221 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

Bush Hopper, on 18 March 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

However, some of the whining was simply blanket whining.

Just as some of the whining about the postponement of the skill tree is now blanket whining.

I'd have been mostly fine with what they were proposing. My concerns were mostly about the way they were unthinkingly nerfing uncompetitive chassis and worsening the Clan advantage over IS.

They were so caught up in refund accounting they didnt even seem to realise the balance problem they were about to exacerbate. (Shows what they care about.)

Edited by Appogee, 18 March 2017 - 05:40 AM.

[Novakaine]

[dario03]

I'm ok with the delay. Though few things I don't like

-Telling everyone they would get all their modules 100% refunded on the 21st but then going back on that only a week before. Especially when simply setting the module resale value to 100% so players could manually sale extra modules would fix that.
-There isn't really a timeline for when it will come out now.
-How in some posts it sounds like we might not get the modules refunded for cbills at all now.
-I'm thinking If we do get the skill tree update, it will probably end up costing a lot more to level new mechs than what was going to happen. Well if they make it so all currently mastered mechs get to master in the new system automatically.

Edited by dario03, 18 March 2017 - 09:53 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Contrast Inverse Kinematics and the Skills tree "promises" of the last year.

On June 17th Russ said they had Inverse Kinematics figured out so it wouldn't be a drag on performance, and so, at the townhall he made the statement that inverse kinematics was scheduled to be back in the game by August. The forums were subsequently filled with joy. All the excitement from old players who remembered it from days of yore. All us newer players who were just happy with an improvement to how the game would look. All around, something to look forward to.

But it turned out it wasn't ready. PGI spoke to soon...again. They should have just shut up about it if they didn't have 100% confidence that they had it figured out, but they didn't; and it wasn't ready for prime time, so it never arrived. Folks were left bewildered why PGI would once again make a false "promise", why they keep teasing us like this. Alas, PGI gave their usual terse excuses, took the usual heat, but life moved on.

With the skills tree though, they made similar claims of readiness; but now they went further with a vibe of "it was coming no matter what". When questioned on this Russ said "yes it is coming" "the skills tree is not Energy Draw". But, like energy draw, they knew that despite all these promises and assurances, the skills tree was not in fact ready. How do we KNOW this? The PTS. If skills tree was ready, and they had total confidence in it, they would have released it. But they didn't. Instead they made the community test and offer their input as to its readiness...that's what a PTS is for. So now the the community is on the hook for any failure. The resultant QQing about its failure can now be laid at the feat of the testers and "the whiners". They asked for input on their "inevitable" change, and the input made it not inevitable and whose fault is that, the people giving input...NOT PGI. Brilliant.

By doing this the narrative has gone from:
a system that was so obviously not ready that we needed a PTS for it, wherein we made multiple changes to it and decided in the end that it needed more work,

to:
The skills tree was not ED. It was our precious baby that should be in the game...but for the haters and whiners. They made us remove it, because of their hate and QQing. Don't listen to Russ tweets where he asserts that PGI identified holes in the system that they think it necessary to address. That's just a smoke screen. The skills tree is being held hostage by the whiners. We are helpless in the face of such hate.



I don't know if I should be in awe or disgust that people are buying into this narrative. But I must give PGI credit, its a well played diversion from the actual failure at hand, and their history of same. Well played indeed.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bush Hopper, on 18 March 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

My favourite whine was: "Bwaaah I must buy "useless" nodes to get the ones I want baaawaaha waaaah". Geez...

There were/are problematic aspects in the skill tree. However, some of the whining was simply blanket whining. And that was the problem.

That is all that is important or relevant... trying to excuse it away because of perceived "blanket whining" is disingenious at best. It had serious Balance and Implementation issues (even overlooking the horrendous UI which is what I have come to expect for PGI at this point.) The skill maze was NOT ready to be released Live as it was, so them balking from doing it (which I would bet 95% of my assets was directly related to plummeting pre-orders & cancelled sales) is nothing but a benefit.

[Mister Blastman]

So spending hundreds of millions of c-bills to get back to where you are now is Christmas? Are you masochistic?

I am GLAD this is not going live.

[cazidin]

Just wait for the NEXT Skill Tree PTS, if we even get one. From what my agents have uncovered, Russ will likely skip future PTS (because of the last 3 went poorly) and just bring the feature straight to live and adjust later. Also you should read my post about the Skill Tree Refund to see what PGI has planned.

[Ted Wayz]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

thank the folks who flipped out and QQ'd it to death.

Yes, please do. Thank the people that hold PGI accountable and maybe someday they will come up with something that will be embraced by the community before they spend resources on it.

People wanted a skill tree revamp, and there were plenty of good ideas presented in other forums not GD. But again PGI decided they knew better than us and when the expected backlash came they had to backtrack (again) despite paying off mouthpieces to promote it.

And you are welcome.

[SushiSalad]

Is this skill tree so important as compared to your real skills? In the first place is it really required? Wouldn't real world skills count rather than relying on such so called boosters or "steroids" to make players spend more C-bills? There are so many issues with the games and PGI choose to ignore them. e.g multi-lasers firing (laser vomits), ridiculous long lasting Narcs, double heat sinks, and etc.

Rather PGi choose to do all the nerfings and buffings and seems like they do not know what they are doing and just makes the game worst. Maybe new players won't feel it, but those who have been playing since testing phase, would have seen the difference and I believe some regulars has since departed from the game for good.

In the end, the main aim is just to make the players spent more real money (for C-bills) while PGI continue to make out of the world promises which they know they will never be able to fulfill. In the end, players who waited long enough for the changes just quit the game to play other games and these promises just dies off on its own as new players replaced the old loyal ones.

[Ted Wayz]

SushiSalad, on 18 March 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:

Is this skill tree so important as compared to your real skills? In the first place is it really required?

It is the presence of a skill tree that makes it important. The skills actually do make a difference in the performance of the mech and people have come to think they have to be there. Like quirks.

My point will always be that if you implement something it should point the game or support moving the game in a direction. The new skill tree is a re-imagination of an already poor idea. And more of a time sink than a MC or c-bill sink. It does nothing to move the game in a direction, just further stagnates it.

[Naduk]

while the delay is painful, its really only a good thing

i am in exactly the same boat as you op
ive stopped mastering mechs under the old system and have been rearranging my hanger in preparation
slimming the stable and refining builds with new direction in mind

however, the whole point of the running the skill tree on the PTS was the find the problems with it
the first PTS was a fantastic start but the community does what it does and poked at all the holes and made them bigger

PGI have learned very well that this is exactly what we do, if something is broken we exploit it... with out mercy
they know they need to get things tighter before live release
so they refined the tree and its associated features multiple times

while i would of been perfectly happy with the deployment of the current version, there were edge case groups of players who would of been hurt by its release in comparison to others and while there is zero chance to please literately everybody, these groups .. while a minority.. are still big enough to be a valid concern for PGI

for this decision to delay alone they deserve praise
but we also know they will use the time to refine the system further

so my point is
be patient a little more
it wont be far away, its practically finished, just needs a little tuning

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

cazidin, on 18 March 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

Just wait for the NEXT Skill Tree PTS, if we even get one. From what my agents have uncovered, Russ will likely skip future PTS (because of the last 3 went poorly) and just bring the feature straight to live and adjust later. Also you should read my post about the Skill Tree Refund to see what PGI has planned.

FW phase 3 and 4.1 didn't have a PTS. Look how well they turned out

[I_AM_ZUUL]

The Nerf Bat, on 18 March 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

FW phase 3 and 4.1 didn't have a PTS. Look how well they turned out

Amazingly well... it is clearly so Balanced now that FRR is gone and Tharkad & Luthien have been overrun!!! Clan OP was what PGI was trying to continue promoting, wasnt it???

[Bishop Steiner]

El Bandito, on 18 March 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

I feel ya. My Grasshopper is still waiting alone, and basiced, for the new skill tree. I wouldn't mind it being released on march, but there would have been Katrina level shitstorm in the forums if that had happened. It is better to further tweak it, although me and many others had repeatedly begged PGI not to scrap the new skill tree like the previous Energy Draw, and Info Warfare.

If the new skill tree is scrapped, I would be very upset at the community.

Let's be honest. Unless it's Solahma's or another very straight to boating Tree, there will be a storm on the forums. I can get Russ trying to figure out what to do with the refund, but hope he sticks to his guns about the PTS itself.

Bud Crue, on 18 March 2017 - 06:18 AM, said:

Contrast Inverse Kinematics and the Skills tree "promises" of the last year.

On June 17th Russ said they had Inverse Kinematics figured out so it wouldn't be a drag on performance, and so, at the townhall he made the statement that inverse kinematics was scheduled to be back in the game by August. The forums were subsequently filled with joy. All the excitement from old players who remembered it from days of yore. All us newer players who were just happy with an improvement to how the game would look. All around, something to look forward to.

But it turned out it wasn't ready. PGI spoke to soon...again. They should have just shut up about it if they didn't have 100% confidence that they had it figured out, but they didn't; and it wasn't ready for prime time, so it never arrived. Folks were left bewildered why PGI would once again make a false "promise", why they keep teasing us like this. Alas, PGI gave their usual terse excuses, took the usual heat, but life moved on.

With the skills tree though, they made similar claims of readiness; but now they went further with a vibe of "it was coming no matter what". When questioned on this Russ said "yes it is coming" "the skills tree is not Energy Draw". But, like energy draw, they knew that despite all these promises and assurances, the skills tree was not in fact ready. How do we KNOW this? The PTS. If skills tree was ready, and they had total confidence in it, they would have released it. But they didn't. Instead they made the community test and offer their input as to its readiness...that's what a PTS is for. So now the the community is on the hook for any failure. The resultant QQing about its failure can now be laid at the feat of the testers and "the whiners". They asked for input on their "inevitable" change, and the input made it not inevitable and whose fault is that, the people giving input...NOT PGI. Brilliant.

By doing this the narrative has gone from:
a system that was so obviously not ready that we needed a PTS for it, wherein we made multiple changes to it and decided in the end that it needed more work,

to:
The skills tree was not ED. It was our precious baby that should be in the game...but for the haters and whiners. They made us remove it, because of their hate and QQing. Don't listen to Russ tweets where he asserts that PGI identified holes in the system that they think it necessary to address. That's just a smoke screen. The skills tree is being held hostage by the whiners. We are helpless in the face of such hate.



I don't know if I should be in awe or disgust that people are buying into this narrative. But I must give PGI credit, its a well played diversion from the actual failure at hand, and their history of same. Well played indeed.

Lol. No bias to your narrative view at all bud.

"People I agree with said it was broken, so their narrative is correct, but other people who also tested it disagreed. so their narrative has to be wrong... "

*smh*

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 18 March 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

Amazingly well... it is clearly so Balanced now that FRR is gone and Tharkad & Luthien have been overrun!!! Clan OP was what PGI was trying to continue promoting, wasnt it???

It's not even about that(balance)

It's about a PTS with long tom enabled. The community response was overwhelmingly: too often, too powerful. Maybe Russ/PGI would've listened to PTS feedback. Instead Russ/PGI ignored the community(forums) and killed 99% of the population.

Fast forward to 4.1. Anybody with a clue knows that the phase 3 contract system makes no sense in 4.1 Merc contracts still based on overall population? Merc contracts based on faction? Merc contracts should have been based on buckits. Clan buckit offers one contract. I.S. buckit offers it's contract. Instead, all the mercs pour into one buckit, leading to population imbalance, leading to wait times, leading to people leaving the mode.

PGI need the community to point out the glaring shortcoming in it's game design. Cause PGI(game design hard)
So the community tries to help with PTS feedback.

Some reason, some people on these forums want PGI to deliver them crap.

[FireStoat]

I worked on the PTS doing testing for phase 1 and 2 of the skill tree, like several others. I provided feedback, did math, and confirmed findings that the skill tree presented wasn't even coming close to the design goals PGI informed us of as being the target. Want to blame someone? You can go ahead and blame me.

But in reference to the OP's title, yeah. I do kinda feel slapped to the face in that the underying true goal PGI had with the skill tree layout was to solely increase advancement cost, time for advancement, while doing thoughtless nerfs to underperforming mechs and setting up excellent clan mechs to be even more dominating than they are now. PGI had a LOT of time to work on this project and the whole thing was rushed out the door instead, period.

I like the game, I want to see it succeed, and I want to see the established trend of player loss reversed. I also want to see a new system that ACTUALLY MEETS the goals of design that it's intended to solve stated problems with. What we were offered was proven to fail.

[MechaBattler]

Why sell anything before the damn thing even released? At best I just did a bit of grinding to have a nice stack of c-bills to work from.

FireStoat, on 18 March 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

I worked on the PTS doing testing for phase 1 and 2 of the skill tree, like several others. I provided feedback, did math, and confirmed findings that the skill tree presented wasn't even coming close to the design goals PGI informed us of as being the target. Want to blame someone? You can go ahead and blame me.

But in reference to the OP's title, yeah. I do kinda feel slapped to the face in that the underying true goal PGI had with the skill tree layout was to solely increase advancement cost, time for advancement, while doing thoughtless nerfs to underperforming mechs and setting up excellent clan mechs to be even more dominating than they are now. PGI had a LOT of time to work on this project and the whole thing was rushed out the door instead, period.

I like the game, I want to see it succeed, and I want to see the established trend of player loss reversed. I also want to see a new system that ACTUALLY MEETS the goals of design that it's intended to solve stated problems with. What we were offered was proven to fail.

How much do you pay for Radar Derp or Seismic right? 6 million right? The proposed cost of mastering a mech under the new skill system was going to be just under 5 mill. Going by the last figure they gave us. And no 3 mechs necessary. That is less work.

The under performing mechs was an issue. But they tried to balance it with agility decoupling which would effect Clans more than IS. And the crit changes, which would effect Clan equipment more because lower slots. They are trying. It's just not as obvious or as direct as they've tried in the past with quirks and other nerfs. It's not like they completely removed the quirks. They're just trying to reduce the amount you need. Do they need to do another quirk pass? Yes. They do. But in time, as always.

Edited by MechaBattler, 18 March 2017 - 09:56 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

Let's be honest. Unless it's Solahma's or another very straight to boating Tree, there will be a storm on the forums. I can get Russ trying to figure out what to do with the refund, but hope he sticks to his guns about the PTS itself.


Lol. No bias to your narrative view at all bud.

"People I agree with said it was broken, so their narrative is correct, but other people who also tested it disagreed. so their narrative has to be wrong... "

*smh*

Not my narrative. PGI's narrative.

I liked the skills tree, my criticisms were ignored on the PTS and in the subsequent commentary from Russ. Meh

I'm simply pointing out above that the narrative of "the community killed the skills tree" was inevitable given Russ' implication that the thing was so perfect and ready to go and would be in the game no matter what. Once he went down that path, any failure of it to go live MUST be the fault of the community.

What I find...absurd....was that if it was predestined to go live, no matter what ("this is not Ed") then why was it put on a PTS? Maybe because it wasn't ready? And Russ once again created this mess. But no, some folks are still insisting that "qqing" by whiners killed the skill tree.. Whiners didn't kill it. PGI did. Whiners did exactly what PGI asked them to do.

[Novakaine]

Well at any rate that baby is gone now.
GGclose.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 18 March 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Not my narrative. PGI's narrative.

I liked the skills tree, my criticisms were ignored on the PTS and in the subsequent commentary from Russ. Meh

I'm simply pointing out above that the narrative of "the community killed the skills tree" was inevitable given Russ' implication that the thing was so perfect and ready to go and would be in the game no matter what. Once he went down that path, any failure of it to go live MUST be the fault of the community.

What I find...absurd....was that if it was predestined to go live, no matter what ("this is not Ed") then why was it put on a PTS? Maybe because it wasn't ready? And Russ once again created this mess. But no, some folks are still insisting that "qqing" by whiners killed the skill tree.. Whiners didn't kill it. PGI did. Whiners did exactly what PGI asked them to do.