392 replies to this topic

[Aeries]

My take as a new player with a whopping 261 battles under his belt.

I don't understand how a lot of these posts are complaining about the grinding and massive amount of cbills being lost with this new system. You guys have read what the devs initially posted haven't you? https://mwomercs.com...c-test-session/
Module Q&A at the bottom.

It was stated clearly that all GXP, XP, and Cbills spent on modules will be fully refunded..........100%. In the system in place now to fully deck out a variant I not only need to grind 1 variant I have to PURCHASE and grind 3. That's 10s of millions of cbills right there, not to mention the 10s of millions more to tinker and upgrade. Cost of decking out 1 variant under new tree.......

60,000 cbills per node x 91 node max = 5,460,000 cbills Not even the cost of a single radar derp.
800 XP per node x 91 node max = 72,800 XP Even as bad as I am that's what 75 games? And vets get full refunds.

So with the new system I no longer have to grind hundreds of games to purchase, customize, and outfit 3 variants when in reality I just want 1 so I can move along and keep trying different chassis, not to mention spending massive amounts more in cbills.

Senseless cbill grinding to max out 1 chassis is a great way to lose new players who get bored and just want to try out the huge variety that there is to choose from. While it may not be perfect as far as layout (weapon tree looks terrible) it is huge incentive towards new players and vets you're refunded what you spent. I really don't see the issue with the costs.

Edit: Added link, edited for clarity.

Edited by Aeries, 10 March 2017 - 06:59 AM.

[Whiskey Peddler]

Arkhangel, on 09 March 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

I find it hilarious with the guys saying their mechs are "unusable" without a maxed tree, too. Weapons still do damage, and the skill tree doesn't have anything to do with fitting ability either (apart from that node that increases ammo per ton). hell, if anything, practice with a Mech that hasn't been fully maxed out will actually improve someone's piloting skill as well as helping pimp it out in the long run.

THIS! I totally agree. I have been playing the game for only a few weeks and love this game. It brings so much nostalgia back for me. I can't comment on modules/skills/etc because I only have bought one variant of 4 mechs thus far only with cbills. However, I can comment that my basic mechs still perform well for me. I have a K/D of .72 and I am fine with that as long as I have fun in the game. It isn't a grind. My actual job can be a grind, but this is a GAME...and a fun one at that. Relax folks. Relax. It will be tweaked and be good (optimistic).

[MovinTarget]

So what if it nerfs mechs across the board, at least its across the board. If people over invested in the mechs that are OP now brought back to earth, well, what did you expect to happen?

Basically all mechs are getting knocked down a peg or two and they'll recalibrate if there are over-performers and under-performers.

People act like its the end of the freaking world.

[MovinTarget]

The only recommendation I would make for PGI to consider, since the Skill Tree is coming at us no matter what...

In the Skill Tree 2.0, consider that you could have different variations on the skill trees if not per-variant, at least have a few different flavors of them to make variants have practically the same hardpoints be different.

So for example one Black Knight could get Survival_Tree T1 and Offensive_Tree T2 and another BK could have Survival_Tree T2 and Offensive_Tree T1

Where perhaps Survival_Tree T1 has more internal structure nodes/bonuses and T2 has more Armor (for example). The Offensive Trees T1 & T2 would buff different things as well.

The idea would be that while you wouldn't give each variant unique trees, they could have a unique *SET* of trees.

Make sense?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Aeries, on 10 March 2017 - 06:43 AM, said:

My take as a new player with a whopping 261 battles under his belt.

I don't understand how a lot of these posts are complaining about the grinding and massive amount of cbills being lost with this new system. You guys have read what the devs initially posted haven't you? https://mwomercs.com...c-test-session/
Module Q&A at the bottom.

It was stated clearly that all GXP, XP, and Cbills spent on modules will be fully refunded..........100%. In the system in place now to fully deck out a variant I not only need to grind 1 variant I have to PURCHASE and grind 3. That's 10s of millions of cbills right there, not to mention the 10s of millions more to tinker and upgrade. Cost of decking out 1 variant under new tree.......

60,000 cbills per node x 91 node max = 5,460,000 cbills Not even the cost of a single radar derp.
800 XP per node x 91 node max = 72,800 XP Even as bad as I am that's what 75 games? And vets get full refunds.

So with the new system I no longer have to grind hundreds of games to purchase, customize, and outfit 3 variants when in reality I just want 1 so I can move along and keep trying different chassis, not to mention spending massive amounts more in cbills.

Senseless cbill grinding to max out 1 chassis is a great way to lose new players who get bored and just want to try out the huge variety that there is to choose from. While it may not be perfect as far as layout (weapon tree looks terrible) it is huge incentive towards new players and vets you're refunded what you spent. I really don't see the issue with the costs.

Edit: Added link, edited for clarity.

The only reason people are complaining about cost is that you cannot swap modules around. You have to level Mechs on their own now. People felt that module swapping was an intended feature of the last system that allowed people to circumvent the cost of buying modules for all your Mechs . Players with Huge Garages now have to level their mechs up individually instead of spending frustrating time swapping and managing modules to save Cbills.

The new system, at 5.6 mil per Mech, is fair to me. I am one of those Huge Garage players, and I still think it is fine. But, I must be on an island... Since I think this change is for the better

Edited by Prosperity Park, 10 March 2017 - 07:35 AM.

[DAYLEET]

Prosperity Park, on 10 March 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

People felt that module swapping was an intended feature

It's how the game was designed to be played. IT was in the fkin TIPS at the loading screen. You were supposed to do it, you had the option not to but by all means it was UNREALISTIC.

[BodakOfSseth]

Aeries, on 10 March 2017 - 06:43 AM, said:

My take as a new player with a whopping 261 battles under his belt.

You're still allowed to have an opinion. Thank you for contributing.

Aeries said:

I don't understand how a lot of these posts are complaining about the grinding and massive amount of Cbills being lost with this new system. You guys are actually reading what the devs post yes?

Let me see if I can explain it to you...

Aeries said:

It was stated clearly that all GXP, XP, and Cbills spent on a mech and variant will be fully refunded..........100%. In the system in place now to fully deck out a variant I not only need to grind 1 variant I have to PURCHASE and grind 3. That's 10s of millions of cbills right there, not to mention the 10s of millions more to tinker and upgrade. Cost of decking out 1 variant under new tree.......

60,000 cbills per node x 91 node max = 5,460,000 cbills Not even the cost of a single radar derp.
800 XP per node x 91 node max = 72,800 XP Even as bad as I am that's what 75 games? And vets get full refunds.

Right - you're absolutely right.

But there seems to be this idea out there that if you have 300 mechs you've "mastered", you must be better than someone who just has 300 mechs, who must better than someone who has 200 mechs... etc.

Never mind that a person can only play one mech at a time.

Never mind a person in Scout can only use 1 mech at a time

Never mind that a person in Invasion can only use 4 mechs for a drop

Never mind that at max, a person can set up, what 20 different unique mechs across 4 drop decks in Scout and Invasion?

And even then you can reuse your different mechs in those drop decks.

Never mind that in this happy little hobby, if PGI turns off the servers tomorrow, it all goes away and none of it matters.

These Poke'Mech Masters are apparently terrified of losing that status or having to re-master ALL those mechs, of not having the boxes checked, of not being done. If you boil their concerns down, that's what it comes down to (since it's against forum policy to name specific people as examples, I won't. but here are their words).

Quote

* Don't make us buy tons of skill nodes we do not want, or that do not affect the mech, just to get to skills we do want. if you're gonna do that, then let's just keep the system we have.
*PGI, you have failed again to address the high legacy cost of the new system for us veteran players with large stables of mechs. Please tell me why many of us will be having to spend billions of cbills to spec out mechs to make them playable again.
*Urgh, so the 21th is the date I stop buying mechs and focus on c-bill grinding.
*I wonder how much time it will take me to skill out the 100+ mechs that have 91 points worth of XP, and after I'm done if I should just sell the 100+ where I don't.

So - the other complaint is about the structure of the skill tree.
Apparently some feel forced to pick nodes they don't want to get nodes they do

- News flash 1: You don't need to pick the node. No one is forcing you to.

- News flash 2: This is an intentional design choice to build in diminishing returns for node investment.

Some feel that the design "isn't finished or ready for rollout"

- News flash: You need to actually talk about what isn't finished for that complaint to matter. If your complaint is one of the above topics, then you might need to rethink a bit.

Anyway - One of the reasons PGI is moving forward is clearly because they're bucketizing the complaints and taking on things they they can fix (layout of the trees, UI design, numbers of and for the skills) and things they can't fix (player entitlement and elitism, bad perceptions)

...and since issues of the entitled and the elitists are not being addressed, they're mad because they feel they're being ignored, so they get louder.

Edited by ScottAleric, 10 March 2017 - 07:50 AM.

[Whiskey Peddler]

WarHippy, on 09 March 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

Skills cost nothing before.

Yes they did...skills to go to expert or master cost a real cost of cbills by forcing me to buy 2 other variants of the same mech. 28 million if I wanted to master my TBR. There was a cbill cost before and there will be a cbill cost after, just with more options.

[kutkip]

Actually looking forward to this. Just to have a bit more customization and a system where i don't have to buy variants i don't want.

And of course not having to find the stupid modules is a huge thing.

[Whiskey Peddler]

process, on 09 March 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

3. Blizzard expected players to have hundreds of characters.

The final decision is up to the player what they buy or don't buy. PGI can "expect" me to buy 300 mechs, but I have the final say over my wallet/cbills.

[process]

Whiskey Peddler, on 10 March 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

The final decision is up to the player what they buy or don't buy. PGI can "expect" me to buy 300 mechs, but I have the final say over my wallet/cbills.

Sure, but they must expect us to keep buying if they keep releasing mech packs with upwards of 7 variants per pack. My point was, to now, we were incentivized to buy more mechs and more than 1 variant per mech. That doesn't appear to be the case moving forward. They are completely inverting their in-game economy.

That's why I'm less concerned about players leaving, and more about PGI shooting themselves in the foot. I can't claim to know PGI's business model or where most of their revenue comes from, but anecdotally the vast majority of my previous real-money purchases were in the form of mech packs. I think that's going to change a lot under the new system.

Edited by process, 10 March 2017 - 08:34 AM.

[Knighthawk26]

Guys, PGI is doing what they always do. Put something new in the game before it is ready and let the live servers become the PTS servers. Then they patch multiple times until a new balance more or less emerges.

They did listen to some important feedback, we are paying a lot less in c-bills and xp per skill node now than in the first PTS server. Most of us who bought an average number of modules will get enough back to break even on "elite / mastered" mechs before and after the change.

And we won't be wasting so much time swapping modules. Yes, we will need to play (grind) more, but that it good for the game if it is not too heavy a grind. It will be a pain to select 91 skills initially for 40 mechs (that I want to keep elite in my case). But once it is done the first time, I will only have to add skills a few at a time.

I agree that the skill tree isn't really ready yet and it could certainly be better. But I don't think this change is going to ruin the game.

And the extra consumables will favor active players who know how to use them.Cool down modules on powerful (and hot) mechs often let me kill the other guy before he kills me. And they might generate a little more revenue for PGI.

Now that the decision has been made to launch this, let's give it a try and move forward.

[Morggo]

Throughout all the various threads one observation I find rather interesting is when our New Players comment:

- I see a whole lot of positive "oh, nice! This change will really help me out!" and "Grind is much better with the new Tree" or "So glad I can focus my earnings on just the mechs I want and get to new chassis sooner" and even "Sweet! I can get to module skills waaayyyy sooner than today!"

We older players pontificate and predict what and how awful the New Player Experience will be, from what I've noted, because it supports the 'this thing is terrible' perspective of older players. I find it intriguing that when you actually ask a New Player their outlook, they are more often than not eager and supportive (likely because contrary to how many portray the New Player, these New Players actually have a lot of experience with skill trees and games using them.).

My take is... the new tree is large and initially daunting to anyone, but a short bit scanning through them and folks new and old alike will navigate them. Honestly, the New Players may have a bit of an advantage in that they cannot spend 91 nodes day one like vets will. They'll have to grow into the Trees gradually as they play the game.

SO, we're back to the main failing of this whole implementation .... treatment and reimbursement of older players and the "make them whole" argument. IF PGI had addressed this single gap, my honest believe is there would have been a tremendously smaller amount of grief and salt.

Oh, the system definitely needs a few passes of tweaks and adjustments after 12v12 Live even I'll admit but overall, very much looking forward to moving beyond the current placeholder Skills, mainly because the mechs I tested in PTS consistently outperformed the same Live versions by various margins.

(oh, and by the way, honest thank you to our community in general for almost always being pleasant, understanding, inclusive, etc to our New Players.. venturing onto a forum of a new game can be daunting at first. Kudos to us for treating out New Players well!)

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Prosperity Park, on 10 March 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

The only reason people are complaining about cost is that you cannot swap modules around. You have to level Mechs on their own now. People felt that module swapping was an intended feature of the last system that allowed people to circumvent the cost of buying modules for all your Mechs . Players with Huge Garages now have to level their mechs up individually instead of spending frustrating time swapping and managing modules to save Cbills.

The new system, at 5.6 mil per Mech, is fair to me. I am one of those Huge Garage players, and I still think it is fine. But, I must be on an island... Since I think this change is for the better

I'm complaining because mechs like the Marauder are losing some base quirks, but mechs like the ebon jag and timber wolf are gaining quirks for the first time. lets say currently the Marauder as a whole is a 80 on the power scale and the timber is 100. So PGI does a base nerf, MAD is 60 and timber is 80. Now PGI nerfs MAD quirks, MAD is 50. Then players can quirk back the same amount. MAD goes back to 60 and timber goes up to 90. It's widening the gap between tier 1 mechs and everything else. That is my complaint. It does nothing to shift the meta and at least with the version we tested on the PTS it widens the gap between Good mechs and bad mechs, which was the whole point of quirks in the first place, to buff under performers. That's my complaint. This skill tree affects balance in a bad way.

[oldradagast]

Ironic that the one time PGI follows through on something in a remotely timely matter (ignoring the fact that the current skill tree was supposedly a "place holder" that's been there for 4+ years), it something that will gravely harm their game and their income.

People have already pointed out all the flaws in the skill maze and related nerfs, so I'll be brief:

• The illogical tangle of skills
  
• The empty hollowness of having to take utterly worthless skills to get the same good skills you'll take on almost every mech
  
• The still existing respec cost that punishes build changes and forced changes after PGI "balances" the skill maze after every future patch.
  
• The confusion it generates that will reduce the already horrible new player experience. The old skill tree was literally the only thing in the game a new player couldn't mess up; now they can mess up the skill maze.
  
• The de-leveling of our mechs and forcing us to regrind them
  
• The reduction in mech mobility across the board, turning the game even more into slow gun-bags that poke repeatedly from a distance
  
• The general uselessness of IS mechs after the change
  
• The removal of critical quirks that make so many mechs useless

The problems are clear and have been covered before. So, I'll be blunt. You don't respect my grind, you nerf my mechs - in particular, nerfing already non-meta mechs that are fun to play. You make the meta-game even more stagnant, boring, and weighted towards long-range alphas with gun-bags, and you punish us with a tax for even daring to experiment with builds to survive in this new, boring meta. Yes, it's your game, and you have the right to do that. But it is my wallet, and I have the right to never again spend a dime on this game.

You made your choice, and now I've made mine.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 March 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[oldradagast]

xX PUG Xx, on 09 March 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

Here's the best part: A lot of people are going to sell excess mechs. A lot of people are going to level up their few meta mechs immediately and drain what little resources they have remaining.

And PGI is going to drop new tech into the game, probably with new mechs geared to the new tech, and no doubt make more changes to the skill maze to force respecs (at a price) and change which mechs are good and which ones are bad, again.

It'll be "hilarious" in a "how stupid and greedy can one company be?" sort of way in that they'll proceed to gut whatever remaining resources and interest the surviving players have in this game by burning up their dwindling resources on rebuying mechs, needing to buy new mechs, and respecing.

Anyone want to buy a mech pack with mechs that have broken quirks for use with, say, rotary autocannons? You know it's going to happen - we see what the new business model is based on their skill maze decisions.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 March 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[Lucky Rookie]

Whiskey Peddler, on 10 March 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

Yes they did...skills to go to expert or master cost a real cost of cbills by forcing me to buy 2 other variants of the same mech. 28 million if I wanted to master my TBR. There was a cbill cost before and there will be a cbill cost after, just with more options.

This has been explained many times. Like you, I had bought 3 TBRs and then I mastered and kept all three of them. Now if someone wants to do the same, it will take way longer cost way more under the new system. This is a regression and that's where the objections come from.

Before anyone else says "But now I don't have to buy 3 mechs of a chasis to master one" for the nth time, yes, now that's possible and that's a plus; but if (general) you consider the xp & c-bill cost PER MECH in the medium and long term, it is easy to see that the costs are much higher. Simple as that.

[Stonekeg]

I haven't mastered a great number of my current mechs, and with just a small number of modules I swap around I am worried that I'm looking at a mountain of grinding when this system comes in. Still, I am looking forward to the change. I think it's better for the game over all, but I'll admit I am morbidly curious as to how it effects sales.

Don't forget, folks, this is still Skill System 1.0 in a living game. It's fine for a 1.0, imo.

[D V Devnull]

Okay, this hit me a little sore...

Lupis Volk, on 09 March 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

The skill tree in it's current form from what i hear shatters any sort of balance between the Inner Sphere and the Clans, the IS losing the bulk of it's quirks, quirks that many of their mechs need to be playable let alone competitive. While the Clans keep all of thiers for what little they have. It is unfair for the Inner Sphere players to be constantly beaten by you has the Clanners sit on the side lines snearing at us.

You think only the Inner Sphere is affected? Wrong. It doesn't matter if you're Inner Sphere or a Clanner. If you're not Meta, regardless of Faction Choice, then you're dead. The only folks who will have any advantage under the New Skill Tree are those who follow the Meta as either Ballistic-Boaters or Energy-Boaters, because they'll need less nodes to beef up their weaponry. Why? They need a hell of a lot less nodes as they're loaded full of just one major class of weaponry, unlike somebody who's using less weapons of each of 2 or all 3 different types. PGI failed here, and didn't provide enough nodes (at least 120, I think would have been a good minimum...) for the Non-Meta Pilots. Having only 91 Nodes is far too limiting, as I've come to learn. *facedesk*

Worse, anyone using LRMs (Except for users of the Inner Sphere Stalker 'STK-5M'... Yeah, really, I.S. gets an advantage here!) will be getting screwed. They lost 100 meters off their Range Limit BaseLine in the PTS, and were left at the mercy of Energy-Boating and Ballistic-Boating users who have Longer-Ranged Configurations to fire down the LRM-users' throats. PGI also shot themselves in the foot here for a further opportunity, too. How? If they're going to introduce the I.S. MRM weapon systems, there has to be enough of a range gap between LRM, MRM, and SSRM/SRM to make the insertion of the additional weapons system properly considerable. Anyway, hope that PGI doesn't take the LRM Range BaseLine down from 1000 to 900 on the Live Servers, or we're looking at some unnecessary weapon deprecation and a whole overload of salt.

That's two major points of trouble that I've just pointed out there, and regardless of being I.S. or Clan for that matter. If you want more useful info, take a gander back at my post on Page 6 and have a good read of all the linked information. Heck, a little further along, I raised a hard question about our pre-"New Skill Tree"-type "Cool Shot" Consumables, and thankfully got a quick answer which I can only hope is what actually happens.

~Mr. D. V. "These 'New Skill Tree' flaws are damnably mind-numbing..." Devnull

[SuperFunkTron]

Jaybles, on 10 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'm complaining because mechs like the Marauder are losing some base quirks, but mechs like the ebon jag and timber wolf are gaining quirks for the first time. lets say currently the Marauder as a whole is a 80 on the power scale and the timber is 100. So PGI does a base nerf, MAD is 60 and timber is 80. Now PGI nerfs MAD quirks, MAD is 50. Then players can quirk back the same amount. MAD goes back to 60 and timber goes up to 90. It's widening the gap between tier 1 mechs and everything else. That is my complaint. It does nothing to shift the meta and at least with the version we tested on the PTS it widens the gap between Good mechs and bad mechs, which was the whole point of quirks in the first place, to buff under performers. That's my complaint. This skill tree affects balance in a bad way.

Your argument makes sense, but I think it overlooks one key factor that they posted in the original PTS info. Component health in Clan mechs has been markedly decreased in comparison to IS mechs. I can't say for sure how much the difference post update will be, but I think the clans got a larger nerf than most people account for, and to use you demonstration, I think the Timber Wolf goes from 100 to 70, and back up to 90, maintaining the 20 point differential.

This is very subjective of course, but they laid out clearly that they intend to make clans much more fragile in comparison to IS due address that imbalance. I believe that this will end up playing a bigger role on a grand scale as clans may be able to survive longer after losing a torso, but with the heat penalty and fragile components, they will be made significantly less functional than even after the heat penalty alone.

Component Health

With the Skill Tree bringing with it a global reduction in inherent Quirk values, we knew this change would disproportionately impact the Inner Sphere more than the Clans. This prompted us to take a hard look at the baseline systems in the game and how they contribute to Clan/IS balance. We have identified a series of core imbalances that we will be attempting to evaluate further and address in the future, while still attempting to maintain distinct differences between the two technology bases.