42 replies to this topic

[Pixel Hunter]

The only thing I expect is PGI not to totally ruin the already lackluster IS mechs


but we all know THAT probably won't happen

[FireStoat]

The players with more of a time / mech investment got the tree pushed back twice due to the outcry of lost progress after doing math. It was undeniable - A Mastered mech that is taken to that state and left alone had a total in bonuses that the 2nd skill tree required 56 points to recover, and the refund of points fell pretty short of that. Multiplied by each mech owned... It was bogus.

I expect PGI to do a better job on refunds to keep the Whales content or they'll effectively have an older % of the player base turn and give a hellish negative publicity campaign of the game. PGI will avoid that, period.

So... I expect the tree to happen, players will have to buy nodes they don't want to reach others, and grind and Cbill cost will be increased. I wish I could say that I expect the new tree to reward Atlas pilots for taking choices for 3 weapon systems (cannon, laser, SRM) more than a MAD IIC pilot taking solely PPC skills, from a view of total points invested, but... PGI doesn't seem to grasp the concept of rewarding diversity very well. Boating single weapons seems to be the thing they support.

[Alexander of Macedon]

Leaving existing chassis-specific quirks in place. Otherwise it's just Clam Dominance 2: Kerensky Boogaloo.

[King Kahuna]

Looking forward to it myself.

[Pixel Hunter]

Alexander of Macedon, on 11 April 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

Leaving existing chassis-specific quirks in place. Otherwise it's just Clam Dominance 2: Kerensky Boogaloo.

I vote for renaming the game "Operation Revival Slaughter simulator"

[Ruar]

Alexander of Macedon, on 11 April 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

Leaving existing chassis-specific quirks in place. Otherwise it's just Clam Dominance 2: Kerensky Boogaloo.

While they stripped some quirks away, they still left enough to keep a rough status quo for the most part. My Enforcer still had weapon quirks, just enough less so that I had to flesh out the weapon skill tree in order to get back most of what I lost. Couldn't match the same heat control as before, but that effected all mechs.

There are some issues with the KDK-3 being a great example of a no-quirk mech all of a sudden getting quirks, but in the main I think the issue between IS and Clan is something they are tracking. Having the skill tree in place and working can be a great tool to help with balance.

Things like innate boost to skills for some mechs at no cost which can take the place of quirks. Restricting or reducing the return of specific skills for other mechs. Maybe lower the amount of skill points some mechs have compared to others. There are options once an effective skill tree system is put in place.

[Bud Crue]

My spirit is broken. I no longer care. What I expect is nonsense. Just nonsense because that s what PGI appears to want and I don't see why they would change course now.

I expect the nerfing of bad mechs, while some very good mechs go untouched. Since this was the proposal before I don't see why it would change.

I expect an official post or maybe a townhall wherein they say something about data and performance above set values, while the current meta is made even more powerful. Since this was what they have done before I don't see why it would change.

I expect lots of nodes and gates. Since this is how they envisioned the skills "tree" before I don't see why it would change.

I expect the total abandonment of any pretense of caring about the NPE...because there is no NP. Since this has essentially been admitted by pandering to the "progress" issue almost exclusively, I don't see why it would change.

I expect a very slight improvement to the skills tree UI that certain people will laud on Russ's twitter account as being AWESOME! and SUPER ADDITIONS TO THE GAME MAN! and similar fawning praise. Since this is the sort of tiny attribute that the true white knghts always focus on to say "see PGI listens man" I don't see why that would change.

I expect progress to be maintained but minimal c-bills to be refunded. Since this is what Russ has hinted at, I don't expect that this will change.

I expect even more Cheetahs, Hunchback IIcs, Night Gyrs and Kodiak-3s. Because this is how PGI apparently defines increased player choice and improved mech diversity, I can't see why this would change.

I expect a PTS with an event running on the live server.

I expect PGI.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bud Crue, on 11 April 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

My spirit is broken. I no longer care. What I expect is nonsense. Just nonsense because that s what PGI appears to want and I don't see why they would change course now.

I don't foresee such evil tidings. The Skill Tree, itself, is a massive step forward for this game. It makes the NPE much better, and the key to maintaining a franchise is a continual influx of new players.

Quote

I expect the nerfing of bad mechs, while some very good mechs go untouched. Since this was the proposal before I don't see why it would change.

I expect an official post or maybe a townhall wherein they say something about data and performance above set values, while the current meta is made even more powerful. Since this was what they have done before I don't see why it would change.

Yup, this is inevitable. I just learned to roll with it at this point. It makes the game more enjoyable, like a self-imposed dose of narcotics to numb the pain of my hand slapping my forehead so hard when I see quirk adjustments.

Quote

I expect lots of nodes and gates. Since this is how they envisioned the skills "tree" before I don't see why it would change.

Yup. It's better than allowing min/maxers to go haywire and selectively run down straight branches of just the only boosts they want.

Quote

I expect the total abandonment of any pretense of caring about the NPE...because there is no NP. Since this has essentially been admitted by pandering to the "progress" issue almost exclusively, I don't see why it would change.

Outright nonsense. The NPE under the new tree will improve immensely. No need to buy 3 Mechs just to master one. No need to grind tens of thousands of GXP to unlock stuff. No need to buy 18 million cbills of modules just to masterfully kit-out your first Mech. A new player will be able to master their first Mech! How is that worse than the current system??!?!

Quote

I expect a very slight improvement to the skills tree UI that certain people will laud on Russ's twitter account as being AWESOME! and SUPER ADDITIONS TO THE GAME MAN! and similar fawning praise. Since this is the sort of tiny attribute that the true white knghts always focus on to say "see PGI listens man" I don't see why that would change.

Because improvements are worth complimenting, just as false steps are worth criticizing.

Quote

I expect progress to be maintained but minimal c-bills to be refunded. Since this is what Russ has hinted at, I don't expect that this will change.

yup. The original plan was to refund all the Cbills you ever spent on modules, however the PLAYERBASE complained so much about that PGI decides to instead find a new way to keep your mastery progress and translate that over. It has to blend the considerations of people who bought boatloads of modules, and players who simply ground the XP but only bought enough modules to kit a few Mechs.

Quote

I expect even more Cheetahs, Hunchback IIcs, Night Gyrs and Kodiak-3s. Because this is how PGI apparently defines increased player choice and improved mech diversity, I can't see why this would change.

I don't see why the composition would change that much. Some Mechs in need of quirks will loose quirks (as per PGI logic), but other Mechs will have a reason for people to dust them off again.

Quote

I expect a PTS with an event running on the live server.

I expect PGI.

Yup. They do that, and I will never know why.


It's nice to be a Zebra Knight. I can talk down on anyone I want to :-p

[jonfett]

Bud Crue, on 11 April 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

My spirit is broken. I no longer care. What I expect is nonsense. Just nonsense because that s what PGI appears to want and I don't see why they would change course now.

I expect the nerfing of bad mechs, while some very good mechs go untouched. Since this was the proposal before I don't see why it would change.

I expect an official post or maybe a townhall wherein they say something about data and performance above set values, while the current meta is made even more powerful. Since this was what they have done before I don't see why it would change.

I expect lots of nodes and gates. Since this is how they envisioned the skills "tree" before I don't see why it would change.

I expect the total abandonment of any pretense of caring about the NPE...because there is no NP. Since this has essentially been admitted by pandering to the "progress" issue almost exclusively, I don't see why it would change.

I expect a very slight improvement to the skills tree UI that certain people will laud on Russ's twitter account as being AWESOME! and SUPER ADDITIONS TO THE GAME MAN! and similar fawning praise. Since this is the sort of tiny attribute that the true white knghts always focus on to say "see PGI listens man" I don't see why that would change.

I expect progress to be maintained but minimal c-bills to be refunded. Since this is what Russ has hinted at, I don't expect that this will change.

I expect even more Cheetahs, Hunchback IIcs, Night Gyrs and Kodiak-3s. Because this is how PGI apparently defines increased player choice and improved mech diversity, I can't see why this would change.

I expect a PTS with an event running on the live server.

I expect PGI.

I expected more from this post...not enough salt...

[chucklesMuch]

Expectations;

UI modified slightly; clearer differenation between colours and whether you are using Gxp/hxp/xp, less mouse clicking (perhaps, click and drag/hover)

Minor tweaks to some node values

Cbill refund to become progression unlocks (hope I'm wrong, as i bought extra modules with refunds in mind)

Edited by chucklesMuch, 11 April 2017 - 08:43 PM.

[Ruar]

I want to counter the idea that gates are needed to stop min/maxing. Gates are a method, but one that is unpopular and counter intuitive with tremendous potential to drive people away.

Consider radar dep. In the gate system we'll say it requires 20 points to dig down to get full value. In the process the devs have determined the gate skills have almost no value and are used to restrict choice instead of being desires.

A linear system though can still make the cost of radar dep 20 points without forcing the player to take skills he doesn't want. Those useless gate skills can then be simple one point options to round out a build.

Such a system still inhibits min/maxing but does so without forcing people to pick unwanted skills. Take only what you want but the more value a skill has the more points it costs. This system is also much simpler to update and adjust later compared to gates.

There is no good reason to use gates, only bad ones. A linear system is superior in every way but pride is preventing it from being used.

Edited by Ruar, 11 April 2017 - 09:23 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

I hope PGI makes the tree a lot smaller. It is way to big and convoluted for new players and will scare away more than it will help keep.

Add to that, make it linear but less points to spend, that way people dont have to choose crap they dont need but still need to make decisions on what they want to do rather than get the best of everything.

[Bud Crue]

Prosperity Park, on 11 April 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

I don't foresee such evil tidings. The Skill Tree, itself, is a massive step forward for this game. It makes the NPE much better, and the key to maintaining a franchise is a continual influx of new players.

"a continual influx of new players".
Is that happening? I mean at least once a month someone posts a ""look we lost a zillion players" type thread, but the response is often at best that the game is merely stagnant. Shouldn't we be noticing this continual influx, by way of new units and new players rather than the same teams over and over and over; or consistently improving wait times? Or are you asserting that the upcoming changes to the game are going to lead to such an influx? If the later what do you base that on?
Serious no salt question.

Prosperity Park, on 11 April 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

Outright nonsense. The NPE under the new tree will improve immensely. No need to buy 3 Mechs just to master one. No need to grind tens of thousands of GXP to unlock stuff. No need to buy 18 million cbills of modules just to masterfully kit-out your first Mech. A new player will be able to master their first Mech! How is that worse than the current system??!?!

I won't deny the appeal of the 1 mechs system.
Its worse however than the current system in the fact that we are going from effectively what 10 inevitable "nodes" that may or may not be great but that do have a clear and designated explanation and noted functionality (except of course for pin point); to one of 91 incremental nodes that are not explained or evaluated anywhere in the game.

Did you build every one of your mechs perfectly from day 1? Never change a thing in any of them?
Yet, in the new system we expect a new player with zero experience to incrementally skill out a mech and do it perfectly from start to finish, with a specifc never changing build in mind and get it perfect. Failing that they are going to be respecing with every change in game mechanics, every shift of the meta, every time they want to try something new. I think a new player is going to find that sort of "grind" just as frustrating as saving up cbills to buy modules. This is particularly true when you further consider that the assumption of many is that in light of all the changes PGI is going to be tweeking the gaim constantly after the changes drop. Yet a new player is going to just say "ces't la vie" and just respec evey time? No I think that new player is going to get frustrated real quick.

Also the idea of the three mech model being a grind has always made me chuckle. In this view playing the game and collecting mechs is considered a negative...something to dread and avoid. Seriously? Yet, in the new skills tree version of this reality, we are assuming that it is somehow more rewarding for the NPE to play the actual game less, so that they can play the "click the node" mini-game more. Good lord.

Edited by Bud Crue, 12 April 2017 - 02:59 AM.

[METAL SEPARATOR]

I hope it will bring more balance to IS Gauss Rifle. Hopefully the cooldown time will be increased to 6 seconds and the chance of critical hit will be further reduced by 75%. As it is now, it is way OP, imo.

[Davegt27]

Let's not talk about skill tree just let it drop

I mean let's just get it over with already

[Duncan Boyde]

Would like to see them dump all notions of skill trees. All mechs should preform as "mastered" mechs do now. We should have never had to buy 3 variants to master anyway. You are either good a piloting a certain mech type or you aren't. This is not an MMORPG it's an FPS. Mechs should be balanced with reasonable quirks to keep us from ending up with a game with dozens of mechs and only 3-4 being played.

Instead of wasting time on this crap they should focus on getting more Battletech in this Battletech game. Build more maps and create more modes that promote role warfare. Have events based on Battletech lore. Create a faction play systems where factions matter including mercenaries and where planets are more than just dots on the map instead of reducing "faction warfare" to puretech quick play.

If you got to have a skill tree make it pilot based but I don't see the point. It's a useless grind and c-bill sink in a game that has absolutely no player economy anyway. I have no idea where the devs have their heads these days. Oh wait. I think I do...

[The Lost Boy]

That whatever PGI has come up with will be met with venom, vitriol, and salt. I dont expect it to make it out of PTS. I want it too, but dont have much hope for it.

[R Valentine]

Ruar, on 11 April 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

While they stripped some quirks away, they still left enough to keep a rough status quo for the most part. My Enforcer still had weapon quirks, just enough less so that I had to flesh out the weapon skill tree in order to get back most of what I lost. Couldn't match the same heat control as before, but that effected all mechs.

There are some issues with the KDK-3 being a great example of a no-quirk mech all of a sudden getting quirks, but in the main I think the issue between IS and Clan is something they are tracking. Having the skill tree in place and working can be a great tool to help with balance.

Things like innate boost to skills for some mechs at no cost which can take the place of quirks. Restricting or reducing the return of specific skills for other mechs. Maybe lower the amount of skill points some mechs have compared to others. There are options once an effective skill tree system is put in place.

They were neutering a lot of IS mechs, like the Rifleman, which were already underperforming, and also nerfing the better IS mechs like the Battlemaster. The skill tree was a net clan buff, and a big one. Quirkless mechs like the Ebon Jag, Hell Bringer, Kodiak, Night Gyr, MAD IIC, Hunchback IIC, and negatively quirked mechs like the Timberwolf were all going to come out ahead in the skill tree release, while the IS mechs holding their own through quirks were all coming crashing down. The bad clan mechs were going to remain bad or get worse as well. The result was the meta was going to reinforced, faction play would become even more barren, and everyone was going to be playing only a handful of mechs. Removing quirks to "compensate" for the skill tree was always a stupid plan when the best mechs don't have quirks. What exactly are you going to remove from them?

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 12 April 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

They were neutering a lot of IS mechs, like the Rifleman, which were already underperforming, and also nerfing the better IS mechs like the Battlemaster. The skill tree was a net clan buff, and a big one. Quirkless mechs like the Ebon Jag, Hell Bringer, Kodiak, Night Gyr, MAD IIC, Hunchback IIC, and negatively quirked mechs like the Timberwolf were all going to come out ahead in the skill tree release, while the IS mechs holding their own through quirks were all coming crashing down. The bad clan mechs were going to remain bad or get worse as well. The result was the meta was going to reinforced, faction play would become even more barren, and everyone was going to be playing only a handful of mechs. Removing quirks to "compensate" for the skill tree was always a stupid plan when the best mechs don't have quirks. What exactly are you going to remove from them?

You do also have to remember that a lot of those nerfs alongside the tree is in preperation for the 18DPS RACs, double damage outputs from ballistics mechs with UACs, ER laser weaponry, and LFE engines allowing for more weapons on most builds without sacrificing a lot of survivability. Imagine the Atlas DDC with a UAC/20 and MRMs....

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 12 April 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

You do also have to remember that a lot of those nerfs alongside the tree is in preperation for the 18DPS RACs, double damage outputs from ballistics mechs with UACs, ER laser weaponry, and LFE engines allowing for more weapons on most builds without sacrificing a lot of survivability. Imagine the Atlas DDC with a UAC/20 and MRMs....

That's a could-be maybe. We don't know what they were in "preparation" for. We have no idea how any of those weapons are going to function. And most of the quirks on those mechs that were being nerfed were all weapon system specific. AC/5 rate of fire isn't going to make your MRMs any better. That's like saying the Kodiak is OP, so we'll nerf the Ice Ferret in preparation for the Dark Age patch in 2037.