369 replies to this topic

[dario03]

VANHELSKIN, on 13 March 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:

HEAPS OF US HAVE BEEN BUYING MODULES KNOWING WE WOULD GET C-BILLS BACK BECAUSE OF SPEEDING UP DROPS NOT HAVING TO GO THROUGH MECHS TO FIND MODULES IF THEY GO BACK ON THAT GOODBYE ME CAUSE YOU ******* LIED AND I WASTED 60 MILLION C-BILLS WHICH EQUALS 100S OF HOURS GRINDING

Since the skill tree and thus the stated module refund has been delayed for a unspecified amount of time one week before launch, I suggest PGI sets module resale value to 100%.

Setting it for a limited time (maybe for a week or a bit more and maybe even limit it to modules bought in the last few months), so that players can get their cbills back would be fine . However since this system is supposed to be getting replaced, setting it to 100% until the skill tree launches would be even better.

[Mcgral18]

The amount of whining here is insane.
Full stop, this was not ready to hit live
Reasons are listed right there in the post: it is not a friendly system to use. It is a chore to use, which has gotten some visual improvements, but still requires some fundamental tools before going live, such as bottom up auto selection, automatic tree traversal
That along with certain other implications, also stated in the post like the losing of progress.
The current system heavily favours veterans with the frontloaded costs, while the new system should be at least a it better for new players, while leaving some veterans feeling cheated. That is being addressed
There's also the obvious balance implications coming with the patch, where some very weak mechs are having large chunks of their firepower quirks removed. Things like the spider having half its cooldown quirks removed, down from 67%. Safe to say, he'll likely be losing its competitive place, but weaker robots are also included here such as the Phract
You guys saying "Change is needed!" Need to realize change also needs to be positive
This has the potential for that, but under the current state, it would not have been positive. Some fundamental items need to be adjusted for it to be largely accepted by the community. As a vocal minority, you cannot state what's best for the game.

Edited by Mcgral18, 14 March 2017 - 08:46 AM.

[BattleBunny]

I have been buying modules like crazy for weeks, ever since they said "full refund on modules".

Now they are backpedaling on that?

Edited by BattleBunny, 14 March 2017 - 04:32 AM.

[Morticia Mellian]

I disagree with much of uproar and salt against the Skill Tree. If PGI cancels this, thank you all for ruining it.

PGI will only get real stats when they implement it to the main game. They can balance and tweaked the skill afterwards. As noted by them in the post, PTS is missing lots of context due to cbills from modules (yet still want that back though PGI).

Nope, silly people want their perfect, no grinding, no costs or consequence, skill tree.

Edited by Morticia Mellian, 14 March 2017 - 04:36 AM.

[Bud Crue]

This just occurred to me:

All those modules I have been freely buying, thinking I would be getting a refund on them. Now I am stuck with em.
Well played Russ.

[Mister Bob Dobalina]

Question to clarifiy because it has become damn near impossible getting specific information in the flood of facts and opinions around SkillTree

Am I right on theses parts:

• I am going to be refunded for the XP/GXP I have used to master or skill Mechs.
  
• I am going to be refunded for the C-Bills I have bought modules with
  
• I won't have any compensation for any quirk removed from a specific chassis, but I will have to recreate that with my own resources. That is, if it is even possible to recreate a certain quirk.

I consider being pretty wrong, and in the case of the last point I flat out hope so.

On another note: Anyone already considered giving every chassis (e.g. GRF-2N) 2 node setup slots where you can save a certain node setup into? A switch from one to another would still cost something as it would if you would reconfigure the nodes of your Mech anyway, but it would save time. A lot. PGI could even sell additional node save slots for MCs, just like the FW Dropdecks.

[K O N D O]

Sergei Pavlov, on 14 March 2017 - 02:00 AM, said:

Here's an idea. Divide the Skill Tree 2.0 in two parts:

Part 1: Nodes that provide the same functionality as the current Skill Tree. People with mastered Mechs will be able to fill-in these nodes for free.

Part 2: Nodes that provide extra functionality, equivalent to modules and quirks. These need to be bought. People with Modules get some kind of currency to apply to these Nodes.

Exactly what my proposal below allows PGI to do.
https://mwomercs.com...d-and-proposal/

Vellron2005, on 14 March 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

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!

No it isn't that simple.

If a mech is fully mastered, it does not mean all nodes should be unlocked.
A mastered mech simply means you can put an extra module on your mech. Modules cost CB.

Your point in allowing players to get a mech back to an equivalent skill in the new tree to what it has in the current system free of charge is valid. However this can be done in approximately 45 nodes.

Anything above 45 nodes is like fitting modules which cost big CB's in the current module system and needs to be paid for with CB.

Again, I explain a way for PGI to resolve this issue in my proposal below.

https://mwomercs.com...d-and-proposal/

[IronEricP]

Hey, since this is getting pushed back AGAIN (though not without reason), can we have 1 major feature implemented RIGHT NOW?


Can we remove the Rule of Three on this patch???


The way I see it, we don't need it anyways right now, and I've been looking forward to its removal. I'm hoping to try out some new chassis but have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting... on them because I knew this was changing with the new skill tree. But since this part keeps getting pushed back... I'm still waiting.

Would be nice, since that part of the costs IS confirmed, to just start leveling single mechs now.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Thank You for addressing the progress loss that would have happened to people with large amounts of mechs and few modules. I want the skill tree, but i don't want to spend countless hours grinding for what I've already ground or paid for. While i'm sad the Tree is pushed back ... it saves a lot of people a monstrous second grind.

[Sixpack]

I am kind of disappointed and happy.

On one hand I wanted to see the skill tree implemented and be able to use it.

On the other hand I felt that the skill tree was in a not that good spot and would require quite some improvements over time until it would be there where I would like it to be.

[Cato Phoenix]

Knighthawk26, on 14 March 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

5. Implement win-win solutions. For example, let players activate/deactivate a limited number of skill nodes on a mech, but let us buy all the nodes on a mech if we want. Players getting back massive amounts of c-bills and xp in the change will have something to spend it on. And players will be able to respec at will without LOSING anything. Players will simply buy the new nodes they need to respec. PGI gets a c-bill / xp sump, and the players get options for optimizing new loadouts by simply buying the additional nodes (and deactivating old ones without losing them). This takes away most of the player stress from buying the wrong node, going down the wrong path on the tree, and respecing.

This is very implementable.

I spent like, 7500 GXP or whatever (that's a -lot-) to crank out the CSSRM-2 range and cooldown modules.

I don't use CSSRM-2s. On -anything-. But I snagged them because it was a completionist goal.

You let me purchase all the nodes in the skill tree and then mod between which ones I want?

I would pour so much XP and cbills into it for the versatility. You take something like Solahma's tree, where you can buy all the skills for all the weapons, just to have them set up and ready to go to change loadouts?

Yea, you've suddenly got a lot of players with a lot of goals and playing to do.

Sergei Pavlov, on 14 March 2017 - 01:47 AM, said:

The decision to equate current mastery with future mastery looks sensible. That way you can disconnect Mech XP and Module reimbursements. But what are we (players with hundreds of Modules) going to do with hundreds of millions of CBills, if we are not going to spend them back on our current Mechs? Buy dozens of Timber Wolves? I already have more Mechs I can play, and every piece of equipment available in the game times 100. I don't need CBills sitting idle on my account. I don't want them. I want new gameplay and something exciting to look forward to.

Here's a fix:

Players with lots of mechs XP'd out, little modules - get equivalency. In the current PTS build, that's roughly 61/91 nodes, or 2.7 million.

If you allow the entire tree to be purchased, and then allow free respecs, the players with tons of cbills from module refunds can dump it right into unlocking the -whole- tree. (in current PTS - 11 million)

That way the module-nonpurchasers do not have their mechs screwed and module purchasers can get the check every box and versatility benefit.

Or they can use their mechfund to buy craploads of mechs (and thus mechbays)

Put some decals/cockpit items on temporary cbill sale.

Charge like 3 million for a warhorn. Let people cash dump. Then make 'em MC only again.

Edited by Cato Phoenix, 14 March 2017 - 05:06 AM.

[MrKvola]

To all the salty whiners that complain about modules not being refunded: nobody ever said they won't be. All that was said that PGI is looking for a way to transition accounts to the new system in a way where nobody is harmed and no progress is lost.

Nobody also ever said it was a smart move to start buying modules en masse right now.

[Odanan]

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.

Thanks for putting more time to perfect the system. (please don't ditch it)

Since you are on it, Maybe you could consider these changes:

• remove the old xp converting system. No need to create a mechanic for that. Old XP = XP. This alone will simplify a lot the new Skill Tree.
  
• reduce the number of nodes (and proportionally, skill points), making decisions more meaningful. Sure, the nodes will have all greater bonuses. And be sure all nodes have a similar "value".
  
• is there need for a tree only for jump jets? Why not making it a "corner" of some mobility tree, with less nodes (but with greater bonuses)?
  
• instead of decreasing the bonus for Clan mechs, why not giving them less total skill points?
  
• and consider giving different mechs/variants a different number of total skill points. for instance, a KDK-3 would have less points than a Banshee. That would be a great tool for balance (even reducing a lot the need of built-in quirks).

[Flitzomat]

Morticia Mellian, on 14 March 2017 - 04:33 AM, said:

PGI will only get real stats when they implement it to the main game.

If you think the design is wrong it does not make sense to go live and tweak it.

[guyvii]

Thank you for looking at the other factors. I also want to add that we were able to specialist our mechs to our playing styles, whether it be as sniper, brawler, laser, or missiles. The new tree seem to want to spread your skills out too much in a way to stop specialization. But that is what people do often. Every since we stop wandering around a we found that John the flint maker could make 10 flint knives for ever one Joe the hunter could make. Some like to generalist but some like to specialist. I thought the last updated tree prevented you from specializing to get your mechs close to how they were before. Why would I waste points on srms if I only want cooldowns for example (may not be a true example but you get the idea)?

I know it is hard. Is the tree option the best or can there be a pick an chose non-path group, where you pick the hexes you want and do not have to follow a path to get what you want? Just trying to throw out solutions instead of only crying about the problem. Thank you for your hard work! Keep it up.

[Cato Phoenix]

Storyteller, on 14 March 2017 - 03:36 AM, said:

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.

OK, so imagine doing that for 200+ mechs.

....annnnnnnd then doing it again come March 21st.

You can't afford a new medium mech right now? You don't have any modules...uhm, I'm afraid that all those mechs waiting to get the 'elite' status will have to wait longer.

----

Then imagine a system in which those 4 mechs maintain their status and your next 4 mechs are easier to accumulate and skill out. -That's- what we're looking for.

[Mister Bob Dobalina]

Cato Phoenix, on 14 March 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

...
....annnnnnnd then doing it again come March 21st.
...

March 21st is of the table

[PraetorGix]

Morticia Mellian, on 14 March 2017 - 04:33 AM, said:

I disagree with much of uproar and salt against the Skill Tree. If PGI cancels this, thank you all for ruining it.

PGI will only get real stats when they implement it to the main game. They can balance and tweaked the skill afterwards. As noted by them in the post, PTS is missing lots of context due to cbills from modules (yet still want that back though PGI).

Nope, silly people want their perfect, no grinding, no costs or consequence, skill tree.

You forgot they don't want to click, in a game about shooting with the mouse.

[Ninjah]

This is a good thing. By the looks of it it won't be shelved, instead it will be better for everyone. I'm not opposed to change but I am against half baked solutions. These things take time and some problems become obvious as you move further down the road. There's probably a techical issue how to determine the level of refund for people who don't own a bunch of modules and it will take some time to figure it out but the progress is noticable.

[Kmieciu]

Sergei Pavlov, on 14 March 2017 - 02:00 AM, said:

Here's an idea. Divide the Skill Tree 2.0 in two parts:

Part 1: Nodes that provide the same functionality as the current Skill Tree. People with mastered Mechs will be able to fill-in these nodes for free.

Part 2: Nodes that provide extra functionality, equivalent to modules and quirks. These need to be bought. People with Modules get some kind of currency to apply to these Nodes.

Going from a system where we could swap modules for free to one where you have to unlock them for every mech separately is a bad deal, for every player.