77 replies to this topic

[Jackal Noble]

1453 R, on 14 March 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

Ripping out the skill system and replacing it wholesale is development resources. A goodly chunk of them for this company.

.
..
...
..
.

Look, guys. I get it. These are the MWO forums, salt is the chief export around here. But is anyone here really excited, and I mean actually excited, to see the Skill Tree die and know we're going to be stuck on our filler basic/elite/master 'tree' until the game shuts down?

Not wanting crap to go live is one thing. But please...stop celebrating the demise of our chance at a skill system worth inclusion in the game. Because as of right now I'm completely indifferent to the current basic/elite/module system - they could rip it out and leaving nothing in its place and I wouldn't really care because it is so incredibly, fundamentally boring and unworth my time. And at least if it was ripped out completely I could just buy singleton 'Mechs and enjoy them for what they are without Piranha's compulsion to invest in three or more and grind all of them simply to get one up to snuff.

The game needs a proper skill system. It doesn't have one. Now it likely never will. Why are people drinking to this fact?

I get that, but going all Chicken Little, isn't much better. My original bone to pick - sometimes I think PGI are given too much leeway, when the terms "work" and "resources" are thrown around on this here forum.


When I think of work, altering excel values and utilizing simple gui interfaces are low on the totem pole

Edited by JackalBeast, 14 March 2017 - 10:37 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Scout Derek, on 14 March 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

same, but with varying words on talking about issues with the skill tree.

It's like those who were for the skill tree are ignoring the issues with it. Imagine the backpedal if it had gone live like this, the major backpedaling.

I don't want that to happen. Not after the Minimap Dilemna, not after the joke 2 years ago, none of that. Too many damn mistakes to keep making more.

It's getting old, and it's making me angry.

One of the things I've taken to saying now is this.

PGI needs to stop wielding a balance cudgel and start wielding a balance scalpel.

Every time PGI tries to make one of these new grand changes they're basically just bludgeoning the entire game into an even worse state.

The whole engine decoupling thing being a perfect example. They tried to change too much all at once and missed a large amount of mechs who had their accel/decel values reduced to the level of half-frozen molasses.

Same could be said of the old Info War PTS. They tried changing way too much and overall it ended up worse than it should have been.

[1453 R]

Ghostrider0067, on 14 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

...
Putting forth a half baked and less than polished effort is never a good idea seeing that the damage it may cause may not be fixable in time with the players who support the game. Its far better to pull back and re-evaluate than to make that game changing move and having it hurt them in the long run. Putting it in pause was the best plan here, like it or not.

I'm not opposed to the game being changed, but I am against it being changed and breaking more than it fixes. I'm also against making changes for the sake of it to drum up or maintain interest rather than making necessary and we'll devised one's to solidify the game as a whole.

The issue is that the Skill Tree is not 'pulled for re-evaluation'. It is dead. Until proven otherwise, the Skill Tree is now in the exact same bucket that Information Warfare ('pulled for evaluation', and now dead for years) and Energy Draw ('pulled for evaluation', dead for several months now) are in. The forums shouted it down until it was killed, and if players here don't think that's going to heavily, and negatively, impact the FutureTech timeline and implementation, they're out of their gourds.

That's three dead initiatives, the last one badly damaging a fourth, utterly critical initiative.

How many of these can the game survive?

I understand that nobody liked the implementation. I didn't much care for it myself. I hated the Engine Redux they shoved into the second test with the scorching fury of ten thousand meth-addled Mongols, but I would've swallowed that hatred and said nothing if I knew giving voice to it was going to mean we lost the Skill Tree entirely and ended up with delayed FutureTech and Incursion, and now I'm terrified we're going to lose FutureTech to 'pulled for evaluation' as well.

Piranha needs to come up with better ideas, yes. That would be awesome. But at some point here we also need to realize that everything has flaws and sometimes you need to just deal with those while the system works itself out. That's a lousy place to be and I wish we never had to go through it, but if we keep screaming down MWO updates, then we'll stop getting them and all Piranha's development will go into screwing up MW5, instead.

Is that what folks want?

[R Valentine]

1453 R, on 14 March 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

The issue is that the Skill Tree is not 'pulled for re-evaluation'. It is dead. Until proven otherwise, the Skill Tree is now in the exact same bucket that Information Warfare ('pulled for evaluation', and now dead for years) and Energy Draw ('pulled for evaluation', dead for several months now) are in. The forums shouted it down until it was killed, and if players here don't think that's going to heavily, and negatively, impact the FutureTech timeline and implementation, they're out of their gourds.

That's three dead initiatives, the last one badly damaging a fourth, utterly critical initiative.

How many of these can the game survive?

I understand that nobody liked the implementation. I didn't much care for it myself. I hated the Engine Redux they shoved into the second test with the scorching fury of ten thousand meth-addled Mongols, but I would've swallowed that hatred and said nothing if I knew giving voice to it was going to mean we lost the Skill Tree entirely and ended up with delayed FutureTech and Incursion, and now I'm terrified we're going to lose FutureTech to 'pulled for evaluation' as well.

Piranha needs to come up with better ideas, yes. That would be awesome. But at some point here we also need to realize that everything has flaws and sometimes you need to just deal with those while the system works itself out. That's a lousy place to be and I wish we never had to go through it, but if we keep screaming down MWO updates, then we'll stop getting them and all Piranha's development will go into screwing up MW5, instead.

Is that what folks want?

Fine, if you want to talk in only extremes then I will too. Had the skill tree gone live, it would have killed the game completely, everyone would have left and it would have been dead. That's true until proven otherwise.

Is that what folks want?

Edited by Kiran Yagami, 14 March 2017 - 10:49 AM.

[Ghostrider0067]

I'm with you in the assertion that everything has flaws and that's why I mentioned the bit about EA. Perhaps they finally saw the light and accepted the realization that their player base is more important than the few devs running the show. Ideas need to be fleshed out and vetted before they are out into place. Any responsible developer or business knows as much.

I'm not against the addition of the skill system to refresh the game. I'm not a huge fan of it but do realize that progress requires change. I would like to believe that with a few more PTS sessions that some worthwhile information and input may have been gleaned from it, but it's obvious they felt otherwise and cut it short and much to the outrage of the community. I'm hoping that what you've asserted with the IW, ED, and any other systems that have been indefinitely postponed ("shelved") do get a go and brought to the players to try. PGI needs to have the stones to make a stand in order to strengthen the game but need to go about it carefully so as not to offend the very people who provide them with employment.

How can that be done? How should they go about it? I don't have a definitive answer but am cautiously optimistic they'll figure something out. If that means leaving the PTS open longer, so be it (admittedly I haven't partake in it - so sue me). If it means they do more testing in their side, that's cool. I agree with you in that they need to do something progressive rather than the troublingly regressive path they keep taking.

[MischiefSC]

I wanted Info Warfare, I wasn't playing when Energy Draw was a thing and I do want a skill tree revamp. I'm also hopeful that PHI won't just abandon it like they did the others. The primary concern however is that in the past when PGI released big changes with a promise of "aggressive rebalancing/updates/fixing" it was left broke as **** for a couple of years. They burned all the trust and goodwill the comminity had over yhe Clans release and the litany of broken promises that was the FW release.

Yes, we want these changes. We just want to see, up front, what the good working version will be because PGI has repeatedly demonstrated that releasing half done features to "fix later" is not something they actually fix later.

[CainenEX]

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

Why are you under the impression we control anything but the words we type on the keyboard? PGI has always been the ultimate decision maker. Always has been. Always will be. Any decision they make is theirs and theirs alone. We're just voices in the dark. You just wish we had the power you claim we do. Hell, WE wish we had the power you claim we do. But we don't. PGI made the decision. You get to live with it or play another game. As do we all.

^
So much this

[1453 R]

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

Fine, if you want to talk in only extremes then I will too. Had the skill tree gone live, it would have killed the game completely, everyone would have left and it would have been dead. That's true until proven otherwise.

Is that what folks want?

...do you honestly believe they're working on a new, better implementation for it?

What makes you think they're going to put any more effort into "re-evaluating" the skill tree than they did into Information Warfare or Energy draw? This is the exact same pattern they've followed for two major game updates now.

Evidence points to the Skill Tree being another failed initiative. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Ghostrider0067, on 14 March 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

...
How can that be done? How should they go about it? I don't have a definitive answer but am cautiously optimistic they'll figure something out. If that means leaving the PTS open longer, so be it (admittedly I haven't partake in it - so sue me). If it means they do more testing in their side, that's cool. I agree with you in that they need to do something progressive rather than the troublingly regressive path they keep taking.

The PTS is honestly not useful past the first day or two of its release, outside scrimmage teams. Nobody is on it, matches can take over an hour to fill out if you're not private matching with buddies past the initial 'rush' of twenty or thirty folks getting on and playing.

What needs to happen is much more rapid communication between developers and players, and not just on Twitter or Reddit or all those other goddamn places nobody goes. Here. Ideally there should be daily back and forth between development staff taking a half-hour or so out of their day to give an update on current testing trends, information they've gathered, things they'd like to see if players can check out, their goals for those experiments, and just how the system is progressing in general. And by daily I mean daily. There should be a stickied 'Daily Report' thread in the PTS forum where a new post goes up every frickin' day going over the current build, responding to common threads of criticism against it (i.e. the pricing/economy issue for the Skill Tree) and detailing possible plans the PGI team is kicking around to solve them.

Things like Solahma's presentation need to be addressed directly, frankly, and respectfully. Yes, people will still push for those even if Piranha states why they're not currently considering it, but if PGI makes those statements, then Solahma et al. can make adjustments to their proposal in turn.

Even if there aren't new daily builds to update and try on the PTS, we should be getting news on which direction Piranha is thinking of going before they go there. That way they waste less development time on boondoggles and the game shapes up much more quickly and efficiently. Yeah, it means the devs can't Fortress up and ignore the idiots. Here's a solution - ban unproductive twats from posting in the PTS subforum. Make it a special permission privilege that can, and will be, revoked if it's abused. In that way the folks with actual concerns can get their words in edgewise and hopefully make a difference - and yes, I know that means I woulda been tossed from ST PTS 2.0 over the frickin' engine thing. That's my bad and I'll live with the consequences of it.

Also, Russ needs to stop talking altogether. The guy means well, but damn is he rotten at public speaking...@_@

MischiefSC, on 14 March 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

I wanted Info Warfare, I wasn't playing when Energy Draw was a thing and I do want a skill tree revamp. I'm also hopeful that PHI won't just abandon it like they did the others. The primary concern however is that in the past when PGI released big changes with a promise of "aggressive rebalancing/updates/fixing" it was left broke as **** for a couple of years. They burned all the trust and goodwill the comminity had over yhe Clans release and the litany of broken promises that was the FW release.

Yes, we want these changes. We just want to see, up front, what the good working version will be because PGI has repeatedly demonstrated that releasing half done features to "fix later" is not something they actually fix later.

They've also repeatedly demonstrated that "pulled for evaluation" means "all right fine, no update for you". I believe I've come down on the side of wanting my updates, even if they're broken and weird.

Aggressive rebalancing is a lie. 'Pulled for evaluation' is also a lie. Which lie is more palatable? For me, 'aggressive rebalancing' is the more palatable lie, because I'll still be happy (or at least happier) if FutureTech goes through, is wildly skewed, and requires Aggressive Rebalancing to fix. G'head, gimme the Wild West of the Clan Invasion release again. it'll be fun!

But if FutureTech gets 'pulled for evaluation', I might just flip the hell out and shiptoast my way into a permanent forum ban.

I'm not sure I can put up with any more 'pulled for evaluation', and I'd like people to realize that P4E is as much a dirty filthy fib as 'Aggressive Rebalancing' is.

[FireStoat]

Sorry, OP. I'm going to continue to speak out against proposed changes that...

Increase grind, rob whales of their mastered mech value & time investment with them, and shift good mechs like the Marauder IIC into a brand new, better state with bigger bonuses while leaving under performing mechs like the Cataphract in the dust, turning the game into Clan Mechs Online.

If you had spent some time on the PTS during both versions of the proposed skill tree, I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

The game is dying.

http://steamcharts.com/app/342200#All

The changes that would have accomplished what I mentioned above would have pushed it further into the gutter with both hands.

Edited by FireStoat, 14 March 2017 - 11:32 AM.

[Cementi]

Well congrats community PGI caved to you yet again. The continued stagnation of the game with nothing but mechpacks for content seems to be what you want so I guess it is what you will get. I am positive whenever they release a new game mode you guys will make sure it gets torpedoed to.

Dabbling with the game is still fun and I will continue to do so but the game in it's current state simply does not have enough meat to it to justify anything more than dabbling and it is clear the community does not want the game to evolve beyond what it currently is. I considered getting a refund for my assassin pack but honestly that is really petty so I have decided against it. Though in retrospect if I had got a refund for something every time the community threw a tantrum over nothing I would certainly have a alot more money to throw at something else.

Oh and that new tech you guys wanted, notice no update like they promised, I mean its possible they will still release it today but I doubt it. Before you blame PGI though stop and think for a moment. You threw a temper tantrum and forced them to delay their plans. That means your precious tech you wanted is also getting delayed. Probally indefinately because I am sure when they release details you will pitch a fit over that as well. It is what you do and sadly it keeps working so you will keep doing it.

Oh and another thing to point out. All of you people who got all bent out of shape over the cheapskate comment. You have two options to own up to. One, you knew exactly what he meant but decided to further your own agenda so you went up in arms about being insulted so that you can continue the status quo. Two, you were to bloody stupid to realize that he was talking about cbills and not real money. Take your pick.

[Weeny Machine]

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

Fine, if you want to talk in only extremes then I will too. Had the skill tree gone live, it would have killed the game completely, everyone would have left and it would have been dead. That's true until proven otherwise.

Is that what folks want?

Now it will be more likely like this:
They will do nothing and put those resources most likely into MW5.
New weapon systems will also be on hold because why throw them into a system which you want to overhaul at one point in the future anyway? You'd have to cope with a bigger mess. And as a special bonus: if you implement them, there will be an uproar anyway because of this or that.

Then you can buy new "content": some mechs (with crazy quirks most likely - else they won't sell because it is still the same old crap) to milk you some more. At one point droves of people will leave to test HBS battletech game.

If HBS delivers, things get interesting. How many peeps will play that and how many stay to play the same never changing MWO crap? Will there be a domino effect if queues skyrocket?

Nevertheless we can just stop debating here because we can do nothing anymore. Alea acta est.

Edit: Actually two peeps beat me to writing similar mails. Sorry

Edited by Bush Hopper, 14 March 2017 - 11:38 AM.

[Deathlike]

Way too much hyperbole used here.... so um... I reject the OP's notion.

Let me use different terms and examples here.. and humor the idea for a moment.

Let's say PGI decided to gated something (a new feature or some free prize) behind having a Mist Lynx or Kodiak in your inventory. There's going to be a side that complains "why the hell would I need a crappy MLX". There's going to be another side that complains "why should this crap be gated behind having the strongest mech in the game".

The problem isn't those two sides... but even why that is even gated as such. If that were even a legitimate rewards program (let alone feature testing), people would potentially be up and arms about it (which has already happened similarly/loosely for 2 years already). Why would this even be a good idea in the first place?


This "skill tree project" as far as the average consumer sees is very similar to this comic posted on OutreachHPG:
https://www.reddit.c...mwo_skill_tree/
http://imgur.com/a/EYrgG - this one is just as good, but not as pretty

As much as I chuckle at the comics, but this for a fair number of people feel that is what PGI is actually doing, even if that's not remotely accurate. If you don't want people to have this idea about you, you have to actually correct that image by putting in the time, effort, and work to demonstrate that you aren't the image people are categorizing you with. When enough people feel and/or notice that you're just shoving things in their face regardless of how they feel, you're not going to get a good reaction on the whole.

Had the design been improved, polished, and at least satisfies the majority of actual issues... well, then we wouldn't be here would we?

The whole skill tree reeks of "casual amounts of work" coupled with "little amounts of testing" (bad values in PTS 2) in conjunction with "fitting too many ideas and testing them all at once" (engine decoupling, random-ish nerfing of quirks, etc.). That's not really something that shows intelligence, effort, or care.


When you put out a bad design, should anyone be surprised people will complain through their arses about it?

Edited by Deathlike, 14 March 2017 - 12:02 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

i'm still here completely nonplussed how a badly designed skill-tree getting pushed back is a bad thing.

i don't think i can keep up with op's mental gymnastics in blaming the community for pgi's repetitive history of:
1) bad design choices,
2) tendency to turn good ideas into garbage like some kind of reverse midas, and
3) incapability of following through on promises to rework/update delayed features that were postponed because of 1) and 2).

it's like claiming you're getting attacked because the other guy used his face to hit your fist.

[Vellron2005]

You know, I think the OP has a point..

Energy draw was bad, and rightly got dumped..

Infowar was bad because the maps are too small for it..

But for god's sake, Skill Tree is an amazing idea, and we need this change..

Same for the new tech that's coming..

So please, people.. let the game change.. sure, every change is painful... but without change, the game cannot grow..

[Bud Crue]

Vellron2005, on 15 March 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

You know, I think the OP has a point..

Energy draw was bad, and rightly got dumped..

Infowar was bad because the maps are too small for it..

But for god's sake, Skill Tree is an amazing idea, and we need this change..

Same for the new tech that's coming..

So please, people.. let the game change.. sure, every change is painful... but without change, the game cannot grow..

Yes, the skills tree is an amazing idea. In the abstract.
THIS skills tree, It's implementation, its associated nerfs of the worst mechs in the game, its inconsistencies, its gates, its lack of cohesivensss and its horrid, horrid, horrid UI, are not so great.

Change that is appropriate and advances the fun and enjoyment of a game is indeed welcome and even necessary. Change that breaks things, reduces enjoyment, turns what should be fun into a tedious chore or otherwise drives a player of said game into fits of pique should be avoided at all costs. Fix it. Stream line it. Make it fun. That sort of change would certainly be welcome.

[Novakaine]

Put the freaking thing out and fix after majority of the community can play with it.
For the hours I put into the pts to only get 3 matches yeah wtf.
Sometimes you just have to play the hand you get.

[Weeny Machine]

Vellron2005, on 15 March 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

You know, I think the OP has a point..

Energy draw was bad, and rightly got dumped..

Infowar was bad because the maps are too small for it..

But for god's sake, Skill Tree is an amazing idea, and we need this change..

Same for the new tech that's coming..

So please, people.. let the game change.. sure, every change is painful... but without change, the game cannot grow..

I have to disagree to some degree. Info War was not completely bad. The various detection ranges for mechs would have been great and a boon for light mechs because it had compensated some of their inherent disadvantages of having less tonnage and also less armour and less strcuture.

However, the undifferentiated whining also swept that away on a flash flood of tears. Especially because of the tunnel vision peek-a-boo warrior...

Edited by Bush Hopper, 15 March 2017 - 04:47 AM.

[Baulven]

Unfortunate truth people don't want to hear. When you are putting in a new sweeping change and actually expect to get player feedback it generally stays in testing more than a few weeks. They expected to put this in PTS early Feb and ship it out before Feb finished, and it had major issues.

Call me crazy but if they put out a mech pack half finished and said "don't worry it isn't finished, we can tweak it later!" When yoy have no idea on final look and mount locations people would lose their **** and rightly so. So why is it different when the thing being introduced is a change to a system, admittedly a placeholder system, but does nothing to address anything they said it would and hurts balance, inflicts unneeded pain on the community, and manages to only emphasis a single thing which is they want you to grind more so you open your wallet in frustration.

[kazlaton]

Wil McCullough, on 15 March 2017 - 02:39 AM, said:

pgi's repetitive ... tendency to turn good ideas into garbage like some kind of reverse midas...

I would like to nominate this for quote of the week. This gave me a good laugh.

[Sandpit]

I've been reading through a lot of the threads about this. I don't get it. The "losing side" is complaining that a vocal minority made this happen? That makes no sense to me. A true minority does not have the monetary power to cause what you're saying it caused. If that many people were cancelling orders and such (enough to affect PGI's bottom line enough) then they aren't a minority lol

It takes more than a small minority to create a large enough shift in profits for a company to do a complete 180 on something that big. That implies one of two things. Either it wasn't a minority that hated the system or the player base is so small that a minority of players cancelling pre-orders was big enough to create a profit loss substantial enough to cause PGI to pull it.