193 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

The skill system interface is poor, yes, and they probably could have done better with half the nodes and thus half the skills to distribute. That being said, it is, IMHO, completely superior to the crap system we had before.

The previous "skill" system was just direct, mindless power-ups to your mech. No choices and nothing interesting.

The module system was also direct, mindless power-ups to your mech. The choices were mostly meaningless - there were only a handful of competitive non-weapon modules, and the weapon modules themselves were usually painfully obvious for each mech and just encouraged boating even more.

Next the old module plus skill system resulted in a nearly 20% faster fire rate (about 7.5 from the Fast Fire skill and about 12.5 from the modules), which was absurd and grossly reduced TTK. There's now an actual cost associated with trying to get your rate of fire boosted that high in the new system - using up a lot of skill points - so that's an improvement.

Finally, the new skill system opens up a lot of other options, such as better defense, carrying more ammo, reducing LBX spread or Gauss time, etc. In short, while the interface is poor and there are probably too many clicks, it at least has some depth and interest to it, unlike the simplistic "make everything better" system we had before.

Also, the end of the "rule of 3" is blessing. That was one of the most annoying level-up decisions they could have put in the game. If you like a mech, you also need to buy and play 2 crappy variants you don't like just to level up the one you like to play?! Why?!?! Ugh - good riddance.

Edited by oldradagast, 24 September 2017 - 06:31 AM.

[KodiakGW]

Shifty McSwift, on 24 September 2017 - 12:42 AM, said:

Me and 30 others like this.

Speaks volumes.

Yep, and it reads like the list of the pro Skill Tree forum warriors back when many more were contributing to the discussion. Most everyone who wanted something better than what we got has left.

Maybe what one of those who liked that post said. Maybe this game has run it's course. I'll check back in November and make sure to post up year over year player losses for September and October. Because I'm sure no progress will be made into fixing the things that are broken, and get refunds at that point.

You and all those who liked the post better step up on the purchases to make up for the lost revenue of those that left, or you'll never get to see MW5.

[Burke IV]

KodiakGW, on 24 September 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

Most everyone who wanted something better than what we got has left.

Its a kind of democracy. See what happens.

[KeeningBanshee]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 September 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

im not making a False Equivalency,
the fact is that the (Rule of 3) was a part of the (Old Skill Tree)
the (New Skill Tree) replaced the (Old Skill Tree) and so got rid of the (Rule of 3)
this is just how things ended up, we cant change them,

personally i like the New Skill Tree more than the Old one,
the Rule of 3 is a reason i like the new Skill Tree better, but its not the only reason,
but to say the Rule of 3 has no relation to the Old Skill Tree is disingenuous,

some may not think the New Skill Tree is an Improvement but many Do,
i and many others Like the New Skill Tree, just as some people dont like the New over the Old,
but if the Majority likes it then perhaps it should stay, & Feed back on it seems to be mostly Positive,

YES! IT! IS! A! FALSE! EQUIVALENCY!

Correlation does NOT prove Causation. So please refrain from making ignorant & ill informed statements in public, it does not help your case in general and makes you look bad personally. The "rule of three" being done away with was something that could have been done away with at ANY point in the past 5 years, the terribleness of peoples logical ability in still shocking to me even after three decades of witnessing it. It was a system that seemed to bother other people way more then it ever effected me since I just mastered every mech no matter if I liked the mech or not, but it could (and should have been) done away with YEARS ago because of the negative effect it had on New Player Experience. PGI is just always letting a nickel stand in front of a dollar from a business sense, short term greed of trying to DRIVE people to buy mechpacks/mechbays instead of letting people WANT to buy more stuff cause they are enjoying what they have and want more. So stop making bad excuses for their awful business decisions which have had very direct and negative Player Retention results the whole time.

Edited by KeeningBanshee, 24 September 2017 - 08:52 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

KeeningBanshee, on 24 September 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

ignorant & ill informed statements

Sure, PGI *could* have removed the Rule of 3 without the new skill tree. Fact is, they didn't, they removed it along with the new skill tree.

The skill tree change and Rule of 3 removal are linked, whether you want to admit it or not. PGI needs their C-Bill sink, one way or another. That's why I know I will never get my XP only, no C-Bills required skill nodes.

Please, keep ranting about this on your alt account.

[Revis Volek]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 September 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

i keep hearing that respecs should be free, but i cant really think of a game that offers 100% free Respecs,
many if not mostly all games ive played you have to pay to respec, its just a facet of what makes choices hard,

There are game out there that allow it, i just got D:OS 2 and you can respec any character after a certain point in the game to anything you want at any time.


Even just take a misplaced skill point and put it somewhere useful or change your whole build. Either way, to be stuck in the game with a mech or character that was build bad or wrong sucks and is deflating. Respecs should be free once you spent the original 91 nodes. Why are my nodes, cbills, GXP all of a sudden of no value? Just because they want a harder NPE and more Cbill sinks?


Where did it go? Why cant one I EXCHANGE my nodes for other nodes?

[MischiefSC]

KeeningBanshee, on 24 September 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

YES! IT! IS! A! FALSE! EQUIVALENCY!

Correlation does NOT prove Causation. So please refrain from making ignorant & ill informed statements in public, it does not help your case in general and makes you look bad personally. The "rule of three" being done away with was something that could have been done away with at ANY point in the past 5 years, the terribleness of peoples logical ability in still shocking to me even after three decades of witnessing it. It was a system that seemed to bother other people way more then it ever effected me since I just mastered every mech no matter if I liked the mech or not, but it could (and should have been) done away with YEARS ago because of the negative effect it had on New Player Experience. PGI is just always letting a nickel stand in front of a dollar from a business sense, short term greed of trying to DRIVE people to buy mechpacks/mechbays instead of letting people WANT to buy more stuff cause they are enjoying what they have and want more. So stop making bad excuses for their awful business decisions which have had very direct and negative Player Retention results the whole time.

No. The logical fallacy is saying that the restructure of the economics involved in removing the rule of 3 and replacing it with cbill cost skill points wasnt linked. Yes, PGI cans do whatever they want. That's not a rational argument however. They had specific economic costs to manage for cbill sinks and rule of 3 was one. They removed it and offset it by the skill tree. They are tied together. Yes, they could create a different skill tree cost sink. However the existing skill tree absolutely is tied to the removal of rule of 3. Saying it isn't is being intentionally misleading.

[MischiefSC]

Revis Volek, on 24 September 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

There are game out there that allow it, i just got D:OS 2 and you can respec any character after a certain point in the game to anything you want at any time.


Even just take a misplaced skill point and put it somewhere useful or change your whole build. Either way, to be stuck in the game with a mech or character that was build bad or wrong sucks and is deflating. Respecs should be free once you spent the original 91 nodes. Why are my nodes, cbills, GXP all of a sudden of no value? Just because they want a harder NPE and more Cbill sinks?


Where did it go? Why cant one I EXCHANGE my nodes for other nodes?

Because the skill tree is replacing about 14 million cbills in "sink" from rule of 3. Why do you pay for it? The same reason you pay for anything else in the game. The advantage is that skill tree adjustment costs are in smaller chunks and easier to manage than buying and skilling was.

It costs for the same reason I have to pay to switch from shs to dhs or get endo.

[XDevilsChariotX]

I started this games a few years back and I ended up quitting this because of needing to level 3 mechs. Once a friend told me that they got rid of that, I came back to see what was new. I must say as a fairly new player, I love this new system. I can now own a lot more different mechs and quicker. Which to me creates a lot more variety for a new player compared to the way it was. It also doesn't take that long to grind out 91 nodes and you can move onto your next mech.

Now, that I have been playing this game steadily each and every day. I just wish they would make something that we could save loadouts and a skill tree together. I know many of us like to switch up builds in a mech and I believe this is a must now. I sure hope they have plans for this. Also, as a new player and which holds back variety, I wish mechbays were free. I think we all spend enough on mech packs and other stuff but that's another topic.

[Davegt27]

I still have Mechs that are unskilled, also I don't know how long I played before I even found out about
the rule of 3

I mostly talking about modules anyways
they where easy to use if you are not a cheapskate

want to run EPPC's just buy some ERPPC modules if the meta changes or you want to try something else
take the ERPPC modules off and guess what you still own the modules you could use later on
how cool is that

the new skill system has not amounted to a hill of beans
show my how it has improved your game play
improved every ones fun factor, brought new players to MWO instead of chasing players away

[chucklesMuch]

Prosperity Park, on 23 September 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Saving Mech Loadouts.

Saving Tree Configurations.

These should be in game, like saved faction play decks.

So much!

I often buy a new mech (if available for cbills) rather mess with a load out/tree config (if I intend to play it again), or decide I against making wholesale changes.

Like the ballistics event. All good on the IS, bought sale mechs, had wanted more IS ballistic options.. But I didn't need anymore clan ballistic boats... sigh... I has mechs to re outfit/re skill.

[KeeningBanshee]

Jay Leon Hart, on 24 September 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

Sure, PGI *could* have removed the Rule of 3 without the new skill tree. Fact is, they didn't, they removed it along with the new skill tree.

The skill tree change and Rule of 3 removal are linked, whether you want to admit it or not. PGI needs their C-Bill sink, one way or another. That's why I know I will never get my XP only, no C-Bills required skill nodes.

Please, keep ranting about this on your alt account.

again for the slow people... Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL Causation!!!!! So when even have abandoned the very premise that the Skill Maze was in anyway responsible for the Rule of Three, yet are still claiming they are "linked" cause they happened at the same time then you have mentally fallen off a cliff. Engine De-Sync was also done at the same time... is the Skill Maze responsible for the Engine De-Sync as well??? How do you not see how ludicrous you sound to any even halfway intelligent person?

[Vellron2005]

OP, what are you on bro?

Skill tree is great.. :-)

I don't even mind respecking, I usually only change a few nodes.. most my mechs run similar nodes, with only difference beeing in weapons and JJ / ECM..

And I love that not everyone has radar derp now..

[chucklesMuch]

Davegt27, on 23 September 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

ok this game is as fun as standing in a fire ant mound

can we at least get our modules back

I don't care about the rule of three and all that jazz
lets just make Mech customization fun again

My laser vomit mechs doth protest!!


I would like a better UI, less clicky clicky and saved loadouts/skills etc...

but reverting seems like a step backwards to me. Reckon they should improve the one we have. Less useless nodes, less clicking, better scaling for mechs/classes that have little to no quirks/mutlipier bonuses etc.

Edit:
And less gates... I don't want to be forced to take x things I don't want to get y things I do... I want all of the x options to be great options!

Edited by chucklesMuch, 25 September 2017 - 01:16 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

KeeningBanshee, on 25 September 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

again for the slow people... Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL Causation!!!!! So when even have abandoned the very premise that the Skill Maze was in anyway responsible for the Rule of Three, yet are still claiming they are "linked" cause they happened at the same time then you have mentally fallen off a cliff. Engine De-Sync was also done at the same time... is the Skill Maze responsible for the Engine De-Sync as well??? How do you not see how ludicrous you sound to any even halfway intelligent person?

Correlation does not IMPLY causation. This is how that rule goes. It's a big difference, because correlation CAN equal causation. Every causation is correlation, but not every correlation is due to causation.

More specifically, the removal of the rule of 3 and the new skill tree were tied because PGI decided so. However, removal of one c-bill sink HAD to be paired with addition of another c-bill sink. Any other way of handling things could endanger the financial stability of this game.

You may dislike that decision, but you can't ingore ECONOMIC part of the equation, namely that in the end of the day, games like MWO NEED MONEY (c-bill) SINKS. Money sinks are part of the mechanism that makes this game stay afloat financially, as they persuade people into spending actual money on the game (e.g. because they value their time more than the money PGI charges for shortcuts to c-bill sink, or because they don't have enough time to grind all they want and still want to experience the game in the fullest). Almost every ftp and many p2p multiplayer games have money sinks, because they help developers earn money and keep the game afloat.

The only other solution PGI had was to tie the removal of the rule of 3 and module system (actually, that's 2 c-bill sinks) with addition of another, separate c-bill sink. So you would have your "more free" skill tree at the cost of another artificial mechanic requiring spending time and c-bills slapped on somewhere else (like repair&rearm that unfortunately works terrible in f2p environment). Would that be a better solution?

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 25 September 2017 - 03:12 AM.

[Lupis Volk]

D VA, on 24 September 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

Actually X is working, you just doing it wrong way.

This'd sum up many things in MWO

Edited by Lupis Volk, 25 September 2017 - 08:01 PM.

[Paigan]

D VA, on 24 September 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

Actually Skill Tree is working, you just doing it wrong way.

Lupis Volk, on 25 September 2017 - 03:23 AM, said:

This'd sum up any things in MWO

And oversimplification and generalization always turn things to the better.

I would advise a little more differentiation. In this case:
- Mostly, the new skill tree is working well and definitely better than the choiceless pre-alpha placeholder
- That doesn't mean it doesn't have its problems and room for improvement (too many nodes, missing templates, etc.)

Posts like yours get us nowhere, except unnecessarily annoyed.
If that is your goal, then well done.

Edited by Paigan, 25 September 2017 - 05:33 AM.

[KeeningBanshee]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 25 September 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

Correlation does not IMPLY causation. This is how that rule goes. It's a big difference, because correlation CAN equal causation. Every causation is correlation, but not every correlation is due to causation.

More specifically, the removal of the rule of 3 and the new skill tree were tied because PGI decided so. However, removal of one c-bill sink HAD to be paired with addition of another c-bill sink. Any other way of handling things could endanger the financial stability of this game.

You may dislike that decision, but you can't ingore ECONOMIC part of the equation, namely that in the end of the day, games like MWO NEED MONEY (c-bill) SINKS. Money sinks are part of the mechanism that makes this game stay afloat financially, as they persuade people into spending actual money on the game (e.g. because they value their time more than the money PGI charges for shortcuts to c-bill sink, or because they don't have enough time to grind all they want and still want to experience the game in the fullest). Almost every ftp and many p2p multiplayer games have money sinks, because they help developers earn money and keep the game afloat.

The only other solution PGI had was to tie the removal of the rule of 3 and module system (actually, that's 2 c-bill sinks) with addition of another, separate c-bill sink. So you would have your "more free" skill tree at the cost of another artificial mechanic requiring spending time and c-bills slapped on somewhere else (like repair&rearm that unfortunately works terrible in f2p environment). Would that be a better solution?

I long advocated a better system... Expand the Module System!!!!! It was a failure point of design that all Mech Modules were even remotely equal... Yet there was only a VERY limited number you could carry of which there were like 3 you had to pick 2 from. So introduce a Tiered Module System where Seismic & Rader Derp are Tier 1 which is one slot on a mech, then have a whole bunch of other slots in multiple Tier levels. Do the same thing for Weapons... It was annoying (but cheap) to swap a very limited number of Modules around and I did like most everybody for years but moving +10-15 modules each time goes far past annoying. That would drive a real chill sink in not getting all the modules but getting multiple copies of them because moving 15 Modules on a whim would get to be too much to deal with everyday. Sure everyone would ***** at first but PGI never reads the forums anyways and the alternate c-bill sink is formed & the Rule of Three economics are transfered.

So AGAIN... CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jay Leon Hart]

KeeningBanshee, on 25 September 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

again for the slow people

They replaced one C-Bill sink (Rule of 3) with another C-Bill sink (skill nodes).

How is this difficult to understand?

I know you got banned and all, but please engage your brain?

[Admiral-Dan]

Lugin, on 23 September 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

Dungeon Fighter Online as well.

Guild Wars 2 as well.