49 replies to this topic

[R Valentine]

Taxxian, on 14 March 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

There actually are tons of new skills in the tree.

In every MMO with a skill tree there is an optimal way for every situation.

My Mechs would have been skilled absolutely different!

PPC snipers a skilled entirely different than scouting lights or brawling mediums... PUG Queue Mechs are skilled different from MRBC Mechs. There absolutely was choice, not perfect but it was there...

You are right with the respec costs... but 400XP per node really was not that much... A won game with double XP gets you 5 skillpoints or more... I have no problem with that.

The illusion of choice lasts as long as it takes everyone to figure out what the optimal path is. Most of us saw that coming miles away when we went on and tested it. And no, there wasn't anything new. The "new" stuff was just things removed from quirks and dumped into the skill tree instead, which was also a huge mistake. Nerfing IS quirks while giving clans access to them was a double whammy against IS. Again, MORE stuff that had nothing to do with the skill tree all bundled into one package. They couldn't even just do one thing at a time. That was another thing that added to the skill trees failure.

[Taxxian]

Every game out there has a meta and for every meta there is an optimal skill set, it may sometimes be less obvious but thats not really an argument...

Yes PGI tries to implement to many changes at once very often... we probably have no choice about that... I dont like it either...

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

There wasn't even anything "new" about the skill tree. That was half of the complaints. They just reworked how you come about getting what you already have, but in the end most people would end up buying the same skills as everyone else because there's an optimal path, and everything else is sub-optimal. The exceptions would be specific weapon nodes.

Having up to 6 consumables was new. Having multiple of a single consumable was new. Being able to increase your survivability was new. Being able to fit more shots per ton was new. Being able to take more than 2 "mech modules" (radar derp, advanced zoom, etc) was new. Being able to upgrade all of your weapons instead of 1 or 2, and upgrade multiple aspects of said weapons was new. Being able to upgrade your JJ is new. No longer having mobility tied to the engine was new. I can keep going, but I'll stop here. Point is, there were a lot of new things. But half the argument wasn't about "new" things. Half was about mastered mechs pricing, a third was about picking and choosing skills, and the rest was split between "new player" grind, the content, and other minor things.

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

And respec costs were ALWAYS a terrible idea. Changing load outs and tinkering with builds is half the game. If you gate that behind an xp/c-bill sink you severely lower the value of that part of the game, and that's a suicidal business model. And that's on top of making everyone regrind their mechs again because they added a c-bill cost on things that should be xp only. The change was never going to be good. And they couldn't just give us a skill tree. Oh no. They also had to throw in engine decoupling, quirk nerfs, new mech pack, and other garbage that just adds to already convoluted problems.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Respec costs are not a bad thing. It may be high (it could honestly be dropped to 200 or even 150), but having no cost is a problem in of itself.

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

The illusion of choice lasts as long as it takes everyone to figure out what the optimal path is. Most of us saw that coming miles away when we went on and tested it. And no, there wasn't anything new. The "new" stuff was just things removed from quirks and dumped into the skill tree instead, which was also a huge mistake. Nerfing IS quirks while giving clans access to them was a double whammy against IS. Again, MORE stuff that had nothing to do with the skill tree all bundled into one package. They couldn't even just do one thing at a time. That was another thing that added to the skill trees failure.

You could say that about building a mech as well. You have the illution of designing whatever you want, but then you get forced to use the optimal path of boating (dakka boats, missile boats, laser vomit) or PPC/Gauss meta. Also, quirks were not removed, just reduced a bit. Also, Clan doesn't benefit as much per node as IS. Another thing, if I remember right large components were getting a major HP buff while small components were getting a HP nerf. Essentially making IS the tanks of the game and Clan the glass cannons. I don't remember if that was for the Skill Tree update or the Time Jump, but they may have been trying to balance things with that.

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 14 March 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

Having up to 6 consumables was new. Having multiple of a single consumable was new. Being able to increase your survivability was new. Being able to fit more shots per ton was new. Being able to take more than 2 "mech modules" (radar derp, advanced zoom, etc) was new. Being able to upgrade all of your weapons instead of 1 or 2, and upgrade multiple aspects of said weapons was new. Being able to upgrade your JJ is new. No longer having mobility tied to the engine was new. I can keep going, but I'll stop here. Point is, there were a lot of new things. But half the argument wasn't about "new" things. Half was about mastered mechs pricing, a third was about picking and choosing skills, and the rest was split between "new player" grind, the content, and other minor things.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Respec costs are not a bad thing. It may be high (it could honestly be dropped to 200 or even 150), but having no cost is a problem in of itself.

You could say that about building a mech as well. You have the illution of designing whatever you want, but then you get forced to use the optimal path of boating (dakka boats, missile boats, laser vomit) or PPC/Gauss meta. Also, quirks were not removed, just reduced a bit. Also, Clan doesn't benefit as much per node as IS. Another thing, if I remember right large components were getting a major HP buff while small components were getting a HP nerf. Essentially making IS the tanks of the game and Clan the glass cannons. I don't remember if that was for the Skill Tree update or the Time Jump, but they may have been trying to balance things with that.

Why would having a respec cost ever be good? Tinkering, experimenting, and changing load outs is a huge part of the fun of Mechwarrior. Why would you want to tax that? That just lowers the value of it, which in turn lowers the value of the entire game. So what if people want to swap guns and equipment around? Isn't that part of owning a mech? Why should I have to pay to alter something I'm supposed to own? They should just call it "Mech Rental Online" then.

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

Why would having a respec cost ever be good? Tinkering, experimenting, and changing load outs is a huge part of the fun of Mechwarrior. Why would you want to tax that? That just lowers the value of it, which in turn lowers the value of the entire game. So what if people want to swap guns and equipment around?

Tinkering, experimenting, and changing loadouts is the fun of the game. The Skill Tree was the way you were supposed to "optimize" your loadout once you found one you loved. Also, most of the skills in the Tree as is are general skills that don't take into account the weapon type. Honestly, at most you would only really spend 10 points on weapon specific nodes. The rest are into things you almost always wouldn't remove (unless you made some poor choices). With the currently "set" cost at 400xp to requip a node, if you swap weapon types every few matches that is 4000xp every time. On average a decent player can make at least 500xp a QP match. That is 8 matches to swap around every weapon. Personally, I think that 400 is too high and it should be more around 100-200. And the reason I think there still needs to be some cost (even a small one) is because you need to cut open the mech, install the components, test their software, then put the the mech back together again. That would take time and a large cost, but this is a game so we can take out the "time" and "large" from the cost.

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

Isn't that part of owning a mech? Why should I have to pay to alter something I'm supposed to own? They should just call it "Mech Rental Online" then.

What about maintenance costs? Supporting costs? Repair costs? Building/hangar purchases/rentals? Personnel salaries? Dropship costs? Fuel costs? Food and drink costs? How about the cost of storage? Where does everyone keep the tens of thousands of tons of unused equipment and mech chassis? Do we just sit them outside, put a leash on them? What about the services cost of having people change and install equipment? The list will go on and on. My point is, just because you "own" something, doesn't mean it wont cost you anything from then on.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Taxxian, on 14 March 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

Well you are on the "We dont want the new stuff until its perfect" side and I am on the "Just give us the promised stuff and fix problems later" side... I get that.

The last year showed me that whatever PGI does there are always many people opposing it and I fear that we will never get any progress this way...

In my eyes PGI proved they can not make a feature, put it on the PTS and we agree...

So how to continue?

1) leave the game as it is
2) put in features without asking the forum

I dont like 1)


If PGI had just invented "LBX Spread Modules" and "Armor Hardening Modules" we would than say "No our Mechs are Mastered and full with modules so give 50 pieces of each new module for free so we dont have to grind for the new modules"? Really?

The problem with rushing the new trees into the game at this point though is the huge economic sink that it would have been, so for everyone to dump all their C-bills and XP into the trees and then have PGI later revamp the trees or the costs altogether would have meant yet another refund/repurchase experience that people with many mechs would probably like to avoid, especially without a more user-friendly way to fill in the trees. I'm sure it's not easy for PGI either to have to rollback something like that more than once.

[Gagis]

Damn the crybabies.

I'm not too enthusiastic to play now since I am sitting on a pile of modules I'd rather turn into c-bills for new mechs. Even if I had the c-bills for them right now, I'd need to go trough the incredibly tedious grind for 9 mechs even though I really want just 3 of them. I was actually eagerly waiting for the new system.

The worst part of this game is the toxic player community. I miss Path of Exile and EVE Online, they have much better communities and adaptable players.

[Jubblator]

I see people throwing around numbers on Yay or Nay for the skill tree, but where was the friggin poll for this?
Im for one am dissapointed as ****...was also seriously looking forward to them dropping the rule of 3.

PGI cant you atleast do that then if you wont implement a new skill system just yet? Cant you please be nice and let us actually get the great benefits of the speed quirk on the mechs we want instead of having to farm on 2 other that we hate?
Pretty please? =)

[soapyfrog]

The issue is the cost, not the tree.

The tree is not great, it doesn't really provide for "role warfare" nor does it have any difficult or meaningful choices. Well still a tree like that plus ditching the rule of 3 and modules I think most everyone would have been at least indifferent to. If the tree had just been thrown in with some nominal cost like 10k c-bills per skill, I think there would not have been any uproar at all.

The COST on the other hand is really what caused wholesale rejection. Don't give us a mediocre game improvement, pretend it's "expansion content" and also try to completely bankrupt us while throwing an insurmountable grind in front of us. That is just infuriating... and respec costs are just an extra slap in the face to those of us who like the mechlab.

So... no big problem with the idea, big problem with implementation costs. I know this issue is not going to be as apparent to some players, but it's a big problem nonetheless and needs to be addressed or a healthy chunk of paying customers are going to walk, or close their wallets at a minimum.

[Athom83]

soapyfrog, on 15 March 2017 - 06:04 AM, said:

The issue is the cost, not the tree.The COST on the other hand is really what caused wholesale rejection. Don't give us a mediocre game improvement, pretend it's "expansion content" and also try to completely bankrupt us while throwing an insurmountable grind in front of us. That is just infuriating... and respec costs are just an extra slap in the face to those of us who like the mechlab. If the tree had just been thrown in with some nominal cost like 10k c-bills per skill, I think there would not have been any uproar at all.

I've seen more complains about the tree than the cost. But even the complaints about the cost are somewhat unfounded. 1) PGI has said they didn't want to implement a cost but they had to balance out the massive influx of C-Bills into the market (which would ruin the economics otherwise (both game wise and in a realistic sense)). 2) The "cost" complaint came about when people were unhappy that they needed to buy 91 nodes to "remaster" a mech. However the current system of mastery only takes 45 nodes in the skill tree. The other nodes equate to modules and extra. 3) I agree that the respec cost is unreasonable in its current sate. But the cost is to keep those "module rich mech poor" players from just purchasing every node and freely swapping them around without recourse.Its been talked about over and over in other topics.

soapyfrog, on 15 March 2017 - 06:04 AM, said:

The tree is not great, it doesn't really provide for "role warfare" nor does it have any difficult or meaningful choices. Well still a tree like that plus ditching the rule of 3 and modules I think most everyone would have been at least indifferent to.

There a quite a few different rolls you need to pick from. Did you max out your firepower and survivability to become a roving fortress of guns? Well, then you can't take a lot of consumables, can't use "modules", have poor sensors, and you can get left behind by the team making you a walking turret for frontline roles. Did you max out speed, sensor, and operation trees to become a commando running through and behind enemy lines, droping arty strikes and popping UAVs to keep the enemy spotted for your allies? Then you don't have as much firepower or survivability as other mech who took those skills, relegating you to command and behind-lines roles. Did you balance out your skills in every tree to buff every part of your mech? Well then you are generalized and can't do the same roles are specialized mechs, making you be second line or a skirmishing mech.

soapyfrog, on 15 March 2017 - 06:04 AM, said:

So... no big problem with the idea, big problem with implementation costs. I know this issue is not going to be as apparent to some players, but it's a big problem nonetheless and needs to be addressed or a healthy chunk of paying customers are going to walk, or close their wallets at a minimum.

Opinions differ between people. In something like this, no consensus can be reached as only few people go to outlets (like the forums, reddit, or youtube) to get their thoughts on the matter out. If PGI put a poll system in the game (like in Star Conflict) where they can ask the players in the game what they think, then you can see the lines a bit better whether they be 50-50, 40-60, 40-40-20 (yes-no-don't care), or otherwise.

[Taxxian]

Quote

[color=#959595]Opinions differ between people. In something like this, no consensus can be reached as only few people go to outlets (like the forums, reddit, or youtube) to get their thoughts on the matter out. If PGI put a poll system in the game (like in Star Conflict) where they can ask the players in the game what they think, then you can see the lines a bit better whether they be 50-50, 40-60, 40-40-20 (yes-no-don't care), or otherwise. [/color]

Thats a great Idea... in our Unit Forum we have a similar Thread only that there is 1 Player against the Skilltree and the 10+ other players that posted are sad it did not come... Most of them play for years so it cant be absolute ignorance on the subject...

We should carry this to PGI asap^^

[Jubblator]

Well at least i will get more stuff done, since now there is nothing new and fun to hope and play for...

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 14 March 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Tinkering, experimenting, and changing loadouts is the fun of the game. The Skill Tree was the way you were supposed to "optimize" your loadout once you found one you loved. Also, most of the skills in the Tree as is are general skills that don't take into account the weapon type. Honestly, at most you would only really spend 10 points on weapon specific nodes. The rest are into things you almost always wouldn't remove (unless you made some poor choices). With the currently "set" cost at 400xp to requip a node, if you swap weapon types every few matches that is 4000xp every time. On average a decent player can make at least 500xp a QP match. That is 8 matches to swap around every weapon. Personally, I think that 400 is too high and it should be more around 100-200. And the reason I think there still needs to be some cost (even a small one) is because you need to cut open the mech, install the components, test their software, then put the the mech back together again. That would take time and a large cost, but this is a game so we can take out the "time" and "large" from the cost. What about maintenance costs? Supporting costs? Repair costs? Building/hangar purchases/rentals? Personnel salaries? Dropship costs? Fuel costs? Food and drink costs? How about the cost of storage? Where does everyone keep the tens of thousands of tons of unused equipment and mech chassis? Do we just sit them outside, put a leash on them? What about the services cost of having people change and install equipment? The list will go on and on. My point is, just because you "own" something, doesn't mean it wont cost you anything from then on.

Oh please, "maintenance costs"? They tried that already. Don't you remember repairs? They also scrapped that idea. And that's just a BS attempt at a technicality on your part. We've never had hangar rental costs, so you're just pulling stuff out of your rear.

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 15 March 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

Oh please, "maintenance costs"? They tried that already. Don't you remember repairs? They also scrapped that idea. And that's just a BS attempt at a technicality on your part. We've never had hangar rental costs, so you're just pulling stuff out of your rear.

I was just pointing out things you would have to spend money on in a realistic sense since you were so adamant about "why pay to alter something that I own". I didn't think you'd take me literally. It was an analogy for the reasons behind the "respec" costs.

[soapyfrog]

Given the incoming civil war tech, I think that will be enough of a c-bill sink to bankrupt anyone serious about it, module refund or no.

[Taxxian]

True enough and IS will get so much more than clans...

And the Cost!

If you own ALL MECHS and equip them with new Tech depending on what weaposn will be best you spend between 1 and 2 BILLION CBILS to get them allm up to date... (and that is including selling the old stuff)

And since they where up to date before, we will all loose 10 times more progress than the Skill Tree would have cost us...

So lets all storm the barricades and prevent this desaster from happening! No one has more than a Billion CBills to pay for that and grind will be soooo unbearable!

Well no I look forward to the new Tech as I was looking forward to the Skill Tree!

If you dont believe my numbers: You will first have to replace all IS Standard Engines in Mechs that do not carry Heavy Gauss or LBX 20 with a Light Fusion Engine, even if you collect your 300+ Mio Cbills for the old engines you still loose arround 700 millions for the engines alone... than you need Light FF, new weapons for many mechs and so on.

Edited by Taxxian, 15 March 2017 - 11:54 AM.

[soapyfrog]

Someone needs a critical thinking class!

You are comparing them ripping out and replacing a system that players have already bought into (the skill tree, quirks and module system) to actual expanded content for the game (new tech new mechs).

New costs for stuff we already had = the wrong way to do a c-bill sink
Adding actual new things to the game = the right way to do a c-bill sink

[Jubblator]

I will say it again, this way the game is getting stale and steadily losing its player base, returning players like me were excited and started investing again into the game with the news of the skill patch.
Your costs or inconvenience (because lets face it they will reimburse you fully), will matter not at all when the game shuts down due to to low player base. Then you can start talking about cost while hugging the memories of the hundreds (thousands?) of dollars you spent on this game.
The only thing people succeeded to make PGI do is lose more revenue in the long run, due to bad player retention and the lack of trust that the players like me feel towards anything PGI put forward as a launch date.
So Great Job guys, you have your fully mastered mechs going NO WHERE in the short run, just like you want them. In the long run i hope im wrong, but if nothing drastic happens (like some actual gameplay changes for the better) then this game is gonna dwindle away.
Especially when the next MW game launches (a bunch of people will move there from this game, mark my words).

Edited by Jubblator, 15 March 2017 - 12:29 PM.

[Athom83]

Taxxian, on 15 March 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

And the Cost! If you own ALL MECHS and equip them with new Tech depending on what weaposn will be best you spend between 1 and 2 BILLION CBILS to get them allm up to date... (and that is including selling the old stuff). And since they where up to date before, we will all loose 10 times more progress than the Skill Tree would have cost us...

Can't you, you know, move the equipment around like you do with your modules. Seriously, don't get PGI to delay THIS update like you did the skill tree.

Edited by Athom83, 15 March 2017 - 12:44 PM.

[Taxxian]

Hehe I know thats the problem, Skill Tree was a little grind for some, New Tech is huge grind for all... iam looking forward to it but many people hated skill tree just because of a little grind...

Swap equipment? You know I have a lot of players in my unit who actually do have hundreds of Mechs fully equipped with meta stuff and ready to drop... They actually will have to grind out a billion to get to the same relative progress state...

And again: Skill Tree had tons of new stuff:
Spread Module
Skelletal Density Module
Armor Hardening Module
Missile Explosive Module
Ammo Module
ECM Module
Gauss Charge Module
and tons more...

That actually counts as new stuff and no one should expect to get those free for all mechs without any additional grind... no one