369 replies to this topic

[Knighthawk26]

I was not suggesting that we somehow "keep" our mastered mechs or that our currently mastered mechs get an automatic 91 skills unlocked. I only want PGI to make sure that the average player who bought an average amount of modules can use the c-bills and xp he or she gets back in the refund to buy an equivalent level of skills on his mechs again. I don't mind a small loss to see the game improved. But in the first proposal by PGI made the skill costs so high that I could only "buy back" enough skills with my refund to re-master less than half my mechs that are currently at that level. And I bought a lot of modules too.

PGI did lower the costs in the second version of the PTS server and that was a good move. I just want to remind them how important it is to keep the new costs at a level that will allow most players to use their refunds to at least break even in terms of what they have already achieved with elite/mastered mechs.

[Simulacrum]

Whenever I read the forum so many ppl write about their fear of loosing 'elite' status or maximum efficiency. Everything (Mechs, play time, real life) seems to be destroyed if the new skill system will be activated.
I'm a (re-activated) player with 3 or 4 weeks of play time and I've a message to all lost souls out there:
you can have fun with a Mech even if he is not super efficient for its current weapon load-out.
Its sad to see the new skill system delayed again because I hate the idea of playing two Mech variants just for the XP to get a better skill rank for my fav Mech.

Additionally I would recommend to restrict some skill nodes to different classes and I would spend some new "skills" the game urgently needs for a better game feeling and balancing.
For example, use "armor bonus" and "structure bonus" only for heavy and assault Mechs and implement "damage reduction" as a special skill tree for Assaults. "Mobility bonus" and "Acceleration" for light and medium Mechs only and a special "glancing hit/dodge" skill for Lights. If a Mech is running over, say, 99 kph, he would be able to dodge any hit by X percent for getting only 25% or 50% damage. And so on you got the pojnt.

As an old school Battle Tech player I'm sick of light Mechs entering a one on one duel with Heavies or Assaults as I hate it seeing Assaults get killed by MG or mass light lasers. This is just wrong. With a "damage reduction" of "2" and "4" Assaults would be resistant to ridiculous MG, AC/2 or SL builds. As Lights should be able to scout and have a small chance to survive. (balancing would need a rework of getting points/c-bills/xp too as capturing, scouting, etc. gives nothing compared to a kill)

[Tahribator]

Mcgral18, on 13 March 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

Can we get some official opinions on Solahma's Firepower side of the tree?

That method seems best to inspire diverse loadouts, while not punishing boating either.

There's an "official" response and it's not positive at all.

[X Player]

Thank you for realizing that the refund system was flawed.

[Livestick]

Good job, whiners. You stopped PGI from improving the game AGAIN. No wonder the game is dying...

[MrKvola]

Thank you PGI for considering our objections and taking time to introduce a proper improvement to the game.

Thank you for the explanatory post. Communication (both ways) is the best way to deliver a successful product. And many of us wish for MWO to be a good product and to succeed.

[Tahribator]

Livestick, on 14 March 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

Good job, whiners. You stopped PGI from improving the game AGAIN. No wonder the game is dying...

By improving you mean resetting progress and forcing you to grind to get back what you have right now. You're welcome.

You can always make a new account and experience that progress.

[Anatidaephobia]

I'd just like to say;

Massive thanks for taking the decision, and it probably wasn't an easy one, to reiterate and I'm looking forward to seeing what the skill tree will be at the next PTS.


I will be more than ready to provide feedback; both on the good parts and the bad.

[Storyteller]

Tahribator, on 14 March 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

By improving you mean resetting progress and forcing you to grind to get back what you have right now. You're welcome.

They would have resetted the progress in terms of getting your spent XP and cbills back.
You could have invested those imidiately into your mechs again and reaching (in most cases) the same level of performance you had before again. With some opportunites to improve it even more.

[Bud Crue]

Russ Bullock, on 13 March 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

I few thoughts on the subject.

Many might view this as similar to power draw in that it might seemingly be delayed indefinitely, at this point in time that is certainly not the case. While energy draw showed some interesting promise and I would like re explore that at some point it was ultimately an experimental feature. The new skill tree is still viewed internally as a solid improvement to the balance of the game and the starting point for so many new balance methods.

As to the skill tree, I think some levels of disagreement on the right path for balance or the layout of the skill tree nodes would be expected and could be accepted. As the shortcomings in our transition process became clear and we could see that certain players were going to lose progress that became obviously unacceptable and we had no choice but to delay.

As Alex mentioned this discovery helped us realize we had to adjust our refund plan to one of refunding progress.

As we rectify these problems we will also take time to further refine the user interface as well as continue to make as many balance improvements as possible.

"Lose progress." "Refunding."

Progress is achieved by playing your game.
C-bills and XP are earned by playing your game.

Folks and their progress will be fine if the game is fun to play and you don't break the things necessary to play the game.
People are freaking out about lost progress because they dread having to grind again and "work" back what you are taking away.
They should never have been put into the position of dreading playing your game in the first place!

Here's an idea: don't make it a chore and don't hurt the playability of the "content" of your game.

Your skills tree proposal as last presented would trash balance, kill mech diversity and take a key aspect of the game and make it a chore rather than a reward. None of that has anything to do with costs of skilling out a mech. Zilch to do with lost cbills or XP "progress". But everything to do with folks not wanting to play the game in the system you are putting forth.
Rather than looking forward to what you are doing, they are dreading it because you ARE taking things always, you ARE reducing the value and playability of their content, you ARE making the game more of a chore and a grind. And your own comments are furthering this perspective.

Progress and refunds would not be an issue if what you were proposing to do was fun and rewarding. Stop focusing on how to be fair and "refund progess" or "transition" and just make a fun, exciting, and yes...rewarding game play experience and the rest of the issues are moot. Make me excited about skilling out my mechs. Encourage me to look forward to what you are planning. Engage and explain what you are hoping to do and why. Convince me that what you are doing is going to be a heck of a lot of stompy robot fun and I and many others will throw money at you.

You can either do that or spend the next month figuring out how to refund XP and cbills. I'm sure that will fill the community with all sorts of excitement.

[Slambot]

I look forward to the skill tree implementation. I would also like to put forth my support for So1amah's tree idea. Some of his ideas are just short of genius especially the firepower rating. Its not like you don't have the mech performance data available. Ignore the "fewer clicks" complaint and listen to the buff the weaker nodes ideas so that any node could be considered viable. Also, as one of the people with a large mech stable but only about 70 ish modules, I thank you for taking the time to re-evaluate the skill tree refund system.

A possible solution might be to remove all modules as stated and have historical exp require no c-bill cost to spend on the skill tree. I also, and I think I speak for quite a few people in stating that going back to some of our older mechs to earn exp so that we can buy deeper into a deeper, more meaningful skill tree isn't such a bad idea. I had zero problem being only able to buy nodes up to the value of the exp I had earned and looked forward into delving deeper into the new skill tree seeing just what it could do for some of my older chasis.

Again, thanks for listening to your community.

[MovinTarget]

I almost wish they would attach your "# of hours in last pts" when you post here...

Pretty sure many never even downloaded it and simply ride the wave of emotions, either way...

[G SE7EN7]

Yay all that testing for a splendid result

[Storyteller]

The more I think about this matter, the more p****d off I am.

When PGI introduces this 3067 tech possibly in mid 2017 and we get new mechs with new quirks and so on, the community will be forced again to buy 1-2 bad/mediocre/obsolete variants for each mech they really want. And that's only the future!

At the moment a Hellbringer, two Shadowcats and a Kit Fox are waiting to get to the elite status. I can't progress here, because I don't own three variants of them. The clan mechs are so insanly expensive! Even when I play FP matches with premium time activated, it takes me many days to grind to at least for one new medium mech to buy AND outfit it. A variant I don't even want to own or play! And I am forced to do it JUST BECAUSE I need it to be grinded through the basics.

So far I havn't even bought a SINGLE MODULE. Because they are so damn expensive.

For beginners, and I started in January with my alt account to try out the clans in FP, it is pain in the *** to get diversified dropdecks and getting those mechs maxed out at the moment.

So the new skilltree was my beacon of hope.
And now the future of this - in my opinion - urgently needed improved feature is postponed indefinitely.
This really p****s me off. Not because of PGI. It is because of all the whiners.

My guess: A great number of them didn't even tested the new skilltree on the PTS.

I did and yes, the first iteration was clearly flawed, but basically showed into the right direction.
The second one wasn't perfect either, but okayish.
A good starting point from where the active community could have moved on.
But instead we do have a standstill.
Great! (not)

Edited by Storyteller, 14 March 2017 - 03:42 AM.

[Liveish]

Simulacrum, on 14 March 2017 - 02:15 AM, said:

you can have fun with a Mech even if he is not super efficient for its current weapon load-out.

If you play only group Q, its not that fun

[Kojak Bear]

First of all, this is a very positive sign for PGI. The overall negative feedback on the implementation of the skill tree was a bit over-the-top at times, but the Skill Tree does need a lot of work. The most important thing is to listen to the community (hint: try to listen most to those who provide constructive feedback and criticism, not the ones who just b**** and whine or heap praise upon what you do). Hopefully when the third version of the skill tree comes out, it will be more refined, player-friendly and balanced so as to be equally favorable for weapon-boaters and non-boaters, to IS and Clan alike.

Again, I'm putting my suggestions to improving the Skill Tree here:
https://drive.google...SDVwUVd5RnRfVkU

PGI, please take into account the explanations towards the end of the document. If you will incorporate aspects from here into the final skill tree, thank you very much. For the community, if you feel that this can help improve the Skill Tree as well, please share the document and comment on this as well, the same as how you've shared So1ahma's video and reddit.

While we all know that the Skill Tree will have a considerable impact on the game, let us all remember that the core gameplay of MWO is not bound by it. Piloting Skills, Communication Skills and Teamwork are more OP than any Skill Node or module or consumable (unless PGI makes a consumable that insta-kills the guy on your cross-hairs).

Lastly, MWO is a game, and in the end games are meant to be fun and enjoyed. And if the game is very good and very balanced, then we all enjoy even more.

Hoping for a better version of the Skill Tree in the Future. Thanks PGI.

Edited by Kojak Bear, 14 March 2017 - 06:24 AM.

[Captain Caveman DE]

IMHO that's the right decision atm. let's test some more and refine that thing before a roll-out.
the more ppl can test, the more (constructive) feedback you can get - which in turn ends in a skilltree ppl are going to accept more willingly.

so thx for listening and "read you" with the next update.
also: crusader-battlemech pls :-D

[Paradox42]

Good decision PGI!

Beside the conceptual work (especially balancing issues for the future) that skill tree needs, I am looking forward to your new style of change communication. It helps everyone if the playerbase feels like they are involved in the development process. This reduces status-quo bias and loss aversion and makes more people excited about upcoming changes.

[Flitzomat]

MovinTarget, on 14 March 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

I almost wish they would attach your "# of hours in last pts" when you post here...

Pretty sure many never even downloaded it and simply ride the wave of emotions, either way...

Pheew. Downloaded it but because installation is so damn large could not test it. Did not want to buy a new hard disc nor go through the hastle of installing it on a different hard disc as I did with the MWOWC-Client, which totally wrecked my nreves and took 3 days of search with the perfect search engine we have for this forums.
But on the other hand I never talked about the impact on the gameplay.

I still believe there are several solutions out there that would satisfy large parts of the community. That one of those wasn´t introduced in the first place I blame on the unwillingness of PGI to learn from the past mistakes. Investigate, engineer, communicate.

(Now we had as always: Engineer, communicate badly, investigate )

Edited by Flitzomat, 14 March 2017 - 04:23 AM.

[Vellron2005]

I have to say I'm saddened to have the Skill tree once again pushed back, but happy it is still coming out, and better refined..

Here's an idea on how to manage that..

As far as I figure, the problem is with the economy.. the mechs that are mastered now would not get enough resources to stay mastered?

OK..

Easy fix..

Label Mechs as Basic'd, Elited, or Mastered respectively, and give each mech the appropriate number of skill points to keep that status.. so if a mastered mech can have 92 skill points, give THAT mech 92 skill points, and if a basiced mech can have 30 skill points, give THAT mech 30 skill points..

Refund the cbills from modules in-bulk.

Do not refund XP and GXP. You get free skill points for that. Amounts don't have to matter and be exact. If mastering a mech cost you amount X of XP or GXP, and in the skill tree it would cost you amount Y, does not matter. If your mech was mastered before, it is mastered after.

Simple, no?

I will also post this in a dedicated post...

Cheers!