109 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

Moadebe, on 09 May 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

I would suggest re-reading what I said...cause you sir are wrong. To master 1 chassis you must also (semi) master 2 other chassis. You cannot put points into all skills of one (1) chassis without first getting all skills on two (2) other chassis (minus module slot). To master one (1) mech my math is correct. You cannot simply buy one chassis of one mech and simply master it out. Therefore you must take into consideration ALL necessary clicks involved.

Re-read and re-look at the current system. Thanks.

Actually, I usually level and keep all the mechs I buy. So no, I don't need to also level two other mechs just to level one mech - I would have leveled those two other mechs anyways. Very few exceptions.

[Tarogato]

Rampage, on 09 May 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

That is a pretty picture but you kind of forgot something. The proposed Skill Tree replaces the old Skill "stump" plus all the Pilot Skills (modules). That adds about 130 or so more little nodes with 5 clicks to max out each one.

True, but you're only going to unlock those skills once. Not with every new mech. And once you've unlocked the modules that you're going to use frequently, it's a pretty rare occasional that you unlock new ones. Frankly, I forgot the pilot tree exists, but I don't have to use it anymore.


And again, like I said, it's not about the number of clicks. It's about the sheer unnecessary complexity. Even after spending a couple hours on PTS and with the online planner, I don't feel entirely comfortable yet. There's just too much granularity, it's too daunting. It's literally a maze that you need to plan your way through, but it's actually multiple separate mazes, and some of them are really quite large.

On the other hand, Solahma's version that he made... I can tell what I want at a glance, make decisions and just grab things. I don't have to plan my way through or second guess whether I could have optimised my path. Because it's straight forward. It's simple. You don't need to mess around with it for hours to learn paths by rote.

[Monkey Lover]

Tarogato, on 09 May 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:

And again, like I said, it's not about the number of clicks. It's about the sheer unnecessary complexity. Even after spending a couple hours on PTS and with the online planner, I don't feel entirely comfortable yet. There's just too much granularity, it's too daunting. It's literally a maze that you need to plan your way through, but it's actually multiple separate mazes, and some of them are really quite large.

Complexity will be an issue with the 4 types of xp and other upgrade points to new people. Even for old people we're going to have to see this stuff forever now. I know they were trying to make everyone happy but I wish their was another way.

[Shifty McSwift]

So many wailing about how bad the skill tree is, then mentioning how they could do it better, whining because you didn't get it your way [redacted]

The idea that it is "too late in development" to make changes is full of holes too, this is a slow rate but ongoing project, when my atlas became obsoleted by other mechnologies I didn't demand a refund, I worked to get new those mechs (even though it meant grinding out enough to purchase 3 kodiaks and then 3 madd iics and all the applicable modules). I wasn't pleased about it and express my concern about power creep relating to mechs constantly but the devs can do whatever the f they want really (no player no matter how much cash they put in or how good of a pilot they are has bought or played their way to the development table), if MWO was consistently bad in every way or I felt truly "ripped off" I wouldn't be here, and I think the same applies to many others.

Tukayid might be a distraction, it certainly seems very well timed in regards to paying out c-bills at a time when c-bill complaints are high, but whose fault is it to get distracted from issues? Were those issues truly so dire when they are forgotten or buried under the next FOTM complaint area?

Edited by Tina Benoit, 11 May 2017 - 11:17 AM.
nonconstructive

[Valhallan]

Mystere, on 09 May 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

<steps out of the shadows>

Psst!

Hey you!

Yes, you!

I have great news. We're going to have Stars vs. Lances, starting with Clan Binary vs. IS Company fights.

<steps back into the shadows>

Hey! You there! quit doing obviously biased lore-unfriendly matchups! the proper lore-scale is star vs company!

[PAQUERA]

The Tukayyid event is very good, make my wallet big for the skill tree changes. ATM i love the skill tree changes, MWO is a good game for me and dont need to whine like a lot of people do. Be happy, adapt urself

im tired of whinning people

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

Another PTS session?

But tonnes of people whined about the good feedback that resulted in an iteration of the cycle.

This time round I was just strictly bug testing and that's it. Also PGI didn't listen to my idea of saving templates for the tree's so we don't get RSI from "clickbydeath". Also linear upgrade paths (that in theory would soak up more SP but allow weapons to recharge in sync).

But hey, who cares. Roll it out champs, I can't wait

[LordNothing]

i dont really care, the event, skill trees, these are changes that keep me interested. if we whine and moan and get them taken off the road map, then theres not a lot of reason to stay.

[drifter bob]

Alistair Winter, on 09 May 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

It may only be a distraction, but at this point people should be under no illusion that they're in a position to change PGI's opinion about the skill tree. It's over.

oh theres always a way its just not pretty

heres an old bit of eves history on players changing the minds of ccp and the repercussion
https://youtu.be/IB1M9ZVuWtM
tldr version starting at 43:55 suggest watching to 47:40
https://youtu.be/IB1M9ZVuWtM?t=2634

[Lily from animove]

distraction from what? Your own memory?

PGI told us what the plans on the Skill tree mechanci is after they took it off pts2. So there is no distraction at all.

[Alistair Winter]

drifter bob, on 10 May 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

oh theres always a way its just not pretty

heres an old bit of eves history on players changing the minds of ccp and the repercussion
https://youtu.be/IB1M9ZVuWtM
tldr version starting at 43:55 suggest watching to 47:40
https://youtu.be/IB1M9ZVuWtM?t=2634

Alright, sure, it's possible. But MWO has far too few angry players to ever create major changes in the game, except outright removing any implementation of Infotech or Energydraw from the table, and maybe forcing PGI to hotfix the minimaps. Attempts by players to influence the direction of MWO tend to either run out of volition or be ignored by PGI, or both.

There's a really large faction of MWO players who don't really need or want the game to change. They just want more and more mech packs. If they get some loyalty mechs on top of that, they're over the moon. And quite happy to spend another $30-40 upgrading their existing mech packs, to get better loyalty mechs, by the way.

So yeah, it's possible. But it's certainly not in the cards right now. Nor has it ever been, and I don't think it ever will be.

[Phoolan Devi]

Naglinator, on 09 May 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

but i got to bring missle cool down skill ON A MECH WITH NO MISSILE HARDPOINTS to unlock speed tweek.... wtf...kk rant over back to gaming.

I don't know what skill tree in what game you were testing, but in MW:O with the new skill tree, your statement is utterly wrong! I mean, those two skills are not even in the same tree!

[Phoolan Devi]

Monkey Lover, on 09 May 2017 - 09:40 PM, said:

Complexity will be an issue with the 4 types of xp and other upgrade points to new people. Even for old people we're going to have to see this stuff forever now. I know they were trying to make everyone happy but I wish their was another way.

New people won't have 4 types of xp but only two!

[drifter bob]

Alistair Winter, on 10 May 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

Alright, sure, it's possible. But MWO has far too few angry players to ever create major changes in the game, except outright removing any implementation of Infotech or Energydraw from the table, and maybe forcing PGI to hotfix the minimaps. Attempts by players to influence the direction of MWO tend to either run out of volition or be ignored by PGI, or both.

There's a really large faction of MWO players who don't really need or want the game to change. They just want more and more mech packs. If they get some loyalty mechs on top of that, they're over the moon. And quite happy to spend another $30-40 upgrading their existing mech packs, to get better loyalty mechs, by the way.

So yeah, it's possible. But it's certainly not in the cards right now. Nor has it ever been, and I don't think it ever will be.

you have a point there i gess the question is if the concerns over balance dont get addressed will the ammount of angry players grow until we reach a tipping point?. Or maybe the players who are happy with the state of affairs will keep this game going by buying more mechpacks

who knows i guess pgi might then make all of their decisions to cater to where the money is comming from i dont like to say it and pgi probably doesnt like to think of it but at the end of the day they are a business has to turn a profit and to do that they have to keep the people who pay them happy

Edited by drifter bob, 10 May 2017 - 04:19 AM.

[Marius Romanis]

They need to answer my questions about PTS if they want to avoid a angry mob the likes of which hath not been seen on terra since the angriest mob ever seen =p

And give us a PTS this weekend to see what our correctly dated refund ledger should look like.

Edited by CadoAzazel, 10 May 2017 - 06:19 AM.

[MerryIguana]

[redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 11 May 2017 - 11:26 AM.
nonconstructive

[Erronius]

drifter bob, on 10 May 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

oh theres always a way its just not pretty

heres an old bit of eves history on players changing the minds of ccp and the repercussion
https://youtu.be/IB1M9ZVuWtM
tldr version starting at 43:55 suggest watching to 47:40
https://youtu.be/IB1M9ZVuWtM?t=2634

Or another good part is the "Greed is Good" portion at 32:30, which is also interesting from an MWO/sales perspective. Players in EVE were also furious over the Walking in Stations fiasco and the underlying attempt to push appearance item transactions into the game.

LOL @ MonocleGate

I don't think I've logged any of my accounts in since before Incarna.


The two main differences I see in this regard between MWO and EVE is 1) the vast difference in players investment ("Oh, you bought 200 mechs? That's cute. 18,500 mouseclicks? Your online life must be so difficult!") which leads to 2) a fundamental difference in player churn and retention. EVE unquestionably has a much higher bar to entry in the form of (or lack of) the 'new player experience', but I always felt that EVE players often ended up being incredibly loyal and hardcore, and that's part of why "Jita Burns" and the number of people quitting was so notable. MWO is many times easier to get into, but it is also much, much easier to just drop and walk away from. So in a sense I don't see protests in MWO being QUITE the issue as it was in EVE, but then again, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if MWO has a much bigger issue with "grabbing" new players quickly and not letting people churn back out within a certain window of time.

What it boils down to me is that there's a serious question to ask...is it just the vocal minority on the forums who have their proverbial panties in a bunch? Because if in the long run the skill tree is better for getting and retaining new players and eliminating churn...then the complaints here on the forums from the same group of people, over and over, ad nauseum, is really a somewhat minor consequence. And the people asking (no...demanding) that PGI do something differently is really people asking (no...demanding) that PGI cater to smaller niche subgroups as opposed to looking at the larger picture.

[Mawai]

Naglinator, on 09 May 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

So clicking, as in firing my weapon at targets, and clicking as in on a poorly made spread sheet are two VERY DIFFERENT things. That's like me saying "why even play MWO, just open up notepad and click on the white background for a few hours".

So Blizzard decided that their skill tree in WoW after (60 clicks?) was too big and people would just meta the best anyways. So they distractedly shrunk it and made each tier of Skills important. Imagine you had 5 rows of 3 skills each. First row you pick btw, Radar Derp, Sesemic, and 360 retention. So you could pick your skills to what mattered, but could only bring one tier in. Not this, 91 clicks but i got to bring missle cool down skill ON A MECH WITH NO MISSILE HARDPOINTS to unlock speed tweek.... wtf...kk rant over back to gaming.

First, I agree with you that the skill tree could be better. Much better. I've always advocated for something more linear but where the higher levels of the skills cost more with the total number of skill points allowed capped.

This means that if you want to get that extra 1% or 2% to reach 10% in one skill ... you will need to sacrifice getting the first 2% in 5 other skills. For example ... if each skill came in 5 levels and each level cost one more skill point than the last, you then have to decide if that 5 points in one level 5 skill is the equivalent of 5 level 1 skills or two other skills to level 2. (Numbers would be tweaked to give a better system ... EVE online for example requires exponential increases in time training a skill to attain the next level which only gives a linear increase ... however, that system can't be applied to MWO).

The main problem with such a system is boating. Since concentrating skills in one weapon system will always be cheaper than buying skills for more than one weapon system ... this gives builds that use only one weapon system an inherent advantage ... which is where some of the oddities in the PGI tree come from. However, these could mostly be addressed with better tree design where weapon systems share a common tree and only the most expensive skills would allow for specialization.

However, on the point about clicks ... physically a mouse click is a mouse click ... the only difference between playing MWO and fiddling with a skill tree is your mental engagement and perception ... you want to play MWO and don't want to muck around with a skill tree but complaining something takes too many mouse clicks is a comment that the system isn't engaging enough to warrent the activity since from an actual clicking point of view ... you probably use your mouse for far more "clicks" throughout the day than would be required by the skill tree.

[Mystere]

Erronius, on 09 May 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

I love how there is really no way to please people. If PGI were to cancel this again based on complaints, you'd have people complaining loudly that it was going to go the route of other things like energy drain. If they push it through, as is, people are going to complain. If, at some future date, they simplify the skill trees as some people seem to want, they'll have to give refunds and people will have to re-skill, but people will then complain loudly about that, too.

At this point it almost feels like a lot of the more vocal people on the forums should be thanking PGI for giving them something new to complain about.

That is what happens when you have no vision, fail to communicate it clearly, and/or do not stick to it.

[PAYWALL]

Tinfoil hat on/

The amount of cbills handed out in this event is the highest so far. Maybe this should please all those vets with 200+ mechs that need a lot of cash after their "reworked" skilltree will be released.