62 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Just to clarify, skill trees were originally supposed to be in the game to promote role warfare. Now they're apparently in the game to stop boating? Eh, close enough, right?

Edited by Alistair Winter, 11 March 2017 - 03:11 AM.

[Bud Crue]

OldOrgandonor, on 10 March 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

This is basically what we're going to get when it goes live. Sure they'll tweak it a little first, and act all shocked and surprised that we don't LOVE it. But then it will sit there on the live servers pretty much as is for what (?) the NEXT 5 years, until they give the "place holder" skill tree another go?

That is actually the best case scenario as far as I see it.

Worst case? The worst case is if they do what the supporters of the skills tree claim that PGI intends to do:

Nonstop monitoring and tweaking of skills, quirks, weapons values, etc. forever.

A nonstop beta where after every time a new "baseline" is established...they change it. Because "data" demands it. Every time you get your fifty or a hundred or three hundred mechs just where you want them, they pull the rug out with a new tweek, and a new tech, and a node for that tech and "oh those mechs there, yeah they are "over performing with energy so here is a misslie quirk instead", etc. Every month, or maybe even every week as some posters have suggested. It will be like the three or four times a year quirk passes they do now except turned up to eleven. How's that gonna fly with new players? How's that going to go over with vets? And I am sure that this constant change will involve highly detailed explanations and communications making the rationale for each and every change fully understandable to everyone.

Constant beta in this four year old game. I'm just giddy with excitement.

[Unnatural Growth]

Bud Crue, on 11 March 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

That is actually the best case scenario as far as I see it.

Worst case? The worst case is if they do what the supporters of the skills tree claim that PGI intends to do:

Nonstop monitoring and tweaking of skills, quirks, weapons values, etc. forever.

A nonstop beta where after every time a new "baseline" is established...they change it. Because "data" demands it. Every time you get your fifty or a hundred or three hundred mechs just where you want them, they pull the rug out with a new tweek, and a new tech, and a node for that tech and "oh those mechs there, yeah they are "over performing with energy so here is a misslie quirk instead", etc. Every month, or maybe even every week as some posters have suggested. It will be like the three or four times a year quirk passes they do now except turned up to eleven. How's that gonna fly with new players? How's that going to go over with vets? And I am sure that this constant change will involve highly detailed explanations and communications making the rationale for each and every change fully understandable to everyone.

Constant beta in this four year old game. I'm just giddy with excitement.

I wouldn't worry about PGI suddenly not being PGI anymore. They have a pretty entrenched history of putting things on "ignore" for months or years. So, historically speaking, I don't see them "constantly tweaking" anything. Some previously broken game mechanics or weapon/damage/lag issues took years to "fix" (depends on your point of view if it's fixed or not?).

[Bud Crue]

OldOrgandonor, on 11 March 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

I wouldn't worry about PGI suddenly not being PGI anymore. They have a pretty entrenched history of putting things on "ignore" for months or years. So, historically speaking, I don't see them "constantly tweaking" anything. Some previously broken game mechanics or weapon/damage/lag issues took years to "fix" (depends on your point of view if it's fixed or not?).

Then the nerfed mechs...all 56 pages of them are doomed.

Its one or the other. Iteratively address them based on "data" or leave them broken along with everything else.

I suppose they could do a giant re-quirkening as they have before, but if that is the intent, why nerf them in the first place? What about the supposed new "baseline" they need to establish and then work from? If they already know that baseline sufficiently to mass "fix" all those mechs in one or two fell swoops, then again I have to ask why nerf them in the first place?

Nope. Its either status quo or constant change. If you think it will be status quo, then half the mechs in this game are about to be made not only noncompetitive, but nonviable. If they are going to gradually adjust their new baseline, then that necessitates constant observation and adjustment. It has to be one or the other. If it is something in between then that is an admission that they are just guessing at this stuff.

Nah, that can't be the case...remember they only make changes based on "data".

[oldradagast]

Bud Crue, on 11 March 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

That is actually the best case scenario as far as I see it.

Worst case? The worst case is if they do what the supporters of the skills tree claim that PGI intends to do:

Nonstop monitoring and tweaking of skills, quirks, weapons values, etc. forever.

Constant beta in this four year old game. I'm just giddy with excitement.

I guaranteed constant playing with the skill tree and forcing us to keep regrinding mechs over and over again - until we supposedly buy premium time to reduce the repetitive pain - is a huge part of the business plan from this point onwards. The fact that they are putting the skill tree out BEFORE dumping a huge pile of new and no doubt completely unbalancing tech into the game ensures at least several more skill tree shuffles. More telling though, is the fact they refuse to get rid of the respec cost entirely. In a game where quirks changed monthly, it's an insult to now expect me to basically pay to get my quirks changed every time the skill tree / skill maze gets updated on a whim.

This doesn't even touch the useless, maze-like design of the skill tree, the mobility nerf that rewards more gun-boating, and the generally destruction of all the mechs that depended up big quirks to be playable. The future will be nothing but narrow meta with fewer mechs and builds in play and constant changes to the skill maze that force everyone to keep regrinding the same mechs until the servers finally go dark.

Edited by oldradagast, 11 March 2017 - 06:58 AM.

[Unnatural Growth]

You have to look at this from PGI's perspective. They have a whole warehouse full of shiny new mechs they have to sell (mech paks). Those non-competitive mechs you're so concerned about are "last years" models. Out of sight, out of mind for PGI. They want to sell you mech paks.

"If your moldy, dusty, rusty old mechs aren't carrying you through the Solaris circuit, have no worries, come on down to Crazy Russ's Mega Mech Mart and buy yourself a shiny new Super Stomper Deluxe. We promise not to nerf it until after it comes out for Cbills."

You need more mech paks. You want more mech paks. Why settle for second (or fourth) best, when you can have the best, shiniest, newest power creep mech with all the bells, whistles, and every single weapon hard point is garanteed to be at least shoulder height or higher.

As I said, you're looking at this all backwards.

TL;DR,

Those nerfed mechs are going to stay nerfed man. And no, I don't like it either, but that's how the mech drops.

[oldradagast]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

I remember you complaining about the Skill Tree while admitting you never tested it and never intended to test it - equating it to "I know a hot pan is hot". You also never provided any of the proof you demanded of others, which was funny. Then there's the fact you thought I supported the Skill Tree as-is, which I obviously don't. Liking part of something and wanting to discuss it in the hopes of making it better? White Knight, obviously.

I don't need to personally provide "proof" of anything when other players already did all the exhaustive work to proof the skill maze is a failure. I just looked up their posts, videos, etc. and was able to draw the same conclusions because the failings should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about game design or plays MWO.

Seriously, do you demand "proof" that 1 + 1 = 2 from everyone because, after all, just because somebody else already did the math doesn't mean I have the right to claim 1 +1 = 2

Have you ever driven a car without brakes or put your hand into a roaring fire? No? Well, then how do you know those are bad ideas unless you personally have done them?

Lord, the idiocy around here... A sign of intelligence is the ability to learn from other people's experience and data. I'm sorry if my ability to do that - vs. wasting hours of my life downloading the PTS and coming to the SAME damn conclusions as nearly everyone else based on the SAME facts - offends you.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

I remember you complaining about the Skill Tree while admitting you never tested it and never intended to test it - equating it to "I know a hot pan is hot". You also never provided any of the proof you demanded of others, which was funny. Then there's the fact you thought I supported the Skill Tree as-is, which I obviously don't. Liking part of something and wanting to discuss it in the hopes of making it better? White Knight, obviously.

Although I *was* very salty in that thread, my bad!

Hey Russ! Where's my payslip?



They could attempt to find a middle ground, like a reasonable group of human beings? Maybe?

One might think. Has the vocal opposition here ever really bothered to try that? (answer....no)

[Bishop Steiner]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

Did you say Uziel with Snub-Nose PPCs and MRMs?!

SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Eh, isn't the Uziel's lone missile location...the CT? That's what... a single MRM10? Not that squeeeeeeeee worthy... especially with the terribad hitboxes the Uzi carries. Archer plus Ebon Jag? So at best, a Light Engine, which means a lot slower than the MW4 version... which honestly was only decent, and only then, if you ran clan tech on it.

I loved the Uzi in MW4 about as much as anyone. But I really don't see it being very good in MWO. Sorry to be the Debbie Downer.

[oldradagast]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

One might think. Has the vocal opposition here ever really bothered to try that? (answer....no)

Most of them did, but they were told by PGI to sod off after providing a mountain of useful, intelligent, data-driven feedback. It was only AFTER it became obvious that PGI has no real interest in what the community wanted if it got in the way of their laughable "vision" for the game - and their attempts to drain everyone's in-game resources - that things turned really nasty.

Not surprisingly, the moment anyone dared speak out against PGI, assorted white knights started spending all their free time running around the forums, picking fights with anyone who dares not mindlessly love PGI's latest screwup while - ironically - claiming "it's the other people who aren't being reasonable."

[Jay Leon Hart]

oldradagast, on 11 March 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't need to personally provide "proof" of anything when other players already did all the exhaustive work to proof the skill maze is a failure. I just looked up their posts, videos, etc. and was able to draw the same conclusions because the failings should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about game design or plays MWO.

Seriously, do you demand "proof" that 1 + 1 = 2 from everyone because, after all, just because somebody else already did the math doesn't mean I have the right to claim 1 +1 = 2

Have you ever driven a car without brakes or put your hand into a roaring fire? No? Well, then how do you know those are bad ideas unless you personally have done them?

Lord, the idiocy around here... A sign of intelligence is the ability to learn from other people's experience and data. I'm sorry if my ability to do that - vs. wasting hours of my life downloading the PTS and coming to the SAME damn conclusions as nearly everyone else based on the SAME facts - offends you.

Ever the hypocrite

Just as you don't need to provide proof, neither do the people you demand it of. Other people have done the same testing and come to differing conclusions. So I hope you can, at least, admit there are pros and cons to the Skill Tree and that any conclusions drawn by yourself, from data collected by others, are no more valuable than those of anyone else.

I don't demand proof on forums much these days (or at least I try not to any more, I grew out of that particular phase). However, please try a good analogy. Yes, 1+1=2. So what's the square root of 4? That's a better question. You may say 2. I may say -2. We are both right, though our answers may differ.

Again with the "fire is hot" thing. You realise you very likely *did* put your hand in or on something hot in your formative years, to confirm what you were told? "Hot" is a pretty abstract idea until you experience it. Humans learn more through experience than anything else, and experience always carries more wight than observation. Who would you rather service your car? A mechanic who has worked on cars for years, or someone who is self taught through video tutorials on YouTube? They could very well have equal skill at the job, but I'd wager the one with actual, practical experience would be the safer bet.

Your opinions don't offend me, they worry me that some people don't understand the basics of learning. They also irk me, but that's my own issue

[Jay Leon Hart]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

One might think. Has the vocal opposition here ever really bothered to try that? (answer....no)

Honestly? I don't read enough on here to have noticed either way. I do notice the lack of communication (as in, back and forth) outside of 'mech concept art and on new 'mech releases. I do appreciate some people at PGI are willing and able to talk to us, I just wish some of the balance folks could pop in. Heck, maybe they do and I just don't see it.

Bishop Steiner, on 11 March 2017 - 07:13 AM, said:

Eh, isn't the Uziel's lone missile location...the CT? That's what... a single MRM10? Not that squeeeeeeeee worthy... especially with the terribad hitboxes the Uzi carries. Archer plus Ebon Jag? So at best, a Light Engine, which means a lot slower than the MW4 version... which honestly was only decent, and only then, if you ran clan tech on it.

I loved the Uzi in MW4 about as much as anyone. But I really don't see it being very good in MWO. Sorry to be the Debbie Downer.

Oh I'm sure it would run MRMs horribly and, if it looked like it did in MW4, would be a deathtrap with an XL with terrible arm weapon convergence to boot. Still, I like it

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 11 March 2017 - 07:41 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

oldradagast, on 11 March 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

Most of them did, but they were told by PGI to sod off after providing a mountain of useful, intelligent, data-driven feedback. It was only AFTER it became obvious that PGI has no real interest in what the community wanted if it got in the way of their laughable "vision" for the game - and their attempts to drain everyone's in-game resources - that things turned really nasty.

Not surprisingly, the moment anyone dared speak out against PGI, assorted white knights started spending all their free time running around the forums, picking fights with anyone who dares not mindlessly love PGI's latest screwup while - ironically - claiming "it's the other people who aren't being reasonable."

Always love alternative history...makes for some fun fiction. Does get worrisome when it becomes revisionist history and taken as fact, though. PGI has screwed up plenty.. Most of the "intelligent, compassionate" loyal opposition, is a bunch of horse crap. Yep, the Intelligentsia of MWOs community were derailed by a handful of White Knights.

Makes for a nice story... as long as one wasn't there through it all also. But as has long been the case, you are going to spout the same anti PGI rhetoric about everything, that you have for at least 3 years now, so enjoy, I suppose.

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 07:40 AM, said:

Honestly? I don't read enough on here to have noticed either way. I do notice the lack of communication (as in, back and forth) outside of 'mech concept art and on new 'mech releases. I do appreciate some people at PGI are willing and able to talk to us, I just wish some of the balance folks could pop in. Heck, maybe they do and I just don't see it.



Oh I'm sure it would run MRMs horribly and, if it looked like it did in MW4, would be a deathtrap with an XL with terrible arm weapon convergence to boot. Still, I like it

Well, as the Patron Saint of Urbanmechs.... I wholeheartedly approve people wanting bad robots... as long as they are aware they are bad, and such. Too many people push for their pet robot, and are realyl upset when it doesn't turn out to be the Tier Zero, MetaBurner they recall it being in PvE MW3 or 4. Which is why I'm generally the "downer" when people want bad robots. Heck, as long as they know what they are legitimately asking for, then more power to it, says I!

[Bishop Steiner]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ever the hypocrite

Just as you don't need to provide proof, neither do the people you demand it of. Other people have done the same testing and come to differing conclusions. So I hope you can, at least, admit there are pros and cons to the Skill Tree and that any conclusions drawn by yourself, from data collected by others, are no more valuable than those of anyone else.

And this, is where ti's always fallen apart. They'll build up a cult of personality, like a fellow named Roland, in the past. He did have some good ideas, and even some of his not so good ones did provoke debate and thought... which are good things.

But even when those ideas were poked full of holes...instead of addressing or trying to fix those weaknesses, folks would just keep on pushing them forward as "the one fix to fix them all". And they weren't. But anyone who took the time to test out those ideas, or find the flaws... the usual response was to bury them under a landslide of posts, not proof. And if that didn't work, turn it personal, and try to discredit the individual, instead of proving the idea, one way or the other.

And to cling to any slight, real or imagined (the butthurt over he cheapskate comment last night was hilarious. Frikking PC wimp generation. Go find a safe room.). Funny part is...many of those "offended" are my generation...and have regularly said far worse...so it wasn't that they were offended...it was they found another tool in their endless antiPGI campaign. You'll never hear a peep from them about the things PGI has gotten right, just an endless litany of their "sins".

Which is why I largely ignore them. They've been yelling "PGI is wrong and the game is going to die" literally since early 2013. Hasn't happened yet. Yup, we've lost some people along the way. This isn't the game they promoted to the Founders to get our money. Some have come to grips with that, others could not, and so left. And still others, seem to stay solely to try to make everyone else feel the way they do, because as the saying goes, "misery loves company".

If they can't enjoy MWO, then no one else should be able to, either. That's really what it boils down to.

I tested the hell out of the PTS. At first, I was very not impressed, and my posts during PTS 1 very much showed that. First stage of PTS2.. I was not initially more impressed. After several hours, when I stopped trying to compare things to the current Live build? Things started to click, the goal and ideas became clear by the design. Literally everything Chris, Russ and NGNG said last night...were the same things you can find in my posts the week leading up to it. So it can't be that poorly designed as some claim, if I was able to suss out exactly the goals and ideas of it, on my own, with no input from PGI. And we know PGI wasn't reading my script for last night.. because, hey PGI never listens to us, remember? (>Can't have it both ways, kids!)

So no, don't expect compromise, middle ground, etc. Those of us who do are "white knights" (the usual way they try to discredit anyone who doesn't passionately hate PGI with every ounce of their being.... which it's pretty funny how many anti threads this "white knight" has written, but hey, we can't let facts derail their narrative), after all, and believe PGI can do no wrong. LOL.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 11 March 2017 - 07:58 AM.

[Koniving]

RestosIII, on 10 March 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

C-Bill costs reduced to 59,999 each

Mastery can be yours for 75 easy payments of 59,999!
Well, sub-mastery. That's only 4,499,925 for one mech.

(Mastery I believe is closer to 6 million.)

Hope you don't have 227+ mechs like me.

[oldradagast]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ever the hypocrite

Just as you don't need to provide proof, neither do the people you demand it of. Other people have done the same testing and come to differing conclusions. So I hope you can, at least, admit there are pros and cons to the Skill Tree and that any conclusions drawn by yourself, from data collected by others, are no more valuable than those of anyone else.

If you're going to toss around words like "hypocrite," it helps your case if you use them correctly. You didn't. Plenty of evidence has been presented as to why the skill maze is a bad idea. The only defenses we've seen from the supporters are either inaccurate or simply focused on crap like enjoying other people's dislike of it or pretending that facts don't matter.

It does not take days of experience running my own tests with the same data as everyone else to reach the same conclusions. Or, are you honestly supporting what we've seen: the skill maze's horrible organization and UI makes sense, nerfing poor performing mechs is a good idea, making mechs individually cost more to level is smart, and a respec cost is good for the game?

I don't know what your problem is, and I really don't care. Either offer some intelligent defense of this mess of a skill tree or stop wasting my time tossing insults and cooking up cute little comparisons between testing the skill tree and working on cars... as if I'd have to have personally been an auto-mechanic to know that, say, driving a car without brakes is a bad idea.

Edited by oldradagast, 11 March 2017 - 08:38 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

oldradagast, on 11 March 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

If you're going to toss around words like "hypocrite," it helps your case if you use them correctly.

It does not take days of experience running my own tests with the same data as everyone else to reach the same conclusions. Or, are you honestly supporting what we've seen: the skill maze's horrible organization and UI makes sense, nerfing poor performing mechs is a good idea, making mechs individually cost more to level is smart, and a respec cost is good for the game?

I don't know what your problem is, and I really don't care. Either offer some intelligent defense of this mess of a skill tree or stop wasting my time tossing insults and cooking up cute little comparisons between testing the skill tree and working on cars... as if I'd have to have personally been an auto-mechanic to know that, say, driving a car without brakes is a bad idea.

Honestly, your post makes about as much sense as the skill tree you're trying - I think? - to defend.

You mean how everyone who disagrees with you needs to provide proof, but you don't? Yeah, hypocrite is about right.

I'm not supporting anything - I said a few positive things about the Skill Tree and that, somehow, annoyed you. In case you didn't notice, I don't like the Skill Tree as is. The C-Bill cost is too high - 0 would be perfect, but I could live with a further reduction to 40k (same as a consumable). The trees are a bit of a mess - I much preferred the linearity of the original Firepower trees, however they were too good for 'mechs that boated 1 weapon type, so I understand that needed a change. The overall XP cost is pretty high, but without testing it without all the bonus XP from the PTS, I can't say just how badly my 'mechs will perform. (I could have, but the PTS is down now, so oh well).

At least respecs are free. And don't start with "they're not free!" because it doesn't cost C-Bills to remove a node or to re-purchase one. IDGAF about XP costs, because XP for skills is a basic gaming tradition. I don't *like* that there's a cost, even a reduced one, to re-purchase a node, but I can live with it.

My problem is you can't accept people have a different opinion than you. That and you are bad at using analogies.

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 11 March 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

Mastery can be yours for 75 easy payments of 59,999!
Well, sub-mastery. That's only 4,499,925 for one mech.

(Mastery I believe is closer to 6 million.)

Hope you don't have 227+ mechs like me.

Whew! Glad I only have 204 mechs in this acct then..... 134 on my my alt, but I actually bought a butt load of modules on that one, so it may come close to even... especially since I know I'll be ignoring at least half the robots on it.

But then, I knew I was "gaming" the intent of the module system, so I reckon I can't expect the free lunch to continue forever.

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

You mean how everyone who disagrees with you needs to provide proof, but you don't? Yeah, hypocrite is about right.

I'm not supporting anything - I said a few positive things about the Skill Tree and that, somehow, annoyed you. In case you didn't notice, I don't like the Skill Tree as is. The C-Bill cost is too high - 0 would be perfect, but I could live with a further reduction to 40k (same as a consumable). The trees are a bit of a mess - I much preferred the linearity of the original Firepower trees, however they were too good for 'mechs that boated 1 weapon type, so I understand that needed a change. The overall XP cost is pretty high, but without testing it without all the bonus XP from the PTS, I can't say just how badly my 'mechs will perform. (I could have, but the PTS is down now, so oh well).

At least respecs are free. And don't start with "they're not free!" because it doesn't cost C-Bills to remove a node or to re-purchase one. IDGAF about XP costs, because XP for skills is a basic gaming tradition. I don't *like* that there's a cost, even a reduced one, to re-purchase a node, but I can live with it.

My problem is you can't accept people have a different opinion than you. That and you are bad at using analogies.

LOL!

I like this guy! And you summed it up about perfectly (something I tend to put way too many qualifiers, like this one... to do!).

[Cato Phoenix]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 March 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

And to cling to any slight, real or imagined (the butthurt over he cheapskate comment last night was hilarious. Frikking PC wimp generation. Go find a safe room.). Funny part is...many of those "offended" are my generation...and have regularly said far worse...so it wasn't that they were offended...it was they found another tool in their endless antiPGI campaign. You'll never hear a peep from them about the things PGI has gotten right, just an endless litany of their "sins".

It was a completely awkward comment that gave an unintended insult to the cash-paying players of the game. The biggest concern of folks were those who used actual money to buy tons of mechs, but maybe never bought a ton of modules, and the cash-rich, cbill poor people, or the people who bought lots of mechs (and thus mechbays...).

It was a total open mouth, insert foot statement there - because he unwittingly insulted the people who have supported his company the most.

[C E Dwyer]

May day May day Passive aggression overload detected ..thread reaching critical meltdown Abandon Thread arrogaah !

7,777 posts I'd post about it, but i'd ruin the symmetry. I'm stuck here forever editing this thread

Edited by Cathy, 11 March 2017 - 09:04 AM.