155 replies to this topic

[Mycroft000]

The modules were for Pre Order freebies, not for the mech packs. The real money you spent(and I spent) was for the Mechs(and optional extra variants) and Mechbays.

[Dee Eight]

Shevek Anarres, on 25 April 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

No it isn't. Try reading the terms of use again. You're not buying anything other than a license to use PGI's products. They're free to change those products any time they wish.

[Scynonymz]

I literally just logged into the forum to write this post. I'm glad someone beat me to it. But I seriously feel this move is just adding a new layer of balance issues as well as alienating not only existing players, but new players as well.

Edited by Scynonymz, 25 April 2017 - 03:25 PM.

[Greygor 727]

Because of the roundabout way to get the actual Skill Tree items you want for your mech, the Tree needs to be in direct lines for achieving the results you want to have. As stated by Source Mystic above, I had to purchase every-other node that I did not want including nodes that did not apply to my build to achieve less than what I have.

LRMs. Start with the current existing maximum range of 1,000M. With the current Piloting Skills, unlocking and purchasing the module for that specific IS or Clan LRM added 100M. With the current system maxed out you barely get over 1,000M which is equal to the current starting point without having to unlock or purchase anything.

If you want us to purchase more than every other skill node to get where we want to go with this haphazard diagram then increase our reimbursement to 200SP and allow us 200 nodes. Remember, you are the ones who created this mess of a tree. Make it more streamlined to keep it at 91 or preferably 100.

Make it easier for someone to correct their selection mistakes after their purchase. I'm trying to make one small correction and for reasons unknown to me I cannot make changes.

This Skill Tree system is a complete mess.

Reduce your headaches now and just scrap the entire system.

[Dee Eight]

Greygor 727, on 25 April 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

Because of the roundabout way to get the actual Skill Tree items you want for your mech, the Tree needs to be in direct lines for achieving the results you want to have. As stated by Source Mystic above, I had to purchase every-other node that I did not want including nodes that did not apply to my build to achieve less than what I have.

The existing LRM maximum range is actually already more than 50% greater than in CBT so all they're doing is shortening a distance that's artificial anyway. As to having to go thru other nodes to get the ones you want... that's been said the way its going to be, since the beginning of the process. There's no FREE lunch path going to be offered where you get to only buy the nodes YOU personally want the most in every category.

[Ruar]

Dee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

The existing LRM maximum range is actually already more than 50% greater than in CBT so all they're doing is shortening a distance that's artificial anyway. As to having to go thru other nodes to get the ones you want... that's been said the way its going to be, since the beginning of the process. There's no FREE lunch path going to be offered where you get to only buy the nodes YOU personally want the most in every category.

And they are going to lose players and revenue by insisting on a tangle system. There are multiple ways of forcing player choice in a linear system if they simply stop trying to force the unwanted tangle on everyone.

[Dee Eight]

Well I'm sure they've looked at the data they alone have access to, which tells them the actual people complaining...aren't the ones actually contributing in any meaningful fashion to their revenue...and the ones who are in favour of it...ARE the ones keeping the company afloat.

[Cato Phoenix]

<Solahma's Skill Tree>

[Dee Eight]

Cato Phoenix, on 25 April 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

<Solahma's Skill Tree>

Which Russ already covered in the NGNG podcast in mid-march. They looked at it. It offers no advantage for the greater player base in terms of options/variety of builds and only appeases a minority from the forums.

[Greygor 727]

According to you, players who didn't purchase anything cannot complain.

Ummm.. I've contributed LOTS to PGI. I can complain whether I've paid nothing or a lot.

[Ruar]

Dee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

Which Russ already covered in the NGNG podcast in mid-march. They looked at it. It offers no advantage for the greater player base in terms of options/variety of builds and only appeases a minority from the forums.

Odd that they haven't responded on the official forums in some way but instead choose to do it in a podcast.

Personally, I don't follow podcasts or twitter. Official forums or it doesn't actually happen. Which to me means they were throwing out a knee jerk response and haven't actually looked at the suggestion or given it any thought. Which means it's necessary to use the official forums to point out their errors and show them a better way forward.

[Dollar Bill]

Dee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

Which Russ already covered in the NGNG podcast in mid-march. They looked at it. It offers no advantage for the greater player base in terms of options/variety of builds and only appeases a minority from the forums.

No. The real answer is Solahma's skill tree gives us better options and lets us build a mech the way we think is fun and how we want to play. Russ looked at it and decided it goes against the way he wants us to play.

[Ruar]

Dollar Bill, on 25 April 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

No. The real answer is Solahma's skill tree gives us better options and lets us build a mech the way we think is fun and how we want to play. Russ looked at it and decided it goes against the way he wants us to play.

Pretty much. Which is going to drive players away all because one person won't admit he was wrong about this.

It'd be different if it was only a few people, but post after post in the first two tests and more posts now all complaining they do not like or want the interwoven skill system.

[tokumboh]

Dee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

Which Russ already covered in the NGNG podcast in mid-march. They looked at it. It offers no advantage for the greater player base in terms of options/variety of builds and only appeases a minority from the forums.

No they didn't. First in general that podcast was a car crash of PR not as bad as united but getting there even before the issue of calling some of the player base cheapskates for doing what was in the hints and tips displayed on their own game.

Chris indeed mischaracterised solomach skill tree and that irked a lot of people as they said thay had tried that, which many people had said they had not. Basically it came down to this they had an idea for the tree and they are going to stick with it I believe that is a poor way of making the tree it is neither simple or elegant as an engineering solution


it was also clear that they had not data mined as much as would have thought they had and indeed it also seems that the data mining they did was not very sophisticated.

I use the WHM nerf as an example. They used the fact that people were taking the WHM as a prefered mech ( obvious reason is that it has high hardpoints and reduced it structure because as they said it was overperforming. people pointed out it will over perform compared to a CTF which you will hardly see on the battlefield because of the hardpoint and continue to do so unless it was a glass canon but again their explanation seemed to be lost

[Torarild]

Such negativity.


Looks good guys, loads of work left to tweak this into a good shape, but I'm glad changes are being made to the game.
It needs renewal, not sticking to the same formula as the last 5 years.
Just go for it.

[Blackhound]

Dee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Well I'm sure they've looked at the data they alone have access to, which tells them the actual people complaining...aren't the ones actually contributing in any meaningful fashion to their revenue...and the ones who are in favour of it...ARE the ones keeping the company afloat.

Hi there. Do you see my badge? It's a small club.

I, like a number of others, spend too much money on this game. More than 99% of players ever will. I do not like the skill system as it currently stands as it forces me to buy irrelevant nodes.

You are incorrect as I am living proof.
Edit: Let's just say I'm evidence to the contrary, IDK, now that I think about it maybe other people who spend too much on this game like being stuck behind dead nodes. I guess I can't speak for them.

Edited by Blackhound, 26 April 2017 - 02:30 AM.

[Naaaaak]

If the skill tree goes forward the way it is now, I'm ready to initiate refunds on anything pending and write off MWO. Founder, 185 mechs, purchaser of packs / premium / MC, 1000+ hours since beta. I'm willing to walk if they go forward with:

• The convoluted 7-page, 91-point, hex layout "tree" that has no rhyme or reason and forces you to waste purchases on skills you don't want. Skills that give "1.3%" and such are meaningless. Nothing would ever be noticed or quirked so small, so why make us buy it in such small increments? Organize skills as a 1-page readable list without crap in-between and reduce the clicks and points required.
  
• Costs of any kind to re-spec. 400 XP needs to be 0 XP once I pay. I don't pay to swap weapons, modules, omnipods, or consumables now. Re-spec costs to things you've already paid for ruins experimentation, which is a fundamental pillar of the game.
  
• Not refunding ALL modules with C-Bills. This sudden crap about a "cutoff date" and giving me more "skill tokens" / GSP than I could ever use is a rip off of my time and effort. I paid C-Bills for something that no longer exists, I expect C-Bills back. 500+ million for my modules.

If the PTS goes through to release without addressing the above, I'll refund what I have pending and walk. There are tons of other great games and I'll just play the Harebrained Schemes Battletech game for my mech fix.

Edited by Naaaaak, 26 April 2017 - 05:01 AM.

[50 50]

Cato Phoenix, on 25 April 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

<Solahma's Skill Tree>

wasn't good enough.

@SourceMystic
Why wouldn't you want the additional nodes anyway?
It's not like having to pick up some extra laser buffs will be detrimental.
91 skill points allocated is better than 1/3rd of the whole tree. You'll have points to waste.

[Drebin Cormack]

Dee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

No it isn't. Try reading the terms of use again. You're not buying anything other than a license to use PGI's products. They're free to change those products any time they wish.

I am sick and tired of this legal mumbo jumbo. When I pay money for something digital, I expect that something to be around for a reasonable amount of time, or be reasonably compensated for it with its removal (I'm looking at you Tabula Rasa and [redacted] Garriott). [redacted] That is what I expect, and if PGI doesn't deliver, then there are other games I can play. I'm really starting to loose confidence in PGI, especially given their recent track record with these new systems.

[Jikil]

Naaaaak, on 26 April 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

• The convoluted 7-page, 91-point, hex layout "tree" that has no rhyme or reason and forces you to waste purchases on skills you don't want. Skills that give "1.3%" and such are meaningless. Nothing would ever be noticed or quirked so small, so why make us buy it in such small increments? Organize skills as a 1-page readable list without crap in-between and reduce the clicks and points required.

I think there is a lot to be said about the visual layout of the skill tree. Complaints issuing from too many points as well as points not having much impact. I do agree that a visual overall should be added to the skill tree and they should abandon the current blob version they are using.

Naaaaak, on 26 April 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

• Costs of any kind to re-spec. 400 XP needs to be 0 XP once I pay. I don't pay to swap weapons, modules, omnipods, or consumables now. Re-spec costs to things you've already paid for ruins experimentation, which is a fundamental pillar of the game.

Currently I have close to a million XP on some of my favorite mechs. I don't really see why mech respeccing is an issue since you are constantly building xp on that mech when you play it. What is the point of having xp past the 91 point cap if you don't need to pay for respecs? If thats the case then it should just be a level bar and we can make this an rpg.

Naaaaak, on 26 April 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

• Not refunding ALL modules with C-Bills. This sudden crap about a "cutoff date" and giving me more "skill tokens" / GSP than I could ever use is a rip off of my time and effort. I paid C-Bills for something that no longer exists, I expect C-Bills back. 500+ million for my modules.

This literally killed the last skill tree. Most people probably juggle modules and its annoying to do. I know a few people that buy modules for every mech they own, but for the rest of us that do juggle modules it would be nice to be able to setup my mechs the way I want with the skill tree and have them ready whenever.

Instead of having to constantly remove and add modules on mech switches they are already setup.

Lets be honest there is no way in hell pgi is going to be giving people half a billion cbills when part of their cash flow depends on people buying mech packs.

This is a fundamental change for how modules and skilling up a mech works, so its going to have a few rough edges.

Wouldn't it be better to focus on making the skill tree better than whining because you aren't getting a trillion cbills on patch day?