814 replies to this topic

[C E Dwyer]

Appogee, on 09 February 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

Have I captured the pros and cons in the below?

Negatives:
* takes 3X more XP and an extra 9.1M CBills to Master any Mech.
* benefits people who maintain only a handful of mechs.
* discourages collecting many Mechs.
* encourages buying only metamechs.
* incents locking in of "best build".
* significantly taxes experimentation with different builds.
* destroys previous XP spent on non-Meta Mechs.
* in effect, requires you to grind a separate Mech Module for each Mech.
* in effect, reduces building up the CBills while griding necessary to purchase new Mechs.

Positives:
* no more module hunting/swapping.
* you can spec out multiple versions of a single Mech, with different skills.
* it's something new, in a game that has been stagnating.

You forgot what's possibly the most important negative, and that effects everyone, including the staff, this new system is going to pretty much kill mech sales, there will be no point in spending large amount of money.

There will be no point in buying a hero or a special camo for the extra 30% c-bills

People will look at a mech hard points pick which one they perceive as the best if there is one, and buy one only or none.

P.G.I adopting this system as it stands without a major over hall by someone that understands the impact of this and not just design what they see is a pretty picture with no proper structure, and made up values, will in effect kill 80% of their income.

I just don't get P.G.I they just seem to endlessly think up ways to put themselves out of business, by either annoying the loyal whales or coming up with ideas that makes buying the things they need us to buy, less likely.

Edited by Cathy, 12 February 2017 - 08:37 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

CptnHero, on 12 February 2017 - 01:58 AM, said:

This "skill tree" is awful. You have to spend xp on skills you dont want/need to get the full skill of one you want/need.

You are aware that making a system with more linear treas in which nodes cost more as you progress would accomplish exactly the same thing has having to purchase nodes we don't want? Granted, there are certain nodes (specifically arm speed for mechs that can't twist them) that are present purely as a cost, but that's a tiny minority of what's available. The set up also emphasizes consideration of the cost/benefit for each mech. 91 nodes gives us a lot of choice, but we have to start considering if speed tweak is providing enough benefit to be more valuable than other upgrades that may be more pressing for that mech.

Using your example of speed tweak, many consider it to be an essential skill for all mechs. Speed tweak on mechs that have a speed below 60 will not gain more than a 6kph boost. This is inherently proven to not prevent slower mechs from being left behind. Furthermore, that top speed is has minimal benefit when engaging in a battle with a lot of sharp turns, slowing, reversing, etc. The mobility quirks that the new tree provides before getting speed tweak however, are much more beneficial, specifically when you are in a situation where you need to peek, fall back into cover, turn more quickly, and use the stock speed much more effectively. With those considerations, as well as mechs surviving longer, speed tweak will be of significantly more benefit for fast mechs than it will be for the slower guys.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Greetings.

WOULD APPRECIATE FEEDBACK

This is some of my opinions bassed on my experience on the PTS in regards to the new skill system.

To stop yee wall o text im using spoilers

Overall

Spoiler

First and foremost, the layout of each individual bonus within a skill tree is bad.

The current system on PTS forces users to put points into possibly useless bonuses that they dont want or may not even need.
For example, Radar Deprevation is somthing everyone wants, but you have to unlock almost the entire tree to get it, and UAC jam chance reduction, any1 that uses alot of UAC's or uses the smaller variety which have fast CD's will NEED jam chance reduction, but again you have to unlock the usless CD reduction and velocity bonuses to get it.

Same goes for almost eveything in the current skill tree system on PTS, u ether unlock the entire tree, or dont touch it.

This is NOT going to give much variety on any given mech. Everyone will need or want speed tweek, all the bonuses to torso and arm turn speed/amount, heat managment bonuses, and the armor bonuses etc etc. But eveyrone will have to unlock the entire tree for said bonuses, leaving very few , if any, points available for variation.

Specifics

Spoiler

Where is the replacment bonus for weapon Convergence ?

AC Magazine capacity bonus seems to be 15% to 20% bonus to ammo.
BUT
AC2 and UAC2 only get 13.4% increase. And this is a weapon that has a low CD so it churns through ammo.
It looks even worse if u look at the bonus damage your getting, with U/AC2 only getting 10 rounds resulting in 20 damage while U/AC5 gets 50 damage, U/AC10 gets 100 damage, U/AC20 get 80 damage ..and so on. The U/AC2 is getting shafted here.
Ether choose a flat % increase across the board like 20%, or a flat damage bonus across the board like 40 (so AC2 would get 20 rounds, AC5 8 rounds, AC10 4 rounds, AC20 2 rounds.)
Ether way at the very least AC2 as a fast firing low damage weapon should have the highest bonus to ammo capacity. .

Armor Bonus. it is not correctly applying 10% to the mech. If you have 130 Front CT armor and 5 Rear you should get 13 front bonus and 0.5 rear armor, im getting only 11 front and 0 rear. Getting the same odd numbers regardless of front / rear balance or mech size.
IMO the bonus to armor should be given bassed on the max amount of armor for a given part. So if CT is 135 split aross front and rear, then you should get 13.5 bonus armor for the PLAYER to decide where to put it.

UAC2 jam duration change. NO... just... NO. 4 seconds is waaaaaay to long for a UAC2 to be jammed for regardless of the jam chance. On live its 3 seconds, and even that is to long, if anything it needed lowering not increasing.
I honestly dont understand your thought process on this one.
The faster a AC reloads the faster it should unjam, Thus a UAC2 should unjam much faster than a UAC20, since the UAC2 is going to jam more anyway due to its faster ROF.
If you must increase UAC2 Jam duration to 4sec as a base, then replace the crappy 4% C-UAC2 cooldown bonus to -50% jam duration (4x -12.5% Jam duration).

The AC2 skill tree, its usless. I boat 6 Ac2's on a King Crab, i wont be touching the skill tree for them as they wont do sh*t all to their performance. Especialy when more important bonuses for armor, agility, speed, and utility use up most if not all the 91 possible skill points.
What the AC tree does need is seperat bonuses for the AC sizes, for the AC2 in particular it needs a bigger CD bonus and/or a reduction in heat. 0.6 heat down to 0.4 heat (33%) would make a noticable difference, as would 0.72 reload down to 0.5 (30%).
Changing the AC2 cooldown bonuses from 1% to 6.5% would do, and adding in 5 bonuses of -6% to heat would work.

Heat & Alpha meta

Spoiler

:So im thinking PGI need to address the high alpha meta, and this new skill system is the perfect opportunity.

With the smaller CD bonuses people r going to rely even more so on alpha striking, as such, a way to reduce alpha damage without stopping people from chucking on loads of weapons would be the following.

Remove heat containment from the bonus list.
This will lower heat capacity, from a possible 46 back down to the standard 40.
In its place....
Ether:
Buff 'Cool Run' by 50%
Or
In place of 'Heat Containment' have a bonus that adds the same as 'Cool Run' BUT with a negative effect of -3% heat capacity per skill.

The latter idea would result in Double Cool Run bonus with - 15% heat capacity lowering the standard 40 down to 34.
The effect:
A reduction in the amount of damage that can be fired in 1 shot (alpha) but an increase in stagered fire for those who choose the additional cooling efficency skill.
This would promote more balanced builds and allow players to stop being insta killed by multiple high damage alpha strikes.

I dont particularly care about what costs you put on the skill tree are so long as its worth it and gives you choice, the current system does not.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 12 February 2017 - 09:20 AM.

[Osis]

Kameraden,

I am so happy I bailed on this game, with 143 Master Mechs the redo on this would be a joke.

Seyla,

[Willothius]

CptnHero, on 12 February 2017 - 01:58 AM, said:

At this point i have 129 mechs, which will cost me 1.173.900.000,00 C-Bills to master all of them. In case you dont know how much this is:

onebilliononehundredandseventythreemillionninehundredthousand C-Bills

With an average of 150.000,00 C-Bills per game I have to play 7.826 games to get it. 15 Minutes per game (With match-searching and redicilous long returning-to-mechbay-time (why?)) I can do 4 games per hour. That makes 1.956,50 hours. Playing 2 hours per day makes 978,25 days to play, which is more than 2 1/2 years.

Well, that's totally do-able, no?!
But wait.. if I want to try some different builds before settling on the 'final build' - if there even is such a thing - I'll probably need an additional few dozen million C-bills sprinkled on top! Plus there's some more mechs coming up that I want to try out! This'll probably keep us busy 'til MW7 comes out

[LiYanTintenfisch]

maybe the offensive node and defensive node can be separated, for exsample, every mech get 20 or 30 weapon node and 61 other node, normal node cost less, weapon node cost much more.

the current skill tree encourage people to boat some kind of weapon, and discourge people to try new mech.

[Waylander40K]

LiYanTintenfisch, on 12 February 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

maybe the offensive node and defensive node can be separated, for exsample, every mech get 20 or 30 weapon node and 61 other node, normal node cost less, weapon node cost much more.

the current skill tree encourage people to boat some kind of weapon, and discourge people to try new mech.

Agree, they should, force a portion for weapons

e.g. 30 other, 31 either, 30 weapons only

Also would like to see weapon unlock increase in price e.g. cost double skill pts halfway down the tree, to make boating less attractive.
(maybe increase skill pts for weapons if so, 30 other, 31 either, 40 weapons only)

[Kojak Bear]

Here's a long,detailed list of my recommendations on the Skill Tree System. Please read, feedback and share, if you're inclined to agree. Thanks.

https://drive.google...N3NUMEx2MmhUNE0

One other note: PGI should give us the option to pay a one-time fee of XXXX C-Bills (maybe 4 million?) and YYYY XP (20K? 30K?) or even the equivalent MC's (maybe 100? 200?), after which we get to enjoy UNLIMITED FREE re-specs. That way, the grind is more feasible and we get all customization opportunities after hurdling the pay wall. This will also encourage people to buy premium time to grind out the C-Bills/XP for the goal of getting the FREE Re-specs.

[tokumboh]

Kojak Bear, on 12 February 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Here's a long,detailed list of my recommendations on the Skill Tree System. Please read, feedback and share, if you're inclined to agree. Thanks.

https://drive.google...N3NUMEx2MmhUNE0

One other note: PGI should give us the option to pay a one-time fee of XXXX C-Bills (maybe 4 million?) and YYYY XP (20K? 30K?) or even the equivalent MC's (maybe 100? 200?), after which we get to enjoy UNLIMITED FREE re-specs. That way, the grind is more feasible and we get all customization opportunities after hurdling the pay wall. This will also encourage people to buy premium time to grind out the C-Bills/XP for the goal of getting the FREE Re-specs.

I think this is matches the sort of changes I would make.

[Chris Puetz]

i will try to explain my thoughts and give Examples.

1. Balance Problems.

There were many cut offs by the IS Quirks.
I ThinK this need not be.

Look at the Quickdraw IV-4
for now, pre new Skill Tree:
Ballistic Cooldown +30% plus Module max 12% for the Ballisticweapons where a max of 42%.
with the new Skill Tree:
Ballistic Cooldown +20% plus max 5% from the Skill Tree makes max 25%
so far so good.
Take a look at the Kodik KDK-3
pre new Skill Tree:
no Quirk + max 12% from the Modules makes 12% (and he is still a Beast)
with new Skill Tree:
no Quirks + 5 times 8% Cooldown makes 40% Cooldown for the Ballistics.
If you use 4 LB10-X in the KDK-3 it is like a LB10-X Machinegun, absolute outstanding Firepower.

Give the IS the Quirks back and make it in Skill Tree at 3 or 4% and it works

2. The Costs

Today you need only 57250 XP to Master a Mech, for a Module there were max 15000 XP once.
After that you need only C-Bill for Modules and you don't need a Module in each Mech.
Normally you need the Modules in each of your FP/CW-Dropdeck-Mech. For the other Mechs you can rebuild it in the MechLap.
100000 C-Bills and 1500 XP for a Node is too much.
Maybe 75000 C-Bills and 750 XP.

3. The historic XP

Please kick them away.
Make the in GXP.
Why, many of us with plenty of Mech had Level Mech that we do not like, but we must Level it because of the 3 Mech politics.
If the historic XP came and there can only transfer in XP for that Mech-Chassis it is dumped.
For Player like me, (Truck Driver with only 1 Day a Week to play because of Real-Life-Things)
we had pay to convert XP in GXP to Level a Mech. And with your historic XP Issue we pay twice.
PGI Take a look at my Account and you see what I mean.

4. The Skill Tree himself

There were many Node points I don't want to enable but I must do it because there where other thinks deeper in the tree I need.
That is not your promised freedom to customise a Mech!
Make the tree straight, so we don't waste Nodes for some stupid things or give us more Nodes ( but then we had this cost issue a little bit more)!

But note, the new Skill Tree will decrease the TTK!

[Ruessorc]

This must be one of my first posts...

I've been playing this game for over a year and I am a relative noob in the BT universe. I think I'm a casual player, and my unit is pretty casual also. So my opinion and suggestions come from this background.

#1 - I Love the concept of the skill tree

#2 - But, as others have pointed out, it's too expensive C-Bill wise. Some people will need to spend upwards of 2 billion c-bills to spec all their mechs, and I'm pretty sure they don't have 2 billion worth of modules that will get refunded.

#3 - 91 Skill points to place... is a chore more than anything. It might turn some people off (overcomplicated). Condense the skill trees to 5 ranks each and give people a total of 20 points to spend, with levels 4 and 5 of the skill trees costing 2 points each (specialisation effect). I have included an example below of how the UAC and Sensor trees might look below. THe values displayed are the cumulative effects, ie UAC Velocity level 5 is +20% , not 4+8+12+16+20 = 60% increase in UAC velocity.


UAC

Level 1
UAC Velocity +4%
UAC Range +2%
UAC Cooldown -0.8%

Level 2
UAC Velocity +8%
UAC Range +4%
UAC Cooldown -1.6%

Level 3
UAC Velocity +12%
UAC Range +6%
UAC Cooldown -2.4%
UAC Jam chance -5%

Level 4
UAC Velocity +16%
UAC Range +8%
UAC Cooldown -3.2%
UAC Jam chance -10%

Level 5
UAC Velocity +20%
UAC Range +10%
UAC Cooldown -4.0%
UAC Jam chance -15%


Sensors

Level 1
Target Info Gathering +7%
Target Decay +0.7s
Sensor Range +7%

Level 2
Target Info Gathering +14%
Target Decay +1.4s
Sensor Range +14%
Target Retention +200

Level 3
Target Info Gathering +21%
Target Decay +2.1s
Sensor Range +21%
Target Retention +200
Advanced Zoom +1
Radar Deprivation +30%

Level 4
Target Info Gathering +28%
Target Decay +2.8s
Sensor Range +28%
Target Retention +400
Advanced Zoom +1
Radar Deprivation +60%
Enhanced ECM +20%
Seismic Sensor +100

Level 5
Target Info Gathering +35%
Target Decay +3.5s
Sensor Range +35%
Target Retention +400
Advanced Zoom +1
Radar Deprivation +100%
Enhanced ECM +45%
Seismic +200

Tweak the numbers as you see fit (and if you need some help PGI I'd be glad to spend my limited free time helping out)

o7
Rue

[CptnHero]

SuperFunkTron, on 12 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

You are aware that making a system with more linear treas in which nodes cost more as you progress would accomplish exactly the same thing has having to purchase nodes we don't want? Granted, there are certain nodes (specifically arm speed for mechs that can't twist them) that are present purely as a cost, but that's a tiny minority of what's available. The set up also emphasizes consideration of the cost/benefit for each mech. 91 nodes gives us a lot of choice, but we have to start considering if speed tweak is providing enough benefit to be more valuable than other upgrades that may be more pressing for that mech.

Using your example of speed tweak, many consider it to be an essential skill for all mechs. Speed tweak on mechs that have a speed below 60 will not gain more than a 6kph boost. This is inherently proven to not prevent slower mechs from being left behind. Furthermore, that top speed is has minimal benefit when engaging in a battle with a lot of sharp turns, slowing, reversing, etc. The mobility quirks that the new tree provides before getting speed tweak however, are much more beneficial, specifically when you are in a situation where you need to peek, fall back into cover, turn more quickly, and use the stock speed much more effectively. With those considerations, as well as mechs surviving longer, speed tweak will be of significantly more benefit for fast mechs than it will be for the slower guys.

Sure, you could build your skill tree straight or like it is now. But wouldnt it be more clear if you had it linear? Why so complicated?

Oh, and speed tweak was just an example. You dont have to skill it you dont want it.

[SuperFunkTron]

CptnHero, on 12 February 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

Sure, you could build your skill tree straight or like it is now. But wouldnt it be more clear if you had it linear? Why so complicated? Oh, and speed tweak was just an example. You dont have to skill it you dont want it.

I agree that certain skills should be a bit more linear (particularly upper chassis mobility), but for most other trees there is some logic if you take a look at them. Open the spoiler as there's basically a full essay here exploring the probable logic for why the trees were made the way that they are.

Spoiler

In the context of the live server, they seem to be more problematic than helpful. However, in the context of the PTS where heat is much more prevalent (which will eventually reduce # of aplhas before overheating), durability is increased, weapon crit increases, and an over all quirk reduction across almost all mechs, the game dynamics will be quite a bit different that what we currently have.
The weapon tress, for example, require more investment to get the full heat reduction or weapon cooldown or heat reduction benefits of a measly 5%. Range benefits are at about 10%, which are something, but not overwhelming at the same time. Even if someone maxes out a tree as opposed to spreading those nodes across multiple, it just translates to an edge over those who spend their nodes in other ways. Choosing mixed weapon trees will provided a milder benefit, but could help extend ranges of shorter range weapons so that they can extend their utility. Maxing a single tree, for example lasers, will give someone an edge if they can maintain range, but they will also be over heating because they just run that much hotter now. The laser boats will actually NEED the that extra 5% heat benefit in order to be able to keep on firing instead of overheating too quickly. I really don't think boating lasers is going to prove to be so much benefit as heat management will increase the time they need to deliver the same amount of damage as the live server.

In the defensive skills tree, an argument can be made that fall damage is a wasted node for many players, but if you were to compare it to a tree in which you increase the cost of more advanced nodes (i.e. a level 4 node would cost 2 SP instead of 1), we are really getting away with a bonus of reduced fall damage in the PTS tree. Yes, it does appear as a waste, but it also provides a benefit that we would not get if nodes had varying SP prices. I am more than happy to get fall damage reduction for free rather than more pay more SP to get only that which is mistakenly perceived as a better deal.

Upper Chassis upgrades are a much trickier area to analyze. Arm Pitch and Speed are questionable nodes to force on clan trees as they have a lot of mechs that can only track up and down and not side to side. Aside from that particular issue, this tree will go undervalued for a long time until people start to think more abut torso twisting and fighting and and torso/arm ranges. Using a summoner with an unskilled torso in the PTS made it feel incredibly sluggish compared to what we have on the live server, which demonstrated that being able to track an enemy wit your torso alone is going to be a slower process. Depending on how it starts to play out in matches, it may become a significantly more valued skill for tanks and brawlers so they ca better distribute damage taken and to generally track faster moving enemies.

The Operations Tree is one that looks to some questionable nodes, but a few make some sense when examined specifically in the context of XP. Quick ignition clearly is most applicable to mechs that will be overheating. Though many will dismiss its value, the fact that heat will play a bigger role in the system means that mechs prone to shut down need to consider that buff more. Heat Containment and Cool Run become an extension of the Quick Ignition as those buffs are not required for builds that are very heat efficient, but are increasingly valuable for those that need all the heat dissipation they can get. Hill Climb and Speed retention are other skills that seems to be unnecessary at first, but if you consider that mechs that need to be careful with their heat will benefit from keeping more of their speed when going over terrain. It is a subtle difference, but its application will lead to those extra fractions of a second being reduced while moving to cover. That coupled with increased overall durability of mechs translates to longer survival and a chance for hot mechs as they gain further benefit from choosing nodes aimed to help cope with heat management. The justification for Magazine Capacity being in this tree only makes sense to me in the context of it being a "mechanical operation". It can be argued that there are a lot of unnecessary nodes required to get this and it should just be a high cost node in a linear tree, but in the PTS system you would gain a lot of benefits, even if just subtle, on the way to unlocking that node.

Infotech and Auxiliary trees mostly offer the acquisition of battlefield intel at an increased rate. By reducing the general effectiveness of those two fields across all mechs, these trees create an important role for scouting and info gathering mechs. It will become less worthwhile for dedicated high damage output mechs to invest in these fields instead of more battle oriented nodes. With ECM currently being a small cost for large benefit, the node cost requires a reasonable investment requires a significant investment to bring out its full potential. Again, the idea of "unnecessary nodes" on the way to get the ECM buffs are really provide better battlefield intel for a mech and its allies to take advantage of. Seismic censor being high cost further adds to the important role of "info" mechs providing that intel benefit but at a cost. Realistiaclly, mechs specializing in infotech will likely end up with smaller weapons perk as the cost for their ability to provide faster targetting info, better ECM coverage, and longer locks to name a few.

I think the people who are claiming that this system wasn't thought really haven't put any time into actually trying to figure out why the trees are set up they way that they are in the context of the new heat and base health values in the PTS. Is it a lot to figure out? Hell yes. This has taken me days to look at different trees, questioning what value they bring to the game and if the ones that people will naturally gravitate to at first are really as valuable as they seem. Filling the majority of the Survivability tree will likely remain a standard, with only 14 out of the 17 nodes needed to get all the armor and structure benefits (2 amsand 1 fall damage node would remain unfilled), it makes sense that those becoming priority nodes. Even if they follow through with the initial costs of 100k per node, 1.4 million is a reasonable cost for 15% more armor and 25% more stucture (could potentially be used to free up critical slots on IS mechs that need them instead of using Ferro).

The last point to really address is the complaint that people won't be able to max out all of their current elite mechs in the new system. I understand the frustration, but I believe it is rooted in misunderstanding. The reality of the new system is not that the new upgrades are equivalent to the old system, but are rather an expansion on them. The tree grew, and thus allow for MORE improvement. I think that is a critical piece of information that wasn't made clear to those with large numbers of mechs and feel that they are not being fairly compensated for their earlier efforts.

[Sniper09121986]

CptnHero, on 12 February 2017 - 01:58 AM, said:

Is this how PGI tries to force people to spend MC on C-Bills to master their ´Mechs? Won´t happen! Why spend money on mastering your ´Mech in the first place? To reset your skills ok, maybe you have to pay for it. But to master them?

Kojak Bear, on 12 February 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

One other note: PGI should give us the option to pay a one-time fee of XXXX C-Bills (maybe 4 million?) and YYYY XP (20K? 30K?) or even the equivalent MC's (maybe 100? 200?), after which we get to enjoy UNLIMITED FREE re-specs. That way, the grind is more feasible and we get all customization opportunities after hurdling the pay wall. This will also encourage people to buy premium time to grind out the C-Bills/XP for the goal of getting the FREE Re-specs.

To both of you - no. One of the core staples of BT and MWO in particular is designing and outfitting units. To pay for skill unlocks - fine, if they insist, but respec should be free of any charge whatsoever. It has been said many times over in this very thread that people (myself included) like to tinker with their mechs, but even if they do not, they will have to once PGI decides to change the balance again (happens two or three times a year and is due this summer, because TRO-3060). So even if you agree to forfeit your right to customise your mech as you see fit, the choice will be made for you unless you enjoy getting one-shot by the latest 1337 meta players that are unlikely to be stopped by any cost for keeping themselves at the top. The whole point of any game whatsoever is having fun, and respec costs put a tax on two out of three fun factors of MWO - mech customisation and competitive matches (third factor being team play, but it is unaffected now, hopefully).

[Dee Eight]

Perspective people...

In one year of play from January 4th, 2016 to January 4th, 2017 played over ten thousand games, at an average of just over 140k cbills and 1200 XP per match. That means I could have bought EIGHT thousand skill points in a year. That's just on mech XP. Most players of the game are not mech harem owners like me (currently 209 mechs) and thus the new skill tree system isn't the sky is falling scenario the forum warrior whinage brigade want to make it out to be. I actually like the skill tree proposed. I hope PGI sticks to this plan and doesn't knuckle under like they've done in the past because of a hundred complainers on the forum. See the BIG picture... there's tens of thousands of players of the game each month, and yet only a thousand or so actually use the forums.

Edited by Dee Eight, 12 February 2017 - 04:33 PM.

[ET Penang]

Dear all, After I have installed the new MWO Portal for the PTS, the portal screen size is bigger than my screen (laptop), I am not able to se the "Patch" button at the bottom of the portal, or not able to scroll down....I do not want to change my screen resolution at the moment, please teach me how do resize the portal's window so it can fit my screen.

I would like to post an image (print screen) of this problem but not able to find the function to upload the file.

Please assist....

Thank you

[ET Penang]

Yes, finally made it to post the image!!!

Edited by ET Penang, 12 February 2017 - 06:37 PM.

[McHoshi]

I like that new Skill-Tree-System!

It´s also nice to have "hill-Climb" and "Speed-Retention" and things like that! It´s very usefull.

[Rhialto]

Dee Eight, on 12 February 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

In one year of play from January 4th, 2016 to January 4th, 2017 played over ten thousand games,

What? At 10 000 games that would mean a minimum of 27 games every single day of the year and if you skipped a day you had to play 54 games the next day! This is insane... What do you do for a living?

[Sauron]

so far initial thoughts as the PTS stands right now for the new tree system. Very unhappy.
I hope the tree system frees up a bit more so we can cherry pick exactly what we want or don't want.

So glad I mastered so many of my ~100 mechs, just to see that I won't even be able to set them back up as they currently are within the new system. (NJ sarcasm) Many of the mechs will be flat out not fun to play.

I had hoped the new system would give us the base that we spent mech XP on to master them in the first place, and then as a replacement for modules and quirks, we'd customize from there. But as the system stands right now in PTS, the 91 points and the way the trees are structured, say good bye to having a build exactly as it is now, let alone better.

At the moment it makes me feel as if I wasted my time grinding out chassis I didn't want to even play just to master others I did.

I still have hope that somehow the system will be tweaked before launch to a more playable state, as it is right now, it's just not fun and I think it will drive new and veteran players away from the game fast.

My suggestion for the new tree system would be to have more of a 2+ part system comprised of "ROOTS" and "BRANCHES" at the least

In the "ROOTS" section, have flat out MECH XP cost only to unlock all the things that we already had, speed tweak, heat containment, hard brake, etc etc. From the old system tree to master the mechs. All of those boxes just available by raw mech XP. Which would still encourage someone to play THAT variant to unlock those "ROOTS"

Then in the "BRANCHES" section of the tree, you have all the stuff you used to have in QUIRKS and MODULES, there you can have your points system and your options to unlock "X" number of those points for balance, just like we were limited in terms of quirks and modules in the current/old system.

But merging that all into the new system and forcing people to spent Points out of their total pool to click through items that may not even be something they care about for their build, will turn people off, fast.

Why do I care about hill climb or speed retention if I want to build a mech a certain way to maximize JJs, firepower, heat management, armor hardening, etc. I just disagree with the choices given in the trees.

Due to the costs, esp to reset and do things over, etc. I just think it will force most people to setup a few simple mechs to start, wait for people to start testing and posting their favorite "meta" builds, and you will see more of the same cookie-cutter, gone will be the fun of playing in a the mech lab to come up with their own builds, the masses will just rely on others to do the work for them. I've seen it in other games, it's just human nature in general.

Respecting, resetting, tweaking, needs to be free or cheap or it will just be an outright deterrent.

Many will leave the game over this new system as it stands right now. I had high hopes, it's far worse than I expected, but again, I do hope it gets tweaked into something far better by the time it goes live.

Edited by Sauron, 12 February 2017 - 08:58 PM.