26 replies to this topic

[J-Pax7]

So I had stopped playing MWO for almost a year and a half prior to a couple of months ago. It is no surprise to me that the forums are still full of complaints however this seem a bit unusual to me because most of the changes that happened in my absence I have been enjoying.

The skill tree gives me the feeling that I am truly customizing my mechs to my play style. I like that its a tuning system that requires some sacrifice to gain certain benefits. My only issue with it is that they still call them skills when they clearly are not. I also like that it has reduces the need for quirks, not that I dislike quirks, but they became so specific that they made any builds other then the obvious ones pointless on most chassis. I have always thought that the only time something should get insane weapon quirks (+20% and higher) is if they could limit them to specific hard points thereby limiting boating.

LRM's are now more balanced then I ever remember them being. They no longer shred armour to an annoying amount and they seem counterable. The role they play is to keep you in cover, pinning the opponents team and disrupting snipers and scouts. ACM is also a more viable tool, still sadly underused but 3-4 can turn a barrage into fireworks reducing there effectiveness to almost nothing.

I think one of the most telling things is the much greater variety of mechs in the games, gone are the days when 3-4 mechs on either side are Madcats and Thunderbolts. And I've seen almost all mechs used to some capacity or another.

I have also enjoyed the events, and with the rewards being many MC is something I think the players need to appreciate more. Also whats with the hate for supply drops? its a gamble...the house always wins..its kind of the point. If you feel lucky, enjoy them. If not, like me, well ignore them until you get some free keys.

I am not saying this game is perfect, no online game I have played yet has been. I am saying that I feel this game is in a better place. So keep up the good work PGI. (and give me a god damn maltese flag)

To be clear I say this as a solo pug so I cannot comment on certain other aspects of the game.
I have also enjoyed the events, and with the rewards being many MC is something I think the players need to appreciate more.

[ocular tb]

I too feel like the game today is in a much better state than it has been for a while and I say that because I feel like overall TTK has gotten longer with the help of the skill tree. Even with the massive alpha strikes still out there, I feel that I'm living longer and able to have more fun overall. I do think some mechs could use some more help. But I'd say the skill tree has been a step in the right direction in terms of results. As far as the interface, skill points and xp system- well that's a bit of a mess for sure, but I can live with it.

Weapon balance seems fine to me. I'm sure with the new tech coming out some balance issues will arise but that's fine, it's to be expected. As long as it's not insanely broken it'll be okay I think.

Not sure what's going on with the other areas such as FP, the competitive queue, etc... but for the quick play side of things, I'm overall content with how things are. I see all the negativity about the quality of matches but I don't think they're any worse than they've ever been. I enjoy the challenge of the randomness that comes up in quick play. Do what you can and have fun with it is how I look at it.

[Bud Crue]

Interesting observations.

To me the skills tree is not a mechanism of customization as it is a mechanism of necessitating min/maxing selected properties and getting a bunch of incidental stuff along the way. You must take your 20 nodes to get the full 5 speed tweek nodes for example, those other 15 nodes worth of anchor turn and yaw this and that are not so much me tuning a mech but rather my mech being provided with attributes that PGI demands I include because I wanted speed tweek. Thus while I get to choose my 5 nodes, PGI gets to force 15 upon me as a consequence of that choice.

LRMs are still awful most of the time. But I do agree that they are much like many other weapons in that regard. Niche. Kinda like small lasers of all sorts; sure you might get lucky and have the right map and right team and pull of some glorious numbers with them, but for the most part you won't. That inconsistency may actually be a good thing, but Gauss/PPC is still king, and everything else is just there for flavor.

The variety you are seeing I think may very well be imposed upon by the amount of time you have been gone. Lots of new mechs in the game and lots of power creep to go along with them. Between dequirkening passes that have gutted mechs like the Madcats and Thunderbolts that you mentioned, they've added mechs with far better hard point allocations than mechs of old. So instead of variety, we have a new crop of dominant mechs, but not more diversity of those being played. E.g. lots of Marauder IIcs, still the Orions (even the IICs) are an extreme rarity. Lots of Hunchback IIcs, whereas I have never seen a Trebuchet or Kintro in an actual game within the last year. To me there isn't more diversity simply a new set of meta mechs dictated by PGI's changes.

Yet, despite my different views/interpretations of the points you raise I feel the game is making progress. Very slow progress, but progress.

[J-Pax7]

I do not totally disagree with most of what you say but the skill tree format I feel combats min maxing somewhat because it forces you into taking certain investments that add to your 'mins' and that do not add to your 'maxing'. Having said that people will always try to bleed as much from any system to min/max if that is their thing. However I have a few builds that, for example, I took speed boost in order to drop the size of my engine to use the tonnage elsewhere and maintain my desired speed on the build. Trivial maybe but i feel the system gives balanced options overall (not to say improvements cannot be made). I also do not see that many ppc/gauss builds (as in maybe 2-3 per match) however I have seen this complaint elsewhere and I think it might be an issue that isn't so accentuated in the matches of my ranking.

[Wildstreak]

The stuff you take to get all the Speed Tweak is mainly stuff you had to take under the old Efficiency system anyway. Hard Brake, Kinetic Burst, Anchor Turn, a little Torso Pitch increase not in the old version.

So far, I have a whopping 2 Skill Trees I use for practically any Mech. That's it, just 2 different trees, no need for much else, one for mainly Energy users, one for Missile. Might have a third for Ballistics sometime, don't see much need beyond that so not much customizing.

[Bud Crue]

Wildstreak, on 09 July 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

The stuff you take to get all the Speed Tweak is mainly stuff you had to take under the old Efficiency system anyway. Hard Brake, Kinetic Burst, Anchor Turn, a little Torso Pitch increase not in the old version.

Yes. I was merely pointing out that the skills tree is not necessarily about true "choice" when one considers that the system dictates many attributes as part of the limited "tuning" that the system does allow. I agree with your point regarding not much customization.

[Shifty McSwift]

Wildstreak, on 09 July 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

The stuff you take to get all the Speed Tweak is mainly stuff you had to take under the old Efficiency system anyway. Hard Brake, Kinetic Burst, Anchor Turn, a little Torso Pitch increase not in the old version.

So far, I have a whopping 2 Skill Trees I use for practically any Mech. That's it, just 2 different trees, no need for much else, one for mainly Energy users, one for Missile. Might have a third for Ballistics sometime, don't see much need beyond that so not much customizing.

Compared to the previous system there is much more choice involved.

I too only have 1 or 2 paths that I mostly adhere to, but they will likely be ever so slightly different than others, so yeah, over what was, we have much more actual choice, both personally, and from mech to mech.

There could be more choice involved or less and people would complain about it either way (read the "too simple" vs "too complex" complaint lines) just comparatively though, and as the OP is pointing out his return to this new system, there is more dynamic choice involved.

[Alistair Winter]

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page: almost nobody is disputing that the game is slowly having more stuff added to it, or that balance has improved in several ways from 2013 to 2017.

The main complaint I see revolves around how simple this game is. I won't get into the vision that PGI presented in 2012 and 2013, but if you had taken a time machine to 2013 and told all the players that MWO would only ever be an arena shooter on small maps, where the Quickplay we saw in Beta would always be the biggest and most important part of the game, I'm pretty sure most players would react with utter disbelief. Some people saw it coming, kudos to you. But as someone who spent more time on this forum than any healthy person would, I can tell you that people's expectations for this game have drastically, drastically changed over time.

I'm just here for MW5, at this point. I hope all the latest MWO mechs make it into that game (and HBS' Battletech as well), because Alex Iglesias is still hitting homeruns with great consistency. And while the 3067 tech wasn't enough to get me playing again, I'd love to try it for MW5.

[Wywern]

Honestly, the game is good, and I feel like it's improving too. Especially since the civil war update is coming soon and bringing new stuff and most likely a new meta. Perhaps we could dream of something like PvE or PvPvE someday? Who knows.

One negative thing I feel is cost of skills. The system itself is fine, but I feel it's too expensive for something that gives (not insignificant) stat bonuses. At the moment it costs around 4.000.000 CBills to fully skill up a mech, which is not cheap. They should probably change it to be more about EXP than CBills.

EDIT: Yeah ignore the more EXP less CBills part. Apparently skill points cost an obscene amount of exp, some people said even 100 games to get enough exp. I did not of course know this, being coddled by mounds of historic exp. Just make it less expensive all around.

Edited by Wywern, 09 July 2017 - 05:27 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Alistair Winter, on 09 July 2017 - 04:39 AM, said:

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page: almost nobody is disputing that the game is slowly having more stuff added to it, or that balance has improved in several ways from 2013 to 2017.

The main complaint I see revolves around how simple this game is. I won't get into the vision that PGI presented in 2012 and 2013, but if you had taken a time machine to 2013 and told all the players that MWO would only ever be an arena shooter on small maps, where the Quickplay we saw in Beta would always be the biggest and most important part of the game, I'm pretty sure most players would react with utter disbelief. Some people saw it coming, kudos to you. But as someone who spent more time on this forum than any healthy person would, I can tell you that people's expectations for this game have drastically, drastically changed over time.

I'm just here for MW5, at this point. I hope all the latest MWO mechs make it into that game (and HBS' Battletech as well), because Alex Iglesias is still hitting homeruns with great consistency. And while the 3067 tech wasn't enough to get me playing again, I'd love to try it for MW5.

Yes. That oft cited "vision" from 2012 and 2013 is dead. That vision (visions really if you consider what was proposed for CW...that would have been a truly unique experience over the arena game we currently have) will never be achieved. This arena shooter is all we will ever really have. The question then, is it sufficient? Is it enough, essentially as it is, with CW being QP with a few more maps and one more mode with respawns; with the rest of the game being various forms of team death match? Is that sufficiently engaging? I think it is, but I can't help but sympathize with your view. It could be so much more, but it isn't and it never will be. Alas, I play for to nostalgia, and the mech porn, and for some of the very nice folks I engage with regularly. But the game? Meh. Its okay. It will never be the deep, immersive, complex thing that PGI once promised, and once I accepted that, I found my enjoyment of what we have, and the limited progress that PGI makes within its self-imposed confines to be an occasional pleasantry. Hell, the new balance guy appears to actually know how to math and appears to be using it to balance. Sure beats the dartboard. That's about as good as I can hope for.

Edited by Bud Crue, 09 July 2017 - 05:10 AM.

[Asym]

Greetings!

I am a 5 month old MWO warrior. I wasn't here at the beginning.

My thoughts go a different way: If I purchase a mech pack or a single mech, why am I purchasing a degraded vehicle?

Why am I "forced" to endure the "nerfing" or the PGI controlled degrading of basic, as purchased, capabilities?

So, they force us to buy other equipment to remain relevent? Is that how the entire Mechwarrior series was created in the first place? No.... What you operated in the earlier games were first class systems and you paid to operate them.

So, it's a great game, a game I love because it is HERE; that doesn't mean it is what it should be....

We're chasing thousands away to see a "profit"; instead of removing all of the skill tree barriers and giving us back the fully mastered mechs, at their full capabilities and then, letting us, in a very danherous and deadly world, see who can crow loudest without our hands being tied.....

"M" does not equal "P" - which means: Marginal does not equal Pass....

Just my opinion.

[xe N on]

@ OP: I really don't share your view.

Sure, within 1 year, MWO changed, but not much. We got a new skill tree. But in fact there is not much of a choice with 91 points to spent. There is some small variation, but not that much, since the trees are not equally powerful (firepower vs. jump jets for example).

In fact, the most progression we have is in getting new mechs that are more powerful than existing mechs - or that are dead on arrival. There are so many things MWO still lack.

Starting with a proper information warfare, over more maps and ending in a proper Faction Play mode. Weapon balance is ok, but mech balance is still lacking. The dartboard of balance is apparently still the preferred method. The entrance to the game is still not beginner friendly, the skill tree made that even more worse.

I think many BT fans will try out HBRs BattleTech game coming out soon, so we will see another reduction in player numbers.

Edited by xe N on, 09 July 2017 - 05:35 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Definitely in a worse place. In fact, this game is going downhill, fast. The balance underlord has clearly proven that PGI has no intention of understanding how to properly balance a game by nerfing brawling lasers (small lasers) hard, which clearly did not need a heavy-handed nerf like they got, not to mention the piss-poor treatment of the heavy PPC.

No, this game is in a terrible place. So bad I can't will myself to play because why bother with a sinking ship.

This can be averted, of course, if they begin to show they understand how to properly balance things again. I hope they will, but... I have my doubts.

[Hindenhoot]

On the whole I agree. In particular I also think LRMs, while not great, are in the best place balance-wise that they have ever been. Despite the heat they still get.

They are a key part of the lore and TT, but have never translated well in any of the games for a multiplayer environment. What happens when pretty rigidly try to base the game on other material.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Wildstreak, on 09 July 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

The stuff you take to get all the Speed Tweak is mainly stuff you had to take under the old Efficiency system anyway. Hard Brake, Kinetic Burst, Anchor Turn, a little Torso Pitch increase not in the old version.

So far, I have a whopping 2 Skill Trees I use for practically any Mech. That's it, just 2 different trees, no need for much else, one for mainly Energy users, one for Missile. Might have a third for Ballistics sometime, don't see much need beyond that so not much customizing.

I don't know that I agree. For example one of the things I noticed when playing on the recent PTS in regards to the new tech is that the Skill Tree choices I have currently chosen and those I ended up choosing on the PTS were very different. This is because my priorities changed based on the new tech. For example, alot of the new tech is hotter than what we have currently, so in order to accommodate the new tech, I tended to focus more on skills that provided better heat management in order to accommodate the hotter weaponry. This meant that often I was putting less consideration on mobility or survival skills.

Also since I was on the PTS and had what amounts to unlimited SPs I could actually experiment and tweak my builds specific to each mech or build and I found myself doing this quite often until almost every mech had its own unique variation of skills based on the specific build.

Having experienced this, I realized that there is actually a huge amount of customization available to us in the skill trees but there is a major problem that is keeping us from utilizing that customization to the fullest. The costs associated with the skill tree in the live environment. This has basically prevented us from truly customizing our mechs in the live environment. Instead we typically rely on set "templates" that do whatever we think is important and never truly experiment with each mech to see if it performs better with 30 points spent in Survival or 30 points spent in Mobility. It just costs to much to do that and we would end up with millions and millions of C-bills wasted. This is not even considering the experience requirement to swap out skills maybe 8-10 times as you tweak this and that or change up your weapons builds to see which build works best with what nodes on the skill tree.

So it isn't the tree that is the issue, it is the way we have to utilize the tree that is the issue.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 09 July 2017 - 08:32 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Viktor Drake, on 09 July 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

I don't know that I agree. For example one of the things I noticed when playing on the recent PTS in regards to the new tech is that the Skill Tree choices I have currently chosen and those I ended up choosing on the PTS were very different.

.....

So it isn't the tree that is the issue, it is the way we have to utilize the tree that is the issue.

Didn't see what you see.

I was actually playing the Summer Blast with Mechs that had no Skills at all. I had planned to not Skill anything until new tech dropped.

Then came the Resistance Heroes event, I tried the last minute Ghillie I bought and decided to actually Skill it, if I did not do well on that day I would walk away. After trying about 2-3 Tree variations, I settled into one that kept me on the board.

Darnest thing, that Tree I can reuse for almost any Mech with little variation. Almost the same Agility, Operations, Sensor and Miscellaneous Trees every time. No Armor tree, tried it once, saw zero difference between when I used it and when I did not in survival, saw MASSIVE difference in using points formerly used on Armor elsewhere. May have tried Jump once on recent PTS, not had time to judge its worth.

Only thing with variation is Weapons and that depends on loadout. One Tree for mainly Lasers, one for Missile focus, yet to do Ballistic focused loadout but probably third Tree for that. That will be all I need, 3 Trees, ever.

I did actually get on the PTS for some matches and stuck by my advice for previous PTS I never got on. Used the EXACT same Laser Tree for the Mechs I tried, worked just fine, handled the new weapon heat fine so the heat is not an issue for me.

Says something about MWO when I can reuse the same small number of Trees and get success quite often.

Not that flexible.

Edited by Wildstreak, 09 July 2017 - 03:13 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Yep, never been better. With new equipment this month it will add some more fun for a while. MechWarrior Online still needs new features and content though.

[ForceUser]

Wildstreak, on 09 July 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

... No Armor tree, tried it once, saw zero difference between when I used it and when I did not in survival...

Man are you missing out on mechs that have huge base armor or structure bonuses like the bushwacker and the fact that the armor and skill tree includes that bonus armor/structure as part of the base values it increases. You don't have to take the whole tree but the left half makes a colossal difference on most mechs and has a huge impact on the ability to run XL engines, especially on mechs that are already XL friendly. Take something silly like an urbanmech, grab most of the left and bottom armor nodes and look at the armor values doubling over other 30t mechs. Look at the Bushwacker, the Atleses, Commandos, Hunchbacks (hunches have more armor than the CT), etc.

You can't do damage if you're dead and the survival tree makes it so you don't dead[sic] more often.

Edited by ForceUser, 09 July 2017 - 04:51 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Asym, on 09 July 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

Greetings!

I am a 5 month old MWO warrior. I wasn't here at the beginning.

My thoughts go a different way: If I purchase a mech pack or a single mech, why am I purchasing a degraded vehicle?

Why am I "forced" to endure the "nerfing" or the PGI controlled degrading of basic, as purchased, capabilities?

So, they force us to buy other equipment to remain relevent? Is that how the entire Mechwarrior series was created in the first place? No.... What you operated in the earlier games were first class systems and you paid to operate them.

So, it's a great game, a game I love because it is HERE; that doesn't mean it is what it should be....

We're chasing thousands away to see a "profit"; instead of removing all of the skill tree barriers and giving us back the fully mastered mechs, at their full capabilities and then, letting us, in a very danherous and deadly world, see who can crow loudest without our hands being tied.....

"M" does not equal "P" - which means: Marginal does not equal Pass....

Just my opinion.

And he wonders why he talked his friends out from playing this game....

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 09 July 2017 - 06:28 PM.

[Alan Hicks]

Events are what makes most people continue playing this game regularly. Long gone are the ones lasting less than four days, or happening sometimes only every two weeks. Events are good, they have evolved considerably over the years, but several issues of MWO continue to be unresolved or unimproved.

No matter how I used to completely hate the "skill tree", it is now just a kind of boring thing I do before I actually playing the game. I usually pilot half skilled or almost fully leveled mechs but stay away from all those which require going through the maze tree to make them efficient. Tweaking a mech is now a hassle if you change your build completely.

This game will always have and show great potential and should attract plenty of gamers with or without events. There is enough space for new developments and good modifications for MWO in order to attract more players (new maps, matchmaker improvement, Faction Warfare and LFG balancing and don't forget the most important one: IS Tech vs Clan Tech asymmetrical balance, keeping both sides fun and enjoyable).

Even with MW5 out, we will still only have this game fully developed for online matches. In my opinion, the future of the game is uncertain, but on the good side I see there has never been more options to make MWO more appealing and to fully expand all its possibilities.