52 replies to this topic

[DGTLDaemon]

So while browsing through Russ's twitter today, I came across this:



Russ, WHAT THE F*CK? During PTS1, the players complained exactly of the opposite: due to excessive investment into unneeded/undesired skill nodes, there weren't enough SPs left to level more than one weapon type under the weapons branch, which essentially encouraged boating. Now, in PTS2 you've redesigned the weapons branch, but not only did you keep the same web-style layout that forces players to take unwanted skills, but you also increased the number of skill nodes, making SPs even more scarce. What's the purpose of this, and how the hell does it relate to "combating boating"?

Edited by DGTLDaemon, 03 March 2017 - 02:30 AM.

[WolvesX]

Russ also didn't comment on the general nerf of bad chassis while introducing a universal change so far...

https://mwomercs.com...bad-thing-pts2/

[soapyfrog]

I want a detailed explanation from anyone at PGI how this discourages boating.

Since it in fact encourages boating (as does the current system of quirks + modules), I would very much like to know a) what they think boating IS, and by what logical process do they think this new system "combats" it.

[DGTLDaemon]

soapyfrog, on 03 March 2017 - 12:39 AM, said:

I want a detailed explanation from anyone at PGI how this discourages boating.

Since it in fact encourages boating (as does the current system of quirks + modules), I would very much like to know a) what they think boating IS, and by what logical process do they think this new system "combats" it.

Yeah, PGI's logic is totally lost on me here. I seriously wanted to make a poll titled "What do you think Russ & Co were smoking?", but figured it was too risky

[The Lost Boy]

The old trees had specific ones for types of weapons. Pulse lasers time to max it and boat them. This tree system may not discourage boating per se, but it lets mechs with mixed loadouts not suffer as much. Boating one weapon type makes it easier to get most of the good perks for a given weapon, but with them al on the same tree, its kinda nice that things like range, heat gen, and cool down nodes apply to ALL weapons on your mech.

[soapyfrog]

They have an opportunity here to encourage mixed armaments in a way they literally never have, and they are not taking it.

The tree encourages boating. Encouraging it less than in their last proposal does not mean they are "combatting" it.

[PyckenZot]

The new proposal works as intended and forces players to sacrifice points if they want to max a specific "quirk".

Nothing wrong with it.

[Alistair Winter]

While we may disagree on a number of things, I am happy to see that the consensus on the forum seems to be that people are unhappy with being forced to take unnecessary skills.

If you go back to 2011 and 2012, the point of the skill tree was to promote role warfare. In other words, you would choose skills based on your desired role on the battlefield. Now in 2017, it seems like Russ has accidentally or deliberately forgot about this. But the consensus on the forum seems to be that people still want that freedom.

The question is: what kind of feedback are they listening to? Forum? Twitter? Or some inner circle of playtesters?

PS: Not a fan of the poll in the OP, btw. Ironically, you're forcing people to choose between two alternatives that may not express what they want.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 03 March 2017 - 01:41 AM.

[WolvesX]

Ya, the poll is very biased. Still voted no, but an unbiased poll might be better.

[DGTLDaemon]

OK, for those unhappy with the poll - I reworded "Yes, I enjoy having unwanted skills shoved down my throat" to "Yes, I'm OK with having to take skills I don't want or need". I hope this is better Sry for the original wording, I was just too badly pissed off with PGI's skill tree design. Gotta control my temper better

Edited by DGTLDaemon, 03 March 2017 - 01:55 AM.

[Captain Arctic]

I was OK with that, but The Skill Tree v.2 is a mess. Complete bullsh#t. Much-much worse than it was before. Therefore I'm joining to the question: Russ, WHAT THE F#CK? As correctly noticed above, It doesn't solve the problem (it just adds new problems).

[DAYLEET]

Alistair Winter, on 03 March 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

The question is: what kind of feedback are they listening to? Forum? Twitter? Or some inner circle of playtesters?

Why does it matter? How linking nodes together prevent boating? Technically, if nothing change, ill never take a single weapon nodes unless my mech comes with weapon quirks i can stack on and even then im not sure. The weapon buff are too low to put mobility, arty and armor on the side. I dont even care about that, but how the hell does it incentive me in using diversified loadout on my mech?

btw, nobody post in twiter anymore beside the known names that also post on reddit beforehand and on the forum a little after. Theres just "us" now(i dont post on twitter). The forum have been more alive with new people for a long time and the people that used to be on twitter posting "i love you bro and everything you do is the best" are gone.

Edited by DAYLEET, 03 March 2017 - 02:47 AM.

[Gagis]

Having to travel trough suboptimal nodes to reach the ones you really want is good skill tree design and a great way to balance investment between skill trees and to encourage diverse loadouts.

You people need to get over your fear of taking less than optimal skill nodes. They are a part of the cost of reaching the really juicy bits.

[Fetherator]

Its named "Give & Take". So far so good.

You can't have it all, look what u get in the Live-Server.
You'll see that on "PTS rd 2" u get more from the skills then from the Modules in "Live"
If u want all "Range Skills" u have to make an offer, thats not bad, thats the real good stuff PGI made.
Yes i know there are some Bugs...but well look again on "Live"

[April Showers]

can we just agree that the entire skilltree stuff needs to be removed ?
any kind of grind or respawn in a MW themed FPS is a bad thing because it gets directly in between the player and the target.
the only skill involved should be in front of the computer.

if you let people grind for eternity to master a single mech while the old farts like me have a lot of XP bunkered, thats just enforcing the seal-clubbing and keeping player base low.
it is hard enough to master torso twisting, arm lock etc. already and these are no XP skills that actually have a real impact in the game, whereas the XP skills have none worth talking about.

i suspect we get to buy the XP Potion next, directly followed by the realms of pandoria spellcasting expansion.

also the entire way this skilltree trash is made, it will enforce boating. it also makes interesting combinations of modules impossible.

back to the drawing board, guys.

PURSE CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

[process]

I'm okay with compulsory skills, but it has to be implemented in a way that makes sense.

I think the challenge with independent, linear skill branches is that not all skills are valued the same. If you took every skill type and made them accessible from SP 1, I think most people would go directly to seismic, radar dep, cooling efficiency, speed tweak, armor, etc.

I think there would either need to be a tiered system, with the more valuable skills are a higher tier, or a system where the higher value skills cost more SP.

The trick is balancing around the idea that this game is more a mech sim/FPS hybrid and less an RPG. Skills shouldn't make any mech grossly more powerful than an unskilled mech. I think it's reasonable for a mastered mech to be 15% better, which obviously doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improving attributes. If you're trying to get 25% better, then maybe there should be extra costs/penalties associated with that additional 10% of performance.

For example, Speed Tweak A gives +7.5% max speed. Speed Tweak B gives +10% max speed, but -15% deceleration.

Edited by process, 03 March 2017 - 08:29 AM.

[cazidin]

DGTLDaemon, on 03 March 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

So while browsing through Russ's twitter today, I came across this:



Russ, WHAT THE F*CK? During PTS1, the players complained exactly of the opposite: due to excessive investment into unneeded/undesired skill nodes, there weren't enough SPs left to level more than one weapon type under the weapons branch, which essentially encouraged boating. Now, in PTS2 you've redesigned the weapons branch, but not only did you keep the same web-style layout that forces players to take unwanted skills, but you also increased the number of skill nodes, making SPs even more scarce. What's the purpose of this, and how the hell does it relate to "combating boating"?

Russ... is terrible at communication.

[R Valentine]

PGI logic: less skills = no boating because obviously if we make take that 1 point in missiles for your last cool down skill then you'll just HAVE to fit missiles, right? You just HAVE to.

[Gagis]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 March 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

PGI logic: less skills = no boating because obviously if we make take that 1 point in missiles for your last cool down skill then you'll just HAVE to fit missiles, right? You just HAVE to.

No, it means that a mech using both ballistics and missiles will on average get more value from the same number of skill points.

[R Valentine]

Gagis, on 03 March 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

No, it means that a mech using both ballistics and missiles will on average get more value from the same number of skill points.

Not true, because you also have to take laser points to get to another set of cool down nodes. So in reality you're taking trash nodes no matter how you slice it and dice it. And they're spread out so much that you have to reach and stretch just to get 1 thing, which prevents you from diversifying optimally, which in turn promotes boating... again. Either way we're back to choosing one or two weapon types. That 1 point in missiles or 2 in lasers that you didn't want does not incentive you into taking either weapon. It's just in the way.