31 replies to this topic

[C E Dwyer]

This isn't a bashing thread despite the title.

What I do want though is for someone from P.G.I to show me, using clear examples, of how this new system balances the new tech, and changes how mechs will perform.

I've looked at it from all angles, and i'm just not seeing it.

It's still going to be better to use single weapon builds, it's not going to make Jump jets work noticably better, and yet to get the small advances that are not worth the expense, more important things have to be less optimal.

I see now way for it to promote role warfare, or the New player experience.

The only major change decoupling can be done with the old skill tree.

Please just demonstrate for us P.G.I how this new system makes the game play better, and I'll be content.

[Wintersdark]

It's a system that provides choice where the current placeholder system does not? Sure, you can argue that optimal builds will be found and used by many, but that's like arguing we should ditch the mechlab because people often just run optimal builds.

That's the justification right there, and to me that makes it worthwhile.

The current placeholder system is terrible, offers no choice at all.

It's not supposed to bring balance - it can't, really, as it affects everything equally. It doesn't really impact gameplay either, as it's a build-time customization tool.



Now, you can make arguments about not liking it - there's lots for people not to like. But it DOES bring customization to where there is none currently.



I'd agree that points about the 3 mech rule and overall dequirking/nerfing of resultant stats don't really come into play either for or against, as ultimately either can be done with or without the skill tree.

[Alexander of Macedon]

Yeah, the "choice" of which half of the old skill tree you want to spend all your points to recover.

[Nightmare1]

It's like how Walmart changes it's layout every three months. They just want to keep you guessing. They also like to watch the store camera footage after hours while they munch popcorn and laugh at the bewildered shoppers' faces as they stumble around trying to find out to where the toilet paper and dog food were moved.

It's also change, which we're all told is good, so maybe there's something moral mixed up in there somewhere too.

[C E Dwyer]

This system does give lots of choice.

It gives so much choice, a new start, and many people that have played the game a while, will make mistakes, as well.

A system whether it's simple or complicated, only has one way to be Optimal.

What this system does do is make bad builds slightly less bad, as long as your not the target, because you can buff the weapons in favour of gimping your ability to get in the correct place, target, and survive the return fire.

As soon as you become the target, the inability to be mobile and twist, means you'll crumple faster with this new system.

So the complicated nature of the new system only gives bad players the ability to make their mechs worse, overall.

I've said this in another thread, but big game companies are not making skill tree's more complicated, They're streamlining their progression 'tree's and making them more linear, because they've realised that complexity, only hurts bad players, it doesn't effect the good ones because they work out quickly what the best choices are and never deviate from them, unless there is a big game change.

P.G.I are going in the opposite direction.

This is why I'm asking P.G.I to explain why they have gone in the opposite direction, and how this makes the game play better.

This isn't a explain to me NOW ask, this is a please explain why in detail, and how it makes it better, so I understand, because I want to be able to support it, but nothing I've seen or tried says to me yes this makes the game better.

In my considered opinion it only makes it different, and provides more pitfalls for the unwary.

[Lazor Sharp]

I would like PGI to show me a currently fully skilled mech with module's, and how get the new skill tree nodes, even close to where it was to began with.

How about showing me a Bushwacker BSW-HR currently mastered, with AC-10 cool down, ML Range, and Advanced Zoom Modules, no consumables, how i can get even close to that performance level back with the new skill Tree maze... ya just cant get there at all.....

OR are we just supposta expect a blanket nerf to IS mech's, and just grin and bare it......?

[Mycroft000]

It's not supposed to get your mechs back to exactly where they are now. It is an across the board scaling back of power. That is not a bad thing.

But that also has nothing to do with whether or not the new system is actually taking in to account player psychology, or a tree layout that will actually lead to "this or that" choices instead of something that the pro level players will eventually solve and disseminate to the population or the game who aren't completely brand new.

[oldradagast]

Because somebody at PGI thinks it's a good idea because they can't tell the difference between GRIND and CONTENT, nor can they understand that figuring how to take the fewest dead skill nodes to get the same "must have" skills for every mech is not "choice."

Sadly, it's going live anyway, regardless of the damage it does, and thanks to a mix of white-knights and Stockholm syndrome sufferers, it'll probably be praised as "genius" because it doesn't cause people's computers to catch fire and it's still possible to play IS mechs if "you're man enough to like losing, just like what really happened when the Clans invaded" or some crap.

Expect nothing from PGI, and you will rarely be disappointed.

[oldradagast]

Lazor Sharp, on 29 April 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

OR are we just supposta expect a blanket nerf to IS mech's, and just grin and bare it......?

Funny you mention global nerfs crushing a specific group of mechs and how some people think that should be fine and you should just "man up and take it!' as if losing repeatedly in a game because of inferior equipment is "fun" or "manly" or some idiocy.

Back in the early days of Faction Warfare, many of us warned PGI that it was an unplayable dumpster fire of a game mode thanks to the lack of matchmaking and the ability of large teams to farm groups of noobs and casuals who had no hope of winning. Plenty of people defended the current stupid setup and the farming it encourages, which explains why Faction Warfare is utterly dead as a game mode. The funniest defense I heard from several sources was that "some people like losing and facing hopeless odds because it's more realistic that way."

Right. Because that's why people play video games. Not to face a fair or even challenging opponent, but to be ground under over and over again thanks to stupid game design that places you at a huge disadvantage.

You can expect to see this masochist mindset to surface again as the skill maze blows the IS out of the water. I already saw one guy on another thread here talking about people should just "man up and play IS anyway, even if they suck." Right...

[Lazor Sharp]

exactly how they are now.... is barely viable on the BSW-HR, and on the PTS after respecting it several times, i could never even get close to the performance as before, and made it a totally un-viable..... so thanks for ruining one of my faves, just to across the board scale back.... still BS.....

[Captain Grayson Lighthorse]

I logged into the last PTS server and looked over the "newest" skill tree system. I was hoping to see something that was going to boost our 'Mechs and gameplay and make improvements in both, but, I was extremely disappointed.

My honest opinion of the new PTS is that it is just another "take away" system. It's sole purpose it to "take away" our quirks, modules, and 'Mech mastering improvements that make the 'Mechs viable and fun, and hand us a dead rat to replace it. The new PTS is nothing more than a technical "bait-and-switch" mechanism. It baits us with the promise of improvements and feature "additions" but in fact is designed to "take away" the improvements that have previously been built into the game and found over time to be needed to make it playable for all.

The new PTS has three MAJOR flaws. (Others exist, but these are some major ones I saw):

1: Regardless of what it promises, the new PTS will NOT bring our MASTERED 'Mechs anywhere close to where they are now under the current system. It will simply "take away" our Mastered 'Mechs.

2: The most popular and most used modules/skill upgrades like Radar Deprivation, Advanced Zoom, Siesmic Sensors, and various weapon range modules are AT THE BOTTOM of the skill tree! You cannot get at them until you waste your skill points on the useless upgrades above them before getting to what you want to use in your 'Mech.

3: The FORCED wasting of skill points to acquire modules that you either don't want, cannot use in your build, or doesn't work with your 'Mech. This is exactly like stepping onto a car lot and the salesman telling you that the car you want in the back row cannot be purchased until you buy the 4 or 5 cars in front of it.

Our current system might be a little bit grindy, but at least I can pick the upgrades and modules that I WANT in MY 'Mech without having to waste a bunch of points on ones that I do NOT want.

Recommended solutions...

We don't need a "TREE" system that limits our selection or access to the modules we want to use. Eliminate the TREE! Just put the modules/upgrades in a window in boxes based on type and let US choose what ones WE want instead of what PGI wants us to use. The current, scrollable window of listed modules in our current system is just fine. We can select the modules WE WANT for a given 'Mech and not mess with the others.

In order to do an honest implementation of a NEW skill system without pixxing everyone off, just set all 'Mechs in the game with the starting point of a MASTERED 'Mech! Then have the PTS "ADD" to THOSE 'Mechs' attributes. This will satisfy all of the old, seasoned players because they won't be losing all of their mastered 'Mechs, and will delight the noobs because they will be getting a nice buff to the 'Mechs they are using and can even improve upon them from there. This is for ALL 'Mechs. Not just IS or Clan... ALL!

These modifications will appease everyone I think...

If these modifications cannot be done, then I vote to keep the current system as it is much better ->FOR THE PLAYERS<-.

Thank you...

Edited by Captain Grayson Lighthorse, 02 May 2017 - 02:42 PM.

[Captain Grayson Lighthorse]

mycroft000, on 30 April 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

It's not supposed to get your mechs back to exactly where they are now. It is an across the board scaling back of power. That is not a bad thing.

But that also has nothing to do with whether or not the new system is actually taking in to account player psychology, or a tree layout that will actually lead to "this or that" choices instead of something that the pro level players will eventually solve and disseminate to the population or the game who aren't completely brand new.

YES! That is a BAD THING!
When I fire my AC/20 or Gauss Rifle at an enemy 'Mech, I don't want to see paint chips, I want to see fire, sparks and shrapnel flying, and a gigantic, smoldering, crater in my opponent where their armor or component USED TO BE! And also to know that I caused considerable damage to their 'Mech instead of scratching it with a plastic spoon. All of this neutering, balancing, normalizing, whatever you want to call it does nothing but "take away" from the game. And that is what the new PTS does.

The "player psychology" in this game is very simple; "I want to destroy the enemy 'Mech as fast as possible!" That's it, nothing fancy. It's NOT what PGI is trying to force everyone to do. They want everyone to play the pop-tart, hit and run away, hide and seek game so they can get artificial numbers that show the length of matches increasing. I don't care how long the matches run, as long as they are FUN TO PLAY!!! The constant reducing of weapons power in this game is taking away that FUN...

There really should not be a "TREE". It should be a window full of "SELECTIONS" that we choose the ones WE want to use. Much like the one we have in the current system. No tree, just things to select to enhance our loadout or 'Mech's performance...Period.

The pro players will be stuck with the same crippled weapons and 'Mechs that we are. It's in the code. They cannot get around it. And THEY won't like it either...

[Remover of Obstacles]

Captain Grayson Lighthorse, on 02 May 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

When I fire my AC/20 or Gauss Rifle at an enemy 'Mech, I don't want to see paint chips, I want to see fire, sparks and shrapnel flying, and a gigantic, smoldering, crater in my opponent where their armor or component USED TO BE!

I don't care how long the matches run, as long as they are FUN TO PLAY!!! The constant reducing of weapons power in this game is taking away that FUN...

Amen

[Mycroft000]

The scaling back of the clear power creep that has occurred is a good thing. I doubt that you will choose to acknowledge that, but some of the power in this game is artificially high. Many of the weapons we use were designed for gameplay involving turns that last 10 seconds each. And they were never remotely as accurate as we are used to.

The original skill system should have never been constructed the way it was. There is no reason pilot skill level should make your mech faster, or dissipate heat 15% faster.

You want fun? Excel in spite of what you think they're doing wrong. Every time they nerf my Nova I see a challenge to be an even better pilot and get them to nerf it yet again.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

I think the Tree based structure for this particular game is just ridiculous. It should be linear based on what you are actually trying to achieve.

It's like taking your car to a garage and saying all I need is the speakers upgraded.
"Yessir but you'll have to upgrade the complete sound system, the wiring, the plugs, the controller set, the wheels and the wing mirrors".
"Say what?!"
"Don't ask sir, it's company policy".

FFS.

[Insanity09]

For the purposes of this post I'm ignoring the engine decoupling, for good or ill, I'm ignoring the changes to quirks, whether they are ultimately positive or negative, I'm even ignoring the structure and other flaws of the new skill tree.

As others have said, the new skill tree is an attempt, successful I might add, to revert some of the power creep that has happened over the past years.

Problem one. That power creep was not caused by the previous (current) skill tree. That said, some reversion seems needful, so perhaps that can be forgiven. However...

Problem two. A universal power reset, as seems to be the intention (has PGI actually said/admitted that? I hope they have), does not affect all mechs equally. Weaker ones are hit harder.

Let me explain that bit. Some folks have been tossing around the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats", by which they mean that even if the change is a nerf overall, it affects everyone equally, therefore it is a net zero change, relative power wise.
That is demonstrably false.
It would be true if every chassis and variant had been at the exact same, equivalent, power level to begin with. Instead, the lowering of this tide will leave some boats (mechs) stranded.
A quick comparison for visualization, with totally made up numbers. Let us say a Kodiak-3 is rated 5/5 on a potency scale, while a Kodiak-1 is rated 4/5. If we imagine the skill tree change lowers both variants by 1 point, the KDK-3 has suffered a 20% loss of potency, but the KDK-1 has been hit with a 25% loss.
In actuality, the changes aren't so dramatic, but nonetheless the math remains true.

So, what needs to happen is a recognition of the relative values of certain mechs, and in amongst these more or less universal nerfs, some chassis/variants need a little love to keep them from being deservedly thrown on the scrap heap the instant these changes hit live.

[Mycroft000]

Insanity09, on 03 May 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

Do I think the power creep was caused by the existing skill tree? No, it was caused by the inherent mechanics of this translation from tabletop to FPS.

There are a number of things PGI could do to address power creep. I would like PGI to revisit some form of heat generation because that would in many ways help reduce the power creep caused by the KDK-3 and others. Another would be what many people ask for over and over again, which is hard points limited by size(I'm not a huge fan of this because I don't feel like that is necessarily a good translation from tabletop, but it's a point I'm willing to concede for the good of the game). Yet another would be to do what they're doing now and do an overall rate of fire decrease(and the engine decoupling is actually having a good effect in my opinion by making our Mechs feel more like the large machines that they are instead of this simply being an FPS).

As for weaker mechs being hit by this, that is a bit of a problem, and I do feel like once they see this tree in the hands of the larger player base, we'll see many "baseline" quirks revisited.

Your example of the KDK-1 vs KDK-3, that is simply a case of play style. If you build your KDK-1 correctly, you can actually kill a huge number of mechs in this game with a single alpha....and not overheat with that one shot. Is it as effective as the KDK-3 in being the suppressive force that it is? No. Can it be just as devastating? Yes, if not slightly more so if played correctly.

And speaking in terms of the KDK being a baseline of over-performance, I frequently can trade tonnage 1:2 using my Nova to take out KDKs. It's not uncommon for me to be able to take both side torsos off of a Kodiak before they completely strip my arms off(or kill me since not enough players are conscious enough to focus arms on Novas).

The scaling back of power is a good thing in that regard too. Even after the many nerf passes that the Nova has gotten, I still consider it one of the best mechs in the game. It can usually(in matches where I haven't done something stupid and gotten myself poorly positioned) put out a minimum of 500 damage and when I either stick close to assaults, or stalk the opponents while the rest of my team is keeping their focus it can easily do over 1k damage even now. I look forward to finding a way to do that under the new(still flawed) skill tree.

And again all of this said, as much as I don't consider the new skill tree to be truly effective at the proposed goals, that is far less of a problem for me than the extremely flawed GSP refunds for modules(I'm going to keep harping on this as much as possible because I'm never going to be able to buy enough mechs to spend all of the GSP I'm getting back).

[Scyther]

2/3 of the posts in this thread loudly state opinions, rather than using actual facts about the upcoming changes. 1/2 of those opinions are simply repeats of things they have seen other people say, since if they had tried out the actual skill tree for themselves they would know they are wrong.

There are threads and posts that give factual, tested, numerical values and answers to some of the issues and concerns raised in this thread.

It might benefit you to look for them.

Edited by MadBadger, 03 May 2017 - 10:35 AM.

[Mycroft000]

I'd agree with looking through all the threads, but because there's no real structure to the feedback in the forum, there are dozens(more?) of threads that give detailed feedback with no views/replies.

[The Basilisk]

-- Yes it is an across the board nerf for all mechs.
-- Yes it offers lots of possibilities for customization and errors (but also lots of strategical options previous unavailable especially in the aux branch)
-- It will enlargen the span between very good and very bad players (not nessessarily a bad thing)
-- It can be a basis system for balancing when you do the interaction of mech quirks versus the skillsystem correctly
-- in conjunction with engine desync and new tech it will enable more distinct roles and personalitys to mechs.
-- it will worsen the problem of ppfld meta builds at first but also shows the mechanics and necessity to neuter them.

For a battletech game MWO was to simple and yes the new node system seems cranky at first but I realy think a new skill system was nessessary and will get optimized over time.