145 replies to this topic

[Insidious Johnson]

OP is correct. But, it is a two way street. There is massive toxicity towards the Devs as well. But, they have the monopoly on the franchise at the moment and there is not a lot better out there unless you love the Heavy Gear stuff. Meh. Star Citizen will suck the life out of this place completely, soon enough. Nothing is permanent. Enjoy what it is... while it is.

[sycocys]

Khobai, on 01 May 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

what I find hilarious is that they have six different XP types. when they should only have one.

That's even more funny, didn't even manage to get that far into it before I was dying of laughter.

It was somewhere along the lines of "We want to encourage mixed layout/prevent boating" then you look at the trees and they were designed in a way that specifically encouraged even more boating.
If only they had the wherewithal to actually accept player input there were several far more effective routes several different groups of players worked out for them, but you know its far better to make unnecessarily complex **** in the places that should be simple and overly simple ******** in the places that should have more complex solutions.

- Like I'll never understand why they went away from the TT base numbers and algorithms in the first place, the f'n math was already done for them, they only needed to reel in the op stuff for balance. Plus it would have been instant connection to prior game and TT players to introduce them into their game, which should be a no-brainer when you are dealing with 20-30+ years of franchise history.

[Heffay]

sycocys, on 01 May 2017 - 05:52 PM, said:

- Like I'll never understand why they went away from the TT base numbers and algorithms in the first place, the f'n math was already done for them, they only needed to reel in the op stuff for balance.

lol...

[Anjian]

Generic Internetter, on 01 May 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

So most of us have only been here around two weeks? No.
The model you described fits Call of Duty and The Sims, but not MWO.

PGI knows the playerbase are in large part here for the BattleTech/MechWarrior franchise, and MWO is simply a manifestation of the franchise we adore. PGI knows that, over time, we will eventually spend more and more money - More than we would spend on any one-off title.

In the industry, these kind of player are referred to as a "Whale". Some MWO players have spent several hundred US dollars on the game so far, and continue to buy the occasional mech pack after mech pack. Some even buy every mech pack. The logic is that a mech pack lasts forever, for the same price of a fancy restaurant meal or a couple of rounds of drinks.

The business genius is that PGI know that as long as they provide and maintain a platform for people to play on (IE: Quick Match and Faction Play) then the same people will come back every month or so to buy into the new mech packs, and the novelty will be to use new mechs in the same old game modes and maps.

One of the most common criticisms of PGI's handling of MWO is that they seem to follow this business practice relentlessly, always putting the emphasis on new mechs rather than enriching the game itself. That being said, they have made some (slow) progress in improving the other elements of the game. Slowly.

Unfortunately, PGI own the Battletech franchise, so if you do find an alternative elsewhere, it wont be MechWarrior-related.

PS: There is nothing out there quite like MWO. I've looked.

PGI does not own anything. Topps owns the rights and the publishing (desktop, models) rights, while Microsoft owns the digital rights (video games). At some point in time though, I believe that Microsoft needs to sell those rights --- its a very different Microsoft now from the one that bought FASA Entertainment long ago.

There are mech games coming up but each are unique to their own. Dual Gear is on closed alpha on Steam, this is with Japanese inspired mech designs with a turn based Front Mission style. I always thought that Battletech should do a turn based Front Mission style game using MWO models. Project Medusa is an Armored Core style game, once again with flying mechs, but the way they do it reminds me of the combat in Macross/Robotech. Robotcraft is what happens when you have mechs and minecraft. Heavy Gear Assault blends vehicular combat and FPS. In the console, there is Hawken and no doubt, Titanfall 2. Mobile, there are plenty enough to say its a fast growing genre, with many entries, like Robokrieg, but the best and most popular one of all is War Robots, which is probably the first mech genre game in history to have large mainstream numbers.

Personally I like to see Battletech turn based game on mobile and tablet, Android and Apple, and HBS has published mobile games before, so this is within their expertise. The financial rewards from that is more likely greater than just being a PC version put on Steam.

Edited by Anjian, 01 May 2017 - 07:24 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Anjian, on 01 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

Personally I like to see Battletech turn based game on mobile and tablet, Android and Apple, and HBS has published mobile games before, so this is within their expertise. The financial rewards from that is more likely greater than just being a PC version put on Steam.

[Lupis Volk]

Alexander of Macedon, on 01 May 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

Don't bother. The PGI order of white knights are too deep into the sunk costs fallacy to ever give you a reasonable discussion.

I have to say, no other gaming community i've been a part of has mastered the art of poisoning the well of discussion quite like the Inner Sphere player base has. Heck the World of Tanks South East Asia community is better than this.

No you guys are the ones who can't have a reasonable discussion because like certain elements in some nations as of this year you label the opposition as a group who can't be reason with or talked to, but in the end it is you who is unreasonable.

[Ruar]

Lupis Volk, on 01 May 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

I have to say, no other gaming community i've been a part of has mastered the art of poisoning the well of discussion quite like the Inner Sphere player base has. Heck the World of Tanks South East Asia community is better than this.

No you guys are the ones who can't have a reasonable discussion because like certain elements in some nations as of this year you label the opposition as a group who can't be reason with or talked to, but in the end it is you who is unreasonable.

It's very easy to label the opposition because it makes their point of view not worth thinking about.

I can completely understand the viewpoint that the skill tree change is necessary for game growth. I can also understand, but don't agree in this case, with the idea that implementing a bad change is better than putting it off until a better solution can be implemented.

What I don't understand is the idea of agreeing with the tangled web style skill tree as something that actually works. It doesn't meet the stated goal of discouraging boating and it doesn't meet the stated goal of discouraging min/maxing skills. It is overly complex and complicated, is cumbersome to use, and doesn't feel fun to use. Mech balance will be difficult to adjust and future changes in the meta or game play will be difficult to balance.

The only thing the web design actually does is provide for some diversity in which area to spend your points, but each area will be filled out pretty much the exact same way. I can think of three better ways to do the one thing the web design does, do it better, and accomplish all of the other items listed as well.

So I can't understand why anyone would stand up for the tangled design other than they truly don't understand all of the negatives about the system or are afraid if they speak out there might be some kind of delay. Perhaps maybe they are fine with a poorly built system that will drive people away simply because it's something different. I haven't figured it out.


However, the biggest take away for me is that PGI (and maybe it's just Russ and Paul and not the rest) is more interested in pushing out their own bad design than actually listen to the players on how to help craft the game. I wasn't around for ghost heat, energy draw, or that other thing you guys get upset about, but all of that adds in to the idea that PGI doesn't like to change their way of doing something even when a better way is pointed out. When they do make a change it seems to be directly tied to money in some way. In the case of the refund issue it was in game money and in the case of the clan mech changes it was RL money.

So I decided I still like the game, but I don't feel comfortable putting more money into it. This wasn't a case of trying to figure out if new maps or new skill tree are better for player retention (new maps). That's a strategic level decision where the internally known metrics have a significant influence on how to proceed. A cost analysis of map creation alone would be information players don't have which could sway the designer opinions.

No, this was a case of a mechanic being changed, reasons given for changing that mechanic, the players showing better ways of fulfilling those reasons, and then the player suggestions being summarily ignored.

That looks like arrogance and seems to indicate a company who doesn't respect their playerbase but only sees that base as a cash cow to keep milking. Internal designs are superior to player suggestions because they are internal and significant adjustments away from dictated path have a $ sign attached.

So they will have no more $ from me.

[Johnny Z]

Ruar, on 01 May 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

It's very easy to label the opposition because it makes their point of view not worth thinking about.

I can completely understand the viewpoint that the skill tree change is necessary for game growth. I can also understand, but don't agree in this case, with the idea that implementing a bad change is better than putting it off until a better solution can be implemented.

What I don't understand is the idea of agreeing with the tangled web style skill tree as something that actually works. It doesn't meet the stated goal of discouraging boating and it doesn't meet the stated goal of discouraging min/maxing skills. It is overly complex and complicated, is cumbersome to use, and doesn't feel fun to use. Mech balance will be difficult to adjust and future changes in the meta or game play will be difficult to balance.

The only thing the web design actually does is provide for some diversity in which area to spend your points, but each area will be filled out pretty much the exact same way. I can think of three better ways to do the one thing the web design does, do it better, and accomplish all of the other items listed as well.

So I can't understand why anyone would stand up for the tangled design other than they truly don't understand all of the negatives about the system or are afraid if they speak out there might be some kind of delay. Perhaps maybe they are fine with a poorly built system that will drive people away simply because it's something different. I haven't figured it out.


However, the biggest take away for me is that PGI (and maybe it's just Russ and Paul and not the rest) is more interested in pushing out their own bad design than actually listen to the players on how to help craft the game. I wasn't around for ghost heat, energy draw, or that other thing you guys get upset about, but all of that adds in to the idea that PGI doesn't like to change their way of doing something even when a better way is pointed out. When they do make a change it seems to be directly tied to money in some way. In the case of the refund issue it was in game money and in the case of the clan mech changes it was RL money.

So I decided I still like the game, but I don't feel comfortable putting more money into it. This wasn't a case of trying to figure out if new maps or new skill tree are better for player retention (new maps). That's a strategic level decision where the internally known metrics have a significant influence on how to proceed. A cost analysis of map creation alone would be information players don't have which could sway the designer opinions.

No, this was a case of a mechanic being changed, reasons given for changing that mechanic, the players showing better ways of fulfilling those reasons, and then the player suggestions being summarily ignored.

That looks like arrogance and seems to indicate a company who doesn't respect their playerbase but only sees that base as a cash cow to keep milking. Internal designs are superior to player suggestions because they are internal and significant adjustments away from dictated path have a $ sign attached.

So they will have no more $ from me.

Blah blah blah.

Even after all these long winded replies and topics I have not seen a better alternative or any alternative at all.

This game has an awesome amount of variables to be assigned to every mech. That's a good thing.

Its also makes it the most difficult game to balance ever made and how they managed to jam it all into a fairly simple inventory screen is both a wonder and an annoyance.

So now a proper skill tree is being added and it is easy to understand with everything easy to view and is very well done.

Simply its meant to create a balance and it looks to me like it does that. It also turns the skill tree into a mech load out situation which will require fine tuning.

Its not in yet but many may be complaining about the best skill/level up design in a game ever.

I think there is room for improvement but it has nothing to do with how the skill tree is designed. I think presentation could be improved with a first person mechbay and pilots quarters because that many paged inventory screen is getting crowded.

Edited by Johnny Z, 01 May 2017 - 08:58 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Lupis Volk, on 01 May 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

I have to say, no other gaming community i've been a part of has mastered the art of poisoning the well of discussion quite like the Inner Sphere player base has. Heck the World of Tanks South East Asia community is better than this.

No you guys are the ones who can't have a reasonable discussion because like certain elements in some nations as of this year you label the opposition as a group who can't be reason with or talked to, but in the end it is you who is unreasonable.

You mean that the part of the player base that has been continually step on is resentful especially when they got a very brief overquirking that resulted into being hammered into uselessness for the vast majority of mechs??? Yes... those straight up scumbags need to eat their pile of sh1t and be grateful they got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Erronius]

Anjian, on 01 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

Dual Gear is on closed alpha on Steam, this is with Japanese inspired mech designs with a turn based Front Mission style.

If Dual Gear ends up being even remotely like Front Mission, I'm sold.

[Dee Eight]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 01 May 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Dont be stupid, stupid

really? you never learn do you ?

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Dee Eight, on 01 May 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

really? you never learn do you ?

not really... but as long as I am not in the back being utterly irrelevant until the match has already been won or dead weight dragging the team down into defeat like you, then I will continue to be happy with myself.

[Oberost]

Johnny Z, on 01 May 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

So now a proper skill tree is being added and it is easy to understand with everything easy to view and is very well done.

What game are you talking about? For sure is not MWO...

[Dee Eight]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 01 May 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

not really... but as long as I am not in the back being utterly irrelevant until the match has already been won or dead weight dragging the team down into defeat like you, then I will continue to be happy with myself.

And yet you're the one more people talk about doing that exact tactic/play behaviour...

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Dee Eight, on 01 May 2017 - 10:07 PM, said:

And yet you're the one more people talk about doing that exact tactic/play behaviour...

No one but people like you who have personal agenda to lie... people who get mad at how I point out their terrible play as it is happening during the match. I have not only told you how to play correctly DURING the match, I have gone out of my way to be helpful by giving you after action reports including visual aids to show your failings. "Ignorance can be fixed with informantion, but stupidity is forever"... you are merely stupid and unable to improve, which is fine. Dead weight that has to be carried can still play the game as well... just hope I see you on the enemy team not mine, so you can drag them down not my team.

[Zergling]

Zuul and Dee, I suggest you both either learn to ignore each other, or declare your undying love.

Edited by Zergling, 01 May 2017 - 10:24 PM.

[nitra]

Johnny Z, on 01 May 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

Its also makes it the most difficult game to balance ever made and how they managed to jam it all into a fairly simple inventory screen is both a wonder and an annoyance.

Dont think PGI is the gold standard when it comes to balance or UI design.

Difficult to balance? sure , most difficult ever ? um no.
The UI, while it works is far from a wonder.


PGI is just lucky they have few peers in this market. if they did, they would be a mid tier competitor if that..

Edited by nitra, 01 May 2017 - 10:43 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

nitra, on 01 May 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

PGI is just lucky they have few peers in this market. if they did, they would be a mid tier competitor if that..

you misspelled *bankrupt* in your post

[Lupis Volk]

Zergling, on 01 May 2017 - 10:24 PM, said:

Zuul and Dee, I suggest you both either learn to ignore each other, or declare your undying love.

I'll ship that

Fight, Fight, Fight, Kiss, Kiss, Kiss.

Edited by Lupis Volk, 01 May 2017 - 11:03 PM.

[Cato Phoenix]

Baulven, on 30 April 2017 - 04:50 AM, said:

Honestly on a lot of mechs extra structure isn't particularly useful, especially with the component health reduction. I found in PTS two there were far better options than sinking 31 points into a skill tree that gave at best 13 points, particularly since that is one third of an alpha and you can increase sustain significantly for the same investment.

Unless a mech has heavy quirks rolled into their baseline (like the Atlas) the amount of benefit you receive is marginal.

I'm interested to see how this will play out. I think it's actually more important that the -total- amount of armor increases. Sure, maybe 10 points doesn't sound like much (though I think its probably quite noticeable), its that much per component. As currently specced, a HBK-4SP will receive ~67 extra armor points over the entire mech. Roughly an extra 10 armor per torso and 13 for the CT. Incidentally, pulling all of the structure bonuses for the HSP (which is quite heavily bonused) yields 118 points of extra structure. Importantly- it's a lot more damage to be able to roll over your mech. Sure, if you're going to facetank a laservomit you might withstand 2 more MLAS only. But if you're doing your best to mitigate damage, rolling out of the way of 50% of the burn time, spreading the remainder across multiple components, maintaining optimum ranges, etc - I think the extra tankiness will go far.

Now - what remains to be seen is whether its worth 31 points, worth a partial but efficient investment, or completely not worth much compared to weapon/cooldown.

Partial investments, by the way, in my current baseline skill theorycrafts, basically using one side of the tree for armor quirked mechs and the other for structure quirked mechs:
Structure boosted mechs: 24 pts for 9 Structure nodes, 6 armor nodes (and meh of 5 casing, junk of 4 shock absorbance)
Armor boosted: 25 nodes for 9 armor, 7 structure, (and meh of 5 casing, junk of 4 shock absorbance / 1 AMS)