549 replies to this topic

[Bageldrone]

they should have left the pilot skills as they are and just revamped the mech skills, combining them in this "tree" is just going to break the game

[HGAK47]

The great Spider, Locust and Centurion nerf of 2017! Well I never thought I would see myself type that. Damn!

[IsaAurinkoinen]

HGAK47, on 27 April 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

The great Spider, Locust and Centurion nerf of 2017! Well I never thought I would see myself type that. Damn!

Lolcusts are OP. Deserved nerf I would say.

[SilentScreamer]

HGAK47, on 27 April 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

The great Spider, Locust and Centurion nerf of 2017! Well I never thought I would see myself type that. Damn!

Nobody ever thinks of the Commando. Which is worse, to achieve greatness and loose it; or to never be great at all?

The 3A finally had a decent missile quirk at 30% cooldown and the test server has cut the quirk down to 15%. I must have missed the threads complaining the commando was now OP....

That said, any mech that has been relying on weapon quirks to be viable should already be on the "needs attention" list.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 27 April 2017 - 07:03 AM.

[metallio]

I still think the simplest way to handle "quirks" is for each mech to have unique numbers of skill points available.

The commando could have 150 points available and we'd see what happens.

[Skybirduk]

BSK, on 27 April 2017 - 06:22 AM, said:

If you want to get rid of all players who invest money into this game, then keep having this attitude.



Just to click all available options it took me 2 minutes and 52 secounds, without thinking about which nodes I need or want. Without a message telling me that I don't need an option for a weapon that I don't have. This means it would take me 14 hours and 20 minutes just to unlock everything without thinking. Take this times 5 for the time I need to tinker about my mechs and you have a whole week that I would have to invest to get my whole hangar of 300 mechs battle ready.
UNACCEPTABLE





This is the refund that I get. 40.000.000 . As you can clearly see, I have invested 1.000.000.000 into modules.
UNACCEPTABLE



You can compare the lower left corner with an actual ingame screenshot. I would be ripped off if this goes live. Why don't they create pre-saved templates and I just assign these to my mechs? I am NOT going to click 91 nodes for 300 mechs, and if I don't then I won't play this game anymore ..

If you sell all of your modules before the update, you will get half of your investment back. If this update is implemented, I can imagine a lot of time hunting down and selling modules before the update.

[Wegrotzer]

I don't get why we are promised be be refunded with Cbills for the modules and now we dont get the cbills anymore ...not happy

[Rick Windwalker]

Peiper, on 26 April 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

PGI, this post is spectacular in appearance and depth. I hope that it feels that way working with the skill tree in reality! I still would trade it for a bunch of new PGI made and PLAYER MADE MAPS, combined arms, an economy, black market, tactical and strategic stuff we can do in CW, 8 v 8 or 6 v 6 raids, maybe some team vs. AI challenges that would represent activities that would support mine, or subvert the enemy factions. But it looks very nice, and I hope that it keeps me interested in playing while you guys start adding more meat and depth to the game!

On another note: DO NOT CONVERT MY MODULES INTO XP. I paid for C-bills for them and I want C-Bills back. I don't mind grinding up xp and leveling my mechs, but I absolutely hate grinding for C-bills to buy new stuff ESPECIALLY as I already earned the C-Bills. I've been expecting a C-Bill refund for months. It made me happy. I was excited to see how much I got back for all my 50+ modules. I don't need GXP or whatever. I have tons of that. I don't need XP on mechs I already own and enjoy, I have tons of that. I want my money back, damnit!

This.

[Chris8440]

DrVoodooAUS, on 26 April 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

I have two questions to PGI.

Why should I pay 400XP for every node I respec too. This is just an XP sink hole and a punishment.

How long do they think it should take to skill 91 points for a mech. I did this last night and it took me over 30 minutes to do this for one mech alone. I wanted to be very careful in what I chose as any mistake was going to be punished if I clicked the save button and then had to change it.

Over all thoughts: too complicated, too long to setup a mech and do what you want me to do "play the game". The player is punished when respecing a mech to a different skill build. If you got rid of the 400XP respec part it would at least be a start.

Customizing your mechs and experimenting with different builds is some integral part of MWO. Putting a steep cost of 400 XP per node that is switched is too much. This is just an artificially enforced XP-sink.

Changing your build according to gamemode (quick play, faction play etc.) or switching your mech build from dakka to laservomit, gauss / PPC or whatever you imagine should not be punished by XP loss.

In the current skill system, I can equip and unequip my mech and weapon modules freely and without cost. This freedom should not be taken away.

In the new skill system I would have to pay from 400 XP for respeccing a single node node to worst case 36400 XP for respeccing each and every node. An average respec of ~30 nodes will still be 12000 XP.

So if you own a lot of mechs, good luck on earning this amount of xp on less played variants or having to spend precious GXP to respec.

So PGI, please stop punishing innovative players by creating artificial XP / GXP sinks and remove respec costs. If this is not possible, at least bring the cost down to a range from 100-50 XP.

Edited by Chris8440, 27 April 2017 - 07:51 AM.

[Daemon04]

Commander James Raynor, on 26 April 2017 - 06:01 AM, said:

Although it is true that the KDK-3 will be better than it's now, the engine decoupling (I'm sorry to go on about it, but it's my main concern about these changes) is gonna make it A LOT slower than it is now. I'ts not gonna be able to accelerate or brake as fast as now, and the torso twisting is gonna be like a DWF. In fact it's gonna be as dangerous as a DWF, since both are gonna have the same agility and similarly good hardpoints. The only difference between them is going to be max speed and the fact that the DWF can mount more weapons (because of the hardpoints). In the end, the KDK-3 is going to be harder to kill, almost as much as an Atlas (though not as hard), and it's going to be just as clumsy. As we all know from facing mechs like the KGC, a big, clumsy mech is dangerous to be in front of, but really easy to kill, so I wouldn't worry as much.

I did compare on that decoupling matter with two kdk3s. one gauss ppc no mobility at all and another dakka with full mobility.
both xl400s.
unskilled it is sluggish, doesnt accelerate and break as fast as current teddybears BUT still doenst feel like a DWF at all.
with the mobility-skilled it accelerates and breaks almost as fast as a current KDK.
havent looked up the figures for the acceleration and deceleration BUT with an XL400 i dont feel much of a difference. still a good teddybear.

twist and turn wise it is not like a direwolf at all but it feels slower than usual. neverheless the direwolf still retains its sluggishness and will be unbeaten.

[ARM32]

So, as refund for modules, i will get 162.2 skill points per mech. I can master 181.6 mechs from 74. Do i need it? Nope...
I can't preorder mechs with pay them by dinosaur drawings - PGI don't need them, so, why PGI refund me, with what i don't need? Use it as "points", so i can transfer them OR as SP, OR as CB, like we got "add SP" from GXP / Historic XP/ mech XP.

Ok, next part - no weapons in arms, still need to use 3 SP on "Arm pitch" for get speed tweak, or 6 "Laser duration" if i want "range" / "heat gen" for my PPC... Or 4 Velocity for nice range for lasers... 91 point per mech - not good with this system, try 100, maybe, it'll save skill tree, somehow...

[Nimnul]

In general, I appreciate it positively. But there are several points. We can not choose Radar Deprivation, Seismic, and other modules that we have now. But we get a lot of things that we do not need. Of course it's also interesting. But I would prefer to have fewer skills, but a more accurate choice.Now it all looks like 91 skill is too little to get what you need.

[Stonekeg]

I'm going to be honest about something here. In the current system I swap my modules. Why? -removed- Who cares? I'm not the only one. The problem with module swapping is the way your drop decks in FP work. In turn, I just skipped FP because I could just keep swapping modules and playing in QP. However, I do want to participate in FP.

I'm not making any other point about the merits or flaws of the skill system or its implementation, but I do I like that it better aligns with FP. I think that's important.

[Wormflush]

I take out a single post complaining about modules not being refunded as c-bills. There are lots of those and I will try to show how PGI has given us a very generous and reasonable offer.

Quote

GSP refunds im very much against. I spent cbills on modules as that was a requirement of the game at the time it was. I want my cbills back if PGI is changing how the game is played so i can again choose how best to use them once again.

When you bought your modules, what was your intention of doing so?

You decided to spend your C-Bills to make your mechs more effective. You could have chosen to buy mechs instead, but you did not. You maxed out your mechs.

What PGI now is going to do is taking into account that decision you took, and providing you with means to re-implement that decision after introduction of the new skill tree. It's a valid approach that takes into account your very own decision.

PGI gives you all HSP you need to re-skill your mech for free. So you lose no progress and you can max out your mech hangar without having to pay anything (assuming you mastered all your mechs). So in regard to the skill status of your mechs, you will get everything that reenables the former state (within the frame of the new skill tree, of course). (Even if you did not master all your mechs, you will get a fair share.)

But additionally (this is a real gift), you will get a massive amount of GSP for your modules. Since you bought these modules with the intention to skill your mech, it is a valid and intelligent decision to refund you with something that can be used to skill any mech.

If you bought a lot of modules so far, then from one day to the other you will be able to max out the next 5, 20, or even 100 mechs you buy without even having to grind a single point of XP. Every point of HSP is a gift of 800 XP you never grinded. How is that not generous?

What if PGI actually would refund the C-Bill value of your modules

In my eyes, that would be an utterly unfair treatment of PGI as content provider. Try to view it from PGI's angle.

The users would not only get all their mastered mechs into a fully skilled state. They would also get back all C-Bills they originally used to max out those mastered mechs. So from one day to the other, their mech hangar would be as powerful as the new skill tree allows, AND they would be able to buy a large amount of mechs.

Learn to live with your own decisions (you opted: skill!) and don't blame others when the world keeps turning. You may think that the new skill tree is not good for the game, but the refund offer is generous.

[Rhialto]

Schutt und Asche, on 27 April 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

Just for example: the BJ-1
I´m not able to reach the current AC2 rate of fire. Even with all the nodes you can´t compensate the massive quirk-nerf. That´s just one mech, i didn´t test more yet.

Same with HBK-4J I reported previously. it was unique thus different and fun to play. Not OP at all, just different and fun to play. Pretty sure my Archer-5W got nerfed too and this one was also unique being the only mech viable to run SSRM2. Also pretty sure my IV-4 cannot be the same, suck as this one cost . I don't have time to test all my builds on the PTS. Oh well.

[metallio]

I still think we'll need to give people the option to take GSP vs cbills however they like...but ^.

[ThiefofAlways]

I believe 100 points would be a bit better that 91. Also I believe some values could be increased.

Weapons Cooldown, increase 2 to 3 times to have it in line with old tree
Weapons Velocity, increase 2 to 3 times to have it more in line with quirks that have been reduced
Hardened Armor/Skeletal Density, 1.5 to 2 times increase. This will make people feel it is worth it and the fights will last longer.
Heat dissipation/Heat Containment, I would like to see a bit of an increase here maybe 1.5 times maybe 2 times.
Consumables, Give us 2 to start not 1.

Can someone please confirm for me if GSP can be converted back into c-bills at 1 to 45,000 ratio. I believe that is correct but I don't have access to the PTS right now. If this is correct then I am very happy with the ledger move and if people understand it they would be ok as well I believe. If would give you flexibility to convert the GSP to c-bills to buy things, SP to spec your mechs and so on. If its made clear to people I think that would make them happy

Edited by ThiefofAlways, 27 April 2017 - 09:01 AM.

[ARM32]

PGI, just try system like this:
+1% range = range node. One, verticle, line, of range nodes. first needs 1 SP, second - 2, third - 3... Player just gets what he needs, but each step forward - takes more SP. If player wants +10% range = 55 SP. Same to all parts. So i can make mech with max range + speed, or good in range, heat, speed, armor, or mid in all. NO "i don't need" poins, costs is good, no sweep of modules, it's like each side - wins.

[Outcast1six]

OK. Rant time!!!!!!

READ THE GOD DAMN FIRST POST BEFORE [redacted]
I have read page after page of non constructive posts about refunds and GXP and having to take useless nodes.

1) You don't get c-bills back for modules purchased before Dec 2016. Says it in the first post, it's even a different color for emphasis. (FYI I'm out 844 million c-bills because of that)

2) You get general SKILL!!!!!! points for those modules. Again I'm out 844 million c-bills, but up 18,577 SKILL POINTS I can use on whatever mech I want.

3) A node costs 1 point. Doesn't matter if it's a crap node or a good node. (I.E. LBX spread versus weapon cooldown) So you have to spend points on less desirable nodes to get the good ones. IT STATES WHY IN THE FIRST POST!!!!!!! They recognize that there are nodes people want more than others, so they are more expensive. Would you rather you have to open several "dead" nodes with zero value to get your precious cooldowns, like other games? At least you're getting something, and in their example its cheaper to open several routes than just one. You would have known that, IF YOU READ THE FIRST POST!!!!!!

Notice a trend? Reading isn't that terribly hard.

Oh and to the guy from Denmark that wanted free consumables? [redacted]

[AngrySpartan]

Outcast1six, on 27 April 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

OK. Rant time!!!!!!

READ THE GOD DAMN FIRST POST BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR PIE HOLE AND REINFORCE THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!

I have read page after page of non constructive posts about refunds and GXP and having to take useless nodes.

1) You don't get c-bills back for modules purchased before Dec 2016. Says it in the first post, it's even a different color for emphasis. (FYI I'm out 844 million c-bills because of that)

2) You get general SKILL!!!!!! points for those modules. Again I'm out 844 million c-bills, but up 18,577 SKILL POINTS I can use on whatever mech I want.

3) A node costs 1 point. Doesn't matter if it's a crap node or a good node. (I.E. LBX spread versus weapon cooldown) So you have to spend points on less desirable nodes to get the good ones. IT STATES WHY IN THE FIRST POST!!!!!!! They recognize that there are nodes people want more than others, so they are more expensive. Would you rather you have to open several "dead" nodes with zero value to get your precious cooldowns, like other games? At least you're getting something, and in their example its cheaper to open several routes than just one. You would have known that, IF YOU READ THE FIRST POST!!!!!!

Notice a trend? Reading isn't that terribly hard.

Oh and to the guy from Denmark that wanted free consumables? HAHAHAHA no, socialist free lunches for you.

Allwright, so what exactly your point?

Yes it was stated in the first post, but that doesn't change the fact that new STree is not what many players want or tolerate. It doesn't change the fact that refunds are still imperfect, though they are much better than before. And finally, it doesn't change the fact that, despite all the feedback from the last PTS, PGI did nothing to fix core design of the skill tree.