106 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

I'll put this challenge standing out there - I'll happily actually put my money where my mouth is so to speak. We'll make 2 versions of the same mech. I'll take the one with the best speed, mobility, heat management and weapon performance and someone else can take a significant reduction in those traits to get sensors or JJs or 3 pts of armor extra (that's literally what you'd get) and we'll see which performs better.

And that is all about balance of basic numbers with what you get. This will need to be tweaked of course. They also can take into account balance multipliers in the base chassis. But again, perhaps the numbers need more adjustment. That is to be expected.


If there is only ONE way to build a mech, then it is pretty obvious balance is off.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alteran, on 28 April 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

Bishop, that right there is what Lukoi is talking about. Try and paint it any way you want, but it is what it is.

As for the overall topic and PTS, can't really stand it much at all. In fact, I'd rather PGI get rid of both systems altogether and allow for modules only. Giving magic bonuses in any kind of skill system just creates the same issues that too many of us have tried to avoid - the meta.

It's too late for that though and with this change will see exactly what has been talked about in this thread and the many others previously - people either sticking with MWO or leaving. PGI trying to tie new weapon systems and Mechs to this is just them using BS to try and sell it. It's not working.

The real measure in all this, will be where MWO sits come late summer. Personally, I log in for the odd event here and there, but really not much more.

please... what part of it?

That I have the balls to stand up to the folks who think that having a 1 under their names makes them the voice for the whole damn forums?

Cuz guess what? Unlike them, I don't claim to be. I am just challenging their claim. I spent the entire last SkilL Tree PTS, and many other instances, posting copious, long, drawn out posts explaining how things work, why this idea was not so black and white, why this one was pure bullcrap, etc.

Still got shouted down by a couple rabble rousers, most of whom never posted a cogent argument, and the few that did, generally sidestepped the actual points made.

So yeah. Not wasting my time with it this time around, Feel free to uee the search engine if you want long dissertations on the matter.

[Bishop Steiner]

JC Daxion, on 28 April 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

And that is all about balance of basic numbers with what you get. This will need to be tweaked of course. They also can take into account balance multipliers in the base chassis. But again, perhaps the numbers need more adjustment. That is to be expected.


If there is only ONE way to build a mech, then it is pretty obvious balance is off.

And it's largely pointless... because:
1) Duels, unless huge balance discrepancies are involved just show who is the better pilot.
2) The game isn't 1v1, so claiming because something doesn't optimize it for a Duel, means exactly nothing in the context of the actual game

That said, I'd be willing to be almost anyone who is 1) better than I am, and 2) has a more functioning computer than I do, could smoke his max mobility *** in a Night Gyr Poptart without max mobility, because speed tweak ain't essential for what it does.

But whatever. As usual, the loud vocal minority will scream until PGI shelves it again...only this time it might be for good.

YAY them.

[Khobai]

Honestly anyone who thinks the current compensation system is fine, like Lukoi, should not even get an opinion.

It just shows that hes ignorant, closeminded, and unable to comprehend that not everyone is in the same situation. And those are exactly the kindve people that shouldnt be allowed to have a say.

I for one am going to disregard everything he says because its not at all helpful to resolving this situation.


1) I should get full compensation if PGI is changing their skill system. Its PGIs fault they needed to change their skill system, not mine, so I should not have to suffer loss of account value for PGIs mistakes. Besides I wouldve been perfectly fine if they just expanded upon the previous module system instead of adding this mindless hexlabyrinth. I didnt ask for it or want it.

2) This new skill system is atrocious. So having to suffer for the implementation of a system that is worse that what we had previously is doubly painful. Again they couldve just expanded on the previous module system instead of trying to implement this freakish skill maze.

3) PGI said we were getting unique skill trees for each variant. Whatever happened to that? That seriously wouldve solved a lot of issues with the current skill tree... like the fact it traded quirks that made mechs different for a generic skills that makes all mechs the same. If PGI just kept their promises we wouldnt be in this mess.

Edited by Khobai, 28 April 2017 - 07:03 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Promessa, on 28 April 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

Well, they fixed the main problem, imo, of people needing to grind a bunch to make their mechs viable. Put it in live and test it there. They'll need to work on the balance, but yeah, can't really do that on pts.

I hope they do consider changing the structure of the skill web in the future though. Wayyyy too many options of 1% boosts, it's a chore to load out a mech. So... I would hope they have some ideas ready for possibly cutting the number of nodes down to about a quarter of what they are now. It will be harder to do that once people start spending SP on them in live, but screw it. That shouldn't be impossible.

It'll need tweaking. Maybe percents changed, etc. Whatever.

I'm not losing sleep over having to take 3 nodes I don't like so I can totally maximize mobility, or the like. In fact, in most cases I jsut built the same mech with maybe 3/4 of the mobility or Operations Nodes, and...*GASP* was fine.

Alteran, on 28 April 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

Bishop, that right there is what Lukoi is talking about. Try and paint it any way you want, but it is what it is.

As for the overall topic and PTS, can't really stand it much at all. In fact, I'd rather PGI get rid of both systems altogether and allow for modules only. Giving magic bonuses in any kind of skill system just creates the same issues that too many of us have tried to avoid - the meta.

It's too late for that though and with this change will see exactly what has been talked about in this thread and the many others previously - people either sticking with MWO or leaving. PGI trying to tie new weapon systems and Mechs to this is just them using BS to try and sell it. It's not working.

The real measure in all this, will be where MWO sits come late summer. Personally, I log in for the odd event here and there, but really not much more.

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

I'm definitely "entitled" to my opinion, thanks.

Alex, to clarify for you, I'm not referring to him bullying me. As far as I know he's not called me out for hypocrisy or namecalling. So if you were referring to me with the violin, I think you've missed a bit. What I am doing however is calling him out for his activity on these forums.

He complains and name calls pretty consistently when folks disagree with him lately, he asks who are others to "moderate the forums" or whatever, and then starts a thread like this (moderating the forums lol). Fact is, he doesn't like getting called out about it, wants to hide behind his family's personal tragedy like it somehow excuses his behavior (yep, he used that exact line on someone who countered him on an issue where he was bemoaning someone's post count/account newness when he got called for how few games he's played of late). The list goes on and on.

I don't name call, I don't attack people with differing opinions (well, I really try to restrain myself lol, we all make mistakes). I've actually argued pretty directly with Mischief, Vandal and several others on here about the tree and no drama. Just Bishop having drama. Can't help it we're all offering discussion on the same threads, but somehow in his mind, that's someone "following" him.

Truth is, I've been pretty consistent about calling folks out for being overt forum-jerks in the past, will continue to do so. That he's fallen into that pattern, is on him.

As to the PTS -- I've mentioned much of the same challenges, tried to show people where it's valuable and where they can take advantage of the GSP/module since PGI has to be fair, kinda goofed up for a significant segment of the playerbase and routinely made it clear that underperforming mechs (especially IS) are at risk of having hte performance gap widened by a significant margin. There's no "Clan" agenda on my end. I play both types of mechs regularly/daily and would like parity to exist so that perhaps Faction Play can emerge as a "thing" again. Plus, I enjoy seeing a good mix of mechs in leagues like MRBC. So, don't think cuz we're dishing back and forth it's because we disagree on the fundamentals of the game at all. That's not it in the slightest.

now you want an actual example of "bullying" or "entitlement", here ya go

Khobai, on 28 April 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

Honestly anyone who thinks the current compensation system is fine, like Lukoi, should not even get an opinion.

It just shows that hes ignorant, closeminded, and unable to comprehend that not everyone is in the same situation. And those are exactly the kindve people that shouldnt be allowed to have a say.

I for one am going to disregard everything he says.

1) I should get full compensation if PGI is changing their system. Its PGIs fault they need to change their system, not mine, so I should not have to suffer.

2) This new skill system is atrocious. So having to suffer for the implementation of a system that is worse that what we had previously is doubly painful.

But hey.... keep believing what ya want Lukoi. The fact you decided to appoint yourself Forum Morality police shows the hypocrisy of your complaints, but hey, keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel good.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 April 2017 - 05:28 PM.

[fat4eyes]

Templar Dane, on 28 April 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

The main issue is that some nodes are supremely better than others. Durability and mobility with a splash here and there.

Not all nodes are the same value to everyone. No light mech (except perhaps the urbie) will take armor quirks because they're not worth it (ooooh I can survive taking half a medium laser's worth more damage, awesome). Same for most non-brawling mediums. Sensors are a lot more valuable to them for them to not get shot at in the first place.

The reduction of quirks COULD be an issue (and mind, it's a REDUCTION in the PTS, not a complete removal), but the thing is you'd have to establish a baseline first before you start fixing balance issues. Theorycrafting balance is fine and all, but even the best theory is beaten by cold hard data. I wouldn't be surprised if they do a quirk pass a few weeks after the skill tree drops. This temporary disruption in balance is a small price to pay for the choice given by the skill tree.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

If it doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things, maybe that should be a sign that it could use some more work instead of being immediately pushed to live and seldom touched again like most of the other things in this game.

Yeah, I had hoped the skill tree will offer different values to IS and Clan trees (not just on a few but on most) in order to become another balancing tool but it didn't go far enough. Combined with PGI's genius idea of nerfing IS quirks at the same time...

[Khobai]

Quote

now you want an actual example of "bullying" or "entitlement", here ya go

there is nothing wrong with being entitled though. Ive put hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours into this game. I absolutely have a right to be entitled. As does everyone else whos made money and time investments into this game.

As for being a bully, if telling people theyre idiots when theyre being idiots is bullying, then im guilty of that.

The compensation is garbage. The skill tree is terrible. People defending it should not have a say. If they cant get the compensation right, or get the skill tree to a satisfactory state, we are better off with just leaving the game as is than proceeding.

Quote

Not all nodes are the same value to everyone. No light mech (except perhaps the urbie) will take armor quirks because they're not worth it

Quote

Yeah, I had hoped the skill tree will offer different values to IS and Clan trees (not just on a few but on most) in order to become another balancing tool but it didn't go far enough. Combined with PGI's genius idea of nerfing IS quirks at the same time...

which is why we needed unique skill trees for every mech like PGI originally promised.

it wouldve allowed them to preserve the uniqueness of each mech and also to fine tune each mech based on how strong or weak it was compared to the baseline. All the quirks also couldve been removed and migrated to each mech's unique skill tree.

again were in this mess because of broken promises. broken promises for unique skill trees for each mech. and broken promises for full cbill refunds.

Edited by Khobai, 28 April 2017 - 05:47 PM.

[fat4eyes]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

I'll put this challenge standing out there - I'll happily actually put my money where my mouth is so to speak. We'll make 2 versions of the same mech. I'll take the one with the best speed, mobility, heat management and weapon performance and someone else can take a significant reduction in those traits to get sensors or JJs or 3 pts of armor extra (that's literally what you'd get) and we'll see which performs better.

This is not as clearcut as you'd think. Here's one case: mech is night gyr, map is polar highlands. To simulate their most common role in the battlefield, they're not allowed to close below 500m. Taking jj's and armor would give a bigger advantage than taking heat and mobility quirks.

[Khobai]

Quote

This is not as clearcut as you'd think. Here's one case: mech is night gyr, map is polar highlands. To simulate their most common role in the battlefield, they're not allowed to close below 500m. Taking jj's and armor would give a bigger advantage than taking heat and mobility quirks.

except in quickplay you have to choose your mech/skills before you know what map it is. and no one plays faction play anymore.

so it makes far more sense to go with a generalist build thats good on every map rather than a build thats specific to one map.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

But hey.... keep believing what ya want Lukoi. The fact you decided to appoint yourself Forum Morality police

That Khobai misunderstood my comments on the reimbursement plan doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've made it clear there are problems with it, and discussed it at length with Vandallhooch on how to deal with it if PGI doesn't decide to give players the option to take CB over GSP (which is something I also advocated for on the PTS forum). The difference is, Khobai doesn't try to mask his angry ranting in moral superiority.

And I didn't appoint myself anything. I merely like calling out ******** when it's obvious. This thread is a perfect example of said "forum morality" itself.

[Mystere]

Humpday, on 28 April 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

On a side note for those who have absolutely no idea how software development works in the field. The initial release of software is rarely, if ever, very good upon its release, its either buggy internally(code) or, functionally buggy(broken implementation).

Please, speak for yourself.

[Mystere]

Humpday, on 28 April 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

With how divided this community is on EVERYTHING, its a wonder how PGI makes any decisions at all.

They might as well just flip a coin, either way they're going to irritate 50% of the forum warriors. Meanwhile other other thousands of players are like...whats going on?

That is what happens when you have no vision, no solid plan, and/or refuse to stick to it, but instead vacillate every time someone threatens to riot.

[fat4eyes]

Khobai, on 28 April 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

except in quickplay you have to choose your mech/skills before you know what map it is. and no one plays faction play anymore.

so it makes far more sense to go with a generalist build thats good on every map rather than a build thats specific to one map.

The night gyr contest is not specific to a map, it just is most apparent in polar highlands. In a sniping battle between gauss poptarts, defense and jj's give more advantage than mobility and heat.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

And I didn't appoint myself anything. I merely like calling out ******** when it's obvious. This thread is a perfect example of said "forum morality" itself.

If that were true then pretty much any one making a statement on things is guilty. Good call on that.

[Mister Blastman]

Khobai, on 28 April 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

It just shows that hes ignorant, closeminded, and...

Yeah! That's right! Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be wrong! Vile despicable people who's opinions don't matter unless they are the right opinion!

YEAH!

Where's a bowl of cornflakes? I need something sugary and sweet to eat while the Spathi play us a relevant sounding tune...



I'm going to start keeping score of how often I see "ignorant" tossed around, because frankly it has become the scapeterm of the forum used by so many to justify one view being superior to another, when in truth, anyone using the term is just as accountable for its lingering as the former.

The grand maelstrom of rainbow hell is upon us.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 28 April 2017 - 06:23 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

If that were true then pretty much any one making a statement on things is guilty. Good call on that.

Nah I don't think that's true at all.

Folks opine here and get into debates all of the time. But telling people to shut up, that their ideas need to be dismissed outta hand etc....pre-emptive nonsense like this original thread etc. Yea, it's bs that should get called out. That a better call? Btw, ya keep ending your retorts with weak little rejoinders man, it just makes it clearer that your argument is weak. I get it, you're having a bad time, you're pissed off, you're lashing out at "people" for whatever reason. Why shouldn't ya get called out for it? People do it to me, I catch myself, I move on. Not capable of the same?

Mister Blastman, on 28 April 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Yeah! That's right! Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be wrong! Vile despicable people who's opinions don't matter unless they are the right opinion!

YEAH!

Where's a bowl of cornflakes? I need something sugary and sweet to eat while the Spathi play us a relevant sounding tune...

The funny part being we're closer in agreement than he apparently realizes. I think he's mixing up me calling out Bish for being boorish, with somehow commenting on the reimbursement plan. My comments there are actually with Vandal, Mischief and guys like that (some agreement, some disagreement).

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah! That's right! Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be wrong! Vile despicable people who's opinions don't matter unless they are the right opinion!

no

theres a HUGE difference between someone I dont agree with who makes a strong case for their argument and backs it up with good reasoning. and someone who I dont agree with who continually tries to argue a stupid point everyone knows is wrong and is incapable of backing it up with anything.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mister Blastman, on 28 April 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Yeah! That's right! Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be wrong! Vile despicable people who's opinions don't matter unless they are the right opinion!

YEAH!

Where's a bowl of cornflakes? I need something sugary and sweet to eat while the Spathi play us a relevant sounding tune...



I'm going to start keeping score of how often I see "ignorant" tossed around, because frankly it has become the scapeterm of the forum used by so many to justify one view being superior to another, when in truth, anyone using the term is just as accountable for its lingering as the former.

The grand maelstrom of rainbow hell is upon us.

I was going to respond to your post but I jsut keep looking back at the pretty rainbows....... so... pretty......

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 06:21 PM, said:

Nah I don't think that's true at all.

Folks opine here and get into debates all of the time. But telling people to shut up, that their ideas need to be dismissed outta hand etc....pre-emptive nonsense like this original thread etc. Yea, it's bs that should get called out. That a better call? Btw, ya keep ending your retorts with weak little rejoinders man, it just makes it clearer that your argument is weak. I get it, you're having a bad time, you're pissed off, you're lashing out at "people" for whatever reason. Why shouldn't ya get called out for it? People do it to me, I catch myself, I move on. Not capable of the same?

Interesting. So show me where I have told people to shut up, etc? And preemptive nonsense...so because you don't agree with the premise, now you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Perhaps your self awareness is not as all encompassing as you like to think.

[Mister Blastman]

Khobai, on 28 April 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

no

theres a HUGE difference between someone I dont agree with who makes a strong case for their argument and backs it up with good reasoning. and someone who I dont agree with who continually tries to argue a stupid point everyone knows is wrong and is incapable of backing it up with anything.

That's not what I see on these forums lately.

I see ignorant this. Ignorant that. Everyone swing the ignorant bat!

Just because someone disagrees does not make them closeminded or ignorant. In fact, who's ignorant? The one stating the point or the one who disagrees, or the one who disagrees with whoever disagrees because they disagree with a previous point stated that wasn't in stated parity with a future stated point?

Look at the picture...



Where is the circle? Is the square inside the circle or is the circle the outside edge of the square? And for that matter, is the polyhedron penetrating the disk or are the many layers representative of the mirrored flux?

What is any of it?

Does it even exist? Do any of them?

Or is this all nonsense.

We're people stating opinions and the only ignorance is claiming ignorance of an opinion which is simply... an opinion. You need not be coherent of anything but your own idea to make a claim.

Frankly I think the quantum disk is decoherent with the inner passenger, unable to properly render the eigenstate of the occupant passing through.

But that's my opinion. And it isn't any more ignorant or less factual than another, for my stated observation is based on my own singular frame of relevant reference.

This ignorance nonsense is sillyness expounded.

The vortex is complete.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 28 April 2017 - 06:48 PM.