104 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

uhm... no. It's dead. It was a dead end since 2012.

it was definitely not a dead end, they couldve expanded upon the module system, added different module categories and different combinations of module categories for each mech, and given us something really simplistic and great that we would already been familiar with.

unfortunately going back doesnt seem possible at this point...

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2017 - 04:57 AM.

[sycocys]

No, the old system was just as bad. They just need to break this new one down and make something that is less convoluted to deal with AND helps to provide meaningful balance in the game.

[DjPush]

No

[GenJack]

No.

[CDLord HHGD]

Nope

[S p a n i a r d]

My vote > No

[Coolant]

no...no...no...no. Can I get 4 votes?

[I L L]

All the people saying no on here don't really get how petitions work, do you?

[HGAK47]

No. Please no.

I L L, on 18 May 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

All the people saying no on here don't really get how petitions work, do you?

Yes. No.

[Silvanor Rawn]

I would agree with going back to the old system. It wasnt perfect but it was far far better then this cludgy mess.

[UMPA Viper]

Signed. PGI does read , They have deleted so many posts that are negative towards their new system. I have commented on a bunch of them last night. Today , magically gone. Cant handle the criticism , they dont want people being scared off from others negative feedback so they dont lose money.

[CDLord HHGD]

[STEF_]

No.
How can u prefer a fix (and decided by pgi) set of quirks per variant, instead of your own set of quirks per mech, loadout wise???

[CDLord HHGD]

Stefka Kerensky, on 18 May 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

No.
How can u prefer a fix (and decided by pgi) set of quirks per variant, instead of your own set of quirks per mech, loadout wise???

Exactly. The mechlab lets us customize our mechs... The new skill tree lets us TAILOR our mechs to us. It's beautiful.

[StealthdragonB]

No thanks, if they did it would suddenly cost me much more than going from the original skill tree to the current one, cause now I'd have to triple the amount of mechs and mechbays I own, which would equate to a ridiculous amount of not only C bills, but MC too.

[I L L]

May as well lock this thread down since the echo chambers have taken it over. This was a PETITION, not a debate thread. If you want to say you want to keep the skill tree, go throw your hat in the "Yay or Nay" thread where they're counting votes.

[MischiefSC]

No.

[Astrocanis]

SmokedJag, on 18 May 2017 - 04:21 AM, said:

Yeah that's not how this works. Bad temporary system was bad and temporary.



By that standard the old system was massively worse since it required 3 'Mechs for each Mastered one, two of which were either two heavy or non-viable for a FW deck in the first place, plus modules on each 'Mech on the deck since no swapping. 18 million extra per 'Mech there to play optimally, not counting substitute 'Mechs or decks. 100 million Cbills beyond your 4 'Mechs in order to play them optimally is quite plausible and 200 million is within reach for a heavy Clan deck.

Think how ridiculous that looks if you don't have years invested in the game.

System, yes. Skill tree, no. You (and others) are conflating "skill tree" with "have to master 3 variants of a chassis." They are not mutually inclusive.

[Tavious Grimm]

No, I am no fan of this current *********** of a mess, they need to improve this one, not go back to the other hot mess.

[Will9761]

I think it would be better if you could make a poll to see where you and others stand.

As for your answer for the old skill tree, No.

I agree that the Skill Tree is a hot mess currently, but it does need to be tweaked and tuned so it can be less convoluted.

Edited by Will9761, 19 May 2017 - 11:04 AM.