953 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

linux4eva, on 17 May 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

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.

The arguments I've seen is they've lost the right to sell the modules at 1/2 price if they want to.

Additionally, others are angry because they hold on to the original plan to get a full refund, but ignore the fact that back then the cost to spec was *MUCH* higher and there was no concept of GSP. So they are basically saying "Screw everybody that didn't buy modules, find another way to level your existing mechs." Seriously, when it was first announced back in December, I was going to get 1.6 billion cbills and THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO LEVEL ALL MY MECHS (280 mechs @ 9million ea.)

So they hold on to a statement and ignore the fact that many other advantages have been put in place (reduced skill costs, HSP)

[Digimat]

First i was lost with the skilltree system. From reading i did understand the thoughts and functions behind it, but the implementation and usabillity just robs any fun and eagerness to do something with it.

there are dozens of functions availiable on a single screen
some things can be clicked and open submenus, some don´t (you have to try)
i can´t see what can be redone and what can´t
i dont know what i have to do first and what is interdependant from another
abbreviations
.
.
.

i took time to get there, but i dont think its a good implementation and i am sure it will discourage many old players that feel they lost something, and overtax new players.

in short, its clumsy and absolutely not fun. the interface is horrible. you dont get the "oooh, its new, lets play with it" feeling.

also, i think we really need try-out function.

[ThatGuy539]

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

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.

Yep, I've never sold a mech. I've got a few duplicates and even triplicates. (from loyalty mechs and mechs won in events)

I put different builds on them. Figured it would save me some time when group dropping if I wanted to change from short to long range or something in a specific mech.
Now with the new skill tree I can do the same thing with the skills too.

And because I had all of my mechs mastered, those multiples of the same model all got full SP to use.



Of course I still have to jump into this skill tree thing, and get used to using it. First glance at it and reading the forums has made me a bit timid about getting my feet wet.
But I'll use one of my mechs that has insane amounts of XP to do some playing around. The loads of XP will allow me to do a lot of changes and see what's what.

Edited by ThatGuy539, 17 May 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[JuIius]

Business as usual.....

[MovinTarget]

ThatGuy539, on 17 May 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

Of course I still have to jump into this skill tree thing, and get used to using it. First glance at it and reading the forums has made me a bit timid about getting my feet wet.
But I'll use one of my mechs that has insane amounts of XP to do some playing around. The loads of XP will allow me to do a lot of changes and see what's what.

I won't tell you what to think of it, only to give it an honest try, you may find its not as doomy and gloomy as some claim, or maybe you do...

Just try it and don't let any of us form your opinion for you through forum warrioring...

People have posted helps and tutorials... use them.

Edited by MovinTarget, 17 May 2017 - 11:37 AM.

[Steinkrieg]

https://kitlaan.gitlab.io/mwoskill/

Skill Tree builder

[MovinTarget]

Digimat, on 17 May 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

also, i think we really need try-out function.

Agree on this, some way to drop into the testing grounds (any map) before saving/buying your skill nodes...

What would be *really* sweet is if we could modify them WHILE WE ARE IN THE TESTING GROUNDS so we could immediately see the differences.

An alternative would be to be given some way of seeing the changes individually. So say you want to see how -15% duration "looks" you click a button and see a split screen of your current mech (or factor in its base quirks) with and without the duration skills firing simultaneously so you can see how much quicker a specific weapon's beam is compared to vanilla. Or movement graphics in split screen for agility.

Edited by MovinTarget, 17 May 2017 - 11:46 AM.

[PFC Carsten]

MovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Could it be refined more? Sure!

The correct question you should have asked in this instance would be: Should it have been refined before unleashing it unto the players. But the answer would have been the same: Sure! AS HELL!

Sky Hawk, on 17 May 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

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

No, but saying "I shut up, here, take my money anyway" is? I do not think so. You know, most people that are confronted by white knight's prepared salt memes actually WERE very concstructive for a long time and instead of just leaving silently and abandoning MWO, they show that they really want this game to succeed by the only means they perceive that is left to them.

That this thread now is over 500 posts and no single response from PGI concerning the concerns is just telling (I saw that some PGI staffer did answer specific, non-political questions in the beginning...).

Sky Hawk, on 17 May 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

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

So, we should do something that a company that is trying to sell us their product refuses to do. For years? I cannot begin to fathom the naive faith that has to spawn an idea like this. I really and honestly envy you for it. Life would be so trouble free.

Sky Hawk, on 17 May 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Russ said clearly, he don't want give us billions of CB in one go... Ok.. clear.. He is not crazy..

Russ has also said, people like me are on an island. The cockpit item in my LCT-1V tells the story. Given that my money did it's part to bring this game to life in the first place (with naive faith in the company PGI...), I think that is telling enough about how sane Russ is. And besides: What harm would C-Bills in the hands of the players do? You cannot do anything with it, that would impair PGIs business model in any way: You cannot buy premium time for lobbies and in extent for playing competitively, you cannot buy Hero Mechs, you cannot buy Mech Bays and you cannot buy new(ly released) Mechs until PGI deems it is time you can. Heck, you cannot even buy decals ("dekkels") just for decoration with C-Bills - or colors apart from four very basic ones IIRC.

Edited by PFC Carsten, 17 May 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[Terrastras Rex]

I think it's good because:

- it changes the meta (no, your mechs will not be the same as they were before)
- it allows for further role specialization
- yes it nerfs some things, but it also buffs some things.

just play with it. It's not that hard to understand. you'll get it eventually.

I've re-skilled about 8-10 mechs now.. sure its a little time consuming to do your whole stable at once, but you didn't buy your whole stable at once. =P


for pgi:

perhaps add a template for the complainers. laservom template, dakka template, lrm template, light movement template. using say 45/91 points, the rest have to still be assigned.
^ i dont care about this, but all the whining in this thread makes me believe some do.

I'd rather dev resources get spent on
- "Fire Next Weapon Group" function .. from MWO3 controls : this allows 2button mice to have more than 2 weapon groups fire effectively.
Next weapon group ]
Previous weapon group [

Edited by Terrastras Rex, 17 May 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[Taynak]

Thank you for, once again, completely shafting your community.

[Taynak]

I didn't get a refund on my modules for cbills. YOU PEOPLE SUCK YOUR GAME IS A JOKE AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT FOR INNERSPHERE.

HAVE FUN WITH YOUR JOKE.. .IM DONE. AND I WON'T EVER SUPPORT ANOTHER GAME YOUR COMPANY MAKES OR RUSS BULLCOCK IS A PART OF EVER AGAIN.

[Zodie]

MovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

I won't tell you what to think of it, only to give it an honest try, you may find its not as doomy and gloomy as some claim, or maybe you do...

Just try it and don't let any of us form your opinion for you through forum warrioring...

People have posted helps and tutorials... use them.

THIS!!!

[RED CW]

Ok PGI, this skill-tree joke not work. Pls fix this s*it ASAP.

[ArmageddonKnight]

My feedback.


Im positive one of the aims for the new system was to increase TTK.

From my experience it has not achieved that.

Looking at the skill tree now i honestly cant see how they thought it would anyway.

The amount of raw alpha damage per mech combined with the number of mechs on a team means any 'small' increase to durability like in the skill tree now, wont make an ounce of difference in group battles, which this game is bassed on.

Even a fully front armor loaded 100 tonn mech gets cored almost instantly if u do anything other than peak and alpha tactics.

I think the problem is PGi consider the current gameplay as 'how it should be' and as such are 'changing' things to tweak it. instead of encouraging and supporting different play styles.

I for one have always played DPS builds, and have always been handycapped becouse of it. DPS builds just dont live long enough in the high alpha meta to be of any value, and thats just wrong.

That being said, my experience using such builds with this new skill tree has so far proven that nothing has changed for my surviability (i still die very quickly even in a 100 tonn mech), but my heat managment has improved, as has ammo managment. But i've lost DPS thanks to the CD nerfs.(17% down to 9.5%)


My advice.

PGI for the love of everything , revert heat capacity to atleast TT values. We have to much available atm and as such have insanely high alpha strike builds available. No need to tweek weapons, or other PITA balance changes, just nerf heat capacity. Buff cooling efficiency if u have to to compensate, just limit the alpha strike potential.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Terrastras Rex, on 17 May 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

I think it's good because:

- it changes the meta (no, your mechs will not be the same as they were before)

Can confirm that this is false.

[pacifica812]

Just found this beauty on the YouTube - A skill tree planner

video:


link:
https://tarogato-mwo..._skill_planner/

Thank you Brios, thank you Tarogato, thank you so very very much!!!!! You shine a light in these dark times

This community is the best

Edited by pacifica812, 17 May 2017 - 01:05 PM.

[Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses]

First of all, I prefer IS mechs.

So, I have played today several matches... What a pain. Before patch I was doing more than 600dmg easily. It's really hard for me to do 400dmg now.

Second thing - I see skill tree has nerf IS mechs and buff Clan mechs. So I am dying faster than before, even with armor skills. If I am not hiding behind my Clan teammates, my battles looks that way:
1) Few minutes between pressing "Quick play" and start of the match.
2) Next few minutes to reach enemy
3) Dead in few seconds.
4) Back to main menu, choose another mech.
5) Back to point 1)...

Sooo... I lost my desire to play MWO. The epic battles has gone (well, they gone long ago when 12 vs 12 matches has become, but there was still some nostalgia in 12 vs 12), there is only carnage for me at the battlefield now.

I don't like to play the game where a "playing" means waiting and waiting and.. waiting... waiting... wait...

Enough. I have to take a break to think. Well, I still haven't tried Yen-Lo Wang. If that mech won't be great as before 16th may patch, I'll be very, very unhappy.

[Boaz Roshak]

Quote

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.

Well I do see that reading comprehension is not strong among some. So let me clarify for the people busy polishing apples. My only real issue at this time is about time and how much of it will be taken to get back to where I was 2 days ago. when you have nearly 400 mechs even 5 minutes each is a substantial investment in time(over 30 hours for the people who need help with that) Hell even if they find a really fast way to do this and it only takes 1 minute I am looking at 6 hours work that they have made for me to do... oh and stop harshing on salt https://www.scientif...he-war-on-salt/

[Zolaz]

shameless, on 17 May 2017 - 06:57 AM, said:

Are you high?

And if you post what you really think about PGI, Tina pulls it and you get a talking to.

[Horseman]

linux4eva, on 17 May 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

OK, can anyone explain why so much rage regarding to receiving full C-bill module refund?

Because some people do not see any value in the GSP. Arguably, they might see the surplus of GSP as detrimental to their motivation to play.

MovinTarget, on 17 May 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

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.

The designers' job is to find a solution that's least disagreeable to the users. If a change gets majority of your player base up in arms, then it probably isn't a change you should be pushing in its' present form in the first place.
There are ways to "sell" certain concepts and updates to players without antagonizing them in such a spectacular fashion, redesign the UI/UX component to a more acceptable form without substantially altering the mechanics and/or stage them in portions that would make the transition more gradual. None of that has been done here.

Quote

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.

Sunken cost fallacy is never a good excuse.

Quote

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.

"You haven't tried it" is not an argument when it's the basic UI/UX aspects of the change that are the main cause of the rejection.

PFC Carsten, on 17 May 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

The correct question you should have asked in this instance would be: Should it have been refined before unleashing it unto the players. But the answer would have been the same: Sure! AS HELL!

QFT.