392 replies to this topic

[23203]

Think it is easy what i will do after this patch.

uninstall and maybe have a look again in one or two years if still alive as i did at the end of beta.

Dont like pay to win

[AngrySpartan]

Look forward to watch podcast later this weekend, but I doubt it will alter my opinion on the skill tree. It seems like soon there will be a lot more time for other games instead of playing MWO.

I am sure someone has mentioned that already, but consider this: according to Russ it takes time (weeks to month as far as I recall) in advance to fix the content of the monthly patch, and it's less than 2 weeks prior to march patch. I wish to be wrong here, but at the moment I doubt anything from PTS2 feedback was intended to be included into the patch.

[Desintegrator]

Thanks for the update !!

[Magik Jack]

During the full podcast it was good to hear that they are considering bringing the cbill costs down further, from 60K to 45K and now maybe more. However, later in the cast Phil half-heartedly mentioned that he is one of those module swappers, like many of us, and wow, what an awkward moment it was. Ha!

It didn't seem to stop Russ from mentioning that they have been concerned with how many cbills long term players have sitting around, as if it was a failure of the current system that that has happened. That took me aback even more than being teased of being a cheapskate; as a new player, how does working within the current system make me a cheapskate? We had to be from the get go, especially as new players. Affording engines/weapons/equipment/ferro/endo/artemis is hard as a new player, actually being able to afford a Mech is a rare thing as far as using Cbills is concerned. By the time I got to the level where I could buy modules, it was a no-brainer that I would swap them to save money. Outfitting Mechs I even paid for with real money (modules aside) is a crazy amount of cbills for new engines and weapons--often I would mentally set aside 10 million cbills for every such Mech. Why? Well because I knew it would require at least one or two engines--if I didn't like one build, I might have to drop the engine size again or vise versa and for different weapon loadouts. What if I added a third possible build? More cbills. That is the thing, I see no understanding of what the economy is like for a new player, even one that spends real money. Adding a cost to upgrade each node is going to have an effect on that, even if it is a better system down the line for new players they won't feel or see those benefits initially. They will simply feel buried under the match to match cbill costs of upgrading a mech and having to somehow save cbills for engines or weapons, and will quit playing before seeing what the new system can offer them. And that is a shame.

As for the veterans, that was the system PGi built, and it seems incredibly wrong to push through changes that will indirectly punish players that worked within said system. It can't be said enough.

Edited by Captain Hawkins, 11 March 2017 - 04:38 AM.

[Garegaupa]

I feel sorry for those who really hate the new skill tree, feel that it will ruin the game for them, and/or think its cost will be too excessive. I won't try to invalidate any of their arguments, but I do want to share the reasons why I'm really looking forward to the roll-out of the new skill tree.

First: I never quite felt at home with the old quirk system. I like to kit my 'Mechs out the way I want to, and with this new system I'll be able to do so without "wasting" any inherent quirks by not equipping the "correct" weapon(s). I'm really looking forward to being able to optimize my 'Mechs to my play style to a much greater degree than I was able to before!

Second: I'm not going to miss going module hunting when changing 'Mechs. Sure, it will cost me a bit more to equip my 'Mechs this way instead of performing module swapping all the time, but I can easily live with that. I'm probably going to use this opportunity to sell off a bunch of 'Mechs that I haven't used for a long time and won't likely ever use again - which brings us to point number three.

Third: no more buying three different 'Mechs of the same chassis to be able to fully master them - sure, there might be several chassis where I want more than one variant (Stalker, I'm looking at you... ), but in most cases that just isn't the case - I'd rather have the one variant that I like, and play that, instead of having two other so-so variants that I feel like I have to play to get my favorite fully upgraded.

Fourth - and this is actually quite a big issue to me that I'm surprised not to see mentioned more often: Even though the "grind" (if you look at it as a grind - I prefer to just play and have fun ) might become longer with the new system, the number of games you need to play between each time you can buy another skill node will be much reduced, often to as little as one or two games, depending on how successful one is. I know, one single node usually doesn't make that much of a difference, but I think the psychological aspect of being able to constantly upgrade your 'Mech is not to be underestimated!

To those of you who are disappointed with the new skill tree: I hope you will stick around and give it a chance - maybe it'll start to grow on you and you may get to like it - or at least hate it less! In any case, balance issues (IS vs. Clan and between different 'Mech chassis) and node values can always be tweaked later - and most certainly will be!

In short, I'm really looking forward to the 21st, and I hope to see YOU on the battlefield as well! Have a great day, everyone!

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

PGI, there are some things about the skill tree that are good ...
- I think there will be some choices to make ... is full mobility/speed tweak worth it? radar dep/seismic sensor? how deep do I go into the survival tree? how deep into the weapons tree? how many modules do I want to pay for?
- I think the system can be tailored by adjusting the value of each node to nerf over-performing 'mechs and buff under-performers.
- The cost for the initial mastery of a 'mech is about right (apologies to the guys who have mastered hundreds of 'mechs and only bought a handful of modules ... you're gonna get screwed).
- Removing an unlocked skill node should not cost anything (or the cost should be minimal).

However, there are some things that are not so good ...
- 200+ nodes on the tree and 91 skill points per 'mech is about twice too many. Even if I only master 50 of my ~300 'mechs (which is my current plan), that's still well over 4,000 mouse clicks.
- I don't like that so many of the nodes are going to be of minor utility at best on most 'mechs, and that they are filler to get to the "good stuff".
- Some nodes will still be "must have" ... I'm not sure what those are yet, and those are likely to change over the life of the game. I hope they do. I expect them to. However, that brings me to my next point ...
- It punishes frequent customization and experimentation -- one of the best things about the game. Every balance pass shoul have comp players making choices about which nodes to respec and which to unlock. The cost to re-use a previously purchased skill point should be minimal. The cost to re-unlock a previously unlocked node should be zero.
- Jump Jets on bigs 'mechs still suck. The benefit from the skill tree doesn't help.

If the system goes live in a form that is this complex, and punishes experimentation this much, you're going make the new-player experience supremely frustrating.

A one-time reset and payback, I can live with. It's going to take me a couple of weeks to get my 'mechs where I want them, and that's OK for me. Some people -- the completionists, those with hundreds of mastered 'mechs but only a few dozen modules -- are not going to want to go through the grind again and may go from being your best paying players to your most casual (if they play at all). I'm planning on trying to save about half of my module money to buy new tech when ~3067 drops, but many players (including the completionists) won't have that choice.

If every balance patch means that we have to rebuild and respec our 'mechs to experiment and create the "new meta" or adapt to it, and that becomes a new XP and CB sink, you're going to destroy the competitive community.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Cato Phoenix]

Garegaupa, on 11 March 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

First: I never quite felt at home with the old quirk system. I like to kit my 'Mechs out the way I want to, and with this new system I'll be able to do so without "wasting" any inherent quirks by not equipping the "correct" weapon(s). I'm really looking forward to being able to optimize my 'Mechs to my play style to a much greater degree than I was able to before!

This is not improving optimization, nor allowing you to kit out your Mechs the 'way you want to'. It allows you to increase grouped skills (good ones + suboptimal ones) in the way PGI wants - i.e. if you want to take things that you want, you have to go through things PGI wants you to take with it due to node-gating.

For instance, shock absorbers. They are totally sub-optimal for my Atlas. I could really care less if my stompy legs take -10-40% less damage. For my Spider 5V? I would max them out. But really now, if I'm investing into the survival tree I have to take both for both mechs - and they end up with cookie cutter skill nodes.

Arm pitch nodes for my rifleman? I can already pitch the things arms out of my FOV but it might be much more useful on my Novas to stare up into space. Yet - both required if I'm trying to make the thing turn faster or twist better. And hey - it's also required for my mechs which don't -use- anything in their arms.

That's why Solahma's tree feels so much better. You don't feel yourself cheated out of stuff and your choices feel like a meaningful cost/benefit analysis.

[SuperFunkTron]

AngrySpartan, on 11 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

Look forward to watch podcast later this weekend, but I doubt it will alter my opinion on the skill tree. It seems like soon there will be a lot more time for other games instead of playing MWO.

I am sure someone has mentioned that already, but consider this: according to Russ it takes time (weeks to month as far as I recall) in advance to fix the content of the monthly patch, and it's less than 2 weeks prior to march patch. I wish to be wrong here, but at the moment I doubt anything from PTS2 feedback was intended to be included into the patch.

I suggest listening to the Podcast, they give their not only their reasoning but also inform us of some of the limitations that drove their decisions.

In regard to the long roll out period, I believe that applied to development of new features and items they weren't already zeroing on. With them having already in the process of working on this for a long time, 2 PTS trials, and a lot of feedback (they discuss the part about feedback in the podcast), they are realistically looking at minor adjustments now rather than big ones and probably have the time frame to do it comfortably.

[Cpt Zaepp]

#ModuleSwappingCheapskates

[Marius Evander]

the module swapping "cheapskates" also tended to be xl engine swappers too, can we make engines bound to mechs while were at it too russ?

[Sereglach]

Cadoazreal, on 11 March 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

the module swapping "cheapskates" also tended to be xl engine swappers too, can we make engines bound to mechs while were at it too russ?

Don't encourage them too much. When they were on the subject of customization they did say "While we're still in a game that allows swapping engines . . ."; and that wording seems to insinuate that they may be considering locking engines to mechs in the future. Might be some tin-foil-hat thinking going on there, but the wording was very peculiar over just saying "We can swap engines, therefore . . .".

[Brakkyn]

After reading all of this, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion! This is all way over my head, man...

Still going to keep playing after the 21st, though. Haven't spent a dime on the game, either, and don't plan to, but I still have fun regardless.

[Ruar]

Garegaupa, on 11 March 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

I feel sorry for those who really hate the new skill tree, feel that it will ruin the game for them, and/or think its cost will be too excessive. I won't try to invalidate any of their arguments, but I do want to share the reasons why I'm really looking forward to the roll-out of the new skill tree.

...

To those of you who are disappointed with the new skill tree: I hope you will stick around and give it a chance - maybe it'll start to grow on you and you may get to like it - or at least hate it less! In any case, balance issues (IS vs. Clan and between different 'Mech chassis) and node values can always be tweaked later - and most certainly will be!

In short, I'm really looking forward to the 21st, and I hope to see YOU on the battlefield as well! Have a great day, everyone!

You make some great points, and I think you'll find most everyone who is upset at the skill tree agree with those points. It's not the skill tree itself that we are opposed to seeing, it's the way the skill tree has been implemented. Specifically the fact you have to wade through layer upon layer to get to the skills you want while being forced to take skills you don't. There are also the way people are not being fairly compensated for the progress they have already made, but that's a different issue.

You talked about the skill tree being a great tool to help with balance and I completely agree. The problem with balancing is that having a convoluted branch system with many skills intertwined is going to make balance adjustments incredibly difficult to get right and have many unintentional effects. A linear tree with scaling costs would be very easy to adjust in the name of balance however.

Imagine if we had a linear system instead of the meshed together we saw last. A month later the devs notice radar deprivation is too strong for the cost. All they have to do is refund the points for that line, change the costs/returns to reach the point they want, and then let people decide if they want to rebuy or do something else with their points.

In the current system the only option they have for balance is to reduce the return for the points spent since they can only bury skills so deep in the tree. Costs per node can't be adjusted other than moving them lower into the tree. Which shows just how poorly designed the mesh system is and why so many people are against the skill tree we tested. It's not because they don't want a skill tree, it's because they want a skill tree that makes sense, offers the most ability to help with balance, and is simple to understand/navigate.

[Magik Jack]

"A reply to Chris Lowrey and Russ Bullock"

Not saying I agree with everything, but the Initial post is well worth the read regarding the podcast from last night.

https://www.reddit.c...s_bullock_feat/

[Lupis Volk]

While i like the fact that i no longer have to get two other variants for a chassis. I am wary of the updates contents.

Also to quote an old american cartoon "Why won't anyone think of the IS vs Clans balance!!!!!"

[Garegaupa]

Cato Phoenix, on 11 March 2017 - 06:59 AM, said:

This is not improving optimization, nor allowing you to kit out your Mechs the 'way you want to'. It allows you to increase grouped skills (good ones + suboptimal ones) in the way PGI wants - i.e. if you want to take things that you want, you have to go through things PGI wants you to take with it due to node-gating.

For instance, shock absorbers. They are totally sub-optimal for my Atlas. I could really care less if my stompy legs take -10-40% less damage. For my Spider 5V? I would max them out. But really now, if I'm investing into the survival tree I have to take both for both mechs - and they end up with cookie cutter skill nodes.

Arm pitch nodes for my rifleman? I can already pitch the things arms out of my FOV but it might be much more useful on my Novas to stare up into space. Yet - both required if I'm trying to make the thing turn faster or twist better. And hey - it's also required for my mechs which don't -use- anything in their arms.

That's why Solahma's tree feels so much better. You don't feel yourself cheated out of stuff and your choices feel like a meaningful cost/benefit analysis.

Yes, I do realize this is how many people look at it. I look at it from another angle, though, and I don't think one way or the other is the "right" way to view this issue. Different players have different approaches to these things.

I tend to agree with those who think the current system is a good way to increase the "cost" of some of the more attractive skill nodes, while still giving you some benefit in other areas (though this may not be optimal/desirable to some).

Now, I do agree that some choices make little sense, such as your arm pitch example for 'Mechs with no arms (or arms with no weapon hardpoints). Those should probably be placed in such a way that they are not mandatory to reach any part of the tree. It's not something that will cause me much grief, though, I'll either go with these suboptimal choices or spend those skill points elsewhere.

[Volag]

I really don't understand why they thought we need this update, I always felt the game was balanced fairly well. I mean sure there are outliers on each end of the spectrum but is this really going to change that? Besides it just not interesting and will relegate certain mech varients to the trash bin, since you wont need them to master mechs. I mean think about it alot of the fun of this game is messing with builds and tweaking them, this patch actually punishes that type of gameplay. I think what we really would like and would bring more people back to the game is the promised new tech drop, a CW mode that was more like we where promised, and maybe a few new maps. Instead they seem completely focused on releasing a mech every month and patching aspects of the game that only a few people seem to have a problem with, I just don't understand.

[Dr Angst]

Coming from the original founders and having spent thousands of euro's on this game it's sad that I have to say goodbye to a game that has always been that "promising" but never really got there (despite promises from developers).

I'm glad Mechwarrior Living Legends is back "under construction" so I can get my "robutt-fix" from time to time.

Was fun getting a couple of hundred followers on twitch playing this game but I guess that's history as well now.

Bye.

[mad kat]

Youtube is rapidly filling with videos of people going **** you PGI i'm off.

Judging by the look of some of them it looks like some whales are going 'Ahm owt too.

https://youtu.be/YEa2ILZTidA

https://youtu.be/LtrRHlUCdmE

https://youtu.be/veiw77oNed4

And for giggles but so on the mark

https://youtu.be/1rwQmhsb7qc

Edited by mad kat, 13 March 2017 - 01:23 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

mad kat, on 12 March 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

Youtube is rapidly filling with videos of people going **** you PGI i'm off.

Judging by the look of some of them it looks like some whales are going 'Ahm owt too.

This is reaching a level of hysteria I haven't seen since the whole Y2K thing way back.

I think we need to start keeping a record of people who say they are done, done buying things, or absolutely hate the new system and see where they are at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after implementation.