Jump to content

Patch Notes - 1.4.115 - 16-May-2017


953 replies to this topic

#541 Virlutris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 1,443 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationVery likely goofing off in a match near you.

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:55 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:


They'll eventually have to offer some sort of free respec mechanism because of this since if the trees are broken or exploited and they have to retool things, they will not want to face an sh-storm for people having to redo their trees *and* paying to do it.


Now that they have the GSP mechanic, they can just "refund" a point for every node that's downstream of a change, or just go full overbear and wipe the entire tree for an affected mech while refunding a point for every active node.

Note: this isn't a defense or endorsement, it's a speculative "observation." I didn't like the skill shrubbery hedge maze in its various PTS iterations, or in the patch. I think the system itself is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways, conceptually and practically.

I'm morbidly curious how they'll refund cost for a node that's been paid for but deactivated when/if they have to wipe something after re-working it.

I think at least 1 skill point should be refunded for that (paid+deactivated node) if they begin to tread down that path. It would probably be considerably more work to determine the number of re-activations to refund (400xp each) for a particular node if someone's been tinkering.

Edits: autocorrect gremlins, formatting

Edited by Virlutris, 17 May 2017 - 08:59 AM.


#542 No One Lives Forever

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 201 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:58 AM

View PostSergeant Miles, on 17 May 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

Yea..crying is the word.

I don't care about stupid Historical points.. thats not C bills!

I want ALL my C bills back. ALL of them.. not some.. not part.

And if crying about being robbed is bad...then I don't know.


Im with ya, brother!

#543 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:04 AM

View PostHeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

No, there isn't more customization. There's less, because there is less viable playstyles. Increasing TTK correlates with the loss of the assassin playstyle. Pushing people to the safe high dps playstyles because the risk vs reward becomes nonviable.


Depending on your perspwctive you are both right...

Old style, w/o modules the was no customization, only filling in the same 12-13 "skills" and then you modules added the flavor...

New style, you don't automatically get all the old skills, you have to choose to get them plus other enhancements that usually constitute some subset of the abilities you got from modules... because of the tree organization you will mostlikely have to choose some ancillary skills to get the desired ones. Regardless you can easily spec a mech now in a variety of way previously not possible.

#544 Frytrixa

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:07 AM

Are you guys ******* serious?

So I spent years of play, tears and blood. Spent waay over
1.220.000.000 CB!
and in return you say fu little Player you only get back
58.000.000 CB?

Posted Image

Sorry, but the decision about split refund was definitely the worst in MWO history.
Nice change about skilltree thingy, Its one of the things I always wanted, but so?
I'm out - thx for the years of joy :)

#545 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:14 AM

View PostSergeant Miles, on 17 May 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

Yea..crying is the word.

I don't care about stupid Historical points.. thats not C bills!

I want ALL my C bills back. ALL of them.. not some.. not part.

And if crying about being robbed is bad...then I don't know.



You mean C-Bills that you spent to buy the mech variants, because you did not spend any C-Bills to buy XP (although you could have used MC to convert XP to GXP and I am not sure if that was refunded or not)? You could just sell the extra variants for 1/2 of what you spent on them, or you could email support and see if you could work something out with them.

Edited by Ed Steele, 17 May 2017 - 09:14 AM.


#546 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:14 AM

PGI, just make the GSP a sellable commodity in inventory so people will stop crying, unfortunately you promised this to them at one point and they won't let it go regardless of the fact that there was a reason for the change.

Yes I know at some point someone will cry that they wished they'd saved some GSP for new mechs but the salt level for that should be lower than what we have now.

#547 HandsomeJBW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 21 posts
  • LocationKazakhstan, Almaty city

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:16 AM

Well, first of all, new Skill tree looks interesting and seems better than old system.
BUT! I'm sure that IS quirks values was reduced too much! Now clan's look obviously much better. IS losses for Tukkayid were in vain.
So, i ask PGI to reconsider values that was reduced too much, especially - acceleration rate (like from 35% to 0%!!!), which was one of the most helpful thing against Clan. Or provide to IS mechs additional skill nodes.

#548 HeresWhy

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 32 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:17 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

Depending on your perspective you are both right... Regardless you can easily spec a mech now in a variety of way previously not possible.

PGI, just make the GSP a sellable commodity in inventory so people will stop crying.
No, it's not about perspective. There is no perspective in which shrinking the amount of viable builds increases customization. What you're referring to is a false sense of customization. When the choice has been made for you.

I will increase my crying about GSP because there is a 2800 GSP in opportunity value lost for my fully moduling the vast majority of my played mechs rather than buying an additional 43 mechs at 91 skills.

Edited by HeresWhy, 17 May 2017 - 09:48 AM.


#549 shameless

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 498 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:22 AM

RIP MWO. new tech's gonna make this so much worse.

#550 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:22 AM

View PostHeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

No, it's not about perspective. There is no perspective in which shrinking the amount of viable builds increases customization. What you're referring to is a false sense of customization. When the choice has been made for you.


The choice wasn't already made for you in the old system?

#551 Steinkrieg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 144 posts
  • LocationNOLA

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:25 AM

After trying the game out last night, here are my observations.

1. Engine Desync completely destroyed the effectiveness of the Spirit Bear. On a related note, MASC has been nerfed into the ground.

2. Fast attack mechs, like the Spirit Bear, Medusa, Stormcrows, and Redline all suffered massive nerfs due to the Cool Shot nerf. Gone are the days where you could dive a murderball, kill a mech, and escape. For people that liked this playstyle, and the ability to do a hard flank maneuver, this is a severe disappointment and has removed a lot of fun and enjoyment from the game.

3. Putting needed nodes behind unneeded nodes effectively increases TTK, creates dead skill points, and pigeon holes players into certain builds for certain mechs just as quirks did before the patch.

4. The average TTK has been increased, which inherently reduces the skill cap for the game. (edited when brought to my attention that I made a mistake)

5. The punitive charges for respeccing a mech are discouraging and puts pressure on players to 'get the spec right' the first time. This discourages experimentation, and reinforces the prevalence of meta builds as they have already been proven effective, thereby creating less risk for the player to spec into it once to avoid the punitive charges for respeccing.

6. HSP is nice for people like me who have mastered many mechs. However, it still does not justly represent or replace the utility of being able to switch modules around, and, combined with the punitive charges for respeccing, represents a massive loss in progression and income for many players. This leaves players with a feeling of being robbed and the impression that PGI does not care about justly compensating their player base for the changes PGI forced up them.

7. There is a massive disconnect between PGI and the player base. Only listening to players that give positive feedback creates resentment and marginalizes those that give constructive criticism. When players feel like their opinions don't matter, they leave the game.

8. After years of trying to get rid of the erppc/gauss/ac poptart meta, it is back with a vengeance. Not that I really mind, due to the fact that used to be my prefered method of play before it was nerfed and fast attack became my prefered MO.

Suggestions:

1. Half the current effects of engine desync.

2. Fix MASC to increase the speed increase time to double what it is now, and double the cooldown speed of the leg damage meter.

3. Streamline the nodes by taking out the unneeded dead nodes and just increase the cost of the next node level. If you want a player to have to pay a certain amount of SP to get the full benefits of fulling speccing into something like Laser Cooldown, then just make those nodes cost that much. Five levels of cooldown, costing 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 for a total of 31 SP to get full Laser Cooldown.

4. The cooldown increase for Coolshot useage is too long. It should be half of what it is at least. This is pigeonholing people into low heat ac builds and poptarting erppc/gauss builds...something PGI had issues with in the past.

5. As others have mentioned, either completely remove the cost of respeccing or give a trial period of a certain number of matches or allow a mech to drop in testing grounds before locking in the SP. Also, add a free respec after every patch that tweaks something in the skill tree. Nearly every game that has a skill tree does this by refunding all the skill points allocated after each patch that changes the skill tree.

6. Increase add a full c-bill refund to the modules purchased before December 3 in addition to the HSP already given, or double the HSP given per mastered mech. This will make up for the utility that was lost by removing modules from the game.

7. Actually show some interest in the constructive criticism that your players give you, and actively engage the community so that the community and the devs work together to create the skill tree system that the players want. The devs aren't always right, nor is the community always wrong. Working together won't give everyone what they want, but it will give most people something they can live with.

Edited by Steinkrieg, 17 May 2017 - 06:03 PM.


#552 DoctorDetroit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 483 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:25 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

PGI, just make the GSP a sellable commodity in inventory so people will stop crying, unfortunately you promised this to them at one point and they won't let it go regardless of the fact that there was a reason for the change.

Yes I know at some point someone will cry that they wished they'd saved some GSP for new mechs but the salt level for that should be lower than what we have now.


I agree, I would be far less salty with this change. However, the skill tree design needs some serious changes. I'm patient.. clearly I play MWO. I am always concerned about PGIs radio silence over so many issues. You and players like Bishop Steiner shouldn't have to volunteer to be the forum voices for PGI. Maybe they should get a community manager?

#553 DESTRUKTROTRON

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationDallas

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:33 AM

This skill Tree ****, I like it PGI. Keep up the good work.

I do have one question.

Will the UAC jam chance nodes affect the RAC weapons in the future? Or will they have separate nodes?

Edited by DESTRUKTROTRON, 17 May 2017 - 09:33 AM.


#554 HeresWhy

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 32 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:36 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:


The choice wasn't already made for you in the old system?
The longer you're forced to expose yourself the more likely to be converged upon and thus unsuccessful assassination, lower survival rate, lower overall gameplay satisfaction.

#555 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:38 AM

View PostDESTRUKTROTRON, on 17 May 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

This skill Tree ****, I like it PGI. Keep up the good work.

I do have one question.

Will the UAC jam chance nodes affect the RAC weapons in the future? Or will they have separate nodes?


I would hope they apply to RAC to keep things simple and allow you to swap weapons between the 2 w/o having to respecc...

View PostHeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

The longer you're forced to expose yourself the more likely to be converged upon and thus unsuccessful assassination, lower survival rate, lower overall gameplay satisfaction.


That didn't answer the question.

If you wanted speed tweak on a *cool* mech with torso-only mounts, how many choices were made for your so that you could get speed tweak?

#556 HeresWhy

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 32 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:42 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

That didn't answer the question.
Don't want a better answer to a stupid question, don't ask a stupid question.

The choice in playstyle was not made for you in the old system. Now it is, thus a reduction in customization. Your intentionally disingenuous questions do not change that fact.

Edited by HeresWhy, 17 May 2017 - 09:46 AM.


#557 eXhum116th

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 28 posts
  • LocationKassel

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:49 AM

I am an old man,
The Skilltree is the most confusing thing I've ever seen in a game and should beginners go through it?
I know now alone over 20 people the years have played without a break MWO, which now give up.
These people have financed the game since they have all put at least 300-800 dollars in the game.

Wanted to reach the MWO?

I myself have hundreds of mech's which I have all played in turns, every day another, I will not sit down for a week and all the Mechs Skillen.

The gameplay has changed so much, I will also first MWO hanging on the nail.
It's too much, until sometime.

#558 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:54 AM

View PostHeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

Don't want a better answer to a stupid question, don't ask a stupid question.

The choice in playstyle was not made for you in the old system. Now it is, thus a reduction in customization. Your intentionally disingenuous questions do not change that fact.



You said :

View PostHeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

What you're referring to is a false sense of customization. When the choice has been made for you.


So I am genuinely curious how at the very least the new system makes choices for you *more* than the old system which, apart from a handful of useful modules, the difference in speccing the same mech by 2 different people with the same loadouts is negligible.


Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "The choice has been made for you" as I assumed that it had to do with skill selections. In the old system, if you wanted to master or even just elite a mech, the only control you had was the order in which you unlock skills at a certain tier. Everything else was pretty much set regardless of how you wanted to run the mech.

Edited by MovinTarget, 17 May 2017 - 09:55 AM.


#559 tee5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:54 AM

View PostDoctorDetroit, on 17 May 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Maybe they should get a community manager?


Wait we have a Community Manager, her name is Tina Benoit.
Alltough we have a middle nuclear meltdown in the forum, we don't see her in this thread.

#560 WarmasterRaptor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ogre
  • The Ogre
  • 205 posts
  • LocationQuébec - Canada

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:54 AM

View PostHeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

Don't want a better answer to a stupid question, don't ask a stupid question.

The choice in playstyle was not made for you in the old system. Now it is, thus a reduction in customization. Your intentionally disingenuous questions do not change that fact.


Really ?? XD It wasn't ? That's the best joke I've read so far XD thanks for the laugh !!

Really wonder why there was such a static meta before now !





10 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users