155 replies to this topic

[Ed Le Toggaf]

Yall really know how to kill clanners, most clan mech dont have the armour quirks of the IS and are not getting the % boosts from the survival tree like said IS mechs. I mean really throw us a friggen bone here, other wise all our super hot powerful weaponry will just get buttblasted back into the outter rim.

[Dee Eight]

Ed Le Toggaf, on 26 April 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Yall really know how to kill clanners, most clan mech dont have the armour quirks of the IS and are not getting the % boosts from the survival tree like said IS mechs. I mean really throw us a friggen bone here, other wise all our super hot powerful weaponry will just get buttblasted back into the outter rim.

Do the math...I think you're not grasping how small the increases in practice end up actually being.

[Dee Eight]

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

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:

I've been here 16 months... Except for the viper which I didn't like the collector (S) camo of, I've bought ultimate packs of every mech release from kodiak thru the roughneck, plus all the wave 1 clan hero's. I've also bought about a dozen mastery packs/bundles, over a hundred thousand MC, and currently have about 230+ mechs of which all but 20 are mastered...and time wise... i'm nearing 13k matches and I'd have to add up the time on every one of those mechs... but I'd say its a lot more hours than you.

I want the skill tree to actually be delivered. I even told PGI when they post-poned yet again in March, six days before the patch, that I wouldn't be ordering the wave 2 clan heroes or the resistance heroes until they delivered the skill tree.

The guy before you pointed out "founders" are a small club... and he's right... but that doesn't give you more voice than players who came years later who may have invested more heavily into the game than you give them credit for.

Edited by Dee Eight, 26 April 2017 - 08:18 AM.

[Ruar]

Dee Eight, on 26 April 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

I've been here 16 months... Except for the viper which I didn't like the collector (S) camo of, I've bought ultimate packs of every mech release from kodiak thru the roughneck, plus all the wave 1 clan hero's. I've also bought about a dozen mastery packs/bundles, over a hundred thousand MC, and currently have about 230+ mechs of which all but 20 are mastered...and time wise... i'm nearing 13k matches and I'd have to add up the time on every one of those mechs... but I'd say its a lot more hours than you.

I want the skill tree to actually be delivered. I even told PGI when they post-poned yet again in March, six days before the patch, that I wouldn't be ordering the wave 2 clan heroes or the resistance heroes until they delivered the skill tree.

The guy before you pointed out "founders" are a small club... and he's right... but that doesn't give you more voice than players who came years later who may have invested more heavily into the game than you give them credit for.

And what about all the other players who spend $20 or $15 a month on a small slice of those mechpacks instead of the collectors versions?

It sounds like you don't really care how the skill tree looks as long as it's released, so why are you being such a douche about the fact so many people do not like the current design? It doesn't even have to be delayed to be changed.

They post the current tree isn't what they want and there will be a change to make it linear before release. A week later they show the linear format in an update post. They release on the next patch day and tweak as needed afterward.

We know they are going to have to make changes even after PTS once the tree goes live. It's a living thing that has to grow as the game changes and shifts.

So why this insistence on getting a crappy product out instead of demanding a change made to reflect what the players want?

I'm honestly just amazed at the arrogance you are demonstrating.

[Bud Crue]

Shevek Anarres, on 26 April 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

I'm not concerned about c-bills.
I don't need GXP.
I don't care about skill points.

I want my quirks back an my tier 2-4 mechs.

[Ruar]

Bud Crue, on 26 April 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

I'm not concerned about c-bills.
I don't need GXP.
I don't care about skill points.

I want my quirks back an my tier 2-4 mechs.

Quirks are a work in progress and will be changed in the coming months. I just can't see anyway for them to fix quirks without having a viable skill tree first. The tree will be the core of balancing with quirks used to shore up weak areas individually.

[Bud Crue]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

Quirks are a work in progress and will be changed in the coming months. I just can't see anyway for them to fix quirks without having a viable skill tree first. The tree will be the core of balancing with quirks used to shore up weak areas individually.

"Works in progress". Oh that's lovely. What's the precedent for PGI iteratively buffing mechs that are broken? The three years for the Victor to get some armor?

"Viable skill tree first". How does screwing the worst mechs in the game out of the gate in conjunction with that skills tree impact its potential viability?

"Shore up weak areas individually". Again what is the precedent for that? The annual requirkenings? So a year at best? Random dart board nerfs of the last year (not once did they buff a mech with these btw)? How about the weapons passes? In every instance here mechs have been made worse except for the UAC pass of December wherein a few odd ducks got some minor buffs. Is that sole instance the basis of the faith you are placing in the assumption that PGI will "shore up weak areas individually"?

[Lily from animove]

Well lets look here:



if i want the heat reduction quirks, I have to buy SOO DAMN many stuff I never gonna need, quick ignition? thats for bad gamplay derps shutting down. Hill climb (multiple times)? SERIOUSLY?

a MUCH better layout would have been dividing the heat into having to spend on more nodes, so heat contaiment needs more skillpoints. While making less hill climb and ignition nodes but spending one skill point on them grant more %. so many sueless stuff to buy to get to the relevant things. that really hurts.

[Ed Le Toggaf]

Dee Eight, on 26 April 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

Do the math...I think you're not grasping how small the increases in practice end up actually being.

Its even smaller for clans because you need to invest in heat containment and cool run to actaully fire any weapons without burning like an easy-bake oven, meanwhile IS gets to invest in weapon cooldowns armour and speed tweak all while just boating ballistics and missiles.

[Ruar]

Bud Crue, on 26 April 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

"Works in progress". Oh that's lovely. What's the precedent for PGI iteratively buffing mechs that are broken? The three years for the Victor to get some armor?

"Viable skill tree first". How does screwing the worst mechs in the game out of the gate in conjunction with that skills tree impact its potential viability?

"Shore up weak areas individually". Again what is the precedent for that? The annual requirkenings? So a year at best? Random dart board nerfs of the last year (not once did they buff a mech with these btw)? How about the weapons passes? In every instance here mechs have been made worse except for the UAC pass of December wherein a few odd ducks got some minor buffs. Is that sole instance the basis of the faith you are placing in the assumption that PGI will "shore up weak areas individually"?

"In this PTS you'll see a focus toward ramping down Offensive Quirks, and a complete removal of baseline Mobility Quirks to coincide both with the Skill Tree and and the Engine Desync. Defensive Quirks have only seen a handful of adjustments made. The new Skill Tree is the start of a path which will see us greatly ramp down and re-structure the Quirk system as a whole, but this is expected to be a process occurring over time and future patches, not one sweeping action."

https://mwomercs.com...test-session-2/

[Bud Crue]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

"In this PTS you'll see a focus toward ramping down Offensive Quirks, and a complete removal of baseline Mobility Quirks to coincide both with the Skill Tree and and the Engine Desync. Defensive Quirks have only seen a handful of adjustments made. The new Skill Tree is the start of a path which will see us greatly ramp down and re-structure the Quirk system as a whole, but this is expected to be a process occurring over time and future patches, not one sweeping action."

https://mwomercs.com...test-session-2/

Yes. I read it. I also read the part in the last skills tree about improved diversity and player choice.

Making bad mechs objectively worse as part of their "path" will not and mathematically CAN NOT make those mechs somehow magically competitive under the skill tree. Ramping down quirks of any kind on mechs that are only remotely viable because they have quirks is a a prima facia nerf to those mechs even if all mechs were being nerfed equally. But they aren't, some of the worst mechs are being subjected to some of the hardest nerfs and that is a guarantee that for at least the immediate future those mechs are now garbage and may as well be removed from the game.

[Ruar]

Bud Crue, on 26 April 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

Yes. I read it. I also read the part in the last skills tree about improved diversity and player choice.

Making bad mechs objectively worse as part of their "path" will not and mathematically CAN NOT make those mechs somehow magically competitive under the skill tree. Ramping down quirks of any kind on mechs that are only remotely viable because they have quirks is a a prima facia nerf to those mechs even if all mechs were being nerfed equally. But they aren't, some of the worst mechs are being subjected to some of the hardest nerfs and that is a guarantee that for at least the immediate future those mechs are now garbage and may as well be removed from the game.

They think they are providing diversity and player choice. I honestly believe that whoever is in charge of the tree at PGI truly feels they are doing the right thing. And for the most part they have a good idea that just needs a bit of final tweaking by making the nodes more linear. I'm not sure what it's going to take to get them to realize they need to make things more linear, but we'll see what happens when they announce this going live and whether or not people start leaving.

That said, if one of the goals of the tree change is to reduce TTK then they need to strip out the offensive quirks and start over with balance. If they leave the quirks in, put in the skill tree, and then take the quirks away it's going to be just as upsetting as taking out the quirks now. We still have the FEDCOM civil war updates coming out which is going to shift gameplay a lot.

While I understand the easy to read numbers being lost when some quirks are removed I can see the need to go ahead and make this change so the game can be properly balanced. Yes, it's going to cause some mismatches. No, there isn't much faith in PGI getting quirks right anytime soon. However, I think quirks are overrated for the most part and solid builds can be created without having to rely on offensive quirks.

Keep in mind, the quirks being stripped are primarily offensive in nature.

So in the end I think the quirk issue is not a sticking point. It's something to be watched in the future, but it's also necessary so I'm willing to see how things go forward in regards to offensive quirks.

[Reno Blade]

I just ask this again.
whats the difference between linear skill points with diminishing return that you can skill without "wasting" points vs the "mess" we have where you "waste" points to get the same benefit for the same investment?

You get more side-effects in the mess (which can make it better to use mutliple weapon systems) compared to the linear system everyone is asking for.

e.g.
spend 20 points in linear tree for -15% heat generation (where you get less % over time - diminishing return)
vs
spend 20 points in mixed (messed) tree to get -15% heat generation + 2% cooldown + 3% useless stuff (e.g. velocity or laser duration)

= net win is 2% cooldown increase with the messy tree we have now.

[Ruar]

Reno Blade, on 26 April 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I just ask this again.
whats the difference between linear skill points with diminishing return that you can skill without "wasting" points vs the "mess" we have where you "waste" points to get the same benefit for the same investment?

You get more side-effects in the mess (which can make it better to use mutliple weapon systems) compared to the linear system everyone is asking for.

e.g.
spend 20 points in linear tree for -15% heat generation (where you get less % over time - diminishing return)
vs
spend 20 points in mixed (messed) tree to get -15% heat generation + 2% cooldown + 3% useless stuff (e.g. velocity or laser duration)

= net win is 2% cooldown increase with the messy tree we have now.

There is a distinct lack of control in the mess system versus linear. It doesn't feel like I'm in control of customizing my mech when I have to select nodes I don't want/need to get to the ones I do.

However, in a linear tree with adjusted costs I can decide exactly what is valuable for my build and what isn't. I can customize as I see fit instead of customizing along the lines that PGI is forcing me to travel. Which is essentially no real ability to customize but instead simply paying a penalty to get the skills I deem necessary for my build.

[Bud Crue]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

They think they are providing diversity and player choice. I honestly believe that whoever is in charge of the tree at PGI truly feels they are doing the right thing. And for the most part they have a good idea that just needs a bit of final tweaking by making the nodes more linear. I'm not sure what it's going to take to get them to realize they need to make things more linear, but we'll see what happens when they announce this going live and whether or not people start leaving.

That said, if one of the goals of the tree change is to reduce TTK then they need to strip out the offensive quirks and start over with balance. If they leave the quirks in, put in the skill tree, and then take the quirks away it's going to be just as upsetting as taking out the quirks now. We still have the FEDCOM civil war updates coming out which is going to shift gameplay a lot.

While I understand the easy to read numbers being lost when some quirks are removed I can see the need to go ahead and make this change so the game can be properly balanced. Yes, it's going to cause some mismatches. No, there isn't much faith in PGI getting quirks right anytime soon. However, I think quirks are overrated for the most part and solid builds can be created without having to rely on offensive quirks.

Keep in mind, the quirks being stripped are primarily offensive in nature.

So in the end I think the quirk issue is not a sticking point. It's something to be watched in the future, but it's also necessary so I'm willing to see how things go forward in regards to offensive quirks.

And if they were limiting that stripping of quirks to superior mechs then yes those goals would make sense, even be laudable, but they are not. They are nerfing some of the worst mechs that currently exist. Nerfing quirks -offensively, defensively or otherwise- of mechs that are already not played much because of how crappy they are will merely make them less likely to be played. Nerfing such mechs while not nerfing some superior mechs makes the relative awfulness of the quirked bad mechs even more distinctive.

[Bud Crue]

An illustrative observation of what exactly PGI appears to think will lead to a better more "properly balanced" game:

Status via the current game
Mech A has added value quirk of +70. Mech A is rarely played and is considered a "low tier" mech.
Mech B has an added value quirk of +0. Mech B is a common sight in the game, and makes frequent appearances in competitive leagues. Mech B is objectively superior to mech A having more and higher hard points then Mech A.

Via skills tree nerfs
Mech A's added value quirk is lowered to +50. Mech A which was rarely played before has lost some of its added value quirk and is now objectively worse than it was before. Via skills tree Mech A can recover its lost +20 added value quirk using 10 nodes.
Mech B's added value quirk remains at +0 Mech B will remain a common sight in the game, it will continue to make frequent appearances in competitive leagues. Mech B under the skills tree is now even more distinctly superior to Mech A under the auspices of the skills tree. By using the skills tree Mech B can use 10 nodes to add an extra +20 added value quirk. Mech B is now even more superior to Mech A than it was before Mech A's added value quirk was reduced.

How can anyone think such a thing will lead to improved diversity or balance?

[Ruar]

Bud Crue, on 26 April 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

And if they were limiting that stripping of quirks to superior mechs then yes those goals would make sense, even be laudable, but they are not. They are nerfing some of the worst mechs that currently exist. Nerfing quirks -offensively, defensively or otherwise- of mechs that are already not played much because of how crappy they are will merely make them less likely to be played. Nerfing such mechs while not nerfing some superior mechs makes the relative awfulness of the quirked bad mechs even more distinctive.

I think they are assuming they need a new baseline to see how targeted quirks effects some of the lower performing mechs and what it does for the ones considered better. Especially with the changes to heat and TTK.

I get your point, but I also see why they would choose to do it the way they have. Look at the quirks they pulled, most are heat and cooldown related which is directed at the areas they are trying to change with the skill tree.

[Dee Eight]

Reno Blade, on 26 April 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I just ask this again.
whats the difference between linear skill points with diminishing return that you can skill without "wasting" points vs the "mess" we have where you "waste" points to get the same benefit for the same investment?

You get more side-effects in the mess (which can make it better to use mutliple weapon systems) compared to the linear system everyone is asking for.

e.g.
spend 20 points in linear tree for -15% heat generation (where you get less % over time - diminishing return)
vs
spend 20 points in mixed (messed) tree to get -15% heat generation + 2% cooldown + 3% useless stuff (e.g. velocity or laser duration)

= net win is 2% cooldown increase with the messy tree we have now.

The messy tree as you call it, gives benefits that make for a more well rounded mech. People keep complaining about the hill climb (last pts it was the shock absorbtion which I was looking forwards to myself) or the velocity nodes or torso/arm pitch and so on... and that might be true up until having those nodes saves your bacon in a game...because being able to climb the hill faster got you to the fight to aid the teammate before he died...or the pitch improvement let you actually HIT the locust in your face at waist level of your atlas.

[Ruar]

Dee Eight, on 26 April 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

The messy tree as you call it, gives benefits that make for a more well rounded mech. People keep complaining about the hill climb (last pts it was the shock absorbtion which I was looking forwards to myself) or the velocity nodes or torso/arm pitch and so on... and that might be true up until having those nodes saves your bacon in a game...because being able to climb the hill faster got you to the fight to aid the teammate before he died...or the pitch improvement let you actually HIT the locust in your face at waist level of your atlas.

So make them cheap nodes that are easy to buy to round out a mech instead of being forced whether you want them or not.

Don't try and sell a crap tree as something that allows players to customize their mechs and then have everyone with the same basic layout because they have to take all of the same junk nodes to get to the ones they want.

You can't honestly sit there and try to sell the messy tree as something good and logical. It's a change, but it's not a good change. Especially considering the mountain of feedback on how to make it work and provide customization.

Stop, just stop with your lies.

[aGeNTo]

How many years do they fkn need to learn that they are **** at balancing this game?

They dont even out the Clans vs IS balance, they dont even out the cookie cutter laser vomit builds and jesus christ what is this awful **** about refunds of modules? I think i cannot even afford to RESKILL and spend 4 mill for each of my 120 MECHS without the Module refund in C-Bills!

The only thing i can see, is that they want to limit the Clan vs IS superiority with PUNISHING omnimech owners and force them to actually skill ANYTHING but the weapon skills unless you want to pilot a maxxed Laser vomit a semi usable PPC Gauss and a totally lack luster SRM Timberwolf.

That is frustrating as i own 4 of them and i want to have diversity.

But even more i want to see a different set of mechs in the competitive scene. Where is the dragon now with its AC5 on steroids? Dead for years. The warhammer is popular? NO MORE, we NERF IT. But that makes it still more used than the useless Cataphract with its horrible arms. Give the low meta mechs Quirks back or atleast do something for to address this ****.

One more thing regarding the forced Skills that you do not need: It might be their intention to avoid min maxed builds because everyone would just go for max armor, max heat gen for lasers, max vel max cd and max armor for ACs etc. So they built the tree to randomize a few things.

I guess i wont come back to this game if they carry this crap forward. The new weapon system was a fail and now this Path of Exile style skill system of doom.