33 replies to this topic

[Scout Derek]

So there's mixed emotions, more of being satisfied that it's being delayed as to being disappointed that it got delayed, more or less to be honest.

Let's talk though, why are people happy that it got delayed?

For this one, simple, reason in my eyes, and I know there's other issues, but mainly this is mine:

The Economy Side was not being addressed. If this had gone foward, if you didn't have the necessary Cbills, you'd be grinding for a good 5 months or more of 4-5 hours a day of maxing out all your mechs you have.

And some have alot, let's be honest here. Some have played for years and still do, getting Mechbays from events or from the Deadly grinding of Faction Play.

The amount of gameplay on average for me it takes to get around 4-6 million cbills is 3-4 hours, maybe even more depending on the wait times for a match since I'm tier 1 and have to wait a maximum of 5 minutes to get into a match if there aren't others within my tier rating.

That's my reasoning for disliking the skill tree. If they had done something such as up the amount of Cbills earned per match, I'd be all gun-ho ready for it to come in, or even adjust for those with large stables but not many modules, I'd be all for it.

But the key thing is they didn't. They were just going to push in with it and expect people to adjust to it.

I have quite a few mechs, not 100+, but a good amount. Not all of them have modules, probably about a third of my stable doesn't have them. If it had gone through, I'd have to grind to get the Cbills required to min/max their skill trees out. (and that's not even adjusting to a more enjoyable playstyle you know).


There's my supporting side for not allowing the Skill Tree to go live on the 21st.



Now what I'm reading from those who wanted the Skill Tree is that it's the communities fault, that we did this, and now there's now progress and we'd be getting more stagnant gameplay.

I want you to address how you would address our problems, if you were in PGI's shoes, give your reasons, as to how to address our side. If it's simple, say it, and be reasonable, I'm on the side against you, and I wanna hear your part.

This is for us, this game. For the people who play it, watch it, and enjoy it.

Edited by Scout Derek, 13 March 2017 - 08:26 PM.

[FupDup]

1. There's a good chance it got "delayed" similar to Energy Draw (which IIRC PGI said they wanted to try again sometime?).

2. If PGI tries Skill Tree 1.0 again in the future, I doubt that they'll be fixing the biggest issues like "economy" (calling it an economy at all is completely inappropriate but I'll go with it for now) or the weird spider web structure with lots of nodes that are forced on you if you want to unlock things that are actually viable.

[RestosIII]

My largest complaint is about one of the base systems of the skill tree, and I really wish PGI would acknowledge it, even off-hand.

I can't stand the separate skill tree per mech system. Having it per variant would be much, much better IMHO, since it would make it so that I can sell a mech without losing all my progress. I sell mechs relatively often, and having to regrind all of that XP again would be... painful.

[Lupis Volk]

screw the economy* i'm more worried about the IS vs Clans balance which is the meat of the game.

* for now

[Kael Posavatz]

I'm just...surprised it took them to realize this considering how often people had mentioned it (I think I recall it first coming up during the MechCon video).

As it is, "later" sounds too much like soon™, only applied after-the-fact instead of prior-to. I worry that this will join the ranks of InfoWar and Energy Draw as things to revisit that are then dropped for eternity (InfoWar deserved to be, but Energy Draw had one, maybe two, positive things going for it).

But now that we've spent an additional month working on this, what does Timeline Advancement look like? What do rewards for Loyalists look like? What about a roadmap?

[CK16]

If I was PGI? Grow the balls and pull the trigger...The tree was fine as it was, and would have worked fine in game. As all things tweek it as the games goes, cause that is development. Instead of trying to cater to every single player ect.

TL:DR PGI has to pick a path and just follow it, stop the whole WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, then back out cause of some resistance...ALA see ED and Infortech...

Edited by CK16, 13 March 2017 - 08:21 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Scout Derek, on 13 March 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

Let's talk though, why are people happy that it got delayed?
For this one, simple, reason.
The Economy Side was not being addressed.

From what I've seen, this is 100% inaccurate. There are several reasons, and the economy is just one of them. For me, economy means relatively little. The most important part is whether or not the new skill tree makes the game more fun or less fun. I am happy because this leaves a tiny sliver of hope that PGI may actually make some substantial changes to their skill tree. I could care less if PGI figures out an algorithm that gives me 50 million fewer or more C-bills. That stuff doesn't matter if I'm bored to the point where I stop playing the game.



I'm happy because there's a tiny chance they can have a second look at Solahma's proposal and understand how many players would be happy to see it tested.

PS: I can't really prove that the majority of players (80%) are unhappy with PGI's complex, random web of skills and want something that gives them more freedom and choice. But I would say that there's clearly more evidence pointing towards this than there is evidence of the majority of players (80%) actually preferring PGI's model. I've seen basically no quantifiable evidence to support the latter.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 13 March 2017 - 08:24 PM.

[CK16]

Alistair Winter, on 13 March 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

From what I've seen, this is 100% inaccurate. There are several reasons, and the economy is just one of them. For me, economy means relatively little. The most important part is whether or not the new skill tree makes the game more fun or less fun. I am happy because this leaves a tiny sliver of hope that PGI may actually make some substantial changes to their skill tree. I could care less if PGI figures out an algorithm that gives me 50 million fewer or more C-bills. That stuff doesn't matter if I'm bored to the point where I stop playing the game.



I'm happy because there's a tiny chance they can have a second look at Solahma's proposal and understand how many players would be happy to see it tested.

Honestly that isn't a perfect thing either, it just encourages the whole grab these nodes only cause they benefit the most...AKA hill climb would never be taken just as some modules are never used now...the valuable stuff DOES need to be behind some from a price to pay, you cant have everything, and sure a few were silly but the sensors nodes ect in front of systemic and radar derp made sense and was a good trade off. We do need some of that still. The top tier useful stuff shouldn't be just that easy to grab.

[Kin3ticX]

FupDup, on 13 March 2017 - 07:58 PM, said:

1. There's a good chance it got "delayed" similar to Energy Draw (which IIRC PGI said they wanted to try again sometime?).

Energy draw died because it was fundamentally an energy pool within an energy pool being as the heat bar is just an upside down energy bar. Never had a chance.

Skill tree will come into the game but it will just take longer. Apparently PGI has a new idea on how to deal with the massive cbill refunds for players like me and also the players with tiny refunds and massive mech libraries.

If anything is going to kill the skill tree its simply PGI unwilling to flood their game with cbills that are currently locked into mods.

On the other hand, if they take away the cbill refund they will have a bigger PR disaster that will dwarf Cheapskategate

[Scout Derek]

Alistair Winter, on 13 March 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

From what I've seen, this is 100% inaccurate. There are several reasons, and the economy is just one of them. For me, economy means relatively little.

After reading this you're in the category that will be unaffected considering the ideal that you have alot of cbills.

others don't. not as much as you and a few others have.

And again, for me, it's economy. I know about the other issues too, but mainly eco is my issue here.

But I'll change it since you pointed it out.

[Alistair Winter]

CK16, on 13 March 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

Honestly that isn't a perfect thing either

I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not it's perfect. But I would be willing to bet anyone who says PGI's current solution would be more popular than Solahma's solution. From what I've read on the forum, there's just no competition. Solahma's proposal is basically ticking all the boxes.

[Kin3ticX]

Alistair Winter, on 13 March 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

From what I've seen, this is 100% inaccurate. There are several reasons, and the economy is just one of them. For me, economy means relatively little. The most important part is whether or not the new skill tree makes the game more fun or less fun. I am happy because this leaves a tiny sliver of hope that PGI may actually make some substantial changes to their skill tree. I could care less if PGI figures out an algorithm that gives me 50 million fewer or more C-bills. That stuff doesn't matter if I'm bored to the point where I stop playing the game.



I'm happy because there's a tiny chance they can have a second look at Solahma's proposal and understand how many players would be happy to see it tested.

PS: I can't really prove that the majority of players (80%) are unhappy with PGI's complex, random web of skills and want something that gives them more freedom and choice. But I would say that there's clearly more evidence pointing towards this than there is evidence of the majority of players (80%) actually preferring PGI's model. I've seen basically no quantifiable evidence to support the latter.

If you listen to the podcast you will hear them talk about why they dont want a linear tree. I like the player proposal but apparently it doesnt meet PGI's design requirements.

[Alistair Winter]

Scout Derek, on 13 March 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

After reading this you're in the category that will be unaffected considering the ideal that you have alot of cbills.
others don't. not as much as you and a few others have.
And again, for me, it's economy. I know about the other issues too, but mainly eco is my issue here.
But I'll change it since you pointed it out.

No, no, far from it! I am the opposite of what Russ jokingly called a cheapskate. I have terrible C-bill management. I buy and sell the same stuff over and over, and I have very few modules indeed. I am almost 100% certain I would be hit hard if PTS 2.5 went live. But I don't really care about that so much.

I would rather have too few c-bills to master all my mechs with a skill tree I love, rather than having enough c-bills to master all my mechs with a skill tree that I hate.

[Coolant]

2 months now no new content...maybe that's o.k. for those that are newer players but for those of us that have been playing 4 years now, we need more content.

[Dr Mlem]

Alistair Winter, on 13 March 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

No, no, far from it! I am the opposite of what Russ jokingly called a cheapskate. I have terrible C-bill management. I buy and sell the same stuff over and over, and I have very few modules indeed. I am almost 100% certain I would be hit hard if PTS 2.5 went live. But I don't really care about that so much.

I would rather have too few c-bills to master all my mechs with a skill tree I love, rather than having enough c-bills to master all my mechs with a skill tree that I hate.

Mine is usually spent constantly changing my builds all the time. I'm usually space poor, due to the sheer amount of engines I need. And the fact I never strip mechs after I'm done with them.

[Alistair Winter]

Kin3ticX, on 13 March 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

If you listen to the podcast you will hear them talk about why they dont want a linear tree. I like the player proposal but apparently it doesnt meet PGI's design requirements.

Yes, but the argument struck me as very short-sighted. They explained that MWO is not like WoW and that WoW had several different versions over the years (e.g. pre- and post-talents). Well... that's kind of like saying that MWO is not an RPG, so skill trees won't work for MWO at all. And there are people saying that. It's a very short-sighted argument. Stuff that works for one genre can be translated to work in another genre, which is why skill trees are being used for FPS, Third person shooters, combat sims, space sims, etc.

[MechaBattler]

Alistair Winter, on 13 March 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

From what I've seen, this is 100% inaccurate. There are several reasons, and the economy is just one of them. For me, economy means relatively little. The most important part is whether or not the new skill tree makes the game more fun or less fun. I am happy because this leaves a tiny sliver of hope that PGI may actually make some substantial changes to their skill tree. I could care less if PGI figures out an algorithm that gives me 50 million fewer or more C-bills. That stuff doesn't matter if I'm bored to the point where I stop playing the game.



I'm happy because there's a tiny chance they can have a second look at Solahma's proposal and understand how many players would be happy to see it tested.

PS: I can't really prove that the majority of players (80%) are unhappy with PGI's complex, random web of skills and want something that gives them more freedom and choice. But I would say that there's clearly more evidence pointing towards this than there is evidence of the majority of players (80%) actually preferring PGI's model. I've seen basically no quantifiable evidence to support the latter.

The economy aspect was the only one a lot of people could agree on. The rest was just some nit picky min max whiney bullshet.

[Alistair Winter]

MechaBattler, on 13 March 2017 - 08:34 PM, said:

The economy aspect was the only one a lot of people could agree on. The rest was just some nit picky min max whiney bullshet.

This sounds like a biased description.

[MechLord71]

I do not have a lot of C-bills.

I do not own a lot of modules.

I have limited play time to climb back up a progression tree due to real life.

I would have only been able to re-master 1/3 of my mechs.

But, I was still willing to take an imperfect skill tree over staying with the one we have now.

I enjoy playing just to play. I never really considered my battles in my mechs as grinding for xp. I was just playing a mech game trying to stay alive and hurt my opponent. Fun!

Differing opinions, but I definitely prefer the intelligent discussion technique over the bickering, selfishness and anger that is too often on these forums and sometimes in-game.

Edited by MechLord71, 13 March 2017 - 08:43 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Alistair Winter, on 13 March 2017 - 08:34 PM, said:

This sounds like a biased description.

Because people are nit picking things that are pointless. They're gonna reduce the total points. But it's gonna amount to the same thing. At best we'll get less points and slightly linear trees. It's all going to amount to the same thing because they'll just lower total points to compensate for removing the "useless" nodes. It's an asinine waste of time.

The only legitimate complaint for why it shouldn't have gone live is the cost for people with huge hangers and not enough modules.

People piggy backed their agendas onto this and now act like they did something. When really it was all the whales pulling their support from the game because 200+ mechs would no longer be mastered and they would have to pay c-bills to make it happen.