117 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

Templar Dane, on 19 May 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

Player threatens to stop spending money on game if it isn't fixed.

Implies the opinions of those who aren't spending money on the game don't matter.

Player who never has anything constructive to add, stalks player who does.

Was your point irony?

Again, if you have nothing to add it is poor to go after the OP. Do you have something to add this time?

And yes, people like me not spending money is a big deal.

[Templar Dane]

Ted Wayz, on 19 May 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

Player who never has anything constructive to add, stalks player who does.

Was your point irony?

Again, if you have nothing to add it is poor to go after the OP. Do you have something to add this time?

And yes, people like me not spending money is a big deal.

Forgive me, your Highness!

I only wish to point out the peasants outnumber us and that your hypocrisy was showing.

[Nightmare1]

Ted Wayz, on 19 May 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

Player who never has anything constructive to add, stalks player who does.

Was your point irony?

Again, if you have nothing to add it is poor to go after the OP. Do you have something to add this time?

And yes, people like me not spending money is a big deal.

[Andi Nagasia]

KekistanWillRiseAgain, on 19 May 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

ACH??? You mean the BIGGEST buff to Agility that happened.... wow man. Trying not being utterly wrong before thinking you can correct me, All the 100T mech got hammered but otherwise your list does not hold up at all. Survival tree is a trap for the truly terrible, there is like 4 mechs in the entire game worth taking it in.

so you think the Engine Desync didnt affect the ACH, and your willing to Call me out on it?
ok ill bite and give you Facts that you wont be able to dismiss with ill informed Opinions,

the ACH has an 240XL, before Engine Desync that ment it had the Agility of a 240Engine,
when PGI first Talked about the Engine Desync, Stats where given in the Mar-01 Skill Tree PTS update
as you can see the ACH has a 6.5 Engine to Tonnage(6.5 x 30 = 195) thats 45Engine rating lower in Agility,
so yes the Ach was nerfed with this Last Engine Desync, by about 45Engine Rating,

that said the ACH has been Nerfed by 19.5% in its agility to where is sits now Post Patch,
to get this Agility Back you have to take the almost the Entire Mobility Tree, 12 of 14 Accell/Decell Quirks,
so i guess your Right the ACH did get better in its agility, but by only +5%, and costing you 30Nodes,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 May 2017 - 04:16 PM.

[KekistanWillRiseAgain]

Andi Nagasia, on 19 May 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

so you think the Engine Desync didnt affect the ACH, and your willing to Call me out on it?
ok ill bite and give you Facts that you wont be able to dismiss with ill informed Opinions,

the ACH has an 240XL, before Engine Desync that ment it had the Agility of a 240Engine,
when PGI first Talked about the Engine Desync, Stats where given in the Mar-01 Skill Tree PTS update
as you can see the ACH has a 6.5 Engine to Tonnage(6.5 x 30 = 195) thats 45Engine rating lower in Agility,
so yes the Ach was nerfed with this Last Engine Desync, by about 45Engine Rating,

that said the ACH has been Nerfed by 19.5% in its agility to where is sits now Post Patch,
to get this Agility Back you have to take the almost the Entire Mobility Tree, 12 of 14 Accell/Decell Quirks,
so i guess your Right the ACH did get better in its agility, but by only +5%, and costing you 30Nodes,

The math has already been done, dude. You can try to argue all you want with it... but the word COMPARISON was used explicitly for this reason. Which is that Mechs which were Teir 1 under the old system are still Teir 1 under the new one and EVEN better then they were before.

[Tavious Grimm]

Do I like the skill tree, not particularly. Is it better then the old system. Yes, in so much as its better have bacon then without. There are a few things I would change, less nodes slightly bigger bonuses. I've noticed...for my builds at least, that mobility is more or less useless, speed tweak is to deep in. I've run about two dozen matches, various classes, some with a lot or some with little or even no mobility, don't see a huge difference. I tend to worry a about how good survivability is too. I took a maxed Banshee and got carved up by a 4 UAC-10 Daishi, 2 salvos and I was down and out. All I'm saying is that for this Skill Tree (and game) to survive, PGI really needs to listen...or even better yet drop in a few games. Honestly see what their work has wrought.

[Dollar Bill]

SFC174, on 19 May 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

The post was partially in jest to respond to Nightmare's. It's opinion. He likes the skill tree. I don't. We could do that all day. The community seems pretty split on it, which is a bad thing for PGI - especially because its unlikely that every person who cancels a pre-order will be offset by someone spending twice as much because they like it.

That said, the new skill tree doesn't offer anything for me. In part because of the blanket nerfs, mech performance as a whole suffers. I don't think many disagree with this. Yes, some variants, particularly those that retained major quirks, have the option to specialize into an area that provides benefits (usually armor/structure). You may be ok with a blanket nerf. I'm not, as part of the appeal of MWO for me was the way certain mechs felt while piloting them (often thanks to big engines or big quirks).

I'll stipulate to dropping the rule of 3 as a generally good thing (although it might be bad for PGI revenues). But that did not require the skill tree to do it. PGI could have done that at any time they wished. And TBH, the rule of 3 at least got me into learning how to play some mechs/styles/loadouts I probably wouldn't have if I didn't have to go through it (unintended benefit, not a reason to keep it).

PGI, like most companies, seems to have a "Not Invented Here" attitude. Had they taken Solahma's idea and run with it, I think the yay/nay would be more like 75/25 than the 50/50 it seems to be. But the current skill tree still feels like change for change's sake to me.

+1

[VitriolicViolet]

i seem to recall an awful lot of noise over the fact that the skill tree had to offer choice and not let you simply grab the best without trade offs. now apparently it turns out a lot of people dont want choice and in fact want to grab the best bits with no trade off.

You realise that if they did as some of you have suggested then the game would be no different? ive seen several posts to the affect of 'i cant make my mech how it was before' despite a load of complaints about how there was only one way to play any given mech due to quirks.

If you just wanted to keep your mechs at the same stats then why bother suggesting a new skill tree? so you can just re-level your mech to where it already was? seems pointless to ask for a new leveling system but then to say that at max level it must be the same as the old system. weird ****.

Edited: i actually think the new system is going in the right direction, it just needs to be tweaked as the player base adjusts

Edited by VitriolicViolet, 19 May 2017 - 07:00 PM.

[Dollar Bill]

November11th, on 19 May 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

I'm on the cusp of asking for a refund on the packs I've ordered.

Do it! I did, way back with the Clan Origins pack. Canceled and never looked back. I no longer have to feel buyer's remorse when PGI does something stupid like the Skill Maze. And they did a lot of stupid between then and now.

It was quick and easy. The PGI help desk guys were very professional and took care of my cancellation request with no problems. Guess because they get lots of practice doing it.

And, you can always buy the mechs later with c-bills for free after they get their first few nerf meat grinder passes. Avoiding once again, buyer's remorse.

Edited by Dollar Bill, 19 May 2017 - 07:28 PM.

[Simbacca]

The skill tree point spending is complex - with 5 different point pools. With that said, a better way to have gone is with skill trees (well in this case skill bushes) assigned to pilots. And pilots can be assigned to multiple mechs. Basically, think of them like captains from World of Warships. Allows players to specialize or generalize pilots, but assigned them to the many mechs in their collection. This means less work for players to customize their collection.

EDIT: For the record, the last time I spent money on this game was back Christmas 2015 (see my tag below to know what I spent). Improvements and fixes would open wallet. So far I have not seen that.

Edited by Simbacca, 19 May 2017 - 07:46 PM.

[Dino Might]

KodiakGW, on 19 May 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

Problem is, yes they are stifling recommendations. We have provided solutions to the problem. Maybe it is not happening in this thread, but check the onther ones.

Anyone who dares to call into question the skill tree has been labeled "toxic" by the pro-skill tree ones. Yet they are the same ones dropping such useful comments like "I LOVE THE SKILL TREE. LEARN TO SKILLZ!" So, who is being toxic?

They are also the ones claiming that those of us who oppose it are trying to "hijack the game to the way we want to play it." Are they not doing the same? They are not even willing to listen and compromise.

The thing the really gets me is one of the ones who was one of the biggest proponents of the new Skill Tree, who claimed to me that he did "extensive testing" (and suggested I didn't) on the three PTS, started a post requesting PGI for special programming for one mech because he "just noticed" that nodes were useless in one tree. Yes, one mech, "just noticed", and requesting special programming be done. The same thing can be accomplished by rearranging the skill tree, like many of us have requested multiple times, to take useless nodes out of the way of useful nodes. Now which would make a larger amount of the player base happy, and take the least amount of time for PGI to do?

You want constructive feedback? Here, I'll post up two. But, this is the last time because I KNOW that it will be ignored AGAIN.

1) Remove gating useless, or near useless, nodes from accessing useful nodes. I already gave the instance of the Locust wil Hill Climb and Advanced Gyros. I've seen the Locust skate up hills without Hill Climb. And, pretty much any mech under 40 tons trying to fire through getting hit enough to make Advanced Gyros useful, is dead. How about Speed Retention? Any mech running fast enough will be over the 50KPH cap by unlocking one node. Also, why is the upgrade to ECM gated behind Radar Deprivation, twice? You have full ECM, Radar Derp is useless.

Should I instead ask PGI to make special programming that if my mech can run over 100KPH that when I unlock one Speed Retention, the other ones are set so I can bypass them. Or, if my mech is 40 tons or under, that Advanced Gyros are set to be bypassed? No, that would be ridiculous. But, rearranging the skill tree to take into account every mech seems to be a reasonable request.

2) Consider different values for Range, Cool Down, and other generic nodes on the weapon tree. Short range weapons benefit the least from 1% range increases. They figured out how to make Magazine Capacity change for every ballistic weapon type, why can't they give short range weapons a 2% boost, while keeping longer ranged ones at 1%. Same goes for Cool Down and high recycle weapons, etc.

There. I've suggest both of those before and was ignored or met with pro-skill tree vitriol. I'm done with arguing with those people, because PGI evidentially only listens to them. If those seem reasonable to you, claim them as your own idea and copy/paste whenever you see fit. Maybe you will get noticed. I'm done trying to help keeping player retention for this game.

I think skills should not be gated, personally, but that more useful skills should cost a lot more points. The key is that no mech should be able to have everything, and in fact, no mech should even be able to have most of the best skills.

I, personally, would argue for more sidegrades, and then this becomes even less an issue. The problem is that everyone had vastly overpowered mechs with the x2 basics and modules, so that a fresh, unskilled, un-moduled mech just got demolished by the min-maxed meta build. It took the already large advantage us experienced players had over the new guys and increased it tremendously. That's a bad system.

Skills should have a benefit and a drawback. You shouldn't get something for nothing. And in that sense, these should be customization to specialize. If you want to regear your car for more top end speed, you will lose some acceleration. If you want a wider wheel base for more stability, you will have a reduced turning radius.

So, I see your points, and generally agree. I think there's a good, middle-of-the-road solution wherein the skill tree can be further simplified but also not cause the vast discrepancy between skilled and unskilled mechs.

[Dino Might]

VitriolicViolet, on 19 May 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

i seem to recall an awful lot of noise over the fact that the skill tree had to offer choice and not let you simply grab the best without trade offs. now apparently it turns out a lot of people dont want choice and in fact want to grab the best bits with no trade off.

You realise that if they did as some of you have suggested then the game would be no different? ive seen several posts to the affect of 'i cant make my mech how it was before' despite a load of complaints about how there was only one way to play any given mech due to quirks.

If you just wanted to keep your mechs at the same stats then why bother suggesting a new skill tree? so you can just re-level your mech to where it already was? seems pointless to ask for a new leveling system but then to say that at max level it must be the same as the old system. weird ****.

Edited: i actually think the new system is going in the right direction, it just needs to be tweaked as the player base adjusts

This is the problem. PGI gave too many mechs too much power, and when they need to be nerfed, people go postal because they lose what they had. Better to have never power creeped that much in the first place, but it's water under the bridge.

I will continue to beat the drum that the current skill tree is still too generous. I don't like the linear nature and gating certain skills, but, I would like to see fewer skill points available or higher cost to certain nodes.

My preference:

Every node is available. Nodes like speed tweak, radar dep, and the other highly sought after nodes cost a majority of your SP, so that you can only get a couple of them. You have to choose which is most important to you, rather than getting the best of everything.

Also, I think each node should come with some drawback (e.g., Make it so that my radar deprivation increases my overall radar signature (easier to detect, but quicker to lose when out of LOS)).

[Zoeff]

[mod]I'm seeing quite a lot of heated arguments in here,
please remember to keep the discussions civil and without resorting to name calling.

(This topic will remain open for now as I'm seeing some respectful discussion going on)[/mod]

Edited by Zoeff, 20 May 2017 - 04:47 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

I have over 213 mechs and many extra bays. I find this skill tree fun, and exciting. Half of my mechs where mastered before and then on top of that my refund is enough to mast the other half so, BOOM.

I win.

In truth I find people complaining about having to click to fill out a list of what you want on your mech are those just being lazy cry babies.

[Wildstreak]

I did my part here.
Bud's trying to help new people and stop quitters.
Some however are die hard set on leaving over the tree even if you try and adivse fixes to PGI. There are those flat out posting they want the old system back with changes because it was so much simpler.
No matter how much we try, there will be quitters over this.

Dollar Bill, on 19 May 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

Do it! I did, way back with the Clan Origins pack. Canceled and never looked back. I no longer have to feel buyer's remorse when PGI does something stupid like the Skill Maze. And they did a lot of stupid between then and now.

It was quick and easy. The PGI help desk guys were very professional and took care of my cancellation request with no problems. Guess because they get lots of practice doing it.

And, you can always buy the mechs later with c-bills for free after they get their first few nerf meat grinder passes. Avoiding once again, buyer's remorse.

Exception can be argued over Hero Mechs offered for buy individually (Clan, Resistance, Origins).

[Bud Crue]

Clownwarlord, on 20 May 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

I have over 213 mechs and many extra bays. I find this skill tree fun, and exciting. Half of my mechs where mastered before and then on top of that my refund is enough to mast the other half so, BOOM.

I win.

In truth I find people complaining about having to click to fill out a list of what you want on your mech are those just being lazy cry babies.

I am kinda indifferent to the skills tree. It is finding the time to node-out my mechs that is annoying the hell out of me.
But the biggest issue? That which is making me take little effort to do it or even to play...

The fact that PGI has stated that they are going to add and/or change nodes after new tech. Yes, yes, they always change stuff, but now when they change the system we have to pay in in order to compensate for those changes and that is paralyzing.

I mean, so here we are trying to adapt to this new system and they stand back saying in effect: "yeah you go on and use all that HSP and GSP; and sometime this fall we are going to pull the rug out and make you do at least some of this all over and we will charge you with respec fees if you want to fix what we break".

And yet, knowing this, they've made no indication that there will be a free respec period when they do this. They've given no indication to the extent of their future changes (1-2 nodes added...10 nodes being modified...whole new trees...a complete redo of select branches...???) merely a hint that change will come and it will be our problem to deal with it. This does not make me want to node-out more than a couple of my mechs and it doesn't encourage me to even want to play.

Now, if I was node-ing out say a half dozen mechs I probably wouldn't mind this state of affairs so much, but I am trying to come up with node paths for over 160 mechs and I am not a minority. There are hundreds if not thousands of players who are simply biding there time and not fully engaging with this change until they know what PGI plans to do with it. And with all this...PGI is planning on balancing the game off of the data they are getting from this skewed behavior that they have encouraged. And knowing that makes me want to engage this system even less.

Edited by Bud Crue, 20 May 2017 - 05:21 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

I am not worried I am probably only going to node out maybe 20 or 30 mechs between now and the new tech anyways. Why? Well because 1 I am in MRBC right now so I will need some mechs, and 2 I will most likely just node out a few mechs I enjoy playing just to test out the skill tree in live situation now. When the new tech comes I will roll with it, why because there really isn't anything to get my panties in a wad ... probably because I am not wearing any briefs

[sycocys]

More options for "skills" = a good thing.

No balance mechanics = a bad thing.

This skill tree things was their opportunity to define roles and set forth the groundwork for information warfare as an actual thing as well as have a system that could actually be more or less balanced for all players and roles.

That's my issue with it and the fact they did nothing at all to even promote their stated goal of encouraging mixed loadouts either. - Which just wasn't going to happen without the other parts (roles, info war) being defined and having a cost to offset buffs built into the system.

Yes I think the UI is ugly, and the assortment of new currencies to convert into 1 currency is just wtf worthy - but if they had actually done any of the things they set out to do none of that would really even be terribly relevant because they would have actually improved the game with this.