549 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

RaptorRage, on 28 April 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

Is there any info on how much the two missile rack nodes in the weapon tree increase ammo for each missile system and if there is any difference between Clan/IS? And for the unlisted Clan Ballistics how can you tell what the ammo increases are supposed to be using the Magazine Capacity nodes for the CUAC/2/10/20 and CLBX/2/5/20 when there is a difference in ammo counts between the CLBX/10 and CAC/10 ammo? What ammo numbers are supposed to be extrapolated for the unlisted ballistics?

If I'm not mistaken its not a bonus capacity on your output, but rather each 1/2-1 ton of ammo gives you more shots total, I don't have the PTS in front of me but it should be a percentage increase in ammo...

Edited by MovinTarget, 28 April 2017 - 09:04 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Peiper, on 28 April 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Well, let's see here: Yeah, only 91 can be used. We as players are not Kai Allard-Liao, okay? But we're pretty good pilots with specialties. Now, if your beef is that the skill tree is not pilot specific, but mech specific, I could see your problem, but I don't here. Chances are, you'll be able to kit out each of your mechs as if you (the pilot) just happens to be an expert in whatever each mech he pilots is designed (by you, via frankenmeching) to do. So, the mechs will play differently. So, each one of us won't get buffs in everything. So what? We're all going to be in the same boat, all of us will have a maximum of 91 points. Are you worried that you won't be able to do everything superduper with every mech you own? If so, play with efficiencies off in private lobbies, where no one has any 'pilot skill' other than their own God given skill with eyes, mouse, and keyboard.

Next point: Omnimechs. If I were a battlemech pilot in 'real life' and I were lucky enough to have an omnimech, there would probably be a configuration I prefer, that I feel I'm really good at. If the mission calls for me to switch out for another variant, I won't all of a sudden be just as good in that variant as the one I prefer/perform the best in, right? So, why would you?

But I digress. We are all richer than Blake. We all own Overlord dropships containing 100 mechs, but unfortunately we only have one pilot available. Like Jay Leno, we can only drive one of our many vehicles one at a time. How in the world are we supposed to be able, in one human lifetime, to specialize in so many mechs, and not only perform well but SURVIVE every single fight we're in? Oh, but wait, you're worried that you won't be an expert in every aspect of every mech. Well, here's the good news with your omnimechs. Each mech you own will have it's own skill tree. EACH. INDIVIDUAL. MECH. You can be an expert in a Timber Wolf missile boat AND laserboat AND streak boat. *okay, you have to own 3 timberwolves, but who doesn't already other than new guys? Cuz you had to level them up the old way and needed three to master them. My point being, you're freaking out about NOTHING.

The skill tree is designed to make meching more interesting. Allowing us to specialize our builds to our playstyle or to the role in which we use the ever-growing collection of toys we own. It's giving us options. It's giving us a bit of roles warfare (just a bit, don't get me started!). It's giving us a little more individuality. As far as PGI WANTING us to metamech, that's bullshizzle. Here's why:

1. We ALREADY metamech.
2. Metamechs HURT the game, and hurt variety. Why would PGI give us all these options if they all wanted us to play the same drop deck over and over? Granted, there may (will) be some adjustments as some builds prove themselves to be over or under powered, I reckon. Maybe quirks will still be used to even that out, probably. PGI wants us to spend time and money playing the game, trying out new mechs, buying new mechs, grinding away the hours.

I will agree with the rest of your statement somewhat. We do need more depth to the game, reasons to play, varieties of stuff to do, meanings to attack certain planets in CW, supply lines, asymetric maps and modes, etc... But I truly believe you, like many others, are worried about nothing at all. It's just a reshuffle of what we already have. It'll make us think and try to come up with the best combination for our playstyle. It's not a bad thing. It might even keep us distracted while they drag their heals on doing all the stuff they should be doing rather than repackaging what we already have.

My point is, let's stop poo-pooing PGI on the new skill tree. Let's celebrate it! It's one less thing they need to do before getting to work on the real stuff that all of us founders have been waiting for since we dropped our first dime and more than a little faith into our mutual (PGI's and our own) dream to make the best mechwarrior game ever. I can't wait to see the new maps, the black market, the supply line interdictions, the raid missions, combined arms like tanks, VTOL's, and infantry. I can't wait to see player created maps. Scenarios where we as a team are pitted against the AI for fun or challenging missions that somehow effect the CW maps. I can't wait until they give us reasons to attack planets (like helping get our faction access to mech factories, access to clan/IS tech, access to aerospace, satellite, and armor support, access to drydocks for jumpships increasing the efficiency of supplies to the front. And yes, BIG maps where we have to take time to really think about how we're going to approach our enemies rather than simply deathball toward the nearest floating red dorito upon dropping onto the map.

Have faith! After this skill tree and new weapons stuff is done, PGI is going to finally start thinking outside the box again and adding all kinds of interesting stuff to the game for us to DO with our new skill tree and weapons. You know how I know? Because if they don't, we all lose and we all love this game too much!

This mic drop moment....needs to be on every page.....

[Steve Pryde]

The Shortbus, on 28 April 2017 - 08:29 AM, said:

Then try small investments in the weapons tree, but have substantial investments in mobility/sensors/survivability/auxiliary ?

Small investments in the weapon tree are not worth it, specially with a mixed loadout, I would rather pump the points into another tree there I will really notice the difference.

Imo the new skill tree will hurt the game more than it will help.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 28 April 2017 - 09:52 AM.

[MrMagoo421]

So then you're going to make a choice in what trade-offs on the tree make the most sense to you? Sounds like it's working as intended.

[Kriri]

Peiper, on 28 April 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Well, let's see here: Yeah, only 91 can be used. We as players are not Kai Allard-Liao, okay? But we're pretty good pilots with specialties. Now, if your beef is that the skill tree is not pilot specific, but mech specific, I could see your problem, but I don't here. Chances are, you'll be able to kit out each of your mechs as if you (the pilot) just happens to be an expert in whatever each mech he pilots is designed (by you, via frankenmeching) to do. So, the mechs will play differently. So, each one of us won't get buffs in everything. So what? We're all going to be in the same boat, all of us will have a maximum of 91 points. Are you worried that you won't be able to do everything superduper with every mech you own? If so, play with efficiencies off in private lobbies, where no one has any 'pilot skill' other than their own God given skill with eyes, mouse, and keyboard.

Next point: Omnimechs. If I were a battlemech pilot in 'real life' and I were lucky enough to have an omnimech, there would probably be a configuration I prefer, that I feel I'm really good at. If the mission calls for me to switch out for another variant, I won't all of a sudden be just as good in that variant as the one I prefer/perform the best in, right? So, why would you?

But I digress. We are all richer than Blake. We all own Overlord dropships containing 100 mechs, but unfortunately we only have one pilot available. Like Jay Leno, we can only drive one of our many vehicles one at a time. How in the world are we supposed to be able, in one human lifetime, to specialize in so many mechs, and not only perform well but SURVIVE every single fight we're in? Oh, but wait, you're worried that you won't be an expert in every aspect of every mech. Well, here's the good news with your omnimechs. Each mech you own will have it's own skill tree. EACH. INDIVIDUAL. MECH. You can be an expert in a Timber Wolf missile boat AND laserboat AND streak boat. *okay, you have to own 3 timberwolves, but who doesn't already other than new guys? Cuz you had to level them up the old way and needed three to master them. My point being, you're freaking out about NOTHING.

The skill tree is designed to make meching more interesting. Allowing us to specialize our builds to our playstyle or to the role in which we use the ever-growing collection of toys we own. It's giving us options. It's giving us a bit of roles warfare (just a bit, don't get me started!). It's giving us a little more individuality. As far as PGI WANTING us to metamech, that's bullshizzle. Here's why:

1. We ALREADY metamech.
2. Metamechs HURT the game, and hurt variety. Why would PGI give us all these options if they all wanted us to play the same drop deck over and over? Granted, there may (will) be some adjustments as some builds prove themselves to be over or under powered, I reckon. Maybe quirks will still be used to even that out, probably. PGI wants us to spend time and money playing the game, trying out new mechs, buying new mechs, grinding away the hours.

I will agree with the rest of your statement somewhat. We do need more depth to the game, reasons to play, varieties of stuff to do, meanings to attack certain planets in CW, supply lines, asymetric maps and modes, etc... But I truly believe you, like many others, are worried about nothing at all. It's just a reshuffle of what we already have. It'll make us think and try to come up with the best combination for our playstyle. It's not a bad thing. It might even keep us distracted while they drag their heals on doing all the stuff they should be doing rather than repackaging what we already have.

My point is, let's stop poo-pooing PGI on the new skill tree. Let's celebrate it! It's one less thing they need to do before getting to work on the real stuff that all of us founders have been waiting for since we dropped our first dime and more than a little faith into our mutual (PGI's and our own) dream to make the best mechwarrior game ever. I can't wait to see the new maps, the black market, the supply line interdictions, the raid missions, combined arms like tanks, VTOL's, and infantry. I can't wait to see player created maps. Scenarios where we as a team are pitted against the AI for fun or challenging missions that somehow effect the CW maps. I can't wait until they give us reasons to attack planets (like helping get our faction access to mech factories, access to clan/IS tech, access to aerospace, satellite, and armor support, access to drydocks for jumpships increasing the efficiency of supplies to the front. And yes, BIG maps where we have to take time to really think about how we're going to approach our enemies rather than simply deathball toward the nearest floating red dorito upon dropping onto the map.

Have faith! After this skill tree and new weapons stuff is done, PGI is going to finally start thinking outside the box again and adding all kinds of interesting stuff to the game for us to DO with our new skill tree and weapons. You know how I know? Because if they don't, we all lose and we all love this game too much!

i luv your post.


Thank you for these great, great words.

[Steve Pryde]

MrMagoo421, on 28 April 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

So then you're going to make a choice in what trade-offs on the tree make the most sense to you? Sounds like it's working as intended.

Not really when the other choices are way better than weapon skills.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 28 April 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Arkhangel]

I agree with the above. fact is, as I've also said before, PGI is not a large company. and IGP SERIOUSLY screwed things for them quite a lot early on. So they kinda arew still fixing things they wanted in the game from the get-go, but IGP forced them into stuff that paid back their investment... kinda like... you know... the ending of Mass Effect 3 and EA and Bioware, except, unlike Bioware, PGI got rid of the guys screwing with their game.

@Steven: which isn't necessarily a bad thing. people in MWO've been way too focused on just weapons for years, especially you jade birdies. bout time we get stuff that isn't weapon-focused that massively changes the game. I for one am looking forward to just how much those Jump jet skills do, given the massive distances it might let some JJ capable mechs go, or just how tanky the Survival tree can make some of the more notoriously fragile mechs we have, like, say, the Dragon.

Edited by Arkhangel, 28 April 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

I've tinkered in the PTS a few times now...

What I've noticed is

• The interface is EXTREMELY cumbersome and is not intuitive to use. I feel like at least some newer players will get overwhelmed by it and won't play because of it. But beyond that, it's terribly time inefficient. It took several hours last night to tinker with a handful of builds, because you have to sit there and try and figure out what each skill means (For example, descriptions do not match from the tree to the resulting quirk list), and how it impacts your mech on the battlefield. Which means lots of trips into testing grounds, and matches where you get your *** kicked just trying to rebuild your old mech). Plus with that dizzying maze of skills to click that have no logic to their arrangement whatsoever, that alone makes it take a while to figure out which combination of skills yields a competent mech.

• For several existing builds, I cannot replicate the mech's current attributes in the new system utilizing just 91 points. Especially on mechs with varied hardpoints. Especially for the weapons. You wind up either wasting a lot of points on weapons, or your weapons suck... Things like speed tweak, cool run, basic ecm functionality(why are you nerfing this???), weapon cool down, etc are buried behind so many other unwanted skills, that you simply can't light them all up. (I'm hoping PGI will release a demonstration for each mech, showing what to click to get your existing Mastery with the 91 points, which is what they keep saying we can do without penalty. Gonna have to show us, because I can't figure out how)

• Changing a mech build with different weapons gets very expensive, very quickly. Yes, you get 91 points to start, but that's just barely enough to configure the mech one way. And with 200+ skills to light up, that leaves the majority of a "mastered" mech's skills locked until you pay big bucks... The flexibility one currently enjoys to change out weapons we already own and modules we already own with zero cost involved is flat out gone. I burned through several million C-Bills tinkering with just 3 different builds on the Hellbringer. Given that I only run Clan, and naturally have numerous mechs with similar weapon flexibility by design, it's clear that the C-Bills refunded to me will be nowhere even remotely close to being enough for me to unlock sufficient skills to run my mechs with the same flexibility I enjoy today.

[Arkhangel]

Shooty, I believe the point is that you CAN'T get your existing stuff. You'll have to adapt. the Engine decoupling alone is going to make a lot of current builds a lot less viable anyways. as will the Survivability tree. just means we'll have to adapt and evolve the builds to compensate.

[Judah Malganis]

Yeah, playing around with the setups, it seems the firepower tree is best ignored, unless you have a setup that naturally super heat-efficient and can skip Ops, allowing you to spend its points in Firepower.

[Sky Hawk]

It's weekend... and I have some time to play with PTS at last.... and.... it's goes off-line..

Just Great!

[Jay Leon Hart]

Sky Hawk, on 28 April 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

It's weekend... and I have some time to play with PTS at last.... and.... it's goes off-line..

Just Great!

Yeah, there go my plans to test this weekend.

Oh well, more Mass Effect Andromeda instead!

[TercieI]

I don't see "we're gonna cut this mess in half" in the notes....

[Uncle Totty]

Loken Garviel, on 27 April 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

Hi all 1st post on these forums.

So im happy with the changes you have done with most of the skill tree, but there is one thing that kind of bothersome. The change to modules from cbill to gsp, I'm with Kanajashi opinion in his video The option to pick which kind of refund you would like because gsp is not necessary for I will have all my mechs skilled out with points left over.

Having points left over just means you be able to skill any new mechs you get later on. As well as give wiggle room to reskill the mechs you already have.

Edited by Uncle Totty, 28 April 2017 - 03:12 PM.

[Tankashi Kotare]

Peiper, on 28 April 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

The skill tree is designed to make meching more interesting. Allowing us to specialize our builds to our playstyle or to the role in which we use the ever-growing collection of toys we own. It's giving us options. It's giving us a bit of roles warfare (just a bit, don't get me started!). It's giving us a little more individuality. As far as PGI WANTING us to metamech, that's bullshizzle. Here's why:

1. We ALREADY metamech.
2. Metamechs HURT the game, and hurt variety. Why would PGI give us all these options if they all wanted us to play the same drop deck over and over? Granted, there may (will) be some adjustments as some builds prove themselves to be over or under powered, I reckon. Maybe quirks will still be used to even that out, probably. PGI wants us to spend time and money playing the game, trying out new mechs, buying new mechs, grinding away the hours.

I do not agree with you at all. Everybody contributes to the so called 'meta' however only the few which are better than others are ever given the label.

You say metamechs hurt the game and variety however I see nothing but the contrary.
From your statement it is unclear if you refer to competitive, Faction Warfare or Quick play so I draw my argument from quickplay as that is where the majority of players play.

I do not play metamechs for personal reasons but there is nothing wrong with them if anything they drive variety and innovation among the community like an arms race. Lots of people playing snipers? You could consider taking a fast locust into quick play or a brawl mech to out DPS them at close range. (maps and play style permitting)

You say the skill tree is designed to make 'meching' more interesting but I don't understand what you mean by that or the fact that somehow metamechs hurt variety.

Do you want 24 mechs in a match to be a different chassis with different builds from each other?
Is 'variety' simply frankenmeching?
Also at which point does frankenmeching turn into the meta if that is the 'variety' you seek?

Metamechs are there for some players who wish to test themselves against others who are considered good players and to see where a player stands in relation to those players. If all the mechs are meta it means there is no excuse for a persons failing other than their own ability to which they can reflect and improve upon when they find out what they are doing wrong.

If 'variety' is defined in some way which makes metameching impossible, players would simply do what they have for years which is blame either the mech for being bad, one mech being to strong or the weapons which the mech uses based off of tech group. (that is not to say that the tech groups are equal)

I have a lot of questions which I can never find the answer to because the people whom disagree with 'meta' can never give a definitive answer for what they are looking for. I have not played with the new skill tree at all therefore I have no comment on how things will change with its implementation but the 'meta' will always exist and a few prominent mech will come to power based on the landscape of the game but 'variety' as I see it is the meta because out of the 24 players I see in a game maybe 4 - 6 at a high estimate have a meta mech which is only 25% of a match at best, the rest are simply what the player feels like playing.

So again please define 'interesting' and 'variety' in relation to MWO.

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

Arkhangel, on 28 April 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

Shooty, I believe the point is that you CAN'T get your existing stuff. You'll have to adapt. the Engine decoupling alone is going to make a lot of current builds a lot less viable anyways. as will the Survivability tree. just means we'll have to adapt and evolve the builds to compensate.

I feel like this game already has an insane amount of non-game play required by players to set up for competent game play. Giving players more variety and things to accomplish in-game is one thing, putting that variety in a crappy interface which itself makes it take a long time is just poor design.

[Michaelson Snow]

Skill tree is ok, just give it to us already.

Give me a choice on how my modules are refunded. same as i had a choice with the c-bills to start. if not, oh well....just give it to us already.

** on a unrelated note. I think if PGI had told us old gaurd it was going to be an ESPORT from the beginning, a lot of these arguments, complaints and general Bitching(about Meta and Franken) would never had started.** that said, i believe the biggest problem is when we are told "Your doing it wrong because you do not do meta" " learn to build" "Your build sucks cuz it is not meta". SOoooo meta kills variety only because the players talk/treat down on non meta players. A game runs on all kinds...kinda like the world runs on all types. Learn to respect your fellow pilots having fun, regardless of if it is different than your fun. that alone would solve a lot of grief.

let the flames begin.....

[Peiper]

Tankashi, on 28 April 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

I do not agree with you at all. Everybody contributes to the so called 'meta' however only the few which are better than others are ever given the label.

You say metamechs hurt the game and variety however I see nothing but the contrary.
From your statement it is unclear if you refer to competitive, Faction Warfare or Quick play so I draw my argument from quickplay as that is where the majority of players play.

So again please define 'interesting' and 'variety' in relation to MWO.

I'm simply replying to the guy who says that PGI wants us/is forcing us to metamech - to meta our mechs - via the new skill tree. He believes that the skill tree will lead to a few top builds that will dominate the field. I think PGI does it's best to prevent that from happening through quirks and stuff. When I think of metamechs, I often picture games where only, say 6 mechs/builds are ever fielded. I personally like variety and experimentation, but I'm not the greatest player and so I know that to keep up with my PSR tier, I often feel forced to play my better builds. I like to experiment, but the need to help my team and not be a detriment as I experiment around makes me feel like I should only play my best mechs in their best builds.
However, I think PGI encourages the opposite as best they can, and I think the new pilot tree with increase the variations of mech builds we'll see. I certainly hope it will, especially, let's say, with extra ammo for mechs with little tonnage to spare or scouting mechs really proficient in their chosen role/build.

All that being said, though, I admit I'm not sure I even understand your whole point. I'm not sure we have an argument. Everyone approaches the game a little differently and finds stuff they enjoy. Some guys like trying to find the perfect mech build, and that's cool. I do too, though my mechs are often perfect only for myself. Perhaps you misunderstood my argument. My words were in reaction to a person who was panning the skill tree. I was trying to explain to him how the skill tree is going to be (by design at least) an overall good thing for the game.

[Tankashi Kotare]

I do understand that you were aiming your reply to a specific person which is why I only quoted the section of the post which was relevant to my post.

I think I also did misinterpret as I did read your post and I saw a few other posts just quoting the entire thing which made it seem to me as more 'meta vs non-meta bitching' and I would like to apologise for this for the misinterpretation.
'Argument' may have not been the correct word to use in this instance.

I do agree that someone disregarding someone else's play style and/or build because it is not meta and telling them that meta is the only way is wrong. I personally prefer to use my mech to prove meta is not everything. (although I use a HBKIIC-A I use my signature build)

A metamech is only a base line and players adapt the build as a whole to their play style but keeping the core elements of what makes it good which in itself is variety. Maybe I get triggered from players saying 'variety' on this forum, who knows.
I would not worry about dragging down a team in quick play, if you are good with a build that will reflect in how you play it regardless of how bad it may seem to others. Just prove them that meta is not everything.

I would also like to add that I played a group quick play match earlier today which was on tourmaline where the opposing team had 4 NGR's with GR/PPC's. They won but it was 10 - 12 and only 1 NGR lasted. Meta can be beaten even on it's ideal map.

I can not comment on the new skill tree which is coming because I have not played it and do not intend to but I do not think that it will change much. The gameplay will change for a few weeks or months maybe while the new meta is worked out but it will settle and more arguments will surface about meta being an issue again. <- speculation

Personally I would have liked the skill tree to be split into say 4 'roles' so when you choose a mech for the first time you are given 1 of 4 roles to pick from and that would be the mechs skill tree. So for example you might pick the 'scouting' skill tree which has certain benefits to it say; acceleration/deceleration buffs, twist speed buffs extended ECM range etc. but would miss skills in firepower or durability.
This would apply 'roles' to the game and keep the skill tree roughly the same. This would be amusing to see a 'scout' Atlas walk into battle though, things like that. This is only personal opinion and ideas nothing factual.

[Arkaiko]

i liked the new patch and the new skill tree, but, what happens with the mechs with low weapons loads?, those mechs who realy need ofensive quirks?, what happens with LTC-1V, LCT-3V, SDR,5V? (among many)
if the "best build" of those mechs is 1LL or 2ML they need better quirks than "+10% range" or "-10% heat generation"
except that the patch looks great, i try my mechs on testing grounds and they got overall good changes (exept for the crippled build ones)

the skill window could be confusing for some players, but i think it will be the same "save changes" issue in earlyer patches, is just getting used to it.


sry my bad english