58 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 27 April 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

To put the warrior part in Mechwarrior... also the roots of what Mechwarrior became was an RPG after all....

It may have roots in being an RPG, but the past 3 iterations haven't been RPGs, so I think that is a fair bit of a red herring.

[Natred]

I am for it.

[TercieI]

Monkey Lover, on 27 April 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Not having a skill tree isn't an option . You need it for grinding. That's all this game is , it's one big grind.

Kindof an odd comment since the current refunds more or less eliminate grinding for well established accounts. Unless something changes, I'll never have to play to skill up another mech.

[Phoolan Devi]

GrimRiver, on 27 April 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

And they ARE the minority as they are outnumbered by those who are for the skill tree.

Proof? The forum is my proof, go take a gander it's not hard.

Here's a poll: https://mwomercs.com...e-go-live-poll/

If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it.

People that are against it don't want to have their comfort levels messed with and those types are the last to adapt to any changes because they know they'll be left behind.

It's 2017, not 2013 and it's past time we get out of this placeholder system that we've been stuck with for 3+ years.

The tree isn't perfect, we all know this but it's been a better option than those before it as a replacement for the aging placeholder past it's prime.

Face it naysayers you're outnumbered, cut your loses, suck it up and prepare for change like the rest of us.

(((This is for those that are outright against the tree without offering reason or cause)))

People keep misreading my post, here is clarification: "Proof? The forum is my proof, go take a gander it's not hard." I'm talking about all the topics in the forums and it's comments on the subject of skill tree.

"If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it." I'm talking about the votes pertaining to the poll itself and was used a bit of extra data. Ie: I'm not using the poll as a 100% source of my information.

I am all for the skill tree! Already was back in February!

But now, with the stupidity of GSP, I do not want it to be implemented.

Change the refund for modules as proclaimed, keep the HSP for christ sake, and I am all for it again!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TercieI, on 27 April 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

I'll never have to play to skill up another mech.

Which is nice, but so is not being space poor. Considering how much GXP I'm getting back the c-bills would be much nicer since I will still be able to level any mech I want for a bit.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 April 2017 - 11:09 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Ruar, on 27 April 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

Limited poll is limited. I want the skill tree but it needs to be linear instead of a Web. You should have added more poll options. You conclusion is based on biased data.

The Poll is not biased in the way you think it is

One option is to put it back to the drawing board. The other is more apathetic, "just get it over with" doesn't show favor.

We can't keep stalling everything because of the "This is for those that are outright against the tree without offering reason or cause" Crowd of people

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 April 2017 - 11:12 AM.

[Ruar]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 April 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

The Poll is not biased in the way you think it is

One option is to put it back to the drawing board. The other is more apathetic, "just get it over with" doesn't show favor.

We can't keep stalling everything becuase of the "[color=#959595]This is for those that are outright against the tree without offering reason or cause"[/color]

Where is the "Yes, but it needs to be linear" option?

The vast majority of posts about the skill tree say that it should be less cluttered, linear, and easier to follow. That is not the same as saying "Yes, make it happen" or "No, I don't want it".

So we go back to limited poll is limited and it's biased from the beginning. He created a poll to prove his point... and big surprise it proved his point. One of the easiest ways to win an argument is establish the wording at the beginning to favor the responses towards your goal.

Example- Does (significant person in your life) know that you (unfavorable action) yet? If you say yes then they know you do such a horrible thing. If you say no, then you do it but they don't know about it. No matter how you answer it confirms that you do this action even if you do not do it.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Ruar, on 27 April 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

I very much agree. There was a guy Imperius I think who didn't understand how to make an unbiased poll. Not that he was the only one around here that does or did that.

one thing that is not usually ever used is comparative observation data from the PTS to backup the claims. I don't care about vocals or polls to be honest. I just care about, "is there data and evidence to back up a claim". Something you can demonstrate that shows me something. Not a wingy forum post

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 April 2017 - 11:18 AM.

[MischiefSC]

There's plenty of room for criticism in the design but the general concept is good. I like the new interface. If you want the skill tree to be complex it's going to be complex. If it's simple then it's lacking the variety and nuance required to provide any real value.

Jam reduction and LBX spread reduction are worthless.

Critical stuff in mobility is too far down the list.

Quit trying to remove quirks from IS mechs - the skill tree in no way, shape or form impacts the balance issues that created the need for quirks. Either balance the tech itself better or leave the quirks alone. Skill tree has 0 relevance to the need for quirks.

[FireStoat]

I like how the OP made this post before checking out Respec costs on the PTS for the new skill tree. Seriously, download it and take a close look at it right now. It's probably the most impressive money grab PGI has put forth to date.

Edit - I actually like the new tree and system, btw. I've tested a variety of mechs and I'm not horribly against any of it. Time to kill is being reduced (somewhat) with the loss of the current 17% cooldown reduction every mech can get, sans inherent quirks, but PGI has a reasoning for it somewhere.

I'm even fine with the refunds they intend, although I support the 'Cbill refund for Cbill spent' argument the older players have. It won't affect me personally. The depth of how much the Refund system will cost in the face that players won't have 24 hour access to the PTS to simply test ideas flies straight into the face of PGI's design goal of "to encourage mech diversity and a variety of design builds".

All of you are currently used to a system where it costs nothing for a mech to have modules swapped after you've bought them. That is all gone now, there is no freedom to swap out bonuses for different weapon builds for free. You simply have to see it and try it to believe it. Download it now.

Edited by FireStoat, 27 April 2017 - 11:42 AM.

[Phoolan Devi]

FireStoat, on 27 April 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

I like how the OP made this post before checking out Respec costs on the PTS for the new skill tree. Seriously, download it and take a close look at it right now. It's probably the most impressive money grab PGI has put forth to date.

What money are you talking about for respec? As far as I know it's only 400xp for a respec.

[Cy Mitchell]

Phoolan Devi, on 27 April 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

What money are you talking about for respec? As far as I know it's only 400xp for a respec.

Exactly plus what the heck are you going to do with all the XP you earn on a variant after you have Mastered it? I do not seeing myself respecing Mechs often and if I do it will most likely be because of a weapon switch and I only need to change a few weapon nodes. I am XP poor because I do not grind much but even so I think the 400XP to respec a node is trivial.

Edited by Rampage, 27 April 2017 - 01:46 PM.

[0111101]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 April 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

We can't keep stalling everything because of the "This is for those that are outright against the tree without offering reason or cause" Crowd of people

PGI could have pushed it straight to live servers on multiple occasions, but there's always been those darn announcements made about public test sessions and accompanying requests for feedback... so bothersome. PGI should just sack the guy writing the announcements so we can all get our skill tree with no input from the community already, geez...

[Ted Wayz]

Sample size of 100 is the voice of the community!

Just take note, if 60% of the community supported the new tree and 40% didn't; but that 40% accounted for 70% of the spend on this game and it could affect their spending habits it would be a very very bad idea to implement the skill tree.

This is a business not a democracy.

[Athom83]

If all of you want to prove your point of who is the majority, convince PGI to implement this; https://mwomercs.com...40-poll-system/

That way, they can see what the players want while people here on the forums can grow their E-peen by knowing their side is the majority.

[Insanity09]

If the skill tree were decoupled from the de-quirkening, then I'd say go live right now, and adjust things later as needed. (I.e put the skill tree in, but leave the current quirks in place until new data comes in to show what further tuning is needed)

Yes, there doesn't seem to be any way to account for chassis that had more mech/weapon module slots than usual, I hope that too will be addressed in some way, but depending on why those were granted in the first place (shoring up weak mechs?), tuning of a similar nature could happen later.

Yah, the refund thing is currently a bit of a mess, but that too could be adjusted after the fact.
(Failing the simple seeming full refund idea, It seems like the most elegant solution there would be to allow the GSP given as a result of the refund/conversion to be sold. Perhaps call it LGSP, legacy-GSP, to differentiate it from GSP earned later (unless it already is differentiated from simple SP, it's all a bit confusing).

[Cato Phoenix]

GrimRiver, on 27 April 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

And they ARE the minority as they are outnumbered by those who are for the skill tree.

Proof? The forum is my proof, go take a gander it's not hard.

Here's a poll: https://mwomercs.com...e-go-live-poll/

If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it.

"If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it." I'm talking about the votes pertaining to the poll itself and was used a bit of extra data. Ie: I'm not using the poll as a 100% source of my information.

This is not proof. The only valid statement you can make is : "Based on the current results of this poll, more voters favor implementation of the skill tree than do not."

You cannot 'prove' more players support the tree unless your data set includes all players.

You cannot assert that the results of the poll mean that a majority of players prefer the tree as it currently stands.

[GrimRiver]

Cato Phoenix, on 27 April 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

This is not proof. The only valid statement you can make is : "Based on the current results of this poll, more voters favor implementation of the skill tree than do not."

You cannot 'prove' more players support the tree unless your data set includes all players.

You cannot assert that the results of the poll mean that a majority of players prefer the tree as it currently stands.

I've already addressed this multiple times, please reread this part of my post again:

"People keep misreading my post, here is clarification: "Proof? The forum is my proof, go take a gander it's not hard." I'm talking about all the topics in the forums and it's comments on the subject of skill tree.

"If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it." I'm talking about the (((votes pertaining to the poll itself))) and was used a bit of extra data. Ie: I'm not using the poll as a 100% source of my information."

My topic wasn't about the poll, the poll was only a small addition to my post.

[Pr8Dator2]

SUPPORT!

[R Valentine]

GrimRiver, on 27 April 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

And they ARE the minority as they are outnumbered by those who are for the skill tree. Proof? The forum is my proof, go take a gander it's not hard. Here's a poll: https://mwomercs.com...e-go-live-poll/ If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it. People that are against it don't want to have their comfort levels messed with and those types are the last to adapt to any changes because they know they'll be left behind. It's 2017, not 2013 and it's past time we get out of this placeholder system that we've been stuck with for 3+ years. The tree isn't perfect, we all know this but it's been a better option than those before it as a replacement for the aging placeholder past it's prime. Face it naysayers you're outnumbered, cut your loses, suck it up and prepare for change like the rest of us. (((This is for those that are outright against the tree without offering reason or cause))) People keep misreading my post, here is clarification: "Proof? The forum is my proof, go take a gander it's not hard." I'm talking about all the topics in the forums and it's comments on the subject of skill tree. "If this poll is any indication, more people are for it than against it." I'm talking about the votes pertaining to the poll itself and was used a bit of extra data. Ie: I'm not using the poll as a 100% source of my information.

Ah yes, one poll with less than 100 votes. Surely that must represent everyone.