392 replies to this topic

[Password1234]

Arkhangel, on 09 March 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

... and they had Proton to coordinate them. ever ran into EMP without Proton with a competent team?

You'll murder them.

LMAO yeeeaaaaah right. They are in EMP because they ARE competent (more than) an EMP team even without Proton is a force to be reckoned with. You are either a complete idiot braggart or are just talking out of your ***. Either way your comment makes me disregard anything you ever have to say again..
PS I am not in any way associated with EMP. I just have played a LOT in the past year I have been here and have had many games with and against EMP and watched many games where they have played. I am not a fanboy either, I just have much respect for a team that has earned it.


PSS On topic - Please Please Please do not let this travesty go live.

Edited by Password1234, 10 March 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 09:30 AM, said:

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.

Unfortunately I can't give you exact numbers since I didn't write it down and the PTS is now closed, but the things I'm talking about are like on the bounty hunter II, They reduced the range quirks and removed range modules for weapons. The amount I can quirk back doesn't equal what was lost on live. So my laser vomit BH lost 50m full damage and 100m partial damage. That may not seem like much, But my ebon jag gains range over my live build because if I quirk both mechs the same I'll be taking range nodes in order to get heat/burn time/ cooldown etc. So my Ebon is gaining range and losing nothing, but my BH is losing range. Currently on live with quirks and mods on the BH ML range is 351 with max range 702 and LPL is 401 with max range of 802. I can play with that, I can compete with clan weapons that are 405/688 and 600/840. But on the TS I was looking at iirc for the BH 305/610 for ML and 394/788 LPL. Now compare that to the clan 437/743 ML and 648/907 LPL. So I went from 50M difference in optimal range to 135M difference? How is that good for the game? And what does Internal component HP matter if I'm constantly outgunned and out ranged?

Also, what developer intentionally unbalances their own game? So they're going to unbalance it..... then fix it in the future through some other means besides quirks? We are then to play a broken game until they get around to it?

Edited by Jaybles, 10 March 2017 - 01:07 PM.

[Bleit]

SFC174, on 09 March 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

Having played at a competitive level in some other MMOs in the past which were in later stages of life (3-4+ years in), this skill tree change feels very familiar. Its a revenue grab IMO. New players are probably pretty rare now. PGI needs money, and they need to extract it from the existing base. I don't think the skill tree changes are a good way to do it, but I can see how from a corporate perspective it has the potential to increase spending, especially among those who are compelled to remain competitive at the highest levels.

Just my thoughts as a joe average player.

I think this is exactly correct. I don't begrudge PGI for needing to make money, this isn't a charity. This is simply the inevitable outcome of the FTP model. The FTP model is the development choice I resent, not the changing skill tree.

People piss and moan about the ubiquitous stink of advertising and microtransactions infesting every corner of the internet, yet still want all these hard-to-develop products completely free. Want a FTP game? Guess what; it costs money to make games, and if you don't want to pay on the front end, you are going to pay on the back end via shady, nauseating microtransactions.

'Member when you bought a video game, installed/downloaded it, and it was yours? Those were the days...

[Alistair Winter]

Bleit, on 10 March 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I think this is exactly correct. I don't begrudge PGI for needing to make money, this isn't a charity. This is simply the inevitable outcome of the FTP model. The FTP model is the development choice I resent, not the changing skill tree.

People piss and moan about the ubiquitous stink of advertising and microtransactions infesting every corner of the internet, yet still want all these hard-to-develop products completely free. Want a FTP game? Guess what; it costs money to make games, and if you don't want to pay on the front end, you are going to pay on the back end via shady, nauseating microtransactions.

'Member when you bought a video game, installed/downloaded it, and it was yours? Those were the days...

I think more developers will be going back to that model. And it seems like MW5 will be like that, at least. Given PGI's history of ignoring player feedback, there's no way in hell I would buy MW5 unless it was a single point of purchase, and I knew it had good reviews before I bought it. I'm all about owning games, and I'm all about owning games that the developers can't f*** up later with forced updates.

But whether the old model is still better for pure MMO PVP games? I'm not so sure.

For example, I could care less if my Dragon Age, Fallout or Skyrim purchase comes with a unique limited-edition helmet or something. I'm the only one who gets to see it anyway. But in a PVP, where I can show off my unique limited-edition helmet? It becomes a lot more interesting. And the same goes for non-limited cosmetic items. (But even this may be a thing of the past. I honestly prefer Star Citizen's approach, where even the whale-candy limited-edition stuff will be available in game, if you know where to find it. No micro-transaction cosmetic items or limited-edition ships or anything like that.)

[process]

Looks like Russ@Twitter is going to have some more information for us soon, including skill tree cost reductions. I'm really looking forward to hear what he has to say.

[Bleit]

Alistair Winter, on 10 March 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

I think more developers will be going back to that model. And it seems like MW5 will be like that, at least. Given PGI's history of ignoring player feedback, there's no way in hell I would buy MW5 unless it was a single point of purchase, and I knew it had good reviews before I bought it. I'm all about owning games, and I'm all about owning games that the developers can't f*** up later with forced updates.

But whether the old model is still better for pure MMO PVP games? I'm not so sure.

For example, I could care less if my Dragon Age, Fallout or Skyrim purchase comes with a unique limited-edition helmet or something. I'm the only one who gets to see it anyway. But in a PVP, where I can show off my unique limited-edition helmet? It becomes a lot more interesting. And the same goes for non-limited cosmetic items. (But even this may be a thing of the past. I honestly prefer Star Citizen's approach, where even the whale-candy limited-edition stuff will be available in game, if you know where to find it. No micro-transaction cosmetic items or limited-edition ships or anything like that.)

Yeah, that's where I'm at with MW5. I am super excited for Battletech though, I donated to that and can't wait for the beta.

As for MMO games, as much as I hate monthly fees (I've never signed up for a game that required them), that might be the way to go. I'm not sure. Those games are kind of eternally in development, so the one time cost would have to be huge in order to support it.

As far as I am concerned, the focus on MT and DLC in gaming has gone way overboard these days..but that's a longer rant.

*sigh* I know this is the way of the future, I'm just resistant to change.

I think it's also worth stating that MWO can be super fun and I still enjoy it (okay, I don't enjoy jumping into FW solo to get rolled by a 12-man, but whatchagunnadoo?). Even if the skill tree changes, I just play it as it is, non-competitively, only shelled out real money for a paint scheme. The game might be grindy, but you don't have to let the game grind you.

[Alistair Winter]

From Russ' twitter account:

Quote

Okay a couple things regarding Skill tree. Well first off thanks for all the passionate feedback and player made suggestions and videos

Seems to be two main topics - one is the structure of the skill trees and just how easily you can min max and skip items you don't want etc.

For this topic make sure to catch the NGNG podcast tonight where this will be discussed. I think this will shed a lot of light.

This skill tree has ended up as a major balance effort for the game - please listen to the NGNG podcast tonight.

The other topic is surrounding the cost of the system. I think people are jumping the gun a bit on this one.

We have tried to be as communicative as possible during this process but I can tell you there will be a further c-bill cost reduction

At first I was like "Ok, good, they realize the community is upset. I guess they will try to fix this".

And now I'm like "Ok, they're going to fix this by.... explaining why they made this choice in another NGNG podcast?" I'm sure they have their reasons (e.g. to stop boating and prevent power creep), but I don't think there's any confusion about why they're doing it, and it doesn't change the fact that people find it very underwhelming in terms of entertaining new content.

[Marius Evander]

process, on 10 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

Looks like Russ@Twitter is going to have some more information for us soon, including skill tree cost reductions. I'm really looking forward to hear what he has to say.

wut ? cheaper than PTS 2 ? all the people who bought modules need to be given free mechbays then ! =p for all this extra cbills they're going to have lying around

Alistair Winter, on 10 March 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

(e.g. to stop boating and prevent power creep),

I dont think skills in firepower are merged anywhere near enough to reduce boating and help balance with mixed builds, one easy example is laser duration and velocity should be same nodes.

[plodder]

I will change up a few mechs. Tree them up when things go live on the new tree.

I will not experiment or spend vast amounts on my stable of mechs. I will wait for feedback from players in game and buddies.

Slowly will I start modifying and see if PGI changes it like they did when they took out repair costs.

I will probably eventually start selling mechs there is no need of. I have held on to them because their time would come, or so I have believed.

I truly believe I should not have to pay for hill climb or speed retention if it is not important. I am not opposed to some things being more points and others less points.

I appreciate the game and what the Devs are trying to do. GL HF o7

[KingCobra]

The thing that kills me is they used up resources for a skill tree players really never needed at all and still refuse to work on the important things this game needs the most to keep it alive like new players- new player retention -Social aspects -ETC.

[Alistair Winter]

Cadoazreal, on 10 March 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

I dont think skills in firepower are merged anywhere near enough to reduce boating and help balance with mixed builds, one easy example is laser duration and velocity should be same nodes.

Preaching to the choir.

I will listen to the podcast and I'll try to be open minded, but I'm not particularly hopeful.

[Cato Phoenix]

process, on 10 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

Looks like Russ@Twitter is going to have some more information for us soon, including skill tree cost reductions. I'm really looking forward to hear what he has to say.

Interesting.

Will be looking forward to the NGNG podcast then.

If Russ is going to take some of the further PTS2 feedback for cost and junk nodes I will be very pleased.

So I'll have a little bit of hope - though it might too soon for optimism just yet!

[Bud Crue]

Alistair Winter, on 10 March 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

From Russ' twitter account:



At first I was like "Ok, good, they realize the community is upset. I guess they will try to fix this".

And now I'm like "Ok, they're going to fix this by.... explaining why they made this choice in another NGNG podcast?" I'm sure they have their reasons (e.g. to stop boating and prevent power creep), but I don't think there's any confusion about why they're doing it, and it doesn't change the fact that people find it very underwhelming in terms of entertaining new content.

We have tried to be as communicative as possible...

This makes my eye twitch.

Russ, If you feel it necessary to clarify stuff about the PTS or the skills tree, perhaps you could do it on YOUR OFFICIAL FORUMS where that PTS and Skill Tree are being tested and where YOU requested we provide feed back. Is it to much to expect that you do the same? NGNG podcast!!...seriously?! WHAT F**KING COMMUNICATION are talking about? I have read and seen nothing since PTS 2.0 dropped. Seriously WHAT COMMUNICATION!!!?

Geezus. Worst customer engagement of any product I have ever encountered.

[Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS]

Bud Crue, on 10 March 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

We have tried to be as communicative as possible...

This makes my eye twitch.

Russ, If you feel it necessary to clarify stuff about the PTS or the skills tree, perhaps you could do it on YOUR OFFICIAL FORUMS where that PTS and Skill Tree are being tested and where YOU requested we provide feed back. Is it to much to expect that you do the same? NGNG podcast!!...seriously?! WHAT F**KING COMMUNICATION are talking about? I have read and seen nothing since PTS 2.0 dropped. Seriously WHAT COMMUNICATION!!!?

Geezus. Worst customer engagement of any product I have ever encountered.

If this was the best they can do........

[Bud Crue]

Just posted the twitter stuff on the General Discussion. Hopefully it will save some other's from my fate of...how did Russ put it? "People jumping the gun a bit". I mean with all the great communication PGI has been imparting, I don't even see how such "jumping the gun" could have even been possible.

[VanBurenPhilips]

My feedback for PGI:

Really like the new system on the whole, I'm looking forward to the change.

- Happy with the skill costs, particularly respec costs. 5 and a half mil to master a mech is reasonable, and no money/400xp to rebuy a node is great. Mechs are gonna continue to accrue XP as long as we play them, now we actually have a worthwhile reason to save & spend that XP.
The initial PTS build worked against the stated goal of encouraging experimentation (due to initial and respec costs), this change is excellent imo, you nailed it.

- Tree layouts are mostly good. My biggest objection is gating anything behind arm skills. Bad choice. There are lots of mechs and builds that do absolutely nothing with the arms, these should not be gate nodes. I would also move the first two speed tweak nodes a little higher in the tree.

- The module skills are great, please keep them. But the enhanced NARC is too buried, and I'm not sure it belongs in that tree at all. Shouldn't it be with the sensor skills instead? It's powerful so should be either gated or split into smaller parts, but either way it should be among more relevant skills.

- Suggestion: as an incentive for players to buy multiples of the same variant, how about a small XP boost? Eg if I own two Centurion-Ds, give each a +10% XP boost. If I own three, +20 or 25%. Probably don't want to add any more after three Would make it somewhat more worthwhile for players, and makes some kind of logical sense too (seems realistic for pilots to be more familiar with a specific variant they've already piloted)


- The players with lots of mechs but few modules have a valid criticism. No issue for me (and tbh I hadn't seen their POV until I started reading this thread). I used to play loads of FP and changed my drop deck on the fly, which meant module swapping wasn't viable. I have lots of mechs, and lots of modules - if we're getting refunded for modules, I'm not worried about mastering all my mechs. For new players, I think the costs of mastering a mech will be totally reasonable. But these folks who have 150-200 elited/mastered mechs and not many modules? There are many players out there who don't play FP at all, and for them there's really been no reason to buy the same modules repeatedly. When you finish playing with one mech, rip the modules out. Easy when you don't need to maintain a drop deck, and it's what I used to do all the time before I started playing FP. The module refunds are not going to be nearly enough for them to skill up their mechs again. Some of these people are your longest standing players, please do not screw them over.

Figure out some C-Bill* refund appropriate to the skill state of their mechs. I would suggest x c-bills for basic, y for elite, z for mastered (rather than c-bills-per-xp), and z is gonna have to come close to the new mastery cost. You really can't give them next to nothing towards the 5.5 mil cost per mech for mastery in the new system, you can't expect them to grind it all again. You just can't.


* duuuh, or skill points as MovinTarget suggests above. Better idea, didn't think of that.

---



^ That's all for PGI. This is for other players saying it's not ready yet: it will never be ready on the PTS. When I go on, there are like 3 or 4 other players online. It needs to be live to be properly tested. This isn't Overwatch, there just aren't enough players champing at the bit to test out every new change. It needs the full player base to really see what works, what still needs work & make the necessary tweaks. Expecting anything to stay on the PTS until it's just right is unrealistic. For any major change, the first month of live is really the last phase of testing, with the possibility of tweaks forever. That's not PGI messing up, that's the reality of online gaming (especially for a game this complex & with a sub-AAA player base). I say get it live as scheduled and let's get on with it.





EDIT: oh yeah the suggestion for laser duration & projectile velocity to be merged is really interesting, as long as there's no possible future weapon that wouldn't work with it. I'm sure you folks who know the lore back to front will know.



EDIT EDIT: damn, I knew there was something I'd forgotten.
Shock absorbers. Tested these maxed out, I think the full benefit needs to be better. It's only Spider 5Vs, Vipers and the like that are gonna max this skill out and it needs to be worthwhile, ie almost all fall damage negated. Tried it on my Spider 5V and it wasn't enough. Needs a boost please.

Edited by VanBurenPhilips, 10 March 2017 - 05:30 PM.

[Big MO]

Anybody got a short summary of the podcast? Just saw the announcement - why can't they send out an email notifying us at least a day in advance?

Edited by Big MO, 10 March 2017 - 05:07 PM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Big MO, on 10 March 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

Anybody got a short summary of the podcast. Just saw the announcement - why can't they send out an email notifying us at least a day in advance?

I missed the first half hour, but the take away is simple:

-They explained why they are doing what they are doing (non linear trees, number of nodes, c-bill cots etc)

-As of a few days ago, they decided 45,000 c-bills a node was more appropriate, but stated that it may still come down further.

-They explained that just because people didn't get the response they wanted, doesn't mean that they didn't reed and consider people's posts and ideas. Also that they are much more responsive and to criticism when it is respectfully delivered as opposed to written abuse.

-They said that the version posted on March 21 will not be final but rather a starting point with continued tweaking and adjusting as data comes in to support those changes.

-There was a section discussing the "unequal nerfs" but I came in half way in to that so can't really say much beyond the game not being a direct translation and that the engine decoupling adds to the factors they need to consider when they are setting the new baseline for further analysis and tweaking.

[Wintersdark]

Blockpirat, on 10 March 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

I've already written several posts in this thread. By now it should be clear that I'm a huge whale and Mech collector who despises the additional grind imposed by the skill tree changes.

Here's a very personal video I felt compelled to make given the situation:

It doesn't mean that I will never play the game again. It doesn't mean that I won't keep following MWO development.

But what it does mean is that a lot of faith in PGI has been lost and that they won't be getting any more money from me.

So, do you have any thoughts on how your situation sits now, given you'll receive enough cbills to master all your mechs, and 20 more?

[Wintersdark]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 March 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

I missed the first half hour, but the take away is simple:

-They explained why they are doing what they are doing (non linear trees, number of nodes, c-bill cots etc)

-As of a few days ago, they decided 45,000 c-bills a node was more appropriate, but stated that it may still come down further.

-They explained that just because people didn't get the response they wanted, doesn't mean that they didn't reed and consider people's posts and ideas. Also that they are much more responsive and to criticism when it is respectfully delivered as opposed to written abuse.

-They said that the version posted on March 21 will not be final but rather a starting point with continued tweaking and adjusting as data comes in to support those changes.

-There was a section discussing the "unequal nerfs" but I came in half way in to that so can't really say much beyond the game not being a direct translation and that the engine decoupling adds to the factors they need to consider when they are setting the new baseline for further analysis and tweaking.

There wasn't really a first half-hour; they were 20 minutes late getting started, so you didn't miss much.

They also covered:

They where discussing the skill trees with So1ahma (sp) personally; as he apparently had a proposal a lot of people liked. So, that particular piece of feedback was well looked at. As to the content of those discussions, you'd have to ask So1ahma. I haven't seen his proposal, so I didn't pay a lot of attention here.

* There are "filler" nodes in some trees because they feel those high value skills need a larger cost, and the alternative would just be having those skills have a higher SP cost or removing things like "Hill Climb" and replacing them with other may-as-well-be-filler nodes. With the other skills, you're at least getting something for the points spent, in the category your spending them in. So a mech pushing for Radar Derp is getting better sensors along the way, rather than just spending zounds of points to just get the high-value Derp.

Me: People say "Just make all skills equally valuable and desireable" - Yeah, that'd be great. It's also just not going to happen, and never does in any game. There's always great skills, and mediocre skills, just something that happens. It's hard to do. I'm not saying they shouldn't try, but we need to be realistic, skills are never going to be equal.

* Someone compared to World of Warcraft skill trees (3x8 skills); Chris pointed out that the MWO skill tree would be best compared to EVERY WoW class's skill trees, so you'd be looking at 3x8 skills per class * 12 classes = 288 skills overall. MWO essentially allows people to build their mech cherry picking from different roles/classes, so there you have it. And keep in mind, the current WoW skill tree is one of maaaaaaany iterations over more than a decade since release. So, clearly, wholly new skill trees during the life of a game is something that happens. Much discussion about this, my bit here is a "nutshell" overview of what he said and I'm really not interested in arguing about it. Just relaying what he said as best I can in point form.

Edited by Wintersdark, 10 March 2017 - 05:28 PM.