77 replies to this topic

[R Valentine]

1453 R, on 14 March 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

...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?

On that notion, do you seriously think they wouldn't just release that garbage of a skill tree and then actually attempt to improve it? Or would they just leave it like that, concentrate completely on new tech and wreck the new player experience even more than it already is, thus stemming the flow of new users? PGI has an even worse track record of leaving bad "fixes" in place for years than it does scrapping projects is claims to be "working on", so your solution isn't the great white hope either. It's wishful thinking from fantasy land. I don't know why you're so desperate to divert blame from PGI to the "community TM" when PGI is the reason behind everything. PGI scrapped all those other projects. PGI leaves bad fixes in place. PGI is the reason we can't trust PGI to finish things and release content that can be incrementally improved upon. PGI is the reason why we think the skill tree is scrapped and not just being improved. It's all PGI. Come back down to planet Earth and face reality.

[SuomiWarder]

They only waste development time and dollars if they let themselves lose it. First, they should learn something useful from anything they don't implement but test correctly. Two, they are the ones that keep walking away from ideas after initial complaints rather than going back to the test server with a revised version that addresses complaints or observations.

They could have kept at energy draw and run it through several test server cycles. Same for anything thing else they seem to be dropping (like the skill tree). That's up to them.

[Alan Davion]

SuomiWarder, on 15 March 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

They could have kept at energy draw and run it through several test server cycles. Same for anything thing else they seem to be dropping (like the skill tree). That's up to them.

Same with Info War.

If they'd just simply dropped that laser lock range mechanic, the rest could very well have been salvaged with a minimum of fuss.

[Deathlike]

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..

Things that should be changed immediately, didn't change immediately.

FP could still be changed, but Phase 3 left a Long Tom in way too long, and bombed away any expectation that it was salvageable.

Escort could still be changed, but nope... it's still the same thing despite that.

Whatever the replacement for Assault was a talking point most of last year, and yet it's still not in the game. I dunno how a proposed gamemode (that we have no specifics to) takes almost a year to talk it up and yet not get released or deployed or anything.


If one is trying to claim nothing gets done because of the community, what about the stuff community has been complaining about and not get dealt with at all in a prompt manner?

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 14 March 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

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

...

They've also repeatedly demonstrated that "pulled for evaluation" means "all right fine, no update for you".

That's 100% on PGI, not the player base -- whether PGI is doing it out of spite, laziness, or whatever. And Hades knows how much I blame the player base for a lot of MWO's ills -- just not this time.

PGI alone ultimately decides what gets done and not done.

Edited by Mystere, 15 March 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[process]

Something about babies and bathwater.

[Accused]

lol

This is a perfect situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Either PGi releases something new and fails to improve upon it, or PGI doesn't release something new and forgets about it.

It's like there's no middle ground where they could simply listen to feedback, adjust accordingly, and continue testing. I mean I know that's ******* crazy talk but here we are discussing it.

[Bluttrunken]

Wil McCullough, on 14 March 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

the skill tree was conceptualized to make mixed loadouts equally viable as boating. right now the skill tree ENCOURAGES boating. nothing that can't be solved with diminishing returns for nodes though (the higher up each tree you go, the more expensive each node becomes and the less effect it has).

I'm pretty sure you didn't test the latest iteration and you're just repeating what you heard. If you wanted to invest heavily into the Weapons tree a mixed loadout had clear advantages.

[Alan Davion]

Accused, on 15 March 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

lol

This is a perfect situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Either PGi releases something new and fails to improve upon it, or PGI doesn't release something new and forgets about it.

It's like there's no middle ground where they could simply listen to feedback, adjust accordingly, and continue testing. I mean I know that's ******* crazy talk but here we are discussing it.

It'd be funny if it weren't true.

PGI have painted themselves into a corner by somehow convincing themselves that every change they make has to be HUGE AND GRAND AND SWEEPING AND THE BEST THING EVER~!

When in reality they're just shooting themselves in the foot over and over by thinking like that.

They're wielding a club when it comes to balance when they should be wielding a scalpel.

You don't see WG wildly altering the performance of airplanes, tanks or warships every month do you? No, they'll alter a ships performance a few points here or a few points there.

The biggest changes they've made recently were to remove the base hull for both the Nagato and the Amagi, reducing them from Hulls A/B/C to Hull B becoming Hull A and Hull C becoming Hull B. Of course that's in preparation for new premium ships using those hulls. The Nagato Hull A being used for the Mutsu. I forget what the Premium Amagi is though.

[FireStoat]

Bluttrunken, on 15 March 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure you didn't test the latest iteration and you're just repeating what you heard. If you wanted to invest heavily into the Weapons tree a mixed loadout had clear advantages.

This. I tested both versions of the tree on the PTS. The second version with how the trees were set up actually encouraged a min-maxer to go for a minimal investment with weapons and a much heavier investment in mobility, info, and other categories. I actually felt fine neglecting the weapons tree excluding 9-12 points worth over what I got elsewhere with Clan Omnimechs being the test bed, and having the freedom to take the weapons I wanted with pod swapping.

Edit - and a 'vocal minority of whales' isn't holding the tree hostage from PGI. Everyone that plays this game probably wants to see the game change - FOR THE BETTER. Those of us that tested things on the PTS and taking the time to do some comparisons came to our own conclusions and voiced them. End of story.

Edited by FireStoat, 15 March 2017 - 03:57 PM.

[Scout Derek]

False words... a common thing amongst us.

But I think the worst is saying that we who didn't like it, didn't want it, which is wrong. As Cathy said on the first page, again;

We don't want a incomplete product. Good idea, but there's much to be fixed, and what's more, we have already shown what is to be fixed.

[Bishop Steiner]

It's funny the OP asks us to let them change it, then completely goes nuts about the engine decoupling on another topic.

Which is it...let them change it...or let them change just the parts you like?

[Lupis Volk]

PSA to all brave white knights: Daddy Russ and PGI has said time and time again that they aren't scrapping the skill tree.

[Wil McCullough]

Bluttrunken, on 15 March 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure you didn't test the latest iteration and you're just repeating what you heard. If you wanted to invest heavily into the Weapons tree a mixed loadout had clear advantages.

i have to admit i didn't actually play the PTS and just based my opinion off looking at the skill tree and theory-crafting.

from that, the first iteration of the skill tree DEFINITELY encouraged boating.

but i never felt a time even for the 2nd iteration where i was like "oooh! look at this! i'm going to swap from boating to a mixed loadout". my boaters still seem to function best when boating and my mixed loadout mechs still functioned best when mixed.

[MechaBattler]

I honestly miss the PGI that would just push **** through. Everyone's too damn sensitive now.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lupis Volk, on 15 March 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

PSA to all brave white knights: Daddy Russ and PGI has said time and time again that they aren't scrapping the skill tree.

PSA to Black Knights

He also said he is happy with the current design, not going to change it to Solahma's design and that the delay is mostly about "fair compensation"... so folks can take from that what they may. If it does go forward... it will almost certainly go forward very similar to PTS 2.5.