814 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

Arkhangel, on 15 February 2017 - 07:37 AM, said:

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.

The issue some people have is that they've essentially taken advantage of the current system, especially for FP with clans... You could essentially Elite/Master one Omnimech of the three (the other 2 only need to be basic/elited depending on how far you go) and then buy 6 of that one variant and config each one for a different FP scenario...

Here, everyone would be on the same playing field, you have to level each physical chassis....

[Arkhangel]

which honestly is completely fair, given those current skills are essentially actually modifications to a mech. hell, i'm okay with the skill costs c-bill wise because my mechtechs have busted their butts for years for free bout time the poor saps actually got paid for their hard work (it's supposed to take weeks to just swap engines in and out of mechs, for instance.)

basically goes back to what i said before. really, the only people who get punished by the new are metafags, and even then, not that much. i mean, hell, if you use the same mech in diff builds a ton, odds are you're going to get the xp on it and c-bills you need quickly anyways.

[Featherwood]

@Arkhangel

Wow, I've never seen such a wasted white knight before. Pure epitome of PGI's favorite type of fodder.

[Corviness]

Really easy to handle.
I will elite only some mechs, same as my clanmembers, drop only 2 days for 2 hours, since they will change this 9 mio cbill ****.

Have fun PGI, with massive reduction of playerbase. Rest will leave MW:O, because a too small active player base.

Is MW:O in his last breaths for MW:5? A Moneycow for another project and not more?.

You made big mistakes in the past, take cryengine instead of unrealengine, although your programmers and designers are specialized in this engine.

Balance Clan - IS with quriks, instead of let come 1,5 or 2 Ismechs on 1 Clanmech. Their would be no problem to drop with 8 Clanners against 12 ISlers or even more.

Dont listen to very workable and good proposals of community members.

Now this... whats next? I say MW:O will be dead before 2020 and not because of graphic, even MW3, MW4 and MWLL become regularly played.

Greets, Corviness.

[Trev Firestorm]

Arkhangel, on 15 February 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

which honestly is completely fair, given those current skills are essentially actually modifications to a mech. hell, i'm okay with the skill costs c-bill wise because my mechtechs have busted their butts for years for free bout time the poor saps actually got paid for their hard work (it's supposed to take weeks to just swap engines in and out of mechs, for instance.)

basically goes back to what i said before. really, the only people who get punished by the new are metafags, and even then, not that much. i mean, hell, if you use the same mech in diff builds a ton, odds are you're going to get the xp on it and c-bills you need quickly anyways.

Baseless statement is baseless. The initial cost of skills has to go. I don't play meta, I don't buy modules, I buy engines for all my mechs, I do not maintain a large cbill balance. Once this drops I will have maybe 1 mech remasted (out of 111) and no desire to grind my *** off to rebuild my shattered mechbay. I've spent hundreds on this game (foolishly but I knew that) and now they are actually about to do something that will make me quit for good and it has nothing to do with the actual skill tree balance, I mean seriously it'll take almost 1 billion cbills to get back to where I am right now (full mastering all is over 1bil, but I'm not fully mastered or built on all yet.) That is thousands of games spent solely focused on grinding cbills.

[SuperFunkTron]

Trev Firestorm, on 15 February 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Baseless statement is baseless. The initial cost of skills has to go. I don't play meta, I don't buy modules, I buy engines for all my mechs, I do not maintain a large cbill balance. Once this drops I will have maybe 1 mech remasted (out of 111) and no desire to grind my *** off to rebuild my shattered mechbay. I've spent hundreds on this game (foolishly but I knew that) and now they are actually about to do something that will make me quit for good and it has nothing to do with the actual skill tree balance, I mean seriously it'll take almost 1 billion cbills to get back to where I am right now (full mastering all is over 1bil, but I'm not fully mastered or built on all yet.) That is thousands of games spent solely focused on grinding cbills.

I'm really starting to get curious if there is a larger plan behind the cost. If they are looking to eventually build up the idea of out of battle costs such as upgrades (nodes) and maintenance, it'd be nice to know if that is on the horizon, what their vision of it is, and also get the visuals for it as soon as they implement it.

[MovinTarget]

Arkhangel, on 15 February 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

basically goes back to what i said before. really, the only people who get punished by the new are metafags, and even then, not that much. i mean, hell, if you use the same mech in diff builds a ton, odds are you're going to get the xp on it and c-bills you need quickly anyways.

Dunno about that part... People that never invested in modules will be screwed... those of us that did will be able to reinvest it back into re-skilling mechs. Consider, even with my 1.6 Billion refund I would not be able to master all 260+ mechs in my garage....

...I don't necessarily *want* to re-master them all... not right away... but if I did...

Edited by MovinTarget, 15 February 2017 - 12:15 PM.

[Dee Eight]

MovinTarget, on 15 February 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

The issue some people have is that they've essentially taken advantage of the current system, especially for FP with clans... You could essentially Elite/Master one Omnimech of the three (the other 2 only need to be basic/elited depending on how far you go) and then buy 6 of that one variant and config each one for a different FP scenario...

Here, everyone would be on the same playing field, you have to level each physical chassis....

And that's likely why they're so enthusiastically complaining about the respec costs and cbills and xp grind. Its NOT that they're actually changing the build on ONE particular mech variant they own (as some claim), but because they own multiples of that variant and that they'll be losing an advantage they've been exploiting over others who do not. That's why you would see (before the clan FW deck tonnage reductions) quadruple ebons or hellbringers last winter, or a pair of ebons and mad dogs from spring thru fall, or now this winter its quad mad dogs for some folks. And the last thing those people want, is everyone in the game to be starting from a level playing field.

Edited by Dee Eight, 15 February 2017 - 12:24 PM.

[MovinTarget]

Dee Eight, on 15 February 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

And that's likely why they're so enthusiastically complaining about the respec costs and cbills and xp grind. Its NOT that they're actually changing the build on ONE particular mech variant they own (as some claim), but because they own multiples of that variant and that they'll be losing an advantage they've been exploiting over others who do not. That's why you would see (before the clan FW deck tonnage reductions) quadruple ebons or hellbringers last winter, or a pair of ebons and mad dogs from spring thru fall, or now this winter its quad mad dogs for some folks. And the last thing those people want, is everyone in the game to be starting from a level playing field.

Heck you can still do 4 MDD now...

[Dee Eight]

Corviness, on 15 February 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Really easy to handle.
I will elite only some mechs, same as my clanmembers, drop only 2 days for 2 hours, since they will change this 9 mio cbill ****.

Have fun PGI, with massive reduction of playerbase. Rest will leave MW:O, because a too small active player base.

So your reaction to PGI's changing the skill tree is to threaten to throw a tantrum, pick your toys up out of the sand box and storm home to your mom essentially ? Ok well have fun with that. I hardly think the players who remain will miss you.

Remember... TENS OF THOUSANDS play the game each month...only at most a couple thousand use the forums...and only a hundred or so are moaning and whining about the new skill tree. So even if every one of the couple thousand who used the forums all threw tantrums and quit to go play something else... it'd only drop the player pool size two or three percent.

MovinTarget, on 15 February 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Heck you can still do 4 MDD now...

I know...i said that... quad mad dogs...last full line of my paragraph, actually right above the final period of it.

Trev Firestorm, on 15 February 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Baseless statement is baseless. The initial cost of skills has to go. I don't play meta, I don't buy modules, I buy engines for all my mechs, I do not maintain a large cbill balance. Once this drops I will have maybe 1 mech remasted (out of 111) and no desire to grind my *** off to rebuild my shattered mechbay. I've spent hundreds on this game (foolishly but I knew that) and now they are actually about to do something that will make me quit for good and it has nothing to do with the actual skill tree balance, I mean seriously it'll take almost 1 billion cbills to get back to where I am right now (full mastering all is over 1bil, but I'm not fully mastered or built on all yet.) That is thousands of games spent solely focused on grinding cbills.

Just because that's what you do and how you play doesn't make his/her statement baseless, nor mine, nor superfunk's, nor any other player who aren't in a crying tantrum panic over the new skill tree.

[Kael Posavatz]

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

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.

I was using the Black Knight as an example. I could have just as easily used the Lolcust-1E, or Archer-5W. The point is about node-efficiency. A mech with homogenous weapon hardpoints offers the potential for one set of nodes to influence all weapons. This is the core of that complaint.

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

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.

[I need to turn sarcasm on for a moment to address this appropriately] Since there is that pesky Rule of 3 I rather doubt that anyone seriously intending to use any mech bought only one variant.[/sarcasm]

Some people don't ever change their loadouts and that's fine. Others, well, maybe one day I want to run a painbow and the next a splatcat. I suppose I could have gone and bought another CPLT-A1, or I could pull off the LRMs and stick on SRMs. I went with the cheaper options. Sry.

And yes, I've made significant changes to my Omnis over time. Why? I didn't see a need to buy a TBR-A when all I wanted was the left torso. And those additional energy hardpoints resulted in a radically changed weapon load for one timberwolf. Likewise swapping an -S sidetorso for a -D (same weapons, but freed up tonnage by removing the jump jets that I then used to, well, you get the idea).

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

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 ?

I'm not sure where your interest in my Clan mechs comes from. At this point I've mastered far more IS mechs than I have Clan mechs. I'd be very surprised if I didn't have many times the extra XP sitting on IS mechs than I do Clan mechs. And to be fair there are some chassis where the PTS1 XP/c-bill pricing won't be a problem...for me.

But don't I, as someone interested in the well-being of the game, have a vested interest in making sure that all players are able to equally enjoy themselves? It is not the player with millions of XP squirreled away in a single variant, or billions of c-bills they haven't spent that will be most adversely affected by the current pricing schema. It will be the newer players coming into the game.

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

ALSO

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

I haven't declared the skill trees are bad or evil. Heck, I'll even quote my response to your request for an explanation.

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

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

What I have done is point out what I see as issues. Some are self-explanatory (such as the absurdity of increased yaw on an urbanmech) that I see no reason not to leave it at that. Others, such my issue with the implementation of skill-nodes for consumables, are a bit more involved and so require some explanation.

The point of critical feedback is not to fix another's problems (which isn't to say that alternatives cannot be proposed where and when it is appropriate). It is to identify and draw attention to possible problems. The originator of the work is free to consider or ignore those criticisms as they see fit.


But, hey, I suppose I got what I deserved for replying to a post that specifically requested a reply from:

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

...someone who HATES the new tree that keeps crying about how folks can really only optimize their weapons to ONE type...

Because as I said, I don't hate the new tree, and I'm not crying about it. I just see some issues that I think need to be addressed.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 15 February 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Dee Eight]

SuperFunkTron, on 15 February 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

I'm really starting to get curious if there is a larger plan behind the cost. If they are looking to eventually build up the idea of out of battle costs such as upgrades (nodes) and maintenance, it'd be nice to know if that is on the horizon, what their vision of it is, and also get the visuals for it as soon as they implement it.

I think the 'larger plan' many naysayers are refusing to acknowledge is that this is a step towards a major re-balance in the game, and closing off a check box from something they proposed years ago but were unable to deliver on until now, and that the quirk reductions on many mechs we've been seeing the past six months is also part of that change, as is the clan omni's move to set of eight bonuses more than tying a lot of quirks to each individual pod. Then there's the timeline jump already announced for this summer which means for the laser tree node for example, the IS mechs get ER lasers in small and medium sizes as well and the clan mechs might get heavy lasers. There's also going to be light and heavy gauss rifles probably, and maybe they'll be a node sub-tree added for flamers and machinegun. They left the AMS range nodes off the current PTS tree as I recall and that might merely be an oversight or it may be deliberate.

There's been a whole lot of complaining going on over what is in the skill tree on the PTS and very little thought as to what isn't (beyond complaining about nothing for flamers and MGs) and what might be coming down the pipeline in the next few months whose functionality depends on this new skill tree setup being in operation. But ooohhhh nooo....they can't let PGI actually fix the game and make it better.... instead all they want are new maps and new mechs and to keep moving along as it is.

[Dee Eight]

Kael Posavatz, on 15 February 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

I was using the Black Knight as an example. I could have just as easily used the Lolcust-1E, or Archer-5W. The point is about node-efficiency. A mech with homogenous weapon hardpoints offers the potential for one set of nodes to influence all weapons. This is the core of that complaint.

Well as it happens, I have a pair of Archer-5W's. The first is a hybrid build (5xLRM5 and 2xSRM4/2xSRM6) and the other is an srm brawler (4xASRM6 and 5xSSRM2). I've mostly played the former and have enough XP built up now (even after taking 100k off during the last double XP conversion event) to fully master THREE ARC-5Ws under the new tree system. I only play tested the hybrid so far and I pretty much maxed out the LRM nodes and took a few of the SRM nodes because the way I play it, I didn't need to blow a lot of nodes into the survival tree, or the upper torso tree. I was quite happy with what I got after 91 nodes on it. I'm now past 10.9K for total matches, and 446 of them were in ARC-5Ws. Its my most played mech (by over 100 matches) and I didn't get it until it had gone to cbills and bought it during the heavy mech sales event last summer. I haven't even played it since sometime in december as I've been buying and mastering other mechs. My point is though...just because you or I might optmize a single hardpoint class mech a particular way, doesn't mean everyone else has to do it the same.

[SuperFunkTron]

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

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.

So just out of curiosity to get an idea of what you mean, I just tried building BL-7-KNT two different ways. One with 4 PPCs on it and one with 2 ppcs, 2 large lasers, and 4 mediums. As expected, I maxed out nodes on the PPC tree on the first and I did partial laser and PPC trees on the other. I personally preferred the mixed variant (the ppc only variant allowed me to buff my infotech skills more, but they weren't really important at a certain point.). It ran a bit hotter, but carried more lasers, potential damage, and had some semblance of range splitting to help minimize overheating up close.

I have to say that I see understand the urge to want to boat a single weapons type, but I can't say that it looked more appealing when I looked at the two options side by side. I preferred the mixed build. With heat management becoming a much more prominent issue, it, trying to max out cool downs on top of range and duration/velocity seemed like a quicker path to over heating than being more damage efficient. The mild heat gen bonuses didn't provide much incentive, though it did add nicely to the large quirks already present. When I was working on the partial trees for the mixed lasers/ppc variant, it made more sense for me to only upgrade a facet or 2 of each tree. I added range for PPCs, cool down reduction and some heat reduction(might as well be able to cause more damage while closing) while i picked up beam duration and full heat reduction for the lasers (need to be shoot faster and reduce heat closer up). The mixed variant didn't let me get as many info tech nodes, but how important are they really when you're trying to close in?

I followed that by building a nova prime. I maxed out the laser tree of course, but started considering what the value of laser cool down is since I can only fire 1 arm at a time anyways and rarely have the time to get off 3 shots without risking overheating or taking too much damage. I redirected those points to info tech abilities like seismic and was much happier with what I had.

I then took a quick look at 3 different Orion IIC variants I have, 1 with two weapon types, the others with 3 or 4 (had both lrm and s-srm). When I was looking at what I wanted upgrade there, I was really most concerned with making sure that the weapons were more complementary to each other and encouraged me to think of what that mech's sweet spot needs to be. Lrms got may be a velocity node or two, s-srms got a few range and cool down, lbx-10s got velocity and cool down, medium pulse got a little range and heat reduction. I spent no more than 25 on the nodes for the one with 4 weapon types, and I was satisfied with what I got out of it. No, I didn't have maxed out skills, but I did have a nice balanced that extended the effectiveness of my short range weapons while allowing me to make my lbx 10s slightly more efficient and lrms slightly quicker to hopeful distract/soften a target as I close. I was still able to put all the durability, movement, operations and infotech quirks I needed. In the worst case scenario, someone who maxed out only lasers or auto cannons would have a small percentage benefits provided by the tree and I think heat would sort out the rest.

This will definitely get attacked for being "sub-optimal". Despite that, I still prefer building mechs that have more than 1 weapon type (except for obvious boats like the Nova and Warhawk prime), and would rather buff their inherent quirks to my needs than try to chase the entire weapons tree. It comes down to the exact same trade off we have now. Boats will have inherent strengths since that is their focus, but that means that they come with inherent weaknesses as well. It's just a matter of time until people come up with ways to counter them or force situations that reduce their benefits. Heat is going to force laser boats to be much more careful with their placement since they will overheat the quickest. LRMs will need to find targets for themselves or rely on scouts/scouting abilities, ballistics take a lot of space and will be more easily critted, likely log before a mech is destroyed, SRMs need to be brought close so require time and cover to close in. I think the tendency to boat will quickly prove itself to only work on those mechs that were built with boating in mind... and maybe the KDK-3, but I still see this system encouraging the KDK-3 to start considering the lasers on its arms courtesy of the easy to crit ballistics.

I hope that this gives some insight into how a mixed builder looks at this system and that not everyone will think boating is the best way to build mechs when considering the tankier mechs carrying more fragile weapons and running hotter will be the new norm.

[FeralTitan]

Personally, I'm looking forward to the new skill tree. am I a great player? no, but I do have fun. I think my Huntsmen and MAD's/MAD-IIC's are going to be even more fun to run.

For the criers, I'm looking forward to licking the tears off your face

[PurpleNinja]

Look at me I'm rich, I have more than 50 mechs ready to deploy equipped with seismic, radar derp and weapons modules.

...those ******** said I was crazy...

...my precious modules...

[Mechsniper]

I have been playing this game since closed beta. I do not play as much as a few, but much more than the average player. In the course of that time I have bought various mech packs and mechs, as well as ground out cbills for many more. In that time I will have accrued modules worth about 190 million cbills when they pay me back. I currently have 160 mechs elited out in my hanger. At the current planned level I will only be able to elite 190/9= 20.87 mechs. At that rate, I will never elite out even half of my current mechs, nor would I ever buy a new mech. A new player would have to play for months on average just to get a drop deck of mechs in order to play competitively in Facton Play. The cbill and xp costs have to come down from the version on the PTS or its GG close. If you make it a high cost to elite a mech,then respect should be a cheap additional cost or free. The ability to play around with loadouts lets you learn how to MW as well as it is a great portion of the fun of the game to many of us.

There are much better ways to get my money and new players money PGI.
1) Let us choose camo in dropship. This seems to be obvious but you have never caught on. You would sell many times the amount of camo and colors if it meant anything.
2) Let us choose mechs in dropship. The guy spending MC on mechs will buy 2 or 3 of his favorite and kit them out. No one wants to be forced to run a ssrm mech in alpine or snow maps, yet you make them. That is not fun. Or an LRM boat in escort with the map ecm'd where they cant even lock to fire with tag, bap, and artemis all equipped. Also, no fun and this is why people disconnect or suicide on that mode. Again, why haven't you caught this. If I take a brawler to alpine, it should be because I plan on using cover and having fun ambushing ppc/gauss boats, not because you stuck me with it. No commander would send in brawlers in an open terrain willingly.
3) Modules should have been available for MC, as well as c-bills. Seems too easy, many people would have gladly paid 1000MC for a module rather than grind out 6 million MC. The same could apply to skill blocks. Available for cblls+xp, or pay MC. I have no issue with MC buying access to abilities in game as long as people can grind out the same abilities in appropriate amounts of time playing.

Please reconsider the skill tree costs and not allowing free or cheap respecs. If not I believe you will be bringing the end of the game into being.

[Carl Vickers]

The skill tree revamp needed to happen a long time ago and while I like the idea, the implementation is very bad. Hopefully PGI brings a better offering in the next version of the PTS.

[MovinTarget]

Mechsniper, on 15 February 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

I have been playing this game since closed beta. I do not play as much as a few, but much more than the average player. In the course of that time I have bought various mech packs and mechs, as well as ground out cbills for many more. In that time I will have accrued modules worth about 190 million cbills when they pay me back. I currently have 160 mechs elited out in my hanger. At the current planned level I will only be able to elite 190/9= 20.87 mechs. At that rate, I will never elite out even half of my current mechs, nor would I ever buy a new mech. A new player would have to play for months on average just to get a drop deck of mechs in order to play competitively in Facton Play. The cbill and xp costs have to come down from the version on the PTS or its GG close. If you make it a high cost to elite a mech,then respect should be a cheap additional cost or free. The ability to play around with loadouts lets you learn how to MW as well as it is a great portion of the fun of the game to many of us.

There are much better ways to get my money and new players money PGI.
1) Let us choose camo in dropship. This seems to be obvious but you have never caught on. You would sell many times the amount of camo and colors if it meant anything.
2) Let us choose mechs in dropship. The guy spending MC on mechs will buy 2 or 3 of his favorite and kit them out. No one wants to be forced to run a ssrm mech in alpine or snow maps, yet you make them. That is not fun. Or an LRM boat in escort with the map ecm'd where they cant even lock to fire with tag, bap, and artemis all equipped. Also, no fun and this is why people disconnect or suicide on that mode. Again, why haven't you caught this. If I take a brawler to alpine, it should be because I plan on using cover and having fun ambushing ppc/gauss boats, not because you stuck me with it. No commander would send in brawlers in an open terrain willingly.
3) Modules should have been available for MC, as well as c-bills. Seems too easy, many people would have gladly paid 1000MC for a module rather than grind out 6 million MC. The same could apply to skill blocks. Available for cblls+xp, or pay MC. I have no issue with MC buying access to abilities in game as long as people can grind out the same abilities in appropriate amounts of time playing.

Please reconsider the skill tree costs and not allowing free or cheap respecs. If not I believe you will be bringing the end of the game into being.

Yeah i know the feeling... even with refund i am getting... (did I really buy over 300 weapons modules and 100 seismic/radar derp modules?)... i would only be able to master *maybe* 176 mechs (180 if i drain my current cbills too)... out of the 260 i own, most of which are mastered, the rest elited...

Granted, i may never re-level many of them since they were only purchased to round out the "rule of 3", but it was a fair amount of time invested.

PGI should really consider:
1) mechs get their current skills converted to usable skill points, up to 91 for a currently mastered chassis.
2) with this, modules should not be refunded for full price... more than half, but not full.
3) the cost to skill up mechs in general should get discounted when you own other mastered variants. So your oxide costs 9.1mill, but your jr7-f costs 6.8 and your jr7-d costs 5... hey look PGI! Incentive for people to buy more than one variant!

I would still also like to see the tree have linear progressions for skills, but make successive skills more expensive so that specialism comes at a cost and diversity is rewarded with a well balanced mech.

[Kael Posavatz]

Carl Vickers, on 15 February 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

The skill tree revamp needed to happen a long time ago and while I like the idea, the implementation is very bad. Hopefully PGI brings a better offering in the next version of the PTS.

I think 'very bad' is, perhaps, a bit strong. Perhaps 'not very good' would be better.

Still, I would have liked it as a fall PTS sequence since this feels like it might go somewhere worthwhile unlike InfoWar and Energy Draw. As it is, I worry that relative lack of time that can be dedicated to this will result in a product that is rushed and fails to reach its full potential.