not a good thing.

So I'm not talking about extremes, about Lights being able to stay out of a Heavies guns 100% of the time. But in gaining more time for a light to stay out of a Heavy's arcs in close combat, you risk making it trivial to stay out of an Assaults guns all the time, and THAT is a really serious problem.

Quote

And let's assume for a moment the target mech cannot shake of the light mech. The light mech needs still uptime on the target and is far from invincible (note: I never ever said that lights are supposed to stay out of a firing arc forever. I just say that they should be able to decrease enemy dps on their mech by moving well).

They CAN reduce enemy dps on their mech by moving well. I don't argue that it should be better, I'm just saying you need to be very careful that you don't get Light vs. Heavy in a nice place just to make Light vs. Assault broken.

Quote

Then there is the matter of the target's teammates. Considering the armour and structure quirks on heavies and assaults (live server again) they need a certain amount of uptime which is extremely dangerous when other mechs intervene. Lights like Panther, Wolfie, FS etc are so easily peppered with LRMs or simply shot at with PPCs and Gauss - which is the meta anyway - while trying to stay on target. And one good alpha hit can ruin a light's day.

Now, they CAN take structure/armor buffs, but so can the Light, and the gains are scaled. Lights gain more on a percentage basis than heavier classes do.

Quote

That is what I meant: nothing will change after the PTS. Most likely lights will have it even harder due to more mechs getting access to velocity buffs and laser burn time decrease. At the same time the brainless peek-a-boo gameplay will go on.

Careful with "brainless peek-a-boo gameplay". Everyone tends to deride other people's playstyles as "brainless" - I've no horse in this particular race, but it takes every bit as much skill to hit and fade unpredictably (because "peek-a-boo" when someone predicts where you will peek in a light means death) as it does to dance with someone.

Quote

I think at this point I will simply stop debating this topic. As I said before: PGI is hell-bent on pleasing the heavy and assault crowd.

If that's what you want, then have at it. But don't think this is PGI catering to "the heavy and assault crowd". If anything, assault pilots are losing the most here, with some very low baseline agility values. Turning at 30 degrees per second vs. some lights at over a hundred is a HUGE difference.



Anyways, all I'm saying is, you're seeing this through very tinted glasses; you want to see something you see as a problem corrected, and it's not really being corrected here. That's true, and it's a lost opportunity, but it's NOT an easy problem to fix and it comes with extreme danger to fix.

[Wintersdark]

Koniving, on 05 March 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

This is simply "Counter play."

Exactly! Count on Extra Credit to have a relevant video

[Ricbro85]

Lucky Rookie, on 05 March 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

That's exactly how I feel about it.

Going to feel like reading a text book just to reskill a single mech each time you want to change a load out.

[Tiantara]

cougurt, on 05 March 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

i really don't see any compelling reason to have individual nodes for things like +6% arm pitch. that level of granularity in skill selection is just ridiculously unnecessary. you're not losing out by having those things included as part of a single, all-encompassing skill node.

- Especially when many mech use locked arm, because difference between arm and torso weapon aim sometimes make mech shake and lose target completely or force to play with mouse settings every-time when you change one mech to another.
Mostly - arm skill useless, except mech which have weapon only in arms.

[K19]

Good. The new update that was made PTS is not bad ...

But continuing to know how to use your rules in benefit to play causes other players to be massacred so this new skills tree brings benefits to the "experts" but for who likes to play with "LORD mech" it is very difficult to play Mech is far superior to what it really is. To use tactics against different models is little short of effectiveness, because the probability of being different will change and will be more equal to others.

PTS Notes.
1 - Why do the Laser use "Splax" damage in low shielding? He did not.

2nd ERP PPC and PPC does not have maximum damage Do not use "Splax" damage does the same as the Lasers. Load time and very aggressive test with 6 PPC ... Shoot 1 in 1 and very fast seconds already use all points of the "Skill Tree". Check plz.

The balance passes for everyone to have the same weapons but only have the benefit of this mech model. Use military mechanics and much more interesting simple rules. At this point in the AW game "Armored Warfare" I feel even guiding a modern tank. Take a look at what they are doing, they are making good use of the graphics engine for the benefit of the players is the project itself. A game of this caliber must have more passion and a little reality

Please take into consideration the words of the community why we waste our time to make a better MWO.

Edited by K19, 05 March 2017 - 04:07 PM.