953 replies to this topic

[HeresWhy]

WarmasterRaptor, on 17 May 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

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 !

There was a static meta, and with the reduction of Reward vs Risk, this pushes the game further towards that meta.

MovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

So I am genuinely curious how at the very least the new system makes choices for you *more* than the old system

In other words, you've failed to read a single thing you've replied to.

Edited by HeresWhy, 17 May 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[MovinTarget]

HeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

There was a static meta, and with the reduction of Reward vs Risk, this pushes the game further towards that meta.

Sooooo the static Meta was not a result of "Choices being made for us"?

I see you have a point, but its not quite clear where you are going with it. Perhaps you read what someone else wrote and you're going with that? Just cite your reasonings instead of offering cryptic one liners and insults that offering no substantiation or reasonable arguments.

[PeeWrinkle]

PeeWrinkle, on 16 May 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

Overall I am very excited about this patch. Although I am not excited about the work it is going to take to spec out all of my mechs. Those who stated less is more are absolutely correct; skilling all of my mechs may make my eyes bleed! LOL

PS. I forgot to mention that I could be tricking myself into being excited and in a few weeks be just as upset as most everyone else posting.

I have to amend my earlier post. I was tricking myself into being excited. After spending a couple hours looking at it last night I came to the conclusion that this absolutely sucks!

That is just my opinion of course, but as a player who probably lines up with a majority of the player base having such a bad opinion of this skill tree is probably a bad thing for PGI. And based on the posts in the forum it seems I am in the majority with my thoughts.

I participated in the two public tests and was not impressed, but felt that things got better between 1 and 2. Delaying this launch I thought was a good thing, but it turns out that PGI really did not take into account what the players were telling them about this system.

As a player with 140 or so mechs, I am not going to spend the time needed to spec them. I am definitely not going to spend additional time later reconfiguring my drop decks before big events the way I did in the past. I want to play a game and not spend a majority of my time assigning skills. At this time I believe if I were playing the game 70% of my play time would be messing around in the skill trees and failing miserably at everything I was trying to achieve there.

I have a list of at least 50 things that I do not like about this system but decided I did not want to waste more time listing them. I am wasting time posting this instead (still a lot less time wasted though). The short version is those dislikes range from config flexibility, to game balance, to every mech getting suckier (although the better mechs still don't suck as bad, which may give them an even bigger advantage than in the past - Imagine a Kodiac-3 with UAC jam chance fully skilled. I am not sure they would need other skills), to this is what PGI really thought would help the game improve.

I have spent more money that I care to admit on this game, and even more time playing it that is probably sane. So on a positive note I am going to save a lot of money and gain a lot of free time in my future. At least until PGI fixes this debacle in an acceptable way.

If they want to fix it they better do it fast because once the Battletech beta comes out I doubt I will return if that is half as good as it looks. Even though it is a different type of game, the die hard lore and Battletech fans out there will simply abandon MWO for it, if PGI keeps it in the current state.
Ironically in the video HBS just released there was a point in the video where the designers were talking about how they work collaboratively and don't have just one lead designer determine how the game will be made.
Check out the video:
Go to: 14:15 - 15:40
That is the minute and a half that they talk about their design process.
When I saw that all I could think was they must be telling me the difference between how HBS works compared to PGI.

It pains me to say it, as I love this game, but I am out for now. I may return in the future, if this skill tree thing is fixed to an acceptable state. However it seems PGI is set on this design and structure and this games eventual death.

Later peeps!

[HeresWhy]

MovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

Sooooo the static Meta was not a result of "Choices being made for us"?

A static meta can still offer counter meta options when the Risk v Reward is high enough to compensate for the inherent inferiority of the build. When you reduce the reward to complete ineffectiveness there is no reason to attempt the risk.

Edited by HeresWhy, 17 May 2017 - 10:15 AM.

[Rodrigo Martinez]

On the patch day I was very frustrated by new system. Now I still don't like it but maybe it will be polished, because in generall it's a step in right direction but skill maze PoE-like not good idea at all. Most important thing for me - free respec without unlocking nodes, just 91 points to spend. It will give a way to try all builds, test it. Also newbies may do mistakes and won't be penaltized for that.

[MovinTarget]

HeresWhy, on 17 May 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

A static meta can still offer counter meta options when the Risk v Reward is high enough to compensate for the inherent inferiority of the build. When you reduce the reward to complete ineffectiveness there is no reason to attempt the risk.

Okay, thanks for a better explanation of your reasoning. I disagree on the complete ineffectiveness part, but at least I understand your reasoning better.

Lets give it some time before slamming the door shut on it. I know its not everyone's cup'o'tea, I've felt like I've been able to be much more flexible in making mechs work for my playstyle, but everyone has a right to their own opinion.

[Domoneky]

TLDR Skill Tree OP and DOA

[Crockdaddy]

The big problem for the skill tree update is really understanding if I have good value for all the GSP I have vs. it being actual C-Bills. I feel like I am being shafted with some lube (GSP) to make me feel better about the entire situation. Also paying for a re-spec .... I think is a broken mechanic. Once you earn those points .... maybe do something like charge a small C-bill feel to respect not what the current cost is.

Last ... the shifting of the quirks taught me to never truly trash a mech. I wonder ... can I simply purge 1/2 of my stable of 221 mechs. A year ago I sold off 60 or so mechs and ended up buying a dozen or so back as the quirk / buff system changed.

[Kaethir]

I'd like to sum up this thread (and about half the others that have been started today)....

Here's your delivery:

[MovinTarget]

Crockdaddy, on 17 May 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

The big problem for the skill tree update is really understanding if I have good value for all the GSP I have vs. it being actual C-Bills. I feel like I am being shafted with some lube (GSP) to make me feel better about the entire situation. Also paying for a re-spec .... I think is a broken mechanic. Once you earn those points .... maybe do something like charge a small C-bill feel to respect not what the current cost is.

Last ... the shifting of the quirks taught me to never truly trash a mech. I wonder ... can I simply purge 1/2 of my stable of 221 mechs. A year ago I sold off 60 or so mechs and ended up buying a dozen or so back as the quirk / buff system changed.

I learned long ago to never sell mechs.

ever.

STOP LOOKING AT ME VINDICATOR! YOU TOO TREB! JUST BECAUSE I DON'T SELL YOU DOESN'T MEAN I LOVE YOU!

[Insomnium80]

Boaz Roshak, on 17 May 2017 - 01:57 AM, said:

I like that they think this will help new players but those of us that have hundreds of mechs this has become a huge time sink. We need a way to be able to do this off line and upload it so that I do not have to reinvent the wheel for each of my 392mechs. Someone said here that it only takes about 15 minutes to do a mech, cool so I am only looking at about 98 hours of work just to just get back to where I was 2 days ago, let that sink in, 98 hours. So thanks PGI I am feeling the love here L

If you're not willing to put 15 minutes into mastering a mech, then it's really not worth playing that mech. Also it takes a lot less than 15 minutes once you know what you're doing. Also, too much salt is bad for your health.

[tee5]

In case someone wants to know:

I had 16 Radar Deprevations. Bought some before and some after 3rd Dec. Took all out of the mechs into inventory, so in inventory nobody can see which modules are of what kind. Sold 8. If I would have a choice I would have sold the modules which would have given me GSP.

On the Refund-Ledger I got for all 8 modules GSP. So PGI sold for me all the Modules which would have given me full C-Bills.

Thx that PGI is deciding in their favour. For me C-Bills would have been better than GSP.

Edited by tee5, 17 May 2017 - 10:39 AM.

[MovinTarget]

tee5, on 17 May 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

In case someone wants to know:

I had 16 Radar Deprevations. Bought some before and some after 3rd Dec. Took all out of the mechs into inventory, so in inventory nobody can see which modules are of what kind. Sold 8. If I would have a choice I would have sold the modules which would have given me GSP.

On the Refund-Ledger I got for all 8 modules GSP. So PGI sold for me all the Modules which would have given me full C-Bills.

Thx that PGI is deciding in their favour. For me C-Bills would have been better than GSP.

Yeah I was wondering how they were going to figure things like that... I just sold all my modules I either know were purchased prior to 12/3 or where I was reasonably sure the majority were purchased prior to 12/3... Ended up making 400 million and only had 18k GSP instead of ~36k...

I will reiterate that giving people an ability to sell GSP like inventory at at least the equivalent of selling the module from inventory (i.e. 50% of the price) would assuage many, though I suspect the salt would be real for anyone *expecting* full price.

I like having *some* GSP for insta-leveling new mechs... Whether I'll ever use 18k (let alone 36k) GSP is doubtful... Conversely, I don't see myself needing 1.8 billion cbills if my existing mechs have HSP either.

Yes I know new tech is coming out, but I really doubt I'd burn through that much space bux so quickly...

Edited by MovinTarget, 17 May 2017 - 10:47 AM.

[Col Sharpe]

Great post.

PeeWrinkle, on 17 May 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

I have to amend my earlier post. I was tricking myself into being excited. After spending a couple hours looking at it last night I came to the conclusion that this absolutely sucks!

That is just my opinion of course, but as a player who probably lines up with a majority of the player base having such a bad opinion of this skill tree is probably a bad thing for PGI. And based on the posts in the forum it seems I am in the majority with my thoughts.

I participated in the two public tests and was not impressed, but felt that things got better between 1 and 2. Delaying this launch I thought was a good thing, but it turns out that PGI really did not take into account what the players were telling them about this system.

As a player with 140 or so mechs, I am not going to spend the time needed to spec them. I am definitely not going to spend additional time later reconfiguring my drop decks before big events the way I did in the past. I want to play a game and not spend a majority of my time assigning skills. At this time I believe if I were playing the game 70% of my play time would be messing around in the skill trees and failing miserably at everything I was trying to achieve there.

I have a list of at least 50 things that I do not like about this system but decided I did not want to waste more time listing them. I am wasting time posting this instead (still a lot less time wasted though). The short version is those dislikes range from config flexibility, to game balance, to every mech getting suckier (although the better mechs still don't suck as bad, which may give them an even bigger advantage than in the past - Imagine a Kodiac-3 with UAC jam chance fully skilled. I am not sure they would need other skills), to this is what PGI really thought would help the game improve.

I have spent more money that I care to admit on this game, and even more time playing it that is probably sane. So on a positive note I am going to save a lot of money and gain a lot of free time in my future. At least until PGI fixes this debacle in an acceptable way.

If they want to fix it they better do it fast because once the Battletech beta comes out I doubt I will return if that is half as good as it looks. Even though it is a different type of game, the die hard lore and Battletech fans out there will simply abandon MWO for it, if PGI keeps it in the current state.
Ironically in the video HBS just released there was a point in the video where the designers were talking about how they work collaboratively and don't have just one lead designer determine how the game will be made.
Check out the video:
Go to: 14:15 - 15:40
That is the minute and a half that they talk about their design process.
When I saw that all I could think was they must be telling me the difference between how HBS works compared to PGI.

It pains me to say it, as I love this game, but I am out for now. I may return in the future, if this skill tree thing is fixed to an acceptable state. However it seems PGI is set on this design and structure and this games eventual death.

Later peeps!

[Jep Jorgensson]

Kaethir, on 17 May 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

I'd like to sum up this thread (and about half the others that have been started today)....

Here's your delivery:

Just to be fair, PGI were the ones that ordered that shipment of salt when they delivered a load of still steamy sh!t to us. They could have worked with the players to design a good skill tree rather then a crappy spiderweb, but as always, PGI knows what is best for us mere peasants. We need only to shut up and open our wallets.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 17 May 2017 - 10:57 AM.

[linux4eva]

OK, can anyone explain why so much rage regarding to receiving full C-bill module refund?
As far as I understand the C-bills spent on modules before the Skill Tree announcement are being refunded as general Skill Points that you can use to unlock efficiencies on any mech.
That makes total sense to me because:

• Modules were part of a level-up system modifying mech efficiencies.
  
• Skill Tree is affecting the same efficiencies.
  
• Unlocking mech efficiencies in the new system costs Skill Points which have C-bill cost to it.
  
• So the C-bills spent on modules are being refunded in for of SP.
  
• The modules were not associated with a particular mech, neither the refund in form of SP.

So the only reason for complaining is a wish to become a multi-millionaire. Not refunding module expenses in the C-bill form makes sense to me, because buy buying modules you already converted C-bills to universal mech efficiencies, which equivalents SP currency in the new system.

[MovinTarget]

Jep Jorgensson, on 17 May 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

Just to be fair, PGI were the ones that ordered that shipment of salt when they delivered a load of still steamy sh!t to us. They could have worked with the players to design a good skill tree rather then a crappy spiderweb, but as always, PGI knows what is best for us mere peasants. We need only to shut up and open our wallets.

Could it be refined more? Sure!

Yes lots of players *DO NOT* like the implementation, but if you ask them what they'd rather have you would not get a consensus.

From a programmers prospective, this is not like adding new mechs or maps. Except for some UI aspects this was developed pretty much from the ground up for this (i.e. not recycling a bunch of code) so most likely they got pretty deep into it, to the point that many of the suggestions, however reasonable, would amount to months of work down the drain and they'd have to make a decision: push on with what they have (adding whatever tweaks they can) or scrap it and lose months of man hours.

Now consider that the community is so varied that there is no clear majority other than perhaps "We don't want *this*", you could argue that they try it out and see if they can win people over, because otherwise, its back to the drawing board anyway.

For those thinking they should have included players in the process earlier and that it would somehow prevent this, consider that whatever your opinion of PGI is, they know their own code better than any of us. Add to the fact that many of the most opinionated have no software design/programming experience to speak of...

I, as a dev often have to very politely let customers know that they don't have a clue what they are asking for and how big a hole they are they would shoot in their own foot if I implemented it the way they casually request.

So you can scream, shout, cry all you want, but they *have* to be the ones running the prison, not the inmates.

[ThatGuy539]

I logged in last night and had a look.

I didn't play a single match. But I did drop into the Training Grounds a few times.
I also didn't play with the skill tree other than to check it out.
Although I did transfer 400XP to an Adder.

My personal perspective:

1)
I appreciate the effort that went into this, and the idea behind it.

2)
I'm not crazy about having to purchase skills that I don't want or need to get at skills that I do want or need.
We can't fully spec out a mech now, and that's okay. But that also makes deciding on what you want to put your limited SP into more important.
Add to this the fact that making changes cost XP, and I feel like I need to get out the pen and paper to calculate all of the pros and cons of everything before I start making any choices in the skill trees.
Having branches of the skill tree that are just related to one thing would be nice. I'd feel like I was getting better use of my "money", and the choices would be easier to make. But I can also see where this would mean that everyone would be maxing out the main skills and then the only difference between "mastered" mechs would be how much of the lesser used skills like Hill Climb, or Capture Accelerator they would have.

3)
I'm sort of okay with paying XP to make skill changes later. However it does scare people off from making changes and trying new things.
It would be nice to make some changes, and test them out before we are locked in and have to pay.

4)
I did like getting over 2100MC from all the MC consumables I've won over the years and never used. I always thought it would be nice to be able to sell them for their MC.

[Rexxxxxxxxx]

Getting an error when I try to convert HSP or GSP to SP on any of my Timber Wolves

Error Code: -1610693648

Any help would be appreciated

Thank you,

Rexxxxxxxxx

[Sky Hawk]

Hmm.. most of you still just crying.. "PGI stole... blabla.. ... I lost blaba..".. That isn't really helpfull in the long run, you know?..

Why don't you start using your brains,... and try to figure out some compromises that PGI/Russ would/could accept.. F.e....

Russ said clearly, he don't want give us billions of CB in one go... Ok.. clear.. He is not crazy.. BUT what about in small pieces? Has anybody asked PGI about something like:

"Hey Russ!
Can we have a limited GSP/CB's converter unit feature in the future? With a convert-capacity of f.e. 500 GSP/month (= 22,5 M CB/month) into CB's?"

(Or 10 GSP/day.. or 100 GSP/week whatever..)

Edited by Sky Hawk, 17 May 2017 - 11:18 AM.