190 replies to this topic

[Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS]

tokumboh, on 10 March 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

8 My overall view

Overall I felt disappointed that having these guys not really address the fundamentals of their decisions and indeed they countered everything with the philosophy that only they understood it enough. I felt that Chris's explanation were pretty weak as to the design decisions. The UI debacle for me kind of sums up the problems that I have. the changes were a retrograde step as if people insisted on making a change because they could and not really making a change for improvement and then having to essentially walk the change back. Just think of man hours some spent just doing that.

Yep - many words were spoken without saying anything.

Well, one thing was repeated over and over - You guys can't see what we see on the servers, so you don't know what's good for you.

Yeah - what do we know? All we do is play the ******* game.

Edited by Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS, 10 March 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[Marius Evander]

Rogue Jedi, on 10 March 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

am I the only one who finds it amusing that they posted this 36 minutes before it was due to start?

if you expect someone to listen to something live realisticly they could do with a few days notice, not half an hour.

The NGNGTV podcast was an attempt at triage to stop the mechpack preorder cancellations their bleeding out from this debacle, thats why it wasn't pre planned it was a last minute "oh **** we better do some work and actually attempt to communicate with the community" after saying nothing on the forums they told us to use since saying pts 2 is over.

Should have made skill tree cost 0 cbills for 1st 7 days for all previously elited/mastered mechs, then set it to normal values for noding up.

They want to help stop boating but missiles ac and lasers still have completely seperate firepower nodes ? They should have stacked them,
ie
1 node that did laser duration and velocity ,
1 node that did missile spread and lbx spread
1 node that did gause charge and high explosive ?????

Now their going to the opposite extreme with cbill costs pts 2 costs were good, i'm going to be rolling in so much cbills since I actually bought modules that I should be compensated with free mech bays for my modules instead of cbills, yes I know that is never going to happen and is insanity but its the other side of the "poor me i have 300 mechs that I never play and dont even have engines for half of them but dont want to have to level them again! argument that has got cbills over reduced.

[MechaBattler]

Even if they explained every little reason for every little decision. It wouldn't do anything to make people feel better. People say they want communication. But what they want is a seat at the dev table to then dictate how the game should be.

It's not as if they didn't get the feedback about gating skills behind less desirable skills. Or how the web setup is annoying. Or the sheer number of points being too cumbersome. They're simply making the choice to stick with their design.
I'm sure that they're sorry everyone can't enjoy their design and frustrated at the same time.

[Gattsus]

MechaBattler, on 10 March 2017 - 10:48 PM, said:

Even if they explained every little reason for every little decision. It wouldn't do anything to make people feel better. People say they want communication. But what they want is a seat at the dev table to then dictate how the game should be.

It's not as if they didn't get the feedback about gating skills behind less desirable skills. Or how the web setup is annoying. Or the sheer number of points being too cumbersome. They're simply making the choice to stick with their design.
I'm sure that they're sorry everyone can't enjoy their design and frustrated at the same time.

Seems like Pgi to me.

[Duke Nedo]

Did they say anything about the quirk nerfs to nearly every mech while leaving the very best mechs unnerfed? Mkaythxbye

Edited by Duke Nedo, 10 March 2017 - 11:25 PM.

[Skybirduk]

Doesn't PGI even realising why forcing people to select unnecessary skill points is causing alienation?

Imagine going to buy a new car, one that you really wanted and you are just about to sign when the seller says "Oh buy the way, you have to buy this pair of massive fluffy dice for another 2,000. Oh and it has to stay in the car."


If PGI can't understand how this can alienate someone, perhaps they should have a chat with someone who can provide advice on bad sales psychology.

[Edward Hazen]

Skybirduk, on 10 March 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

Doesn't PGI even realising why forcing people to select unnecessary skill points is causing alienation?

Imagine going to buy a new car, one that you really wanted and you are just about to sign when the seller says "Oh buy the way, you have to buy this pair of massive fluffy dice for another 2,000. Oh and it has to stay in the car."


If PGI can't understand how this can alienate someone, perhaps they should have a chat with someone who can provide advice on bad sales psychology.

Blame the players who whined and cried about boating and how the original skill tree made boating one type of weapon the best choice. I guess people need to stop being melodramatic and be more careful what they wish for.

[Skybirduk]

SOulReapr, personally I saw nothing wrong with the original weapons trees.

Edited by Skybirduk, 10 March 2017 - 11:57 PM.

[-Pik-]

Skybirduk, on 10 March 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

Doesn't PGI even realising why forcing people to select unnecessary skill points is causing alienation?

I can't understand why so many people are getting annoyed by this. The system is balanced around the fact that you are also have to get "lesser" skill points. It's a way to make min/maxing more expensive. Just see those nodes as little boni rather than burdens. You didn't use all quirks of your mech in the old system either. No one puts machine guns in a mech because it has a RoF quirk.

They tried to communicate why they did the things they did with the tree, but people here just seem to hear only what they want to hear. In order to not flood players with c-bills and make the economy collapse someone has to feel the sting. It's their decision (and jobs) to find the best middle ground for everyone.

For a community that prides itself for being more adult you guys sure can throw a tantrum. "But I WANT muh own skill tree idea", "OMG he called me a cheapskate" (when it was clearly in reference to c-bill module cost), "lul, I have to click 91 skill nodes, I'm taking muh money somewhere else.", "They talked, but will not make the adjustments my own divine intelligence thinks are best, they will never listen, they are evil!"

Like geez, grow up.

Edited by -Pik-, 11 March 2017 - 12:23 AM.

[Carl Vickers]

Erm, economy, lolz

[TheLuc]

That Podcast was just damage control, which wont change anything.
I might play here and there but I wont waste time on putting XP/CBills in the skill tree.

I already had reasons to have my wallet closed and with this new skill tree coming up makes it one more reason to keep that decision.

I already banned any purchase from EA, Ubisoft and I might have to add some other developer in the future.

Edited by TheLuc, 11 March 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[tokumboh]

S0ulReapr, on 10 March 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:

Blame the players who whined and cried about boating and how the original skill tree made boating one type of weapon the best choice. I guess people need to stop being melodramatic and be more careful what they wish for.

In fairness the whining was that it did not meet their own design goal, which was not to encourage boating. it was one of the few explicit stated aim of the Skill tree. When they announced it.

I personally believe the approach to the game encourages specialisation, often the aim is to put as much damage at a certain range as possible without overheating, some approaches thus favour complementary weapons where as some times you just don't do anything but boat. it also depends on play style so the lights I play are pretty much boating styles they have one weapon type in the main

My ACH-PRIME 6 SL
My RVN-3L 2ERLL

When I look at my mediums I play the most
BSW-X1 4 MG+1 LPL+3 SRM4
HNM-B 2uAC-5 +3ML
PHX-2 3ERLL

My Heavies
WHM-6R 2LBX-10 4ML
CTF-0XP AC20 +4MPL
CTF-3L(L) 3 LPL

I rarely play assaults these days having master them all
KDK-3 2uAC10+2uAC5

The theme in all the build I have is to concentrate on one range and have a back up for longer range if possible, if I have a brawl build and avoid lastly to avoid ghost heat.

I fall foul of many maps because I like brawling and indeed to master my CTF-3L(L) I had to go with the 3LPL build to cope with the maps and the vagaries of the QP solo queue being a T5 turning to T4, rather than the AC20 +5ML build I would have put in place.

The Higher the tier the more the specialisation and the more the groups and the more competitive the more the boating. it is unavoidable even if there was no obvious incentivisation in the end the mechanic of this game rewards damage and kills and game player find a way to maximise that capability.

You have to actively disincentivise boating (dreaded ghost heat) for that to stop or else my KDK-3 would be 4uAC10s
as it is I have NTG-B with 4 uAC5 and I accept the ghost heat because the DPS is worth it.

The skill tree will not dramatically change that since in truth the incentives of the skill tree are in many cases do not make the mechs overwhelmingly 'better'

The real problem is that they are tinkering with the game in an attempt to get the ever holy grail of balance, we have had so many balance and quirk passes that it is hard to remember why this was started in the first place it is like whack-a-mole.

What this whack a model approach is doing is stopping them addressing is game play mechanics, modes, objectives and other issues which will give the game more scope and allow the sort of variation that they could allow naturally. If the mechanic insists on damage and kills to be the main reward then people will specialise on damage and kills.

Edited by tokumboh, 11 March 2017 - 05:16 AM.

[tokumboh]

Tarl Cabot, on 10 March 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

How is that really different from the soon- to-be-extinct Module-section except put in tree form? The current skill only has 1.5 layers (full elite 2x basics) while the upcoming tree has it broken up into increments across a wider range. It also allows IGP to reduce the overall effectiveness of said skills/modules/quirks hidden behind the layers instead of making a big hit like they did the last time the Skill Tree was neutered, which also occurred at the same time as when the cXL received with the movement penalty w/loss of one side torso.

Imagine the noise if IGP had not been neutered the current skill tree back then but did it all now, all at one time w/the new skill/module/ quirk tree.

So I accept that the So1amah's tree is a hybrid of the current liver server skill levels and the new tree. I prefer it because it is easier to understand as a player, it is not as complex so easier for players to manage their stable of mechs and more importantly it provides an easier approach for PGI to change the values.

I think that PGI will always make changes, most companies do It is inevitable as the program Smith says. I think what I am worried by is the fact they are not really transparent about it and their rationale for what they do seems to fall apart at first contact with anyone who has played the game for a reasonable length of time

Now the reality is that I am still going to be playing this game on March 21st, It is the only game I actually play and I do so to avoid the grind of RL and have a bit of nostalgic fun. I drop money on this game and I am happy that some thing are changing, for example the rule of 3 being gone may thin out my stable of mechs but also will encourage me to buy some that I would not have even thought of the VPR-M/C as an example, I am also looking at the resistance heros and yes I am buying an Urbie but I am looking at others. We will ***** and moan and we will get some of what we want and PGI will impose thing that we don't want and if enough people leave it will die but until that time I reserve the right to ***** and yet play

[Desintegrator]

Ok nice - let's hear what they have to say...

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

We'll see what it does, i have not had the urge to do the PST for them.


I would like to know what they will do in FPCWFWinvasion-something, because the simple we have added QP and pushed everything into something where 1 side and the biggest get's all and most the fun.

It's not engaging, it's not the next step after qp-mode.
Where units play in there factions to have a blast against each other and that the story of the mechwarrior universe is made.

I know IGP was the big mess-up in the start to the community.
But PGI has to step up and Russ may want to someone from the outside to get an overlook at the player base potential.

[shopsmart]

I thought the pts skill tree was ok. Solahma's vid is good, but I see abuse easily. To easy to take MUST have skills. Radar derp, I'm looking at you... The two combined in some sort of way would help.

I think the roll out is happening regardless because company resources, schedule, and aggrevation.

[Duke Nedo]

Looked it through now and most of the stuff they say are more or less fine, but balance still concerns me a lot!

Sure, KDK-3 gets a bit of a nerf from engine decoupling, but maybe not quite as much as one might think because they can bring a smaller engine now and pack more gear instead. Still a nerf though, fine.

However, NGR does not get nerfed much by this. I didn't have time to clock it before they turned off the PTS, but a 300 engine on a 75-tonner can't be too far from the baseline... so NGRs really must be one of the mechs being least affected by engine decoupling and I can't see why offensive quirks are removed to compensate for this.

The other thing is the big XL engined IS mechs, like BLR-2C/1G, BNC-3M, BK-KNT, GHR, some WHM will be hammered by this unless they receive agility BUFFS rolled into their base stats. They need the high twist speeds to help mitigate the XL engine death traps they are carrying around.

The over all notion of reducing quirks is however perfectly agreeable, but you can't reduce quirks first and then adjust the base techs some time in the future...

[Insomnium80]

Duke Nedo, on 10 March 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

Did they say anything about the quirk nerfs to nearly every mech while leaving the very best mechs unnerfed? Mkaythxbye

Yes.

[Insomnium80]

Skybirduk, on 10 March 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

Doesn't PGI even realising why forcing people to select unnecessary skill points is causing alienation?

Apparently you didn't watch the podcast.

Most of them are there to discourage boating or make the high value nodes more expensive. They explained in the podcast that, the cost of the high value nodes must be more and the alternative would be not to give you any nodes at all.

Also every iteration of the tree tuned this. You can't have it all. And that is how it is supposed to be.

[MeIsYou]

Lucky Rookie, on 10 March 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

So1ahma's skill tree design is superior to PGI's in every way. Let this be known.

This is simply brilliant and brilliantly simple!
This proposal addresses a ton of still undissolved issues which had been highlighted several times now, by using a systematic approach. I love it! This is an excellent piece of work. I'm sure I don't need to tell you people from PGI, that ignoring such a valuable effort would be negligent.

P.S.:
MWO is my first MW experience but I have to say I love this game because of its community. The effort, thoughts and time players are investing to create a better game for everyone is just amazing. The forums are full of constructive feedback and ideas, which range from some simple ideas to full concepts like the one presented in the video above. Great job!

Edited by MeIsYou, 11 March 2017 - 09:30 AM.