42 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Lukoi Banacek, on 26 April 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

You must not have read all of the notes, because existing quirks were not left alone. Or did you mean, no more tweaks to quirks past the current PTS version?

I mean remove the tweaks to quirks.

The quirks from live, no modules, introduce skill tree.

The quirks on the PTS buff the **** out of top performing mechs and make a lot of mechs and weapon systems worthless. Again.

[Orville Righteous]

Khobai, on 25 April 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

what they completely failed at is fair compensation for modules.

Under the old system, I could outfit 10 to 12 mechs with modules, under the new system, I can skill up every previously mastered mech I own with things like Radar Deprivation, Seismic, etc. I'm pretty happy about the changes. Getting C-bills for modules would have messed up the MWO economy I think.

[Ruar]

The refund is nice, really nice.

The skill tree itself needs to be straightened out instead of tangled. They talk about wanting players to be able to customize their mechs and then they bury popular skills behind unwanted gates resulting in cookie cutter builds. That's not customization, it's just a different form of forced skill layout.

There are so many ways they can go linear, keep the costs of popular skills up high, and still let people actually customize instead of being forced into a certain chain of nodes.

I want to see the skill tree put on live too, but it needs to actually do what they want instead of being a crappy build that will drive people away.

[Alexander of Macedon]

Xetelian, on 26 April 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

Completely ignoring the fact that all my clan mechs have 12% cool down from modules and 5% cool down from fast fire. Also range and Radar Dep, Seismic.


At least the IS mechs get to keep most of their buffs.

Are you trolling? This isn't about the differences between mastery+modules and tree. Almost every IS 'mech lost most of the quirks that weren't even sufficient to close the performance gap as they were. This is exactly like all those quirks being taken and PGI saying, "lol mastery skills+modules make up for it" while ignoring that 'mechs which were already superior before the nerf also get those mastery skills+modules.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

The refund is nice, really nice.

The skill tree itself needs to be straightened out instead of tangled. They talk about wanting players to be able to customize their mechs and then they bury popular skills behind unwanted gates resulting in cookie cutter builds. That's not customization, it's just a different form of forced skill layout.

There are so many ways they can go linear, keep the costs of popular skills up high, and still let people actually customize instead of being forced into a certain chain of nodes.

I want to see the skill tree put on live too, but it needs to actually do what they want instead of being a crappy build that will drive people away.

Totally agree here. I noticed how speed tweak was put in at the bottom which basically forces you to take most of the nodes just to get speed tweak. This skill tree still needs work. I think Solahma's take is more on target with what we're hoping for.

[BARegulator]

So my only question is, and maybe I missed it, where did the number 91 come from? I feel that they should have just rounded it off to 100 to allow for compensation for some of those modules you didn't want/need.

[C E Dwyer]

I think P.G.I should just release it.

There is a fair amount I think it fails to do, like balance tech. Its also not going to cause more diverse builds like P.G.I are claiming it does.

It's going to be terrible for new starts without the crutch of all the GXP we'll be getting.

The Reimbursement scheme is the last thing people should be complaining about, yet the tears around here, because they aren't getting everything they want is pathetic, and its being treated like it's the only thing that matters.

I'm unsure what I'll do once it's live, but I just think P.G.I need to launch it and see if they have a game that's generating enough income in six months.

[C E Dwyer]

Kiyoshi Amaya, on 26 April 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Totally agree here. I noticed how speed tweak was put in at the bottom which basically forces you to take most of the nodes just to get speed tweak. This skill tree still needs work. I think Solahma's take is more on target with what we're hoping for.

I certainly am not hoping for it.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Cathy, on 26 April 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

I certainly am not hoping for it.

Are you saying you'd prefer to be forced to take nodes you have no interest in?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Cathy, on 26 April 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

The Reimbursement scheme is the last thing people should be complaining about, yet the tears around here, because they aren't getting everything they want is pathetic, and its being treated like it's the only thing that matters.

Comments like these that serve as nothing more than attack-bait and generalize people for having a difference of opinion are always super helpful on public forums lol.

[R Valentine]

The tree is still garbage. IS is still getting screwed. The Mad Dog was also nerfed. Uhm, why? Because it wasn't OP enough? MADIIC and the Night Gyr both came up. Oh yea, those two definitely needed help. They haven't completely replaced their competition or anything. Timberwolf even came up. Virtually all IS mechs went down. Anything quirk dependent may as well just get deleted. They even nerfed the Vindicator. Vindi OP, right? What a mess. At this right I'd be just as happy if they scrap the skill tree completely and send it to the scarp heap with every other abysmal PGI failure, like Info and Energy Draw.

[Reza Malin]

The Lighthouse, on 26 April 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

So, this "moving forward again" meant previously.....

1) Screwed scale of the mechs to make sure no one actually plays light mechs anymore (frequently I see 0% on Light mech queue, and many QP games without a single light on both sides.)

2) Re-did the mini-map to reduce its usefulness.

3) Implemented a whole bunch of the mode that is so useless that we have a whining thread about low population every single week (Faction Play.)



Yes, you are right, this game is moving forward again.



Moving forward again to death that is.

1) Screwed scale of mechs? I see people performing well in lights all the time. They are not really my cup of tea but i see good light pilots frequently. The main reason people don't pilot lights is nothing to do with "scale". Its because lights have less guns and less survivability unless you are an experienced fast mover.

2) Minimap less useful? Eh? The minimap is far superior than it used to be, please explain how it is less useful?

3) I grant you, faction play is pretty bad at the moment. The issue there is player related as much as it is incentive related. The people who play faction play the most, constantly complaining about potatoes and no new players, yet refusing to change their own stance on anything, even after 2+ years of that stance doing nothing to prevent ever dying interest in the mode. Basically, many people don't want to join units to play FP, while at the same time there is not enough incentive to play FW in the first place, especially as a loyalist. So people just play QP instead. They don't think, "oh i need to join a unit", they just don't play FW. End of story.

[Reza Malin]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

I mean remove the tweaks to quirks.

The quirks from live, no modules, introduce skill tree.

The quirks on the PTS buff the **** out of top performing mechs and make a lot of mechs and weapon systems worthless. Again.

Have they removed all quirks from IS mechs? or just reduced some of them?

If they have simply reduced some of them, why not just leave them as they are, like you suggest? The main issue with quirks was people saying why they even need to exist. If PGI aren't capable of fixing that need, then what difference does changing them make? The offence from them having to exist is still there, so just leave them as they are and keep some balance.

Maybe, they are reducing but not removing quirks, because they feel the new tech that is coming will provide some of its own balance? Especially light engines.

Edited by Reza Malin, 26 April 2017 - 12:20 PM.

[R Valentine]

Reza Malin, on 26 April 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

Have they removed all quirks from IS mechs? or just reduced some of them?

If they have simply reduced some of them, why not just leave them as they are, like you suggest? The main issue with quirks was people saying why they even need to exist. If PGI aren't capable of fixing that need, then what difference does changing them make? The offence from them having to exist is still there, so just leave them as they are and keep some balance.

Maybe, they are reducing but not removing quirks, because they feel the new tech that is coming will provide some of its own balance? Especially light engines.

I think that people need to remember, that until we see what the new tech looks like, some of PGI decisions, may be including aspects from that.

After all, light engines alone should make IS far more competitive, shouldn't it?

Why reduce IS quirks if you aren't going to compensate them with anything? That just outright makes IS worse than it already is. And I don't care about new tech, because it isn't here yet. Won't be for months. Why do I have to get nerfed into oblivion for months when there's absolutely no need for it? Why can't they adjust quirks when the new tech comes out if that's the justification?

[Reza Malin]

Kiran Yagami, on 26 April 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Why reduce IS quirks if you aren't going to compensate them with anything? That just outright makes IS worse than it already is. And I don't care about new tech, because it isn't here yet. Won't be for months. Why do I have to get nerfed into oblivion for months when there's absolutely no need for it? Why can't they adjust quirks when the new tech comes out if that's the justification?

But i thought the skill tree is supposed to come with the new tech?

That is my point. If they arrive together, then they may have made allowances for the new tech that no one here yet knows about.

As i said, the light engine alone should help balance a lot.

EDIT: I love my quirks btw, i don't want to lose them if it makes IS worse, im just trying to understand if there is a reason they have made these changes without kneejerk raging.

Edited by Reza Malin, 26 April 2017 - 12:30 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Reza Malin, on 26 April 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

1) Screwed scale of mechs? I see people performing well in lights all the time. They are not really my cup of tea but i see good light pilots frequently. The main reason people don't pilot lights is nothing to do with "scale". Its because lights have less guns and less survivability unless you are an experienced fast mover.

Even tho, this is an opinion, it's really not based on any facts.

The re-scaling hurt light mechs. Significantly, you can glean directly from the far lower % of people playing lights in the queue (you can see this via hovertip before launching match) than there used to be, and the narrowing of lights played in competitive play to an even more stringent degree than the other three weight classes. Being physically larger hurts lights. Was it fair? I don't know. That's a different discussion, but saying or implying that they didn't suffer from the rescale is nonsense. They very clearly did. What's debatable, is whether or not it was warranted.

[dimachaerus]

Honestly, the new skill system seems nice in that It'll let me do more with my weird *** builds, but the absolute slash and burn of offensive quirks is going to utterly destroy a lot of mechs that were already struggling. Seeing as the most quirk dependant builds are all I.S. it's a pretty heavy handed nerf to one side in an already precarious (but still functional) balance scheme. It's following in the well worn footprints of previous overkill PGI "nerfs" though, so I doubt it'll change much.

If the new skills are meant to 'compensate" for that then they need bigger bonuses, or maybe a new quirk for underperfoming mechs "increases bonuses from Pilot Skills by x%"?

Just let me get 30% reduced jam chance on my R63 urbie for Kerenskys' sake.

Edited by dimachaerus, 26 April 2017 - 12:37 PM.

[dimachaerus]

Lukoi Banacek, on 26 April 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

Even tho, this is an opinion, it's really not based on any facts.

The re-scaling hurt light mechs. Significantly, you can glean directly from the far lower % of people playing lights in the queue (you can see this via hovertip before launching match) than there used to be, and the narrowing of lights played in competitive play to an even more stringent degree than the other three weight classes. Being physically larger hurts lights. Was it fair? I don't know. That's a different discussion, but saying or implying that they didn't suffer from the rescale is nonsense. They very clearly did. What's debatable, is whether or not it was warranted.

Honestly, the only lights who really got "hurt" by it were the Wolfhound, Firestarter, Panther, Jenner, and Jenner IIC. the Locust which was already miniscule got smaller, and they finally got around to making the Uller and Puma a bit more svelte, though not really enough. the one mech that I personally felt needed it the most, the Hankyu, didn't change hardly at all.

They took all the I.S. 35 tonners, and made them "X-bawks-hueg". it's pretty bad when I can see over the top of my friends mech when he's in a Catapult, and I'm in a wolfhound.


P.S.: the Grasshopper was the REAL victim in this exchange though. Poor skellington got made fatter AND taller, and it was already the tallest mech in the game to begin with. The Black Knight suffered similarly, though to a lesser degree.

[Lukoi Banacek]

dimachaerus, on 26 April 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Honestly, the only lights who really got "hurt" by it were the Wolfhound, Firestarter, Panther, Jenner, and Jenner IIC. the Locust which was already miniscule got smaller, and they finally got around to making the Uller and Puma a bit more svelte, though not really enough. the one mech that I personally felt needed it the most, the Hankyu, didn't change hardly at all.

Yes, granularity is better than generalizing, but my underlying point remains. IS mechs got largely bigger and harder to fight with effectively.

While the GHR got hurt, I'd argue that might have needed a bit of a tweak and it's still fairly commonly seen in public and comp due the effective niche it fills. Not TBR/NTG worthy obviously but still a solid role-player. The deletion of offensive quirks in the new PTS probably didn't help it remain competitive though.

[Reza Malin]

Lukoi Banacek, on 26 April 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

Even tho, this is an opinion, it's really not based on any facts.

The re-scaling hurt light mechs. Significantly, you can glean directly from the far lower % of people playing lights in the queue (you can see this via hovertip before launching match) than there used to be, and the narrowing of lights played in competitive play to an even more stringent degree than the other three weight classes. Being physically larger hurts lights. Was it fair? I don't know. That's a different discussion, but saying or implying that they didn't suffer from the rescale is nonsense. They very clearly did. What's debatable, is whether or not it was warranted.

But this is an opinion too to be honest. You can't say people play lights less because of the rescale either.

I have played this game for over 4 years, i know how to view weight class %. I don't remember over that time there ever being a significantly high light population. I also don't ever remember seeing it at 0%.

Even if there was, all the more current additions to the game, and more recent developments have benefited other weight classes far more than lights. This to me is as good a reason for people to pick them less, than any rescale.

Edited by Reza Malin, 26 April 2017 - 01:03 PM.