91 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Cherry picked gibberish

A few things:

1) I do get what it is you are trying to say, and I am telling you that you are wrong because you are using bad, inadequate comparisons while intentionally ignoring much of the underlying foundations for both trees.

2) I've dealt with you before and know that, once you get to this point, there is no rational discussion with you. You like to selectively offer reasoning or data that only benefits your argument rather than looking at the full picture.

3) The new level of customization is good. Under the old system, you had a handful of viable Mechs, and an even smaller number of builds. While some narrow-minded people will build their Mech and then skill it out to complement that build, more creative people will be able to synergize between building and skilling to make truly unique, interesting, fun, and refreshing builds that are actually viable too. That's a good thing.

4) The Skill Tree isn't perfect, but it's substantially better than what we had and a good step forward in the right direction. Naysayers would hold us back, but it's time we threw off their shackles and strode forward to a new era of MWO. There will be mistakes. It's impossible to please everyone, so some people will be unhappy. However, I think everyone can agree that the game is stagnant and in need of change. This Skill Tree is a breath of fresh wind for which many of us have been begging since Beta. Let's seize the ball, run with it, push PGI to improve it, and keep heading towards the goal line rather than screaming at the coach to take everyone off the field and send them to the showers.

[Tarogato]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

A few things:

1) I do get what it is you are trying to say, and I am telling you that you are wrong because you are using bad, inadequate comparisons while intentionally ignoring much of the underlying foundations for both trees.

Then let's make the apples to apples.

Old system:

Basics(14250) + Elites (21500) + Module slot (21500) = 57250 per mech

+ spare variant Basics if necessary (2*14250) = 85750

+ spare variants Elites if necessary (2*21500) = 128750

So depending on whether you keep and master all three variants, or only one want and sell the others, and also depending on whether or not it's your first mech in a weight class, you need between 57250 and 128750 xp per mech.

In order to to remove the rule of three, we need to make a compromise somewhere in between, which is the expected "average" per-mech grind that the "average" player endures. Once you figure out what the number is, you can remove the rule of three.

No need to change the skill tree. Modules stay the same, GXP costs don't change, C-Bill costs don't change*... the only thing that changes is the only thing that matters - the per-mech XP grind. No more rule of three.

*edit, well maybe up the C-Bill cost of all mechs in the game, to make up for the fact that you don't have to buy as many mechs with no rule of three. Gotta keep the per-mech costs similar.

Quote

Like I said, that's your opinon. Neither one of us can prove or disprove it, which makes your take on it irrelevant.

I don't think it's opinion, I think it's fact. The fact that PGI made many related but independent changes all at one time seems to have you and others in a tizzy. The point I'm trying to make is that in order to remove the rule of three, you don't have to convert the XP system into a 237 node maze of which you can only choose 91. I'm not sure how you could possibly see that as anything other than a statement of fact. But you seem hung up on it.

Quote

3) The new level of customization is good. Under the old system, you had a handful of viable Mechs, and an even smaller number of builds. While some narrow-minded people will build their Mech and then skill it out to complement that build, more creative people will be able to synergize between building and skilling to make truly unique, interesting, fun, and refreshing builds that are actually viable too. That's a good thing.

4) The Skill Tree isn't perfect, but it's substantially better than what we had and a good step forward in the right direction. Naysayers would hold us back, but it's time we threw off their shackles and strode forward to a new era of MWO. There will be mistakes. It's impossible to please everyone, so some people will be unhappy. However, I think everyone can agree that the game is stagnant and in need of change. This Skill Tree is a breath of fresh wind for which many of us have been begging since Beta.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue this. This is subjective. If you're casual minded, or just bad at the game, you'll see more viable options, and you might enjoy spending time exploring them - provided you have the patience to even dive into it. But if you're competitive minded, it's only a waste of time as you try to figure out the one best option.

Quote

Let's seize the ball, run with it, push PGI to improve it, and keep heading towards the goal line rather than screaming at the coach to take everyone off the field and send them to the showers.

PGI can start improving it by reducing the 237 node count by an order of magnitude.

Edited by Tarogato, 20 May 2017 - 12:22 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Then let's make the apples to apples.

Old system:

Basics(14250) + Elites (21500) + Module slot (21500) = 57250 per mech

+ spare variant Basics if necessary (2*14250) = 85750

+ spare variants Elites if necessary (2*21500) = 128750

So depending on whether you keep and master all three variants, or only one want and sell the others, and also depending on whether or not it's your first mech in a weight class, you need between 57250 and 128750 xp per mech.

In order to to remove the rule of three, we need to make a compromise somewhere in between, which is the expected "average" per-mech grind that the "average" player endures. Once you figure out what the number is, you can remove the rule of three.

No need to change the skill tree. Modules stay the same, GXP costs don't change, C-Bill costs don't change*... the only thing that changes is the only thing that matters - the per-mech XP grind. No more rule of three.

*edit, well maybe up the C-Bill cost of all mechs in the game, to make up for the fact that you don't have to buy as many mechs with no rule of three. Gotta keep the per-mech costs similar.

Sure, but it doesn't address the fact that the Skill Tree we had was poorly designed, offered no real customization or sense of progression, was boring and stale, and had the useless Pinpoint speedbump in it.

Change is good.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

I don't think it's opinion, I think it's fact. The fact that PGI made many related but independent changes all at one time seems to have you and others in a tizzy. The point I'm trying to make is that in order to remove the rule of three, you don't have to convert the XP system into a 237 node maze of which you can only choose 91. I'm not sure how you could possibly see that as anything other than a statement of fact. But you seem hung up on it.

I'm arguing more the semantics of it here than whether or not they actually could have removed it. You can't call something "fact" unless you have observable data to prove it. Nobody has that except PGI though, so nobody here on the forums can really "prove" anything as "fact" with regard to the game's coding structure.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not going to argue this. This is subjective. If you're casual minded, or just bad at the game, you'll see more viable options, and you might enjoy spending time exploring them - provided you have the patience to even dive into it. But if you're competitive minded, it's only a waste of time as you try to figure out the one best option.

Sure it's subjective. However, PGI has released data in the past indicating that its biggest player base is comprised of casual puggers. Meta tryhard may be annoyed at having to remaster and develop new metas, but they're the minority. It's impossible for PGI to please everyone, so why not please the largest demographic?

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

GI can start improving it by reducing the 237 node count by an order of magnitude.

*Chuckle*

There are an awful lot of nodes!

[Tarogato]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I'm arguing more the semantics of it here than whether or not they actually could have removed it. You can't call something "fact" unless you have observable data to prove it. Nobody has that except PGI though, so nobody here on the forums can really "prove" anything as "fact" with regard to the game's coding structure.

I don't care about PGI's coding structure though. I'm only concerned with the system and how it impacts players. If their code is so spaghetti that they can't buff the IS small laser without simultaneously pointing the Commando's arms backward, that doesn't mean they should buff the small laser AND make the Commando's arms backwards. Similarly, there's no reason why the skill tree itself should have any bearing on the rule of three. Rule of three could be removed without changing anything other than XP costs. If there's some spaghetti code obstacle in the way of doing that, that's PGI's fault, and their responsibility to fix it. Besides, it's not like overhauling the skill tree was an easy way out in order to ditch the rule of three. It was a huge undertaking, and it was actually their primary objective.

Quote

*Chuckle*

There are an awful lot of nodes!

Сrap, we agreed on something? Ermmm... I don't know how to deal with this now...

[Nightmare1]

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

I don't care about PGI's coding structure though. I'm only concerned with the system and how it impacts players. If their code is so spaghetti that they can't buff the IS small laser without simultaneously pointing the Commando's arms backward, that doesn't mean they should buff the small laser AND make the Commando's arms backwards. Similarly, there's no reason why the skill tree itself should have any bearing on the rule of three. Rule of three could be removed without changing anything other than XP costs. If there's some spaghetti code obstacle in the way of doing that, that's PGI's fault, and their responsibility to fix it. Besides, it's not like overhauling the skill tree was an easy way out in order to ditch the rule of three. It was a huge undertaking, and it was actually their primary objective.

*Chuckle*

Like I said, I was arguing more about the semantics. I have a math and science background so I'm a bit OCD about someone bandying about the word "fact" without actual evidence.

That being said, I do tend to agree that they should have been able to ditch the rule of three at will. They didn't though, so we have to treat the two systems as they are, not as we would wish them to be.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

Сrap, we agreed on something? Ermmm... I don't know how to deal with this now...

Me neither!

...Group hug?

[Karamarka]

Just came back lulz. Inb4 the 75% vectoring I picked is garbage

btw y so many bads in div1 did they not fix the MM yet?

Edited by Karamarka, 04 June 2017 - 07:16 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

Sure it's subjective. However, PGI has released data in the past indicating that its biggest player base is comprised of casual puggers. Meta tryhard may be annoyed at having to remaster and develop new metas, but they're the minority. It's impossible for PGI to please everyone, so why not please the largest demographic?

At some point people will clue in that the player base is secondary to the payer base.

PGI needs to please the payer base.

[Nightmare1]

Ted Wayz, on 04 June 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

At some point people will clue in that the player base is secondary to the payer base.

PGI needs to please the payer base.

The player base and payer base are one and the same. We don't have any altruistic sponsors donating funds to run the game you know; the people paying are also the people playing.

[Ted Wayz]

Nightmare1, on 04 June 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

The player base and payer base are one and the same. We don't have any altruistic sponsors donating funds to run the game you know; the people paying are also the people playing.

In a free to play environment they are not the same. In a subscription model they are.

Everyone please ignore what this person says following. Clearly they do not know what they are talking about.

[Nightmare1]

Ted Wayz, on 04 June 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

In a free to play environment they are not the same. In a subscription model they are.

Everyone please ignore what this person says following. Clearly they do not know what they are talking about.

Says the guy who's claiming that paying players aren't actually a part of the playing base. You make it sound like there's a GoFundMe or something where people can toss money at the game without actually participating in it.

My point, is that everyone who plays the game is a part of the player base regardless of whether they drop money on it or not. Casual players represent the largest constituency. Pretending that they do not pay towards the game is flat-out stupid since casual players do actually put down considerable amounts of money and probably more than the meta tryhard prima-donnas due to their numbers.

[MischiefSC]

At an industry level 0.15% of players account for 54% of revenue in F2P games. Only 2.2% account for almost all (over 90%) of revenue in F2P.

You can't just assume MWO margins are identical but it's absolutely true that the vast majority of F2P players are just filler. In a MWO context the only value they have is filling matches and getting shot by the 2.2%.

[Tordin]

Sorry ted. But the old tree deserved its fate, it needed to be chopped down. The new arent perfect but I prefer it tenfold over the old placeholder tree that have festered the game for so long. Not much more to say besides what others have said before me.
As a note. Yes certain nodes should really gain an overall buff for either both IS, Clan, both, for individual mech chassi and/ or even for certain weight classes.
Overall the UAC jam chance reduction nodes should be bumped from -2.5% to at least -5% per node, if not -15%. Gauss charge nodes should be changed to the reverse, make it so that instead for being able to hold the charge longer after fully charged, you should be able to release it faster.

[Katastrophy Kid]

Ted Wayz, on 17 May 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

Point by point what follows describes why the old skill tree is better than the new. If you would like to provide counterpoints and add to the discussion, great! If you have nothing and just want to ***** or character assassinate, please take your misery elsewhere.

Now on to the list.

Time sink- I love people reading posts where people say, "After an hour of playing with the new skill tree my mech performs just as well as before". So you spent an hour to end up where you started. And you think that is a good thing? Then I guess your time is not that valuable or maybe you do not own that many mechs (because maybe your time is not that valuable). Question, would you spend an hour in line just to end up at the back of the line?

Adds nothing new- What new features were added with this glorious skill tree? Zero, zip, nada. We already had what this new skill tree had to offer in simpler form. Now if there was a hand-to-hand tree or a field repair tree or a mech commander tree or just any new feature then there would be reason to create a new tree. But instead we are praising PGI for giving us something we already had.

No new reward system- Day one hour one and people are giving instructions on how to avoid useless nodes. So that means PGI spent time and money giving us a skill tree with something that we already have and that we already do not use. Creating new rewards that would promote all nodes to be used...that is crazy talk! Old tree is fine for same old reward system.

New skill tree is woe for new players- People are saying, "This is great for new players. It gives them a sense of progression!" Huh? How much "progression" is to be had with low player populations and the gates open between T1 and T5? How much fun will it be for a new player to pilot a new mech with no nodes unlocked versus a bloodthirsty try hard with max firepower destroying them in one shot and max armor they can't pierce? The new skill tree is a seal clubbers wet dream. The old skill tree in and of itself did not create a huge separation between new and old players.

I like to drive mechs- the new skill tree has a more pronounced effect on how well you perform than with the old skill tree. Don't believe me? Find a friend that doesn't know how to play beyond having run the tutorial. Let them pilot your fully skilled Atlas and you pilot an Atlas with no skill nodes unlocked. Let me know how that goes. Your worth should be proven on the battlefield, not the mechlab.

New skill tree, creating medium assaults since 2017- Lastly, the old skill tree you could tell the difference between a medium and an assault. The new skill tree it can be impossible. A fully skilled Vindicator should not have 9 less front CT armor than a non-skilled Boar's Head. Period. That is just plain broken.

Looking forward to your responses!

I agree with every point.

[Ted Wayz]

Nightmare1, on 04 June 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

Says the guy who's claiming that paying players aren't actually a part of the playing base. You make it sound like there's a GoFundMe or something where people can toss money at the game without actually participating in it.

My point, is that everyone who plays the game is a part of the player base regardless of whether they drop money on it or not. Casual players represent the largest constituency. Pretending that they do not pay towards the game is flat-out stupid since casual players do actually put down considerable amounts of money and probably more than the meta tryhard prima-donnas due to their numbers.

You don't get it. In a subscription model you pay to play. That is how that model works. In free to play the majority of players do not pay to play.

I think you are referring to paying players being a subset of all players. Congratulations, you stated the obvious. However your point excluded the fact that non-paying players play. So no, saying the player base and the payer base are one and the same is not entirely true in a FTP game.

Got it yet?

[Remains Intact]

New system is fine... but in adding complexity of choice they didn't give the ability to test the choices you would be making.

The inability to test the effects of decisions is absolutely ridiculous and I won't be playing much or spending resources until I am given that ability. Especially coupled with the "decoupling" I'm going in blind as to how much impact the agility nodes will change how the mech handles.

Get your **** together PGI.

EDIT: Additionally due to the unprofessional feel to this whole situation, it produces another reason why I don't feel like setting up my mechs the way I would like. At any given moment balance tweaks and system changes are likely to happen again... and I'm not interested in a regrind.

Edited by Remains Intact, 04 June 2017 - 08:35 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Ted Wayz, on 04 June 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

You don't get it. In a subscription model you pay to play. That is how that model works. In free to play the majority of players do not pay to play.

I think you are referring to paying players being a subset of all players. Congratulations, you stated the obvious. However your point excluded the fact that non-paying players play. So no, saying the player base and the payer base are one and the same is not entirely true in a FTP game.

Got it yet?

Dude, you're really splitting hairs and are beginning to sound unhinged.

[Innocent]

Sounds like people complaining about having choices. Half of this game is making choices. It is one of the few games that allows players to customize for failure. Most games give the illusion of choice but any combination will allow success to some degree. Here you can build a mech that is plain bad. Now you have added the choice to skill it badly as well.

I believe more choice is better. After the first few mechs and some play time it takes less than 3 minutes to go through the tree. I know what skills i will take based on the chassis. Does this particular mech need more agility, if no then save the points for something else, if yes then spend those points.

This skill tree makes you sacrifice points for certain powerful nodes. These include speed tweak, radar deprivation, ecm, etc. If you go all into weapons and skip mobility don't complain about agility.

[Dollar Bill]

Ruar, on 17 May 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

New tree = one mech to max out; old tree = three mechs to max

Here we go again...and again...and again. Why do you PGI White Knight Apologist keep trying to attach the end of needing 3 mechs with the Skill Maze? PGI could have chosen to do that a long time ago under the old tree, without crapping the Skill Maze on us. So, the 'rule of three' change (the only good one) stands by itself.

The Skill Maze has nothing to do with no longer needing three mechs to master. And to say it does is misleading, and shows you are just trying to bolster your weak argument in favor of the Skill Maze. So stop trying to use it as a plus for the Skill Maze.

[Ted Wayz]

Innocent, on 05 June 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

I believe more choice is better. After the first few mechs and some play time it takes less than 3 minutes to go through the tree.

More choices but three minutes after you go through it the first time?

Only if you make the same choices over and over.

Which was what we had with the old skill tree.

[Innocent]

But i don't make the same choices every time. Assaults get survival skills and mobility.

Mediums and some heavies already have mobility quirks so i can avoid most of those.

ECM mechs go all the way down the operations to get the ecm skills.

Some mechs go velocity, others avoid it.

My hunchbacks get survival skills to augment their positive quirks. They last a long time. Clan mediums get mobility and avoid the survival (if you are getting shot that much you deserve a quick death in a stormcrow).

There are many different variations.