392 replies to this topic

[Trennbull]

Dear PGI,

As I see it the Skill-Tree-System is far from ready for a live release as I find it VERY unbalanced and poorly implemented,
WAY too complicated and those of us that payed a lot of money to you for Mech Packs would be the ones that would suffer most from this system unless significant improvements are made.

Please consider to put the live release on hold till it is really ready or drop it altogether. Otherwise I am sure you will lose many customers or at least a lot of money because the players will no longer buy many Mech Packs.

[D V Devnull]

Teer Kerensky, on 09 March 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

I look positively forward to this.

I'm not looking forward to this disaster. I already made my notes of why on Page 6 of this thread, including links to a lot of my previous thoughts. But, I should reinforce the note that I'm a '#ScrewTheMeta' kind of Casual-class Mech Pilot, preferring to build things that work with my abilities instead of trying to force myself to do something I can not do, and these "New Skill Tree" changes only help Meta-using Pilots while screwing over anything that does not fit the Metagame. Non-Meta Pilots need a lot more Skill Nodes (about 120, from my best estimate) to have any chance of competing against Meta-type Builds under the new system. This new system's release, as it currently stands due to under-design from PGI, will mark my end of playing on MWO.

~Mr. D. V. "Wondering why the hell I'm still looking at these forums now..." Devnull

[Haazheel IIC]

They would have better spent the time creating a few new maps and maybe one or two new gamemodes. THIS would make me happy, new skilltrees for my hundreds of mechs? Not really what im wishing for MWO. Ok, i will check after the update but im not willing to grind again hundreds of hours till i have my mechs like i want them. Been there, done that. I will give this update a chance but when i recognise it will be a grindfest again i ll quit. i know PGI dont care but then i wait for a new mechwarrior game.

Edited by Haazheel, 09 March 2017 - 05:01 AM.

[Bud Crue]

So having slept on this...

What was the point of the PTS?
Was it really just to get our views on the UI and organization on the one hand, and the specific values of the nodes on the other?

That is the only real change between PTS 1.0 and 2.0. Every other comment was ignored.

Yes they rearranged firepower, nerfed survival and buffed jump jets, etc. But nothing regarding the nerfs, nothing regarding the tediousness of the 91 nodes, nothing on what this is going to do to the NPE, nothing on the fact that not only did the nerfs hurt already bad mechs but they made a lot of variants nearly identical to their chassis mates (in direct contrast to the stated goal of increasing diversity).

To all this...pages and pages of commentary, and for some of us hours of PTS time invested...to all this, they have no changes indicated or suggested. So again, what was the point?

Even the cost structure change was not a consequence of the PTS, they stated a reduction was incoming before the initial PTS even went live. So again, was the whole PTS just about helping them get a handle on how the damn thing looks and how to organize the values? That was it? Really? We needed a PTS for that?

A week of initial values then shoving in engine decoupling for a bit, and the only real changes your going to institute from all of that data and commentary is how the tree is organized?

The dart board really is in charge over there isn't it?

-Sigh-

Does PGI even know what "credibility" even means?

Raise your hand if you feel that it will be worth your time to test the upcoming incursion mode PTS that they teased above? I suppose they might listen to some lucky commentator and change the color of the base walls or something, so I guess that might be motivation enough for some to participate. I'm done with their so-called Public Test Server. I've tried to help, truly tried to help and they are emphatically NOT interested in our help.

I should have listened to Russ back in April. Only moment of honesty this company has ever had with its playing and paying community.

Edited by Bud Crue, 09 March 2017 - 05:05 AM.

[Magik Jack]

PGI, you are kidnapping our Mechs and holding them for ransom, a ransom made of millions and millions of cbills. Many of us worked within the current/old system, and used modules as modular items, not static items bought for every mech. Hundreds of Mechs. For the love of Kerensky, think it through! The time spent on grinding that xp for those already mastered mechs needs to be refunded, or grandfathered into the new system somehow lest the sh*tstorm will rise.

Edited by Captain Hawkins, 09 March 2017 - 05:53 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

Well, I will wait until this goes live before passing final judgement but I have a feeling I will simply be selling a majority of my 340 'Mechs and only keeping those that are used often or fill a particular slot in my CW Drop Decks.

If i'm honest I am feeling somewhat burned after the time, energy and real money I have put into this game since 2012 now have to essentially start over. Yes I will have the Legacy XP and CBill refund for the MANY modules but I now have to figure out how to spec and then how to play the 'Mechs all over again if they do not perform in a similar fashion to current or even previous performances.

TBH this kind of wide sweeping change I would have expected in Closed/Open Beta but five years in? Oh well, let's see how this pans out *shrug*

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 09 March 2017 - 04:21 PM.

[Lucky Rookie]

If PGI wants to commit suicide, who are we to stand in the way.

[Zuesacoatl]

Paradox42, on 08 March 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Can only agree to lots of others. This is not even close to ready. To be honest, the whole skill tree idea is just bulls***.

This whole thing is even worse than energy draw. Be smart again and don't go live with this. This causes way more issues than it intended to fix.

Make the game more simple, more approachable, for new players, and dont just add unbearable grind and skill node micromanagement.

Instead of fixing something that didnt need to be fixed, please focus on more important things like map balancing, more maps, and stuff like that. Content is what actives people, not more grind and not micromanaging tons of skillpoints.

Pushing this to live servers is a big mistake. Consult with the most experienced players in the game, get your world champions to consult you if that helps.

Meh, the world champs mean diddly to me and my particular play soooooo, no.

this whiny theme going on with so many peeps because they don't get their Ivanka from willy and the chocolate factory "I want it NOW" is just plain dumb. You cannot give access to all the best rewards with no risks or bumps along the way, it just makes for a dull carbon copy game. Second, some of us like to have more customization options, a deeper look into our mechs, we like the new tree. The difference between us is that those of us who like it are willing to say it can have some more changes to get closer to parity between the two groups, and those who do not like it want it their way only, no questions asked, no quarter given.

The tree is not perfect, but in all honesty, it is far better than the drab system we had before it. For those of you who cannot truly grasp the reasoning behind why you must choose some things you may not really want to get to the nitty gritty buffs, well I am sure there is an instant gratification console shooter you can run to.

[Fetherator]

Sereglach, on 08 March 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, as a final note that's semi-unrelated . . . there's all this talk and focus on infowar and making infowar based mech builds, but all of the in-game rewards STILL favor pure damage dealing and kills over anything else. When will we see more about in-game rewards matching up to gameplay styles that you're trying to encourage people to take through options but without the "real" encouragement (aka c-bills).

THATS THE POINT, REWARD for not beeing damagedealer

[Aramuside]

On one level I quite like the new system and I like the way PGI are both trying to improve the game and seek feedback. I’ve tried each PTS as its such a major change I wanted to get my own opinion particularly as I enjoy playing more challenging mechs rather than those considered the best. I like the granularity of the system and have no particular problems with the layout of things or being forced to make choices. Generally it seems a decent system but as the owner of over 300 mechs currently I can’t even mentally grapple with the amount of work required to master those out under the new system. I’m also struggling to find any reason why non masochists would want to play the vast majority of chassis particularly with how sluggish and painful the leveling period will be. A good mech like a Timberwolf just gains benefits from the system overall so leveling isn’t a problem, whereas a mech like the Pheonix Hawk which survives on avoidance from my testing seems very painful – its all the things we lose like not having radar or seismic which really hurt when your mech is so clumsy, slow and IS XL engined. It feels at times on PTS like I'm moving through treacle. I would dearly love to say I’m filled with enthusiasm for the future but in reality I feel like I should wander away for a few months and then see what pans out.

My wallet would also thank me.

[Sardauker Legion]

My personal feeling about this:

[dekker lentz]

The new skill system seems like a pretty bad idea and I just wanted to add another vote asking PGI not to put the system live.

[Bud Crue]

Anavel Gato2, on 09 March 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

My personal feeling about this:

Totally off topic...
I was 8 when I saw that movie. Memorized the words of making and would go around reciting them in public. This was just when the whole religious groups, 700 club, folks freakout over D&D and satanism was hitting high gear and affecting the public at large. Was muttering the "spell" under my breath during catechism/first communion class and -I kid you not- the priest thought I was possessed. Ended up getting the dioceses involved and everything. It was great. Ended up getting me out of church and Wednesday bible school. All thanks to Excalibur and Nicol Williamson's badass Merlin.

[Zuesacoatl]

Sereglach, on 08 March 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Allow me to enlighten you since you weren't around at the time of the modules release. They were actually advertised as an end game grind that was an optional boost to your mechs and the fact that you could swap them around mechs was a major selling point to get people to approve of the system. Therefore I wasn't playing mechs I "couldn't actually afford". I was playing mechs that I built up and mastered within the system as it was intended.

Also, the skill tree costs are still terrible, because for 57250 XP I could get the "mastered" or the "standard competitive" boosts on a mech with ZERO C-BILL INVESTMENT. Now it will cost (as people have calculated that it's about 80 nodes to get everything the old system offered) 4.8 million c-bills just for people to get their mechs to where they were without modules before this system came into being. That in and of itself is a complete backhanded slap in the face to any veteran player who's invested time and (in most cases) a respectable quantity of money into the game to build a roster of mechs under the systems that PGI put in place. We recognize that mastered in the old system doesn't equal mastered in the new system, but we should have options to at least get back to where we were without obscene c-bill investments.

The new system doesn't even offer alternate ways to gain skill points. It's been suggested by myself and others to have pure XP investments as an alternative to c-bill costs (even if larger xp amounts) and some (again myself included) even talked about using MC in replacement of c-bills as a third option. Regardless, a pure xp system should be available, even if it costs more xp than the c-bills and xp alternative. That at least allows veteran players an option to get back to where they were without re-imposing a massive new grind on the overwhelming majority of the player base.

Thusly, in the end, the veteran players who've been supporting PGI since their inception and have the largest rosters of mechs are getting screwed the most out of this whole thing. Lowering the costs was a start, but players still can't even get back what they had before this change went into effect, and players are not going to want to re-grind their entire roster of mechs like they were starting from near scratch (because even if they have the XP they don't have the c-bills); and players like you are in an extreme minority on that front. Without a fix PGI will suffer a level of anger and player exodus the likes of which hasn't been seen since Star Wars Galaxies.


Which if it isn't fixed is just all the more reason that the skill tree isn't ready for prime-time. Requiring some point investment to get to certain nodes is fine, but they should make sense. For example (and there are troves of examples in the PTS forums), requiring full investment into sensor range to get to the ECM nodes makes sense . . . forcing someone to take LBX spread to get to weapon cooldown doesn't.

Regardless, it's nice to see we agree on this.


Actually, as has come up again and again and again in conversations, PGI long since passed those limitations with all of their HSR (Host State Rewind) and hit detection improvements (again, before your time as seen by your account creation date). In fact the last set of HSR improvements and networking code improvements had Russ bragging that they've eliminated any and all hurdles to increasing speed, which was the biggest reason they then decided to add MASC to the game. They could easily pass the 200kph mark at this point, they've just chosen not to. If you look through my post history you'll find where I put up a timeline on when all of this happened.


Agreed. PGI has a lot of work to do. You can't encourage types of gameplay without actually providing incentives and rewards for participating in that type of gameplay. Until they do so many nodes and gameplay types on the skill trees will be ignored, and people will all just be playing the same meta of kill, kill, kill.

As a veteran player, longer than you since that seems to be the theme of this post, creation date measuring, I ask that you stop putting words into my mouth. As a veteran, I do not see this as a slap in the face, I like the change, it is not perfect, but nothing ever is. I have been around since the beginning, and have seen many things in this game that was before your time as seen by your account creation date. I have hundreds of mechs, tons of empty mech bays as I purchased and won a ton before they were truly included with mech packs(again, before you account creation date), I do not need some young MWO pup to speak for me as a veteran player as to what i find a smack in the face. Fight your own battles, and leave the other players, veterans or not, to fight theirs.

Also, account time means nothing, sad to say that my founders tags and purchases mean nothing, it may help your eeeeeepean, but it does not add to the conversation. I know people who have played for just over a year, and minus some of the packs that are no longer available that I purchased early on, have invested just as much if not more than vets from the beginning, so they know your plight, and not all of them agree with you either.

[Big MO]

Just simply disappointed in PGI pushing this out already. It is only going to make overall balance worse, but that doesn't seem to be important to them. Not optimistic the roll out goes well when it hits the live servers.

[Sardauker Legion]

Cadoazreal, on 08 March 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

The most hilarious example of this is the double ARM PITCH block in mobility tree, when a lot of mechs dont even use arms.

100% the point

Edited by Anavel Gato2, 09 March 2017 - 06:35 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Someone asked "What was the point of the PTS?" Answer. To once again prove the point that the MWO Community would rather "*****/Piss/Moan, than actually Test and help.

Given the chance, the Community would ask for 50 iterations and then whine about each one never being perfect for everyone and then blame PGI for that being the reality. The reality is stuff need to get done and made LIVE. Anyone is allowed their "opinion" but asking to the throw the baby out with the bathwater, just becasue "you" don't like it. Do everyone else a favor and just "Drama Queen" yourself out the door and we will see you on the field, in your Skilled Mechs, as has always the case with all of the "Drama Queens" of past.

P.S. To read someone post that they actually still somehow believe that their "Mastered" Mechs will not get a XP refund is just so f'ing brutal... I really feel for the lads at PGI. To have to deal with such un-informed individuals at such a late time in this process must be a Face Palm moment of epic proportions...

[Sardauker Legion]

chaothulhu, on 08 March 2017 - 10:25 PM, said:

direct from the twitter page of Russ Bullock:

"Why does the updated skill tree force me into selecting skills I don't want to get to the best ones ?


to directly combat boating - was a player asked for change that we agreed with. The idea is to make min maxing take more skill point"


this is planned and deliberate - do not expect this to change to a more linear system where we can actually choose the upgrade we want without wasting points on a bunch of unwanted / useless crap

That could be solved giving us less then 91 Skill points.
Give us only 70 or 60, but allow us to invest in what we feel useful.
PGI, sometimes you remember me some European Politics - and that's no compliment.

[Notorious Meerkat]

Not a happy panda. I got just over 50 mechs in total (not much of a collector), and I can already see what pain in the...lower torso actuators this is going to be to skill up.

Furthermore, one thing is to make folks invest skillpoints into some stuff that they don't need/like, and an entirely different thing to invest them into stuff that's not applicable to the mech at all (mechs with only certain hardpoints, without arms, etc.). I mean, seriously, how would you fight boating for mechs specifically made for that, and nothing else? By having a cada pick random arm bonuses? Really? I can live with having to choose silly hillclimb or w/e. Ultimately it only makes mech slightly better. Having to pick arm crap for some of the chassis ('Cada, for instance) actually makes you spend less points for something else. And it's not that 'Cadas are OP, eh?

That said, I am still hopeful things will get tested live and be corrected. Clan vs IS ought to be 'balanced' even w/o quirks with some tech, but what until then?

Wait and see. If nothing else, got a BT game coming out soon. That will serve my casual needs more than enough.

Edited by Notorious Meerkat, 09 March 2017 - 06:51 AM.

[Dthamilaye]

Cadoazreal, on 08 March 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

Be thankful you got to exploit a flawed system and play with mechs you couldn't actually afford for years.

You know what keeps this game up and running? Those guys who have hundreds of mechs and who usually change modules. People who buy, with money, most of the mechs PGI makes. Most of them do not want to use money to get c-bills for modules though (except the really big whales).

Now that you mess around with the system so that suddenly the mechs they have been using (and possibly mastered) are going to need a lot more to get to the same status, it understandably causes commotion.

Personally, I have already changed to different games and will be checking back after a month or two. While I was buying new mechs almost every month before (whenever I got previous set mastered), I won't be buying ANY more mechs until most of my previous mechs that were mastered are again maxed.

I had only around 100 mechs and of course I do not need to master ALL of them, because with some chassis, I have only 1 or 2 variants that I want to use. But still, my money will not be enough to get all my favourites to maxed status, even with reduced costs.