69 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

Mr Snrub, on 28 October 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

and yes, you have to see it as a direct replacement because PGI needs the C-Bill sink

I mean its not like there are what 200 mechs in game??

Also yes, they need cbill sink after they introduced mech bays locking ultimate sink behind paywall.
Huzzah.

Now consider this for a moment, what, just a hypothethical though, what if they attempted to slow down progression so youll buy mech pack which already comes with 3 mechs so theres no ******* point to that limitation.

Tbh i wouldnt even give a **** but someone had to bring this utterly illogical farce of argument...

Edited by davoodoo, 28 October 2017 - 05:39 AM.

[Mr Snrub]

davoodoo, on 28 October 2017 - 05:35 AM, said:

I mean its not like there are what 200 mechs in game??

Also yes, they need cbill sink after they introduced mech bays locking ultimate sink behind paywall.
Huzzah.

Now consider this for a moment, what, just a hypothethical though, what if they attempted to slow down progression so youll buy mech pack which already comes with 3 mechs so theres no ******* point to that limitation.

Tbh i wouldnt even give a **** but someone had to bring this utterly illogical farce of argument...

I don't know what you're trying to say. My english might not be good enough, no idea.

Edited by Mr Snrub, 28 October 2017 - 08:42 AM.

[davoodoo]

Mr Snrub, on 28 October 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

I don't know what you're trying to say. My english might not be good enough, no idea.

Cbills sink already exists, you could buy another of nearly 200 mechs ingame, but pgi said no that with mc only mechbays

On the other hand skill costs only act as slowing down progression process to make ppl buy mech packs which come with 3 mechs already so previous 3 mech limit didnt slow that process down.

[Ruar]

Shifty McSwift, on 28 October 2017 - 01:55 AM, said:

It's totally not, but people do tend to turn topics to their own ends like that, the topic is basically; "hey I don't really mind these balancing mechanisms I just started playing with", and the response is; "game is dying because of skill tree" in some cases. It is illogical to say the least.

If you look at the population numbers and the message boards you can make a direct correlation to the implementation of the skill tree resulting in a continued downward slide of the population. Ideally a change as sweeping as the skill tree would boost numbers for a period of time, but that didn't really happen. The net effect was fewer players playing thus making the skill tree a potential failure.

There are basically two arguments against the skill tree. One is the old system is better and skills should be reverted. This is a failing argument though because the old system prevented the possibility of future progress. The system had to change because modules and skills didn't truly permit customization or the ability to use customization options as a way of balance.

The other argument against the skill tree is that it's a good idea implemented in a very bad method. This argument is completely valid because it embraces the changes trying to be made and at the same time wants those changes to make sense, correct the stated problems, and be fun for the players to use. The current skill tree design is fun to a very small minority of the players and actively irritates the majority of the potential player base.

The question becomes do the minority of the players who embrace the skill tree labyrinth represent the majority of the funds coming into the game. What we don't know is how the revenue stream was effected by the change. The assumption is fewer players equals less money, but perhaps the poor skill tree design actually appeals to the paying population. That would go a long way to explaining why it hasn't been changed to something more appealing to the majority of the player base.

In the end there is no denying that the skill tree change has hurt the player base. However, it may be a situation where PGI doesn't really care about the numbers because their revenue stream remained the same or increased. Perhaps they are better off with a crappy design that appeals to a certain segment of players.

Edited by Ruar, 28 October 2017 - 09:38 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Cbills sink already exists, you could buy another of nearly 200 mechs ingame, but pgi said no that with mc only mechbays

then why do I have over a billion cbills and nothing to spend them on?

there is no cbill sink in this game. if I could buy a dropship I would.

people should be able to spend like $500 million for a custom pimped out dropship that drops them off at the start of the match lol. id buy it.

you could even make it blast obnoxious music when it flies around so everyone knows youre richer than they are. what good is being cbill rich if you cant prove how much better you are than poor people?

they need some ridiculouly expensive custom geometries too. like gold grills for mechs. and diamond tipped autocannons. fur coats. etc...

Edited by Khobai, 28 October 2017 - 09:53 AM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 28 October 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

then why do I have over a billion cbills and nothing to spend them on?

there is no cbill sink in this game. if I could buy a dropship I would.

people should be able to spend like $500 million for a custom pimped out dropship that drops them off at the start of the match lol. id buy it.

you could even make it blast obnoxious music when it flies around so everyone knows youre richer than they are. what good is being cbill rich if you cant prove how much better you are than poor people?

Sure, but at that point skill fee wouldnt change anything would it? therefore argument about it being sink is pretty moot.

[Khobai]

Quote

Sure, but at that point skill fee wouldnt change anything would it? therefore argument about it being sink is pretty moot.

proving your better than poor people is never moot

[arcana75]

I'm probably in the minority, cuz I like the skill tree. I do wish they had a pilot skill tree though, either in addition to the existing mech skill tree or replacing it.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Are you high?

"Balance" is a ******* joke.

[DAYLEET]

arcana75, on 28 October 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

I'm probably in the minority, cuz I like the skill tree. I do wish they had a pilot skill tree though, either in addition to the existing mech skill tree or replacing it.

No dont worry, you're in the majority. Most enjoy tweaking their mech to their liking.

[davoodoo]

DAYLEET, on 28 October 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

No dont worry, you're in the majority. Most enjoy tweaking their mech to their liking.

1)20 in operations for sweet sweet cool runs
2)everything into firepower with only differences being
a)missile rack + missile spread
b)laser duration + no velocity
c)uac/rac jam + magazine capacity
3)everything thats left into armor.

such variety much wow.
Im not even making a choice here as setup is dictated by mech...

Edited by davoodoo, 28 October 2017 - 11:20 PM.

[DAYLEET]

davoodoo, on 28 October 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

1)20 in operations for sweet sweet cool runs
2)everything into firepower with only differences being
a)missile rack + missile spread
b)laser duration + no velocity
c)uac/rac jam + magazine capacity
3)everything thats left into armor.

such variety much wow.
Im not even making a choice here as setup is dictated by mech...

i rarely bother with the firepower tree. Unless you mech already is really quirked in something its mostly irrelevent.

[davoodoo]

DAYLEET, on 29 October 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

i rarely bother with the firepower tree. Unless you mech already is really quirked in something its mostly irrelevent.

I wont scoff at 12% shorter cooldown, 10.5% less heat, 10% shorter beam duration, 5% less missile spread, 15% less jam time and ability to mount 1 less ton of ammo

Edited by davoodoo, 29 October 2017 - 12:35 AM.

[DAYLEET]

davoodoo, on 29 October 2017 - 12:31 AM, said:

I wont scoff at 12% shorter cooldown, 10.5% less heat, 10% shorter beam duration, 5% less missile spread, 15% less jam time and ability to mount 1 less ton of ammo

Thats your choice dude. Gaining 0.2 cooldown or 0.1 less duration isnt much an improvement for me. But sometimes i use it because i have the choice. Its all dependant on what loadout and mech i use. Having the choice is better than not having it.

[Davegt27]

I wish MWO could morph into a version of my favorite game of all
TF1942 after I got tired of ship to ship combat I switched to campaign
where I had to run supplies to Guadalcanal, form my own task force and intercept
Japanese ships coming down the slot

could you imagine fighting a BT campaign in some nebula where you had to fill your own jump ships
form a strike package to some planet, but you still maintained the ability go down to individual
Mechs and take control

or if you wanted just to stay at a Gods eye and direct the lance

I hope MW5 turns out to be good

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

davoodoo, on 28 October 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

1)20 in operations for sweet sweet cool runs
2)everything into firepower with only differences being
a)missile rack + missile spread
b)laser duration + no velocity
c)uac/rac jam + magazine capacity
3)everything thats left into armor.

such variety much wow.
Im not even making a choice here as setup is dictated by mech...

Really, because I go operations, then Surviveability, then firepower generally. There are a lot of minor changes I make between different mechs, and not all of my mechs use the same nodes.

I mean, sometimes sure, especially if mechs share similar base uses, but I doubt I have that many spec'd exactly the same.

[davoodoo]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 29 October 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

Really, because I go operations, then Surviveability, then firepower generally. There are a lot of minor changes I make between different mechs, and not all of my mechs use the same nodes.

I mean, sometimes sure, especially if mechs share similar base uses, but I doubt I have that many spec'd exactly the same.

My typical mech misses 2 armor nodes and 5 structure nodes from survival, its fairly small price in exchange for less heat, shorter jams and less cooldown from late firepower nodes.
If its laservomit i miss 1 armor node and 4 structure ones.

Edited by davoodoo, 29 October 2017 - 03:36 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

davoodoo, on 29 October 2017 - 03:34 AM, said:

My typical mech misses 2 armor nodes and 5 structure nodes from survival, its fairly small price in exchange for less heat, shorter jams and less cooldown from late firepower nodes.
If its laservomit i miss 1 armor node and 4 structure ones.

And that's great, you have the way you want your nodes to work figured out... others, have a harder time, other's still, have a stranger spread... some people prefer more generalist mechs, others more specialized.

I agree with your picks, but I also recognize the differences I'd use. and that others would use.

The whole point, is that the skill tree, offers those choices. Without it, we wouldn't have those kinds of spreads.

[Shifty McSwift]

Ruar, what the heck man you just did exactly what I was talking about, this is not the topic for that conversation, it is a noob stating how he doesn't see what all the fuss is about, and how he playing along merrily.

The fact several people keep trying to shift to a complaint thread is just weird or a sign of their bias, in that they just refuse to see that this is quite literally a player talking about how he is/has been dealing with these elements that some are raging about with no real issue, he acts as an example of what you say is nobody or "minority of the players".

I mean you say the majority says X, but in one pretty recent topic directly related to the skill tree one of the first responses was something like "I am happy with the skill tree" (paraphrasing) and it has some 50 likes, so I guess it is relative? Unless you have some poll data or something I don't.

I personally am in the boat that says the system isn't perfect but I prefer it to the module and 3 mech skilling system substantially, more work on it would be great of course, and I suspect they will continue to, so, it is and has been basically a non issue for me for a while now. But again, this isn't the post to make those points really.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 29 October 2017 - 08:25 AM.

[Ruar]

Shifty McSwift, on 29 October 2017 - 08:24 AM, said:

Ruar, what the heck man you just did exactly what I was talking about, this is not the topic for that conversation, it is a noob stating how he doesn't see what all the fuss is about, and how he playing along merrily.

The fact several people keep trying to shift to a complaint thread is just weird or a sign of their bias, in that they just refuse to see that this is quite literally a player talking about how he is/has been dealing with these elements that some are raging about with no real issue, he acts as an example of what you say is nobody or "minority of the players".

I mean you say the majority says X, but in one pretty recent topic directly related to the skill tree one of the first responses was something like "I am happy with the skill tree" (paraphrasing) and it has some 50 likes, so I guess it is relative? Unless you have some poll data or something I don't.

I personally am in the boat that says the system isn't perfect but I prefer it to the module and 3 mech skilling system substantially, more work on it would be great of course, and I suspect they will continue to, so, it is and has been basically a non issue for me for a while now. But again, this isn't the post to make those points really.

Because the players who don't like the ST have left. Hell, this weekend is pretty much my first time back to the forums in the past month.

There is a thread talking about the fact there has been a loss of 25% of the player base since the start of the year. Of course the posts made now are going to talk more about how they like the skill tree... the people who posted when it was on PTS and when it went live have quite playing or don't bother posting much anymore.

And don't confuse the fact that people who dislike the skill tree are saying it needs to be scrapped. For some reason so many who were like "we need change, any change" assume that people who said "we need change, well thought out change" are opposed to the skill tree as a whole. The majority of the responses to the skill tree were that it's a good idea packaged in a very, very bad format. They wanted that format fixed, provided plenty of solutions to fixing the format, and were soundly ignored by PGI. Fix the format and most people would have enjoyed the change and would probably still be playing. PGI made a huge mistake when they made a skill tree maze.

When I talk about minority of players I mean the small portion of the players like boring grinding. The ones who equate navigating pointless complexity as a sign of skill and prefer things to be as difficult as possible so they can feel rewarded for wasting their time. Most players want something easy and fun to use so they can get to stompy fighting robots.


As for this not being the post to talk about these kinds of things... sure it is. Pretty much every thread on these boards has all kinds of tangents. The skill tree can be included in any discussion of balance because it's a mechanism for altering how mechs perform. Discussion of the ST is also relevant since it shows specifically how PGI would prefer to continue a bad decision because it was something they thought of instead of the players. Look at how much of balance reflects this philosophy of keeping bad mechanics and decisions simply because PGI didn't want to implement a player contributed solution that was better in the long run.

Edited by Ruar, 29 October 2017 - 10:05 AM.