814 replies to this topic

[el piromaniaco]

What to do with it?

Pay for all those times you lock/unlock nodes on your way of finding the best combo for your mech i think.

[Periphones]

hi all,

I miss the little ZOOM Window!!!..

isnt it more possible to get the the advanced ZOOM Module?

In skill tree it say advanced zoom but it not show IN WINDOW zoomed..just all the Screen is zoomed:


Periphones

[Trev Firestorm]

I currently have around 111 mechs, most of which are mastered... if this initial unlock cost goes through I wont be able to re-master even one of them... **** that ****.

[el piromaniaco]

Trev Firestorm, on 14 February 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

I currently have around 111 mechs, most of which are mastered... if this initial unlock cost goes through I wont be able to re-master even one of them... **** that ****.

Well, regarding c-Bills you are right.
Just Grind them, or BUY A C-BILL PACKAGE FOR F..K SAKE!!! DON'T BE A CHEAP S..T, RUSS NEEDS HIS HOT-DOGS.
REMEMBER, BUY, BUY, BUY. REAL CASH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
whiner.


/sarcasm off

[MovinTarget]

el piromaniaco, on 14 February 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

RUSS NEEDS HIS HOT-DOGS TOWN HALL BEERS.

FIFY

[Snotling]

One other thing: There is allmost no choice in this skilltree. So every mech will be the same.
Force people to make decisions. Range or cooldown. Turn radius or speed. Not everything on every mech.

Edited by Snotling, 14 February 2017 - 11:13 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Periphones, on 14 February 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

hi all,

I miss the little ZOOM Window!!!..

isnt it more possible to get the the advanced ZOOM Module?

In skill tree it say advanced zoom but it not show IN WINDOW zoomed..just all the Screen is zoomed:


Periphones

The advanced zoom node worked fine for me on the PTS. You do realize the PTS counts as a seperate game install, and that all the settings including keyboard controls revert to defaults ?

[Rexxxxxxxxx]

My big problem with the new skill tree is we are forced to unlock skills we don't need for all mechs.

Fall damage to access skeletal density and armor hardening
(Even when you have jump jets for soft landings)

Target decay, Sensor range and Target info Gathering just to access Radar Deprivation and Seismic Sensor.
(These would be needed for missile boats and ER Large snipers who stay 700 meters out, but you won't need Radar Deprivation or Seismic Sensor when your at that range)

Hill climb to access cool run and quick ignition.
(Hill climb is great for mechs without jump jets, but not all mechs need it, yet all mechs need quick ignition and cool running)

These are big wastes of the limited Skill Points we are allotted per mech.

Also if you thought boating was a problem before. Wait till this patch comes out:)

Edited by Rexxxxxxxxx, 14 February 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Mjoellnir]

Rexxxxxxxxx, on 14 February 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

My big problem with the new skill tree is we are forced to unlock skills we don't need for all mechs.

Fall damage to access skeletal density and armor hardening
(Even when you have jump jets for soft landings)

Target decay, Sensor range and Target info Gathering just to access Radar Deprivation and Seismic Sensor.
(These would be needed for missile boats and ER Large snipers who stay 700 meters out, but you won't need Radar Deprivation or Seismic Sensor when your at that range)

Hill climb to access cool run and quick ignition.
(Hill climb is great for mechs without jump jets, but not all mechs need it, yet all mechs need quick ignition and cool running)

These are big wastes of the limited Skill Points we are allotted per mech.

This is the main problem for me with this new skill system. Many wasted skill points to get to the skills i really want.

[mad kat]

Oberost, on 14 February 2017 - 07:19 AM, said:

Such a fun thread...

At least PGI have said that the live implementation is going to be delayed until March, but I'm not confident about their ability to fix all those problems in a bit more that a month. After all, this skill tree seems to be the result of half a year development, so having one month to fix this mess doesn't seem enough.

We'll see...

Edit: grammar.

Half a year. LOL. It's amusing isn't it. They've been working hard on this little project and it's still a dogs dinner.

Just thank your lucky stars Russ doesn't work in air traffic control or something where you have to be organised and logical.

[Zolaz]

The new skill system is just PGI moving the goalposts back and calling it progress.

[PeeWrinkle]

I have to say that I like the idea behind the new skill system, but I am not sure it will work out as well as PGI is hoping. Regardless I am rooting for it as I think it could significantly enhance the game.
Here is what I see as being good about the system as far as I can tell from the PTS:
1. You only need one variant of a specific chassis too fully level the mech.

a. This is great because it will save CBills on variants you may have to buy

b. If one variant is far superior you may buy multiples and spec them completely different (or the same depending). I am not sure PGI will like this one as it could render some variants completely irrelevant, but as a player it will expose them and possibly force some chassis/variants to be changed so they are not left in the dust.

2. It should end up completely replacing the quirk system, which I feel is very bloated at this time, and not really doing what PGI hoped it would.
3. You could end up battling a mech variant and not know exactly what you are facing as it could be skilled completely different from expected. In the current system, if you play enough you are never surprised by any variant, unless the build is complete trash, but usually you just laugh at those as you destroy them.

a. One negative that I will mention later, is I am sure there will end up being META skills and specific way to skill a mech that will always make any mech better making the game a bit less diverse.

Here are the possible negatives to the system as I see them now:
1. Skill trees don’t really flow or make much sense to me, except the weapon skill trees.

a. For example let’s say I want to be the best at AMS, well those skills in that tree are spread out so I’d have to take items I may not want just to max out that skill that don’t have anything to do with being good at AMS. Another example is maybe I don’t care about hill climb, but want my mech to run as cool as possible, well I am stuck taking several points in hill climb.

b. My opinion here is they need to be more linear, if not it makes it seem as if PGI knows some skills are useless and won’t be taken unless forced upon you to take to get other skills. Yes this can prevent min-maxing a bit, but let’s be honest this system is about min-maxing performance and should be called what it is. Even if there are no useless skills ones you may not want or need in your design will have to be taken.

2. Boating weapons will most likely be the only competitive way to play. Technically that is mostly true now.

a. This system without a doubt will encourage boating, which I like as I find it the most effective way to build mechs. You will never see a mech with more than two weapon types be competitive again IMO.

3. Cost seems to be a bit higher; however I could also make the argument that this is a positive.

a. At a minimum it will take 9.1 billion CBills to level a mech, but when you think about the modules you won’t have to buy anymore it will probably end up being a wash. But since modules could be swapped out and skill are for that specific mech in your garage it could end up being a bit expensive. Then again you won’t need 3 variants of the same chassis which would help save CBills.

b. XP to me is a non-factor as it seems to cost the same as the current system to get 91 points. I do think that if you want to change your build or run two different builds of the same variant it could get expensive, especially in regards to the time grind. At the same time you can play a fully leveled mech and rack up mech XP until you want to buy that second chassis of the same variant.

c. Respecing could cause some issues as it is pretty expensive to do so. If the META changes or you want to try a new build you may be hesitant to have to drop the XP and CBills (and time) to do so.

d. New players entering the game could struggle with the CBill grind. If you want to fully level a mech as a new player you will have to spend roughly double the CBills compared to the current system to purchase a variant and get it fully leveled. Again, on the plus side you won’t need three different variants to do so, but you will also not have much variety when starting out either.

4. The biggest negative, which I think PGI is hoping to prevent, will be the cookie cutter must have META skills.

a. Let’s face it, it will not be long until there are best builds that you will have to use for certain roles. There will be must skills for brawling, for scouting, for skirmishing, for snipping, etc that every player will take for those roles.

b. Is this much different from how it is now? Not really, it could even make it better. Better in the fact that you could potentially make any variant of any chassis any role. That is a good thing.

Overall I think this system will keep veteran players a bit more entertained. When you play a lot and you play the same variants there is not much for you to do in the game that has the same excitement as grinding out a mech chassis. This system will make it more likely that you will use that XP you have accumulated in abundance on your favorite variant to possibly try new things. And save you MC since you won’t be as tempted to just convert it all to GXP. LOL
The big question I have is could this make all mechs more competitive? Possibly unless it has terrible hard points, or in the case of the Victor’s the worst setup on missile tubes in the known universe. But at least if a mech in this system in not competitive or played at all PGI will have no choice but to realize the design is probably bad in regards to hard points, hit boxes, or poor missile tube designs.
Just my thoughts.

[Dee Eight]

I'd like someone who HATES the new tree that keeps crying about how folks can really only optimize their weapons to ONE type...please explain why that's so bad when for most mechs, people keep building to the same meta even ignoring the weapon quirks (if any) on the mech itself to do it ? For that matter, if you have a build you already love on a mech...are you REALLY going to change it at this stage of the game ? I think there's a lot of complaining about "respec costs" without stopping to consider the majority of players don't constantly change the weapons on each mech they own. If they want to play another loadout, they generally will get another mech better suited to that loadout, than trying to force something they already own less suited to that loadout to use it.

[Kael Posavatz]

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

I'd like someone who HATES the new tree that keeps crying about how folks can really only optimize their weapons to ONE type...please explain why that's so bad when for most mechs, people keep building to the same meta even ignoring the weapon quirks (if any) on the mech itself to do it ? For that matter, if you have a build you already love on a mech...are you REALLY going to change it at this stage of the game ? I think there's a lot of complaining about "respec costs" without stopping to consider the majority of players don't constantly change the weapons on each mech they own. If they want to play another loadout, they generally will get another mech better suited to that loadout, than trying to force something they already own less suited to that loadout to use it.

I don't hate it, but I can try to explain the reasoning.

1) a Mech like the Black Knight can benefit, at most, from 3 weapon trees (lasers, pulse lasers, PPCs). This allows a pilot to equip, say, all pulse lasers. Those nodes benefit all weapons. A mech like the Orion can mount missiles, ballistics, and lasers (must do so, generally, to have a worthwhile offensive package), which makes the nodes less efficient on a per-node basis. The Black Knight can shovel additional nodes into non-weapon trees that the Orion must instead use on less efficient weapon nodes in order to keep up with the offensive capability.

2) regarding reskilling/respecing/whatever you are calling it. Let's use the Orion again. Very often one of those diverse weapon systems will be a primary, and the others secondary. Swapping primary for secondary--or rather changing the nature of the beast such as from an LRM-centric boat with light laser secondary, to an SRM-Ballistic brawler on the ON1-VA)--will require a substantial investment to reskill. This will particularly hammer any OmniMechs in the game where the versatility of builds (including Omnipods which require inclusion or removal of jump jets) is supposed to be a key facet of their existence. OR, to put it another way, here is a mech where refitting is not merely possible but encouraged, often they cost more c-bills anyway (even accounting need for endo/ferro/DHS on a standard mech Omnis still have to pay for Omnipods), but the reskill hits them again.


So, when I want to fight with a different loadout no, I don't instantly go and buy another mech. I go through the omnipods and put together something I want to play in. At least Clan-side.

IS mechs...at this point I've mastered more IS mechs than clan (I'd have to check skill trees to say HOW many more). But even there I'll look through what mechs I have that I haven't been playing recently and refit one of those rather than buy a whole new mech unless I really, really want to try out...whatever it is.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 14 February 2017 - 08:19 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Kael Posavatz, on 14 February 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

I don't hate it, but I can try to explain the reasoning.

1) a Mech like the Black Knight can benefit, at most, from 3 weapon trees (lasers, pulse lasers, PPCs). This allows a pilot to equip, say, all pulse lasers. Those nodes benefit all weapons. A mech like the Orion can mount missiles, ballistics, and lasers (must do so, generally, to have a worthwhile offensive package), which makes the nodes less efficient on a per-node basis. The Black Knight can shovel additional nodes into non-weapon trees that the Orion must instead use on less efficient weapon nodes in order to keep up with the offensive capability.

Except...the black knights are already generically energy quirked, with only two having any particular energy class specific quirking (for ER PPC on one, and any PPC on another). The Orions all have generic weapon quirks that match their hardpoints and three of them have weapon specific quirks also. There's no REASON other than your own ones that you have to shovel nodes into all the hardpoint types your mech has. A lot of players exhibit an insane need to fill every hardpoint with a weapon, and this is apparently carrying over to the skill tree in a need to node out every weapon type. There are plenty more players though who don't see secondary and tertiary weapons as anything BUT that. Thus there is no need to go overboard with modules/skill nodes for them. Just because the skill tree lets you equip more nodes than we could before with weapon modules slots...doesn't mean you absolutely have to do so.

Quote

2) regarding reskilling/respecing/whatever you are calling it. Let's use the Orion again. Very often one of those diverse weapon systems will be a primary, and the others secondary. Swapping primary for secondary--or rather changing the nature of the beast such as from an LRM-centric boat with light laser secondary, to an SRM-Ballistic brawler on the ON1-VA)--will require a substantial investment to reskill. This will particularly hammer any OmniMechs in the game where the versatility of builds (including Omnipods which require inclusion or removal of jump jets) is supposed to be a key facet of their existence. OR, to put it another way, here is a mech where refitting is not merely possible but encouraged, often they cost more c-bills anyway (even accounting need for endo/ferro/DHS on a standard mech Omnis still have to pay for Omnipods), but the reskill hits them again.

Fair enough, but how many players have actually just bought ONE omni core chassis and continuously swaps pods/weapons on them ? I don't think the existing mech owner player base is worried to the extent a vocal minority seems to want to complain about it. I own a LOT of mechs, including a lot of omni's, and once I've settled on a build...i don't have a habit of changing it. Sticking to the Orions discussion, I own four of the five variants. The ON1-VA is the only one really suited to being an LRM centric as you put it, and if I wanted to do so with mine (its built with SRMs) I'd just buy another one and outfit it that way and then spend the time playing it to skill it up under the new tree system. But really...in a game where other than speeding up match finding, there's actually no incentives to (other than for the minority fringe which still bother with FW) pick one mech tonnage over another. There are better LRM-centric IS mechs available than Orions. The Awesome 8R for example, especially if you're packing LRM15s.

Quote

So, when I want to fight with a different loadout no, I don't instantly go and buy another mech. I go through the omnipods and put together something I want to play in. At least Clan-side.

And how much XP do you have built up already on clan mechs you play a lot and change the builds on so frequently that this new tree will apparently be a problem for you ?

ALSO

Instead of just declaring it bad/evil/whatever...why not actually nicely suggest corrections to PGI ?

Edited by Dee Eight, 15 February 2017 - 01:24 AM.

[Edward Hazen]

Zolaz, on 14 February 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

The new skill system is just PGI moving the goalposts back and calling it progress.

No, it is a feature that was promised before open beta and was replaced with a dumbed down, easier to implement system. The only thing that will make it suck is that they will try to make everyone happy instead of one group of players or another, but they will really just end up making everyone indifferent at best.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 15 February 2017 - 04:24 PM.

[anfadern]

The Excel spread sheet war has begun.
I can't help but thinking that people calculate to much and enjoy the game to little.
Not meaning to troll sitting on +200 mechs myself.
Relax folks it's only a game after all

[MovinTarget]

Paquera, I *dare* you to like this post too...

[SuperFunkTron]

Kael Posavatz, on 14 February 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

I don't hate it, but I can try to explain the reasoning.

1) a Mech like the Black Knight can benefit, at most, from 3 weapon trees (lasers, pulse lasers, PPCs). This allows a pilot to equip, say, all pulse lasers. Those nodes benefit all weapons. A mech like the Orion can mount missiles, ballistics, and lasers (must do so, generally, to have a worthwhile offensive package), which makes the nodes less efficient on a per-node basis. The Black Knight can shovel additional nodes into non-weapon trees that the Orion must instead use on less efficient weapon nodes in order to keep up with the offensive capability.

I had the same concern in the beginning. Being able to maximize a single type of weapons got me wanting to exploit that idea and start boating that one kind of weapon (lasers). After a few games I noticed the huge increase in heat that the new system forces us to deal with and better manage. I switched to a mixed weapon mech and found that it managed heat much better right away, that it could run around a bit longer without the same worry of powering down. When I started upgrading the 3rd mech, I took a much closer look at what a mech was starting with and how much the nodes actually affected them. Most mechs that had weapon quirks still have some amount of that quirk remain, its just been tamed so that their "specialty" still has a skeleton. When I was looking to take advantage of one with a mixed build, I realized that the nodes themselves give more of an edge than a huge buff. With 15% beam duration we are still looking at portions of a second, 15% jam decrease is still small on larger ballistics, weapon cooldown of 5% may yield up to a quarter of a second on on the largest of lasers, 5% heat reduction, 10% range... These aren't large numbers or boosts. They are something, but they aren't going to create huge weapon imbalances. Mechs that don't have any quirks will not outquirk those that already have some weapon quirks on them.

Once I gave though to the cost benefit of those nodes, boating didn't hold much appeal to me because the return I saw from it didn't feel like enough to go all out a in a single tree unless I was dealing with a mech that already runs a single type of weapon (Warhawk and Nova Prime). It allows the mechs that are built as boats to keep their edge as a boat, but on a more mixed build I'd rather mildly buff a few different trees than go all out on a single one. My mad cat prime for example, has 2 large pulse lasers 3 medium lasers, and 2 LRM 5s (sometimes you gotta shoot over enemies rather than through allies). If I look at the weapon nodes critically and apply some of my experience from the current module system, making only upgrading one of my laser types doesn't make sense. My goal would be to have my large pulse lasers be ready to fire as quickly as the medium lasers and for my medium lasers to extend their range a little bit more. 5% 4%heat bonuses on them would be nice, but its not worth shortening the medium laser beams too much because of extra heat and trying to sync timing with my Large pulse lasers. Looking at the trees as I type this out, I would be most interested in getting cooldown for my pulse lasers, maybe a little extra beam duration reduction to better sync it to the medium lasers. Spending an extra 7 nodes to get a 5% 4% heat reduction would be nice, but that would be only be a be addressed only if I had enough nodes at the end. For my medium lasers I'd be most interested in their range. Lets say that i did have a few extra nodes left over (the LRM 5s wouldn't get quirked as they are only for harassing or avoiding team damage). I would have easy access to an extra 3 nodes for heat reduction on both of those mechs. Instead of spending 7 nodes to get 5% 4.8%heat reduction on my pulse lasers, I would only need to spend 6 nodes to get 6% 4.8%heat reduction, 3 from the lasers tree, 3 from the pulse laser tree. Using current smurphy's values, that means I'd get a 3% 2.4%reduction from the 20 heat of the pulse and 3% 2.4% heat reduction from the 18 heat of the medium lasers, that is .6 0.48 and .54 0.432 heat respectively adding up to 1.14 0.912 heat. That would even provide a slight edge over the point heat reduction I would receive if I maxed out only the pulse tree which would provide a reduction of 0.8 heat.

Consider now, that in this timber wolf build example, that I could buy as little as 9 nodes from the laser and 10 from the pulse treetrees to get a better heat benefit while improving the time and range sync of my primary weapons. That means I gained these benefits while saving 2 nodes compared to buying out a full tree. Hell, I could put an extra node into pulse laser cooldown to further improve weapon sync. Knowing specifically what I wanted to give slight improvements to means that I'd still have 71 nodes left, which I'm sure would end up making me question why we have so many nodes in the end, but I haven't experimented enough to know if that's a worthwhile question yet.

This example shows that the new system isn't necessarily maximized as clearly as it seems. Figuring out what you need to achieve specifically looks to be more important than filling trees here. I haven't tested this out with a wide enough variety to say that it stands true across most cases, but it is a case evidencing the benefit of diversification. This is part of why I believe that the benefits of the new system are much more subtle than most people realize (it's brand new, we should be constantly discovering) and does provide some incentive to diversity. Boats have always been, and will continue to be present The best we have to offset them in the new system will be heat. I want to know if there are other build examples that support or contradict my Timber Wolf example so we can continue to get a clearer picture of the new system.

Edit: math was corrected as I took the IS value for nodes instead of Clan.

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 15 February 2017 - 09:29 AM.

[Arkhangel]

nice to see at least some people've stop the indignant "change bad!" whining and're starting to actually judge the incumbent system based on its actual merits and failings. no system is perfect, but I'm still seeing this skill tree as overall a good thing, and it's definitely one hell of an improvement over the current lackluster one we have, and have had for years now.