369 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

D V Devnull, on 19 March 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

And someone hits a sore spot with me...

You think LRM'ers would get anything out of it? WRONG. Why? PGI was talking about taking 100 meters off the LRM BaseLine, causing the Range Skill Nodes to become MANDATORY. Even with all those Range Skill Nodes enabled again, LRMs would not even reach 1000 meters. Worse, the STK-5M Stalker that has a large Missile Range Quirk would be the only Variant overly benefitted versus all other possible LRM users, imbalancing LRM use in the favor of the Inner Sphere, while leaving the Clans at a hard disadvantage. If PGI is talking about balancing things, taking away LRM Range is not a way to do it, as Missiles only travel to their Maximum Range and then blow up if they don't do damage. Worse, there would be further unbalance from LRMs losing Range, because Energy-users and Ballistic-users would then gain more of a Range Advantage, and Non-Missile Weapon Boaters would become even more powerful.

By the way, before you think me an LRM-loving freak... I should note that I've got some designs not using LRMs, and I do use those as well. I just don't see the damn point in deprecating a weapon which happens to be part of the BattleTech/MechWarrior Universe into complete disuse. <_<

~Mr. D. V. "Trying to keep the game fun for all..." Devnull

My thoughts on nerfing lrms slightly would be beneficial in the sense that firing at tatgets that far away is the least efficient use of slow, indirect, ordinance anyway. Is it nice if you just happen to have a spotter giving hard locks, but you can't really depend on it at that distance.

If they wanted to make lrms effective, they should give them double the initial velocity bit have it almost immediately decline in thrust so that the speed is really good under 350m, back normal speed by about 550m and slower beyond that.

Perhaps that example isn't perfect but i guess i am trying to think of how to make them more like front line weapons because we really don't have "second line" roles in MWO, at least outside of an organized group...

[D V Devnull]

MovinTarget, on 19 March 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

<<<snip>>>

My thoughts on nerfing lrms slightly would be beneficial in the sense that firing at tatgets that far away is the least efficient use of slow, indirect, ordinance anyway. Is it nice if you just happen to have a spotter giving hard locks, but you can't really depend on it at that distance.

If they wanted to make lrms effective, they should give them double the initial velocity bit have it almost immediately decline in thrust so that the speed is really good under 350m, back normal speed by about 550m and slower beyond that.

Perhaps that example isn't perfect but i guess i am trying to think of how to make them more like front line weapons because we really don't have "second line" roles in MWO, at least outside of an organized group...

My point still applies about giving Energy/Ballistic weapons more of a Range advantage, should LRMs lose any available Range at all, and be therefore forced just to recoup lost Range. I've even pointed out a list before of seriously advantaged weaponry, but here's some again...

• PPC
  
• ERPPC
  
• AC/2
  
• AC/5
  
• AC/10
  
• LB 2-X/AC
  
• LB 5-X/AC
  
• LB 10-X/AC
  
• U-AC/2
  
• U-AC/5
  
• U-AC/10
  
• Gauss Rifle
  
• ER Large Laser
  
• Large Pulse Laser
  
• Standard Large Laser
  
• ER Medium Laser

...and don't forget the Clan cousins of these weapons. I also wouldn't be surprised if I have missed a weapon somewhere that should be listed in regard to getting an advantage over a Range-nerfed LRM. Then, don't forget all the limitations that PGI would impose upon themselves if they try to insert New '3060+'-Era Weapons when they didn't leave a good-sized gap to put them into. Further, don't forget all the ones that have NOT been added yet, but that WOULD get an unnecessary advantage over a Range-nerfed LRM. Just watch ahead, you'll see what I mean as they arrive on July 18th, 2017...

Also, don't forget what a good psychologic suppressor that LRMs can be when they have enough Range to scare your opponents into cover. Sometimes, it's not the direct damage that's the most powerful part of them.

~Mr. D. V. "If only more people could learn to use LRMs better... maybe they wouldn't be so ridiculed?" Devnull

[Aramuside]

D V Devnull, on 19 March 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

And someone hits a sore spot with me...

You think LRM'ers would get anything out of it? WRONG. Why? PGI was talking about taking 100 meters off the LRM BaseLine, causing the Range Skill Nodes to become MANDATORY. Even with all those Range Skill Nodes enabled again, LRMs would not even reach 1000 meters. Worse, the STK-5M Stalker that has a large Missile Range Quirk would be the only Variant overly benefitted versus all other possible LRM users, imbalancing LRM use in the favor of the Inner Sphere, while leaving the Clans at a hard disadvantage. If PGI is talking about balancing things, taking away LRM Range is not a way to do it, as Missiles only travel to their Maximum Range and then blow up if they don't do damage. Worse, there would be further unbalance from LRMs losing Range, because Energy-users and Ballistic-users would then gain more of a Range Advantage, and Non-Missile Weapon Boaters would become even more powerful.

By the way, before you think me an LRM-loving freak... I should note that I've got some designs not using LRMs, and I do use those as well. I just don't see the damn point in deprecating a weapon which happens to be part of the BattleTech/MechWarrior Universe into complete disuse.

~Mr. D. V. "Trying to keep the game fun for all..." Devnull

No one fires at 1000... or 900.. why would you even suggest it as a problem.

Well maybe in tier 5 they do.

[G4LV4TR0N]

Aramuside, on 19 March 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

No one fires at 1000... or 900.. why would you even suggest it as a problem.

Well maybe in tier 5 they do.

I actually do believe this should change to reflect that those are long range missiles. Especially that medium range missiles are coming.

[D V Devnull]

Aramuside, on 19 March 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

No one fires at 1000... or 900.. why would you even suggest it as a problem.

Well maybe in tier 5 they do.

Low Tier 2 here, and I'll sometimes start my firing sequence from 900 to 950 meters, depending on if it happens to be necessary. Having that last 50 to 100 meters is critical in LRM Support. The trick is to force the enemy to either get off my teammate and go hide, or get hit. Having LRMs blow up at 900, and give the Ballistic and Energy users more of an advantage would be horrible. Heck, just look at my previous post on this thread, and you'll see why LRM Maximum Range should NEVER be decreased.

G4LV4TR0N, on 19 March 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

I actually do believe this should change to reflect that those are long range missiles. Especially that medium range missiles are coming.

Right now, the LRM BaseLine Maximum Range Limit is 1000 meters. PGI was thinking of taking it down to 900 meters, but they thankfully have not. Being that MRMs are potentially on the way, decreasing the Maximum Range would be catastrophically bad. Frankly, with SSRMs having a Maximum Range of 400 meters, I think PGI will find it best to set MRM Maximum Range at 700 meters, squarely inbetween the SSRM and LRM limits.


~Mr. D. V. "Starting to feel like I'm being trolled?" Devnull

[Taynak]

Sorry.... does this mean that we are not going to get the refund for all the modules that will no longer exist?

[Aramuside]

D V Devnull, on 20 March 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Low Tier 2 here, and I'll sometimes start my firing sequence from 900 to 950 meters, depending on if it happens to be necessary. Having that last 50 to 100 meters is critical in LRM Support. The trick is to force the enemy to either get off my teammate and go hide, or get hit. Having LRMs blow up at 900, and give the Ballistic and Energy users more of an advantage would be horrible. Heck, just look at my previous post on this thread, and you'll see why LRM Maximum Range should NEVER be decreased.



Right now, the LRM BaseLine Maximum Range Limit is 1000 meters. PGI was thinking of taking it down to 900 meters, but they thankfully have not. Being that MRMs are potentially on the way, decreasing the Maximum Range would be catastrophically bad. Frankly, with SSRMs having a Maximum Range of 400 meters, I think PGI will find it best to set MRM Maximum Range at 700 meters, squarely inbetween the SSRM and LRM limits.


~Mr. D. V. "Starting to feel like I'm being trolled?" Devnull

Point taken - I see the value as a "behavioural adjustment" method.

In terms of dealing damage though I find them much more effective at 350-500m or so in close support of my team. That said I'm more likely to have paired LL with a tag firing together then LRM volleys so it might just be a playstyle thing.

[MovinTarget]

D V, not trolling you, however there are lots of reasons why people would consider firing lrms at 850m+ to be less effective...

Mind you that just because i am list the reasons is not an attack on anyone in particularly, just reasons...

1. Chance to hit is low due to dependency on others, or faster targets moving out of range.
2. Waste of ammo due to reason #1
3. Giving away location, possibly compromising organized maneuvers... sometimes the only way for brawlers stuck on Polar Highlands have a hope of contributing is to flank in the trenches, unseen, for example. Sure there are all kinds of ways positioning can be compromised, but when someone does it for something as silly as wanting to try to hit a target almost 1k meters away that they prolly won't hit...

Edited by MovinTarget, 21 March 2017 - 04:26 AM.

[Navydivea]

I'm not sure what the problem is as far as C-bills when it comes to refunding costs. If they swap modules then that's c-bills they didn't spend and invested into other things. They aren't losing anything and those who have a multitude of modules are only getting a refund on something that's now obsolete and can reinvest into other area's losing no ground with their counterparts. Even Steven.

As far as the XP goes if a mech is mastered then ether give it a strait refund or enough to master it again. GXP, why does it matter? From what you stated before everything was going into a legacy pool to be reused as we wanted so I don't see a reason not to be a strait refund in that regard.

But my number 1 gripe? "[color=#EEEEEE]However, achieving Skill status under the original system represented more than just using experience points to unlock associated Skills; it represented time and commitment. The proper transition to a new Skill Tree needs to account for more than just raw currency."[/color]

Just....what? How did you come to this conclusion? These people will be rewarded with enough resources to max nearly every Mech they use as well as the freedom to now use their favorites with little to no penalty in regards to quirks. They are no longer slaves to playing "pokeMech" in order to fully utilize them. Doe's it suck for those who have spent countless hours and C-bills in order to master a mech? Yes, yes it does. But whats insulting is the fact that you think you can quantify that commitment and effort into a number.

Your never going to have a perfect number to tag onto it. Not even close. The only thing you can do is try to be as fair as possible and give us a solid system that is half decent at launch. Yes it will be min/maxed but a glance at nearly any game tells you that's what skill trees do but it will be something new and get us out of this current stagnation. At this point its ether nut up and try or watch your game die faster than it already is.

[MovinTarget]

Navydivea, on 21 March 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

I'm not sure what the problem is as far as C-bills when it comes to refunding costs. If they swap modules then that's c-bills they didn't spend and invested into other things. They aren't losing anything and those who have a multitude of modules are only getting a refund on something that's now obsolete and can reinvest into other area's losing no ground with their counterparts. Even Steven.

As far as the XP goes if a mech is mastered then ether give it a strait refund or enough to master it again. GXP, why does it matter? From what you stated before everything was going into a legacy pool to be reused as we wanted so I don't see a reason not to be a strait refund in that regard.

But my number 1 gripe? "[color=#EEEEEE]However, achieving Skill status under the original system represented more than just using experience points to unlock associated Skills; it represented time and commitment. The proper transition to a new Skill Tree needs to account for more than just raw currency."[/color]

Just....what? How did you come to this conclusion? These people will be rewarded with enough resources to max nearly every Mech they use as well as the freedom to now use their favorites with little to no penalty in regards to quirks. They are no longer slaves to playing "pokeMech" in order to fully utilize them. Doe's it suck for those who have spent countless hours and C-bills in order to master a mech? Yes, yes it does. But whats insulting is the fact that you think you can quantify that commitment and effort into a number.

Your never going to have a perfect number to tag onto it. Not even close. The only thing you can do is try to be as fair as possible and give us a solid system that is half decent at launch. Yes it will be min/maxed but a glance at nearly any game tells you that's what skill trees do but it will be something new and get us out of this current stagnation. At this point its ether nut up and try or watch your game die faster than it already is.

The problem is that is gives PGI the appearance of arbitrarily penalizing the players that invested in more mechs rather than modules...

Had there been an extended period (like a year) prior to the change so that everyone had a chance to change their purchasing habits and save up for the change, then yeah it would be fair, but right now one guy will be able to have all/most of his mechs maxed out from the get go, while the next guy may not be able to afford to do so because he bought more mechs and is space poor.

So suddenly, one day these two player may face each other on relatively equal footing, yet the moment the skill tree drops, one will be at an inherent disadvantage.

Make sense?

[Stikyard]

So the people who didnt buy a lot of modules are upset about the people who did getting a big refund? I dont understand this. If you spent the c bills you should get them back. If you didnt buy multiple modules you should have plenty of c bills laying around.

[MovinTarget]

Stikyard, on 21 March 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

So the people who didnt buy a lot of modules are upset about the people who did getting a big refund? I dont understand this. If you spent the c bills you should get them back. If you didnt buy multiple modules you should have plenty of c bills laying around.

Who's to say they would have tons of loose cbills lying around? Maybe they made some really crappy mech purchases and even after selling them they are left with less than what they started with.

Look, I'm not one of the "cheapskates" if the refund stays at 100% I stand to get back ~1.6 BILLION cbills... and I have currently 276 mechs... up until they planned on dropping the skill tree cost, I would still not be able to "re-master" all my master mechs because of the cost. Imagine how the "cheapskates" would have felt...

So they are not complaining about guys like me getting a refund (unless they are really pissy), they just want to know that they will not be auto-nerfed to the ground after the tree is released by losing the skills that were previously free.

This isn't about money, at least it shouldn't be, its about maintaining a level playing field.

Edited by MovinTarget, 21 March 2017 - 05:14 PM.

[Hades Trooper]

Players with fewer Modules were hit particularly hard by this, with a greater burden of subsequent costs to re-gain their Skill statuses.

thats cause they have been cheapskates. I'm personally expecting 1.4 billion c-bills as i'm not some cheap arse who has 1 of a module and shares to around. Personally i think redesigning the system is long over due.

To those new players whinging, deal with it, either way your going to be facing people with maxed out mechs.

To those cheap skates whinging about cost of eliting a mech, your a cheap arse, but each mech modules and then they are truly mastered. i have over 100 mechs but also almost every mech has modules, all your done is try to manipulate the system to make it seem like you got heaps of mechs when really more than half your mechs you hit master module and never played again

The new players would so benefit from only needing 1 mech, so effectively you cheap arse players your cuasing issues for new players with this i can't afford to master all my mechs.

Personally i think it should cost 500k exp to master a mech as it should mean something. Even in the battletech lore you never came across a pilot who was a master of over 300 mechs.

[MovinTarget]

Hades Trooper, on 21 March 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

Even in the battletech lore you never came across a pilot who was a master of over 300 mechs.

You were doing well.... and then you brought lore into it... that's where you argument falls apart.

Because, if there is one thing every.single.one. of the BT or MW games offer, it was the ability to pilot different mechs...

so above and beyond the fact that limiting our ability to acquire mechs would seriously crimp PGI's business model...

...it just wouldn't be fun...

And okay, 300 *is* a lot of mechs, but what would be the limit then? 10? 15? Surely the number of pilots in lore with a personal stash of more than 15 would be rather small... If each of us could only own ~15 mechs each, how would PGI make money on a F2P model?

The other thing about your argument is that you use the word "I" a lot, and don't seem to be willing to put yourself in somebody else's shoes.

There are a lot of players that at some point or another had to decide between buying modules or another mech. So they would appreciate the decisions that were made looong before this announcement not penalize them.

Think about it, right now, you really don't *need* modules to be competitive in a mech, just get it elited and you have most of what you need. How much $$$ did it cost to skill up those mechs?

ZERO cbills

Now we are switching to a system where not only do they have to pay cbills to skill up, oh by the way, a bunch of players are going to be able to do it instantly with refunds.

So at the onset of the skill tree, those who happened to invest in lots of modules will have insta-skilled mechs while those that didn't will have to grind it out. If PGI hadn't promised a means to translate their work to the new system it would have been basically a slap in the face.

You can look down on the cheapskates because you happened to make a decision to by modules...

...try walking in their shoes.

[Killer Kellaine]

MovinTarget, on 21 March 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

Who's to say they would have tons of loose cbills lying around? Maybe they made some really crappy mech purchases and even after selling them they are left with less than what they started with.

Look, I'm not one of the "cheapskates" if the refund stays at 100% I stand to get back ~1.6 BILLION cbills... and I have currently 276 mechs... up until they planned on dropping the skill tree cost, I would still not be able to "re-master" all my master mechs because of the cost. Imagine how the "cheapskates" would have felt...

So they are not complaining about guys like me getting a refund (unless they are really pissy), they just want to know that they will not be auto-nerfed to the ground after the tree is released by losing the skills that were previously free.

This isn't about money, at least it shouldn't be, its about maintaining a level playing field.

What you say makes sense though I disagree about the C-Bills that the "cheapskates" should have laying around. If they don't spend it on modules, what do they spend it on.... more mechs. I think PGI is doing right by those that paid for modules.

[Aramuside]

Kellaine, on 21 March 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

What you say makes sense though I disagree about the C-Bills that the "cheapskates" should have laying around. If they don't spend it on modules, what do they spend it on.... more mechs. I think PGI is doing right by those that paid for modules.

But not those that bought mechs... thats rather the problem.

[Dr Angst]

Hades Trooper, on 21 March 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

Players with fewer Modules were hit particularly hard by this, with a greater burden of subsequent costs to re-gain their Skill statuses.

thats cause they have been cheapskates. I'm personally expecting 1.4 billion c-bills as i'm not some cheap arse who has 1 of a module and shares to around. Personally i think redesigning the system is long over due.

To those new players whinging, deal with it, either way your going to be facing people with maxed out mechs.

To those cheap skates whinging about cost of eliting a mech, your a cheap arse, but each mech modules and then they are truly mastered. i have over 100 mechs but also almost every mech has modules, all your done is try to manipulate the system to make it seem like you got heaps of mechs when really more than half your mechs you hit master module and never played again

The new players would so benefit from only needing 1 mech, so effectively you cheap arse players your cuasing issues for new players with this i can't afford to master all my mechs.

Personally i think it should cost 500k exp to master a mech as it should mean something. Even in the battletech lore you never came across a pilot who was a master of over 300 mechs.

Wait...

You're and Elite Founder and have about 100 mechs?!
That makes total sense.
You spent all your earned c-bills to buy modules for your slowly increasing mech arsenal.

Now compare that to myself...

I'm a Veteran Founder so we got into this game at the same time (though I got in cheaper and with fewer mechs).
I've currently got 192 mechs, all of them mastered (I've sold about 8-10 which I regret, but hey... That's life).
I've got a c-bill wallet of 100 million that I use as a buffer (so I'm not a cheapskate but I don't spend it all at once).
I've managed to get modules for my 4 dropdecks in Factional Warfare (but not for my 2 scout-decks).
Those dropdecks have cost me MC to get (will never get refunded in any way).

You think the system they were planning on introducing into today's patch was going to be fair in any way?

You my friend, need to go see a proper doctor and stop calling other fellow gamers "an arse"...

Edited by Dr Angst, 22 March 2017 - 02:35 AM.

[K O N D O]

MovinTarget, on 21 March 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

Think about it, right now, you really don't *need* modules to be competitive in a mech, just get it elited and you have most of what you need. How much $$$ did it cost to skill up those mechs?

ZERO cbills

I offered a solution to this in the Skill Tree PTS forum. PGI allocates a number of nodes (free of charge) based on a mechs Basic/Elite unlock progression. Very simple to implement.


As for module refund and the whole module poor / mech rich arguments........ here is a little scenario

-----------------------------
Player 1:
-buys 100 mechs each costing 9Mil CB = 900,000,000 CB.
-also buys 50 Seismic and 50 weapon modules totalling 450,000,000 CB.
-Player 1 grinds Basic, Elite and Master on all, and uses GXP to unlock modules.
-Total CB spent = 1.35Bil CB

Player 2:
-buys 150 mechs each costing 9Mil CB = 1,350,000,000 CB.
-does not buy any modules (cheapskate).
-Player 2 grinds Basic, Elite, and Master on all.
-Total CB spent = 1.35Bil CB.

PGI:
-brings out a new skill tree system
-refunds all purchased modules CB and GXP
-allows players to sell mechs at full refund
-credits each mech with X number of nodes (approx. 46) so players don't lose basic/elite skill progress.
-all mechs keep their historical XP that was previously used to unlock the master module slot.
-no longer requires players to purchase 3 variants to master a mech

Player 1:
-loves to grind so uses the CB from module refund to buy 50 more mechs variants but only the ones he/she wants because the 3 variant rule no longer applies.
-player 1 now has 150 mechs with basic/elite nodes unlock by PGI on the original 100 but no ability to purchase module equivalent nodes
-now starts grinding CB to master all 150 mechs by using the refunded GXP from the module refund and CB grinded.
-Total Spend = 1.35Bil CB

Player 2:
-sick of not having modules before the skill tree, decides to use the 1 month mech refund opportunity to sell 50 mechs at full refund.
-now has 450,000,000 CB spare and decides to purchase the additional nodes above the basic/elite nodes that each mech was given by PGI.
-player 2 now has 100 fully mastered (moduled) mechs, instead of the original 150 with no modules.
-now starts grinding CB to purchase back the mechs sold as these mechs already have basic/elite nodes unlocked by PGI.
Total spend = 1.35Bil CB

PGI:
-has a more satisfied player base as players now have the option on how they wish to transition their CB & GXP grind to the new skill tree. (Sell mechs to by master nodes, or use module refund to by mechs, or use module refund to buy master nodes, or keep all mechs and start grinding)
-only thing left to do is ensure the skill tree has an optimal XP/CB grind

------------------------------

As long as PGI get the refund and skill progress transition correct, no would really lose out.

[MovinTarget]

I suggested something similar as "legacy skill points" so that they could be distributed across copies of a variant, but no more than the max amount... point being to not reward players that have copies (i.e. 2x Oxides) but only for the effort of leveling the chassis.

The only question is wtf would we do with all those cbills lol...

We need new cbill sinks...

Suggestions:
Mechbays for 50k cbills
75 million for colors?

Edited by MovinTarget, 22 March 2017 - 04:28 AM.

[Aramuside]

MovinTarget, on 22 March 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

I suggested something similar as "legacy skill points" so that they could be distributed across copies of a variant, but no more than the max amount... point being to not reward players that have copies (i.e. 2x Oxides) but only for the effort of leveling the chassis. The only question is wtf would we do with all those cbills lol... We need new cbill sinks... Suggestions: Mechbays for 50k cbills 75 million for colors?

50,000 c-bills for a mechbay? I assume that was a mistake?