117 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

WHY should we? we told them in 2 pts whats wrong and needs fixes and then they rolled it out with some changes that were untested. I have better things todo than talking to the wall and hoping it moves. They had enough proper feedback and didn't care, now I am too tired to keep caring telling people who don't listen what they have to improve.

Especially after that Module Cbill ripoff I don't feel like they deserve more of my time being spent to improve their game for free with the result of getting things stolen. My time is my most limited ressource and I have to spent it across many games. But I will not spent further time into an effort with pointless outcome, if PGI wants to listen to their cheapskates and low skilled warriors and break their game even more, fine their decision. But they should beware, their chepaskates are porbbaly not the people who finance the game. And without money no game.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 May 2017 - 01:13 AM.

[S p a n i a r d]

can someone compile the complaints of the "Nay to the Skill Tree" group so everyone can see them and discuss it? It would be better that way

[TheArisen]

I think my biggest complaint is the mountain of work/time it'll take to skill out all my mechs and I "only" have 60. It also seems the mobility nerfs may have been a touch heavy for some mechs.

Basically, I like it in a general sense but improvements are needed.

[Johnny Z]

Dollar Bill, on 19 May 2017 - 01:04 AM, said:

You know, sometimes I wonder if White Knight trolls, like this guy, are just bots programed to spit out contrarian bile just to start crap in the forum (I mean, seriously I wonder.) Seams like no matter what catastrophically stupid thing PGI dose, they are always there to take PGI's side with the aggressively narrow minded view of a religious zealot, and a total lack of objectivity.

Your better at being funny than making sense.

Lily from animove, on 19 May 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

WHY should we? we told them in 2 pts whats wrong and needs fixes and then they rolled it out with some changes that were untested. I have better things todo than talking to the wall and hoping it moves. They had enough proper feedback and didn't care, now I am too tired to keep caring telling people who don't listen what they have to improve.

Especially after that Module Cbill ripoff I don't feel like they deserve more of my time beeign spent to improve their game for free with the result of getting things stolen. My time is my most limited ressource and I have to spent it across many games. But I will not spent further time into an effort with pointless outcome, if PGI wants to listen to their cheapskates and low skilled warriors and break their game even more, fine their decision. But they should beware, their chepaskates are porbbaly not the people who finance the game. And without money no game.

I like many of your replies, but talking like an extortionist isn't doing anyone any favours.

Yes founders deserve respect and also pay to play players, but not at the cost of reason.

[Lily from animove]

Dollar Bill, on 19 May 2017 - 01:04 AM, said:

You know, sometimes I wonder if White Knight trolls, like this guy, are just bots programed to spit out contrarian bile just to start crap in the forum (I mean, seriously I wonder.) Seams like no matter what catastrophically stupid thing PGI dose, they are always there to take PGI's side with the aggressively narrow minded view of a religious zealot, and a total lack of objectivity.

The problem is some people are fools, and they are too foolish to relaise they are fools. They give feedback to fix non existing problems because the real problem is within themselves. And when PGI is listening to them something gets created causing a REAL problem. (like the test of energy scale LOL). But instead of realising that their foolish idea led to something broken, they keep coming up with the next "solution" to the new problem, beeing an euqal quality solution as the first one. And For some reason PGI started listening to the fools - repeatedly. I have no need to swim against the mass of fools when I know PGI isn't listening. I just keep playing and take advantage of the situation, because the fools are fools for a reason and they will keep failing. But it is not reasonable for me spending a lot of time effort and money into trying to find solutions no one listens to.
The biggest threat to democracy is stupidity. And sometimes a clever monarch or dictator can be the better option. Democracy needs educated peopel knowing what the thngs they want will cause. unfortunately the cry of many MWO masses do not know what they want will cause thats why PGI is starting to implement foolish iideas that will hurt the game. But neither by time or money will I support such a direction into derpwarrior Online. I can just hope these derps go and play Battletech or MW5 when they release.

These people are probably like



and all they do is running form rake to rake all day.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 May 2017 - 01:25 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Johnny Z, on 19 May 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

Your better at being funny than making sense.



I like many of your replies, but talking like an extortionist isn't doing anyone any favours.

Yes founders deserve respect and also pay to play players, but not at the cost of reason.

extortionist? What makes you think so?
This has nothing to do with it, it has something to do with reasonably seeing the cause and effect that DOES happen.

I see PGI listening to the wrong people for the 4th time in a row.

First Information warfare attemp
Second Energy draw
Third module repay
Fourth Skill tree changes.

In all of them I gave feedback and told them what will fail with these (before implemention) and in none did they listen, they were isntead listening to those amazing ideas which amde some of these feature even die off.
Why would anyone reaosnable keep spending time into supporting something that does in no way improve MWO, why should i keep supporting somethign on it's way to doom because PGI hasn't yte realsied listening to the people they did was failing, and not even the people giving these advices relaised it was wrong.
Even more funny those people giving this feedback blame PGI for it.

So now tell me where the extortion is?

What happens here si simply:

Someone makes a bakery for cupcakes.
Some people come and buy cupcakes and like them..
Others come by don't buy them.
Those not buying them say: add more sugar.
Those buying them say: don't add more sugar they will taste too sweet.
The bakery still adds ore sugar.
The one wanting more sugar suddenly say: Bleh too sweet, and still don't buy them.
The ones buying them saY: too sweet, we won't buy them anymore if you keep that.
Then the bakery reverses this asks again what to change.
The oen buyign say: add some more flavours.
The ones not buying say make them sugarfree.
Same as before happens.

So how long do you think. Can your bakery run these circles before those buying the cupcakes just say: Sorry bye but I don't wanna buy gamplecakes when you listen to people not having an idea about cupcakes and not even consuming them.

As a gamign company you need to still do the same as the bakery, you need to make your paying customers be happy as they finance your game. They don't go with an extortion, they go because they imply see no reason to further consume a product thats not anymore what they came for. You also need to reasonably improve your product, but don't listen to the fools that neither consume your products nor have an idea how the product improves. And when your paying customers tart telling you: sry the way you go is derp, stop it or we are gone, than this is not extortion that is simply supply and demand. if youc annot supply a game they demand to play they won't pay. The demand in a game is enternaining fun and some are willing to pay for it as they consider this fine. But when the product gets worse and worse and there is an entire street with 30other bakeries doing cupcakes you may get in trouble.

And I am just at the point of telling the baker: Why do you ask me for feedback when you dont listen to it at all? ask the other dudes again that gave you screwed ideas you still considered more valuable (otherwise he wouldn't have followed them)

So tell me, why do you think that THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS time my feedback will be condiered over those derp ideas PGI listened before the other 4 times? Hope? Surely not, Hope is a tool to make people keep going with their situation expecting someoen else to fix their problems. Intelligent people choose changes in parts they know they can change things and improve them. They will not stick with problems they cannot change if these are optional aspects in their Life.

I do not regret any money spent in MWO, it was fun and worth it. But I will not support anyhting thats going the wrong way and will just cause more issues than it solves. Why should I? What broken motivation would a reasonably person support such a thing?

So theres two consumers behaviors:
the one thats unhappy and just leaves
the one that tells you he is going to leave if you keep going on like that.

The second one isn't an extortionist, he is just like the first consumer, but having still enough care to give you feedback why he will leave.
There are companies who pay a lot money for marketing research to fiure out feedback and consumer behavior, so you can be happy if people tell you why they leave as you don't have to pay others for investigating this.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 May 2017 - 04:39 AM.

[sycocys]

The entire problem with this nonsense is the whole concept of "mechs going back to/toward the state there were before".

This should have been the time to reel in the b.s. buff system and actually implement a system that helped to balance the game and create the things they keep telling everyone they want to have - mix/balances loadouts, roles, information warfare, tech and relative mech balance.

My suggestion - remove the tree and all buff systems until they actually design something that actually even attempts to do those things, we didn't need the same over buffed power creep levels and imbalance with a worse ui.

[Bud Crue]

All they need to do to make the skills tree a success is to provide a "Save skill tree (or even just a branch)" function. A "Name saved skill tree (or even just a branch)" function; and "Apply saved skill tree (or even just a branch)" function. That sort of save and apply feature. Is all that is needed and I think the system would be fine. The rest is just the usual balance issues.

[Jingseng]

critics should stop criticizing and help pgi fix the game.

[Lily from animove]

Jingseng, on 19 May 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

critics should stop criticizing and help pgi fix the game.

without anyting to critize there is nothing that needs a fix or improvement..

[Bud Crue]

Jingseng, on 19 May 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

critics should stop criticizing and help pgi fix the game.

A lot of us try.
Some of us have offered our ideas.
Some have offered to do things like make maps, insert missing data, create lore, upload descriptions...hell some have volunteered to code for them.
All of it has been met with silence.
When PGI does actually employ the community in any official manner they do it on a short lived PTS wherein they change as many variables as possible all at once (see info-tech, see skills tree, nerfs, quirks, 3 mech model, modules, etc.), and often add additional variables after the fact with no notice to the community (see ED...and then weapons stat changes; see Skills Tree and then the sudden inclusion of engine decoupling); and then do not communicate with their testers in any productive way other than single announcements where they say what their intent is but not what their data shows.

So with PGI's indifference to such offers, their utter inability to create useful testing environments, and...I have to add this: their president being on record as not wanting the community's help or advice....how do we "help PGI fix the game" other than by offering or suggestions, and yes our criticisms of what they do here (and on twitter)? Seriously, what else can we do?

[STEF_]

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Seriously, day three and the bodies are mounting.

And unless you apologist are ready to fully fund this game, you should stop attacking those who have valid criticisms of the new skill system and start listening. And then start working to help PGI to fix this garbage.

Personally unless I hear what PGI's promise is to create a system to allow people with many mechs to rapidly regain their mechs past status, I will cancel my pre-orders and shut the wallet.

And if you are not supporting this game...if you choose to comment with your one mech earned from academy c-bills and haven't spent a cent on this game...just stop. If PGI was smart you wouldn't even be able to post because frankly you do not matter to their bottom line.

I'm a whale so, despite everybody must have free speech, OP let me to state that:
1) skill tree is a very nice implementation.
2)Being a whale and an hardcore player, I have 217 mechs....and I'm happy to custom my own set of quirks by myself, and for every mech, and not by Paul, using the dart board, and per variant.
3) for a whale promising to leave with his own toxicity (please, do it), there is a whale coming back to MWO: just bought the Javelin pack....after 6 months of mwo vacation.

Deal with it O-O/

[Vellron2005]

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Seriously, day three and the bodies are mounting.

And unless you apologist are ready to fully fund this game, you should stop attacking those who have valid criticisms of the new skill system and start listening. And then start working to help PGI to fix this garbage.

Personally unless I hear what PGI's promise is to create a system to allow people with many mechs to rapidly regain their mechs past status, I will cancel my pre-orders and shut the wallet.

And if you are not supporting this game...if you choose to comment with your one mech earned from academy c-bills and haven't spent a cent on this game...just stop. If PGI was smart you wouldn't even be able to post because frankly you do not matter to their bottom line.

WOW...

You really are THAT full of bile, aren't you?

Sad.. really sad..

Firstly, you thinking that a player that doesn't spend money on a FREE TO PLAY game should not be able to speak his mind is so bloody rich-kids elitist, its not even funny..

Secondly, how many more of these topics will you open? What is this, second, third now?

OK, WE GET IT, YOU DON'T LIKE THE SKILL TREE.. Jeeez.. talk about a crybaby!

Also.. this thing you call "garbage" has been through multiple PTS testings, has been requested by lots of people as a feature for years, and also, in my personal opinion which alot of people share, is actually pretty awesome. Sure, it has it's good sides and bad sides, but it's definitely not garbage..

But its only like you to call "garbage" on anything and anyone that does not agree with your personal little vision of the world..

Also, as others have already pointed out, crying, whining and insulting everyone involved who worked on the Skill Tree, who tested it, and even all of those who actually do support the game is non-constructive, you should spend more time providing constructive arguments and stop being this sad bile and salt filled person that calls "garbage" what ever doesn't suit his fancy..

This topic really makes me sad..

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 May 2017 - 04:47 AM.

[Astrocanis]

Lupis Volk, on 18 May 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

I have yet to have seen any other gaming community so set on stopping the developer from developing like you guys have.

kudos your a special kind of toxicity. Please stay away from HBS's Battletech game i know you'll bring it there as well.

You guys hate change more than actual autistic people do, wow!

Change merely for the sake of change is meaningless. That's what this feels like. Adding obstacles to game play after heavily nerfing what was, for years, standard play simply to add more complexity is, in my opinion, change merely for the sake of change and therefore meaningless. In this particular case, one could make the argument that by picking and choosing a timeframe in which you get credit for what you've had for years (conversion) it actually was a bit insulting in its implementation.

Having a more interesting skill tree is not bad. Having a needlessly overcomplicated skill tree merely to have one is pointless. Honestly, I won't be bothered to skill up my mechs - especially given that I have spent around $2,000 to try to keep this game alive and I got credit for a mere fraction of my expenditures. That, in and of itself, is merely PGI trying to push more monetary contributions.

Finally, balance will never be able to be achieved. In fact, if you thought the cycle of nerf/buff was bad before, wait until you see what enormously added complexity to one factor of the game will do. Because instead of having a baseline (because EVERYONE would eventually fill out the old skill tree), now there is none besides a vanilla mech. You thought quirking was bad before? LOL. "Elegant" in the tech world means "overly complicated horse shat".

[Lily from animove]

Bud Crue, on 19 May 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

A lot of us try.
Some of us have offered our ideas.
Some have offered to do things like make maps, insert missing data, create lore, upload descriptions...hell some have volunteered to code for them.
All of it has been met with silence.
When PGI does actually employ the community in any official manner they do it on a short lived PTS wherein they change as many variables as possible all at once (see info-tech, see skills tree, nerfs, quirks, 3 mech model, modules, etc.), and often add additional variables after the fact with no notice to the community (see ED...and then weapons stat changes; see Skills Tree and then the sudden inclusion of engine decoupling); and then do not communicate with their testers in any productive way other than single announcements where they say what their intent is but not what their data shows.

So with PGI's indifference to such offers, their utter inability to create useful testing environments, and...I have to add this: their president being on record as not wanting the community's help or advice....how do we "help PGI fix the game" other than by offering or suggestions, and yes our criticisms of what they do here (and on twitter)? Seriously, what else can we do?

buy a mech pack and some fancy LSD camo heroes?

[I L L]

Johnny Z, on 19 May 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

Your better at being funny than making sense.



I like many of your replies, but talking like an extortionist isn't doing anyone any favours.

Yes founders deserve respect and also pay to play players, but not at the cost of reason.

Johnny Z, Russ Bullok alt account confirmed. Got a little something on your nose there bud.

[sycocys]

DovisKhan, on 19 May 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

This change was necessary

You mean the change to do the same thing with a more ugly interface is necessary? Because the only actual thing that changed was engine decoupling and removing the 3 mech system. Beyond those 2 things it's the same terrible system that destroys any ability to balance the game, and actually make balance more impossible because the variables in place that they need to draw data from will be all over the map instead of a base set of values with builds being the different factors.

[SFC174]

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Seriously, day three and the bodies are mounting.

And unless you apologist are ready to fully fund this game, you should stop attacking those who have valid criticisms of the new skill system and start listening. And then start working to help PGI to fix this garbage.

Personally unless I hear what PGI's promise is to create a system to allow people with many mechs to rapidly regain their mechs past status, I will cancel my pre-orders and shut the wallet.

And if you are not supporting this game...if you choose to comment with your one mech earned from academy c-bills and haven't spent a cent on this game...just stop. If PGI was smart you wouldn't even be able to post because frankly you do not matter to their bottom line.

You're still waiting to cancel pre-orders? Then you're not helping your cause. Your wallet is the only vote that counts. I like this game, but this patch sucks IMO, so I cancelled a pre-order. If you don't put your money where your mouth is, PGI will just laugh at you.

[Lily from animove]

sycocys, on 19 May 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

You mean the change to do the same thing with a more ugly interface is necessary? Because the only actual thing that changed was engine decoupling and removing the 3 mech system. Beyond those 2 things it's the same terrible system that destroys any ability to balance the game, and actually make balance more impossible because the variables in place that they need to draw data from will be all over the map instead of a base set of values with builds being the different factors.

its those people PGI is listening to, people who cannot even see what truly changed, Just disguise it in another GUI and "hey, here we go, new and better".
Nothing imporved overall, things just got more messy and more complicated for newbies. Engine decoupling now needs the individual chassis balance by either giving the nodes in the skill trees of these chassis some push or giving these mechs quirks, otherwise the skill tree has no real benefitting purpose over the old system and the engine decoupling was making one step on a 10 step long road to success but someome cancelled the trip.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 May 2017 - 07:57 AM.

[SFC174]

Lily from animove, on 19 May 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:

its those people PGI is listening to, people who cnanot even see what truly changed, Just disguise it in another GUI and "hey, here we go, new and better".
Nothing imporved overall, thinkgs just got more messy and more complicated for newbies. Engine decoupling now needs the individual chassis balnce by either giving the nodes in the skill tres of these chassis some push or giving these mechs quirks, otherwise the skill tree has no real benefitting purpose over the old system and the engine decoupling was making one step on a 10 step long road to success but someome cancelled the trip.

I think this is the most important thing. I understand that some people don't like the refund policy, some don't like the poor UI, some don't like the complexity, some don't like the respec cost. And I can see the rationale for those complaints. But in the end, did the new skill tree (and associated changes like engine desync - its hard to actually separate them out since they all dropped at once) make the game better? I can't really say that it has. And in many ways to me the game feels worse depending on what mechs I play. That's a personal feeling, but if a large part of the community feels like the game is no better, or worse, since the patch, that's a problem. People don't like change, regardless of benefit, and if the change is net neutral or a negative, they will be pissed.

And BTW, the level of vitriol from some of the defenders of PGI on this thread (comparisons to autistic people, etc.) is really distasteful. C'mon guys, that's really out of line.