814 replies to this topic

[Draglock]

The c-bill cost is ridiculous, 9.1 million is more that most of the mechs in the game, I got over 240+ mechs and I can't move the skills from one mech to another, xp is good and a c-bill cost to respec is good and I get that, but to pay c-bill to spec on top of the grind for xp is with no better term for it "RETARED". I thing this 9m to master a mech is going to hurt the people who support PGI, by spenting money on mechs and mech bays and have 200 to 300 mech the most and I think that it is a mistake to make some one to spend c-bills and xp on a tech tree, c-bill to reset the tech tree I can see but no to spec in to that tree.

Edited by Draglock, 09 February 2017 - 03:49 PM.

[pacifica812]

PAQUERA, on 09 February 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Let se how we have the modules

1 radar deprivation -- 6kk cbills
1 seismic-- 6kkcbills
2 weapons modules --6kkcbils

total 18kk cbils to module ur mech

and u say that 9kk cbills is worse? i dont understand

u play without modules maibe?

If u look at it like that it is cheaper with the new skill tree, but currently if you buy a module you can swap it between mechs. Also like stated above, you have to go through unlocking all these skills that currently you wouldn't even think of getting just to get to the ones you want

But, anyway I was just going through the PDF of the inherent quirks and I came to a conclusion that nerfing cooldown and range quirks (mostly IS mechs) to compensate for the available upgrades through the new skill tree, leave those mechs short of the additional boost of the range and cooldown modules. Thus in a sense making this skill revamp a giant nerf bat especially for the IS... talk about balance, right

...or am I reading it wrong ?

[Koshirou]

Even before downloading, I can easily discern the following:

1.) Applying this system to all my 36 fully leveled and moduled Mechs will be a huge pain for little to no gain in gameplay value. (Don't personally care about the costs, by the way. By my calculations, I'll still have 300 million CBs left over after all is done.)

2.) This new system obviously is more complex than the old one. This is actually the opposite of what I want. I would have preferred a simpler, more useable and more relevant system, e.g. removing the 5 levels for weapon quirks and accessing a Mech's skill tree directly from the Mech in whatever screen.

3.) On a related note, this system...
a.) Even more heavily promotes boating and
b.) Discourages wasting money and XP on experimentation, thereby encouraging the simple copying of well-known meta builds
c.) Enables, if I got it right, players to directly leave certain variants by the wayside rather than having to level them (and possibly thereby discovering they aren't so bad after all)
... and thus will actually serve to decrease, not increase, the number of variant builds seen in play.

4.) The idea that the game can ever be balanced between different chassis, different variants and different tech bases without using quirks was, is, and will remain completely delusional. I realize that it is futile to argue against this idée fixe of PGI's "community advisors". Nevertheless I feel duty-bound to mention that by simple logic, a system that equally applies to all X can not ever replace a system designed to ameliorate performance differences between various kinds of X.
So unless you think that without quirks or skills, all Mechs of a given weight class perform equally well, (and if you think that, you should have somebody check what's wrong with your head) you have no reason to think that with just skills, the existing performance differences will cease to be relevant.

For fallacious perfect solution arguments etc., please do not answer to this here, but open the bazillionth thread about balancing in General. Or don't bother, which will draw the exact same response from me.

5.) The whole endeavour strikes me as an unnecessary waste of resources. Quite frankly, you people need to stop fiddling around with the basics of the system and concentrate on adding and improving content: Maps, game modes, graphics etc.

The current XP and quirk systems are fine. They are not perfect, and they could certainly have used some minor tweaking and better integration into the UI, but they performed reasonably well with the already established systems (lore-derived Mechs, hardpoints etc.) they had to work with. Re-inventing the wheel on this, potentially causing massive additional balancing problems (which a one week test with a miniscule number of participants, heavily skewed to certain parts of the player base will do little to uncover) while the actual game content is stagnating or only being improved at a snail's pace is a serious misallocation of PGI's assets. Or at least IMNSHO it is.

Edited by Koshirou, 09 February 2017 - 09:31 AM.

[silberfuchs]

With the ability to add more tankiness with the defensive skill tree I'm going to be wanting to fire my weapons even faster than I am now. IS offensive quirks get nerfed in an effort to cut down on stacking, but this skill tree only allows a max of 5% cooldown, which is far above any of the other nodes. Before I could get 17% total cooldown (12 with module and 5 fast fire). Now only 5% and limited to a single weapon?? At least with fast fire it applied to all weapons. Allow us to at least be able to where we were before.

[Nightbird]

Good going with the skill tree PGI! All of my mechs and builds stand be improved at least a little, and this platform offers the flexibility to offer more choices later on both in terms of new nodes and branches, and also to "buff" worse mechs by giving them the capacity to unlock more nodes.

My only suggestion is to increase the depth of the trees, so that if someone wants to go all in on toughness or weapons or speed, you can specialize at the expense of everything else. The current choices are good, but you can max out 3-4 sections so there isn't really any hard choices. The existing quirks also can force a mech to be built one way, a deeper tree would eliminate more of the base quirks (by converting them to increased node capacity)

Edited by ironnightbird, 09 February 2017 - 09:46 AM.

[Sonny Black]

Thoummim, on 09 February 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

I stoped reading at 9Mcbills+ to master a mech. I have 88 mechs, it will cost me 800.8 millions to master them all. At an average of 150 000cbills per 15min (match timer + waiting timer + searching timer...) it will take me 1334+ hours (55days of consecutive gaming) to do it.

And how many of those mechs do you play regularly? Take you top 10(?) master them, then as time goes on (and the spirit moves) work on the 2rd 10 favorites....and on and on.

[4EVR]

The last thing this game needs is more grind.

I'll get enough C-Bills back to master 9 mechs. That means all the fun to play but sub-optimal mechs will fall by the wayside. Pure meta. All the time. And there won't be a "second set" because the future C-Bills will go towards new mechs and mastering them.

If at least the skill-trees made sense or offered, you know, choices... you have to learn hill climb to get cool running? Fall damage is mandatory? PGIPLZ

And what about the forced weapons-boating aspect of the design? After the gazillion points spent to get the essentials, radar dep and seismic, how can you justify diversifying your weapons loadout? I mean, I run boating builds most of the time anyway but I enjoy mixed builds more. Mixed builds are already at a disadvantage so why make it even harder?

I guess I hope they iterate on the current design.

Edited by 4EVR, 09 February 2017 - 11:07 AM.

[Ravenlord]

SuperFunkTron, on 09 February 2017 - 06:20 AM, said:

So one argument I see recurring is that modules like radar deprivation can not be moved to new mechs now. I didn't realize so many people use this as a immediate crutch on every brand new mech they use. There are many people, new players included, who level up without touching that module. I get that its convenient, but on its own, its hardly a point worth basing a system overhaul on.

I've almost got the PTS downloaded so I can give it a try before attacking the follow through, but I have to say that I'm a little disappointed by the large outcry of "PGI giving us a new challenge is unacceptable!". I too have mastered almost 200 mechs, many that I hated, but having to remaster in this new system is more of an exciting challenge if I know that everyone's gotta do it. New players couldn't afford modules anyways, I sure as hell didn't buy my first one until I had most of the mechs that I wanted. Furthermore, low tier players mostly won't be using them, or if they are using them and are still in the lower tier, really need those buffs to help them at that level.

Without addressing the the PTS itself, I applaud PGI for putting in the effort to offer improved, more in depth systems that they player base has been begging for.

Comments on the attempt itself will come after testing.

With 100 mechs plus, remastering them is not a an "exciting challenge" but more a gargantuan, even sysiphosian task, considering there are also new mechs coming out that need to be bought and mastered. If you happen to live on earth that is. If you're living on a planet with 40 hour days all of which you can spend remastering your mechs you already put significant time and effort in to master them, while not having to sleep or work, I guess you could call it an exciting challenge..

A little mathemathical example: It costs 9100000 cbills to master a single mech now.
Now we will assume an average income of 200000 cbills per match, which is very, VERY high considering not every match is a win and also not everybody has premium and only some of those matches you will be able to drive in a c-bill boosted mech, because you also need experience on the specific chassis.
Okay, now with 200000 per match you will need 46 matches for a single variant alone, and that is just for the c-bills.. Now let's say every match takes 10 minutes then it would be 7 hours 40 minutes just to get the c-bills to master that variant. Now lets assume you have 3 hours 20 minutes to play every day, which again is quite a good amount of time, many probably don't have that much or don't want to spend that much. That would mean you would need 2 days of play for just one variant to be mastered again.
If you have 100 mechs that is 200(!) days, or the better part of a year, just to get to the point where you were before!!
And that's only c-bills, xp will probably be harder to grind. And as I said, the numbers I assumed are HIGH, for most people this will be multiples of those 200 days. And then you are only at the point you were before, all the new mechs that came out in that time? Guess what, you don't have the money to buy them, because all the cbills you grinded were going to mastering your old ones.
Oh, and screwing around with builds, or playing the mechs that are already mastered and you enjoy playing just for fun? Well, that will set you back even more and you will fall even more behind because that means you are not grinding xp on the chassis you are mastering at the moment.

[Morggo]

I've tried to read all pages, if I missed where someone already suggested this give them the credit

• From what I've tested so far, I like the trees and how they work. They have a pretty familiar feel to other skill tree-type games so other than few tweaks I'll post up after more PTS I'm liking it. Actually have a use now for all my variants, especially the duplicates.
  
• For NEW mechs, this should work out well, if they adjust the XP and cbill costs down. 1000XP per node is more in line. I do think that 75K cbilll is more reasonable. Now you are looking at about a node per drop, possibly two if you did really well. Unlocking a new skill every 8 - 10 minutes seems almost fast to me, but there are 91 to get to.
  
• ISSUE: Now here is the one spot I believe they missed the boat: Existing Mechs. Here they really need to make sure all mechs are "made whole". How I would do it...
  
  • Pretty simple, especially since it's all database queries. Just unlock all the matching skills that a mech has already purchased. And, to save people all that time checking little hexes, just pre-unlock them on patch release day. So, if you had a fully Elited mech with all 12 skills, when you open it up on patch day you'd have those nodes open. (I've seen posts saying this is around 54 nodes to achieve today's "mastered" skill levels?)
    
  • Still refund the xp and cbills as planned. Why? For the buffing beyond today's "master" skills. The mech's I've skilled up on PTS so far are exponentially better than the Live versions. I'm very happy, but a tad concerned over power creep. I've got better in that I've got ALL the modules 'equipped' now at the same time that I couldn't before. Plus my important mobilities, PLUS buckets more armor and structure I didn't have AND still have my primary weapon tuned out. (BSW-P2 was the first one I did plus several others). It rekt in drops.

One thing that is overlooked in nearly every post the past 15 pages with a few exceptions.... people are tossing around the costs to "master" their mechs at the 91 node level. This is just wrong. There are really two terms and concepts that people will need to come to grips with

• Old Mastery....I'll probably use oMastery as reference in future
  
• Ultra Master... or uMastery.

Again, to regain the overall effect of all the mechs you previously mastered ( oMastery) is not 91 nodes.

NOW... that said... it still does NOT address the fact we should NOT have to pay to unlock these initial oMaster nodes. Give me those pre-unlocked, refund the cbills/xp as planned.

I know hate is inbound, but thinking about logic, fairness, grind, and what "I" like in a skill tree game... those are muh opinions.

And it's just day 1.5 in PTS.. if I've gotten a number or calc off, just let me know. Always happy to admit to bad maths.

[silberfuchs]

Morggo, on 09 February 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

Pretty simple, especially since it's all database queries. Just unlock all the matching skills that a mech has already purchased. And, to save people all that time checking little hexes, just pre-unlock them on patch release day. So, if you had a fully Elited mech with all 12 skills, when you open it up on patch day you'd have those nodes open. (I've seen posts saying this is around 54 nodes to achieve today's "mastered" skill levels?)

This, even if people don't want all of those efficiencies of the old skill tree they can just respec the ones they don't want.

[Morggo]

^== Exactly.

Then we can move past the noise and focus on 'getting my skills back' and dig into making the trees better.

[SuperFunkTron]

Ravenlord, on 09 February 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

With 100 mechs plus, remastering them is not a an "exciting challenge" but more a gargantuan, even sysiphosian task, considering there are also new mechs coming out that need to be bought and mastered. If you happen to live on earth that is. If you're living on a planet with 40 hour days all of which you can spend remastering your mechs you already put significant time and effort in to master them, while not having to sleep or work, I guess you could call it an exciting challenge..

A little mathemathical example: It costs 9100000 cbills to master a single mech now.
Now we will assume an average income of 200000 cbills per match, which is very, VERY high considering not every match is a win and also not everybody has premium and only some of those matches you will be able to drive in a c-bill boosted mech, because you also need experience on the specific chassis.
Okay, now with 200000 per match you will need 46 matches for a single variant alone, and that is just for the c-bills.. Now let's say every match takes 10 minutes then it would be 7 hours 40 minutes just to get the c-bills to master that variant. Now lets assume you have 3 hours 20 minutes to play every day, which again is quite a good amount of time, many probably don't have that much or don't want to spend that much. That would mean you would need 2 days of play for just one variant to be mastered again.
If you have 100 mechs that is 200(!) days, or the better part of a year, just to get to the point where you were before!!
And that's only c-bills, xp will probably be harder to grind. And as I said, the numbers I assumed are HIGH, for most people this will be multiples of those 200 days. And then you are only at the point you were before, all the new mechs that came out in that time? Guess what, you don't have the money to buy them, because all the cbills you grinded were going to mastering your old ones.
Oh, and screwing around with builds, or playing the mechs that are already mastered and you enjoy playing just for fun? Well, that will set you back even more and you will fall even more behind because that means you are not grinding xp on the chassis you are mastering at the moment.

So I've just finished a handful of matches and can actually comment on the experience rather than conjecture. I agree that the c-bill cost to upgrade is quite steep. It will make it much more difficult for new players to build a solid drop deck with quirks, which is a serious concern in regards to player retention and development.

There were noticeable changes in mech durability as well as agility (not quirking torso movement, yaw, and twist really showed their benefits and the inherent limitations they yielded). While attempting to split nodes between weapons and non weapon trees, I saw a real development of mech role created by the chosen nodes. Full infotech and durability, with very little mobility created a hellbringer that makes for a great escort but a poor hunter while building it toward mobility instead of durability created more of a stealth striker.

Regarding infotech, mobility, and durability sections, I tested a variety of builds that focused on different aspects and really found it interesting and well developed in terms of needing to choose to be more durable or utilize more mobility if you want to save any points for upgrading weapons systems. I have to say that part of the tree is for the most part, very well planned out. The only change I'd like to see tested would be the a more direct layout so that you could specifically choose what aspect of those categories you are adjusting, i.e. only choose armor hardening and structure density while ignoring fall damage. I'm not saying the current system is without its merits, but I'd like to know how the 2nd system feels in comparison to the first. I assume that the current lay out was developed with the intent to make sure that certain abilities come with a higher inherent cost and actually provides extra benefit on the way to attaining a node as opposed to requiring "more nodes" to activate a particular node.

Regarding weapons trees, there is a tendency to want to build toward one weapon family as opposed to diversifying across a few. One example is a hellbringer in which i have 3 medium lasers, 4 small pulse lasers, and a SRM6. Because er lasers and pulse lasers have different trees, I have to decide to get mild buffs to each of those lasers types, for one of those laser types, or convert all the lasers on my mech to a single type. With human tendency leaning toward maximizing a specific field, this will lead to boating of a single type of weapons, even if they are different sizes (the hellbringer example above would show a larger heat percentage savings if i switched the load out to carry 3 med lasers and 4 small as opposed to the mix it currently has). Though the benefits of the mixed build could essentially offset and balance with the buffing of one type, that would only become popular once people start to find that mixing builds has an actually benefit or is competitive. This leads to the next major problem which is cost.

Its great that they gave us so many c-bills to experiment in the PTS, but I see this providing an almost unfair edge to those who have already put time and resources in. I see 2 potential solutions (there are surely more) to help with this. The first is to substantially decrease c-bill cost so that players who are constantly saving c-bills for their next mech can focus on that. The other is revert it to an experience only currency with an option to buy the nodes for c-bills rather than c-bills being required. I'm sure there are more functional suggestions out there, but I think the new guys building their stables need to be kept in mind. I don't mind needing to grind xp to get nodes again, as it'd give new players a more level playing field, but I can see how that'd be overly punishing to those who have already put in a lot of time and are upset about the loss of the old system. In a way, forcing players to use only a nodes at a time would be very helpful in helping people explore the full benefits each individual node actually contributes, but that's a lesson better learned in time and with a more mild re-spec cost, at least in the beginning.

With all the main points covered, I could see this system being used as a foundation for faction quirking. Each faction could be allotted x number of permanent faction specific nodes that immediately reward new players for joining a faction by providing those nodes while allowing x free nodes to be opened for spending elsewhere. An example would be Steiner getting 10 free durability (non-movable) nodes, Liao getting 10 free infotech nodes, Wolf getting mobility, Jade Falcon getting Jumpjet and mobility, etc. This would allow an inherent benefit for choosing a group, but would not prevent players from being able to strengthen the traits that they may still prefer. This could be taken one step farther by providing x number of nodes for Faction specific mech classes or variants. An example here would be giving ghost bear x number of bonus nodes toward scouting abilities for their faster mechs while providing their heavies and assaults bonus nodes toward speed and fire power (as per faction description).

Overall, there is a system with a lot of potential for improving MWO, it just needs to be made equally accessible for newer players who just don't have the c-bills to both specialize mechs as well as save up to buy new ones. I'd like to see most of whats in the PTS implemented, but finding a way to encourage weapon diversity on most platforms (mechs like the black knight and Nova are obvious exceptions) is the major issue I feel should be addressed before full implementation.

Edit: One point I forgot to address is the new crit system. Losing weapons is MUCH more frequent now, but it also feels much more consequent and gives a better sense of satisfaction knowing that you don't have to take off an arm or torso in order to consistently destroy weapons now. Yes, you lose fire power more often and sooner, but it also feels like a mech is being picked a part more incrementally rather than chasing the engine explosion to kill. Yes, it will make strip a lot of fire power out quickly, but it will also create a need for using mission objectives as a mean to win rather than being required to play deathmatch before addressing objectives. I see it more as growing pains than a negative.

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 09 February 2017 - 10:56 AM.

[Brandiment]

I could be wrong but it seems that they are making it to where the old vets are even more powerful than your standard run of the mill player/ beginner and also making it to where insted of buying 3 mechs to get the elite skills and such you just go all in for that one mech that you like to play saving you money for the mech costs but still making you pay for another mech just through skills alone. As far as the weapon nerfs go it seems that they are trying to force people to fight at closer ranges or shell out your soul to play at longer ranges while trying to prolong battles. I like the fact that instead of buying 3 mechs to get one mech up to a good skill level you just buy one and shell out the money that could purchase a second one. Cause lets be honest those of you that have 100+ or 200+ mechs dont really play all of them every day do you, you got a few hangar queens sitting in there just gathering dust cause you had to buy it to get that one awesome mech that you play so much you wear down the fusion core to be even more awesome. I like what they are doing but I dont, I feel like it would be a better change if they had more equipment to play around with such as coolant tanks, Angel ECM, Laser Heat sinks, Heavy Gauss,Light Gauss, RACs, Plasma Cannons, rifles and PPCs , I could go on. But I think this is really gonna hurt those who are new or are trying to progress and make them even more squishy.

[WarHippy]

Kaoba, on 08 February 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Honestly I think we should get at least 5million cbills per every mech we already have mastered, damn I play thid game a lot and wasted a lot of money and time getting a lot of mechs and mastering those, and now I have to farm 9.1 m cbills per every mech again?? How on earth im gonna farm 364000000 million of cbills??? And theres people that has 200+ mechs.... Its like a slap on the face...
PD: I just have like 5 modules

Yeah, I really don't see how I am going to be able to remaster all of the mechs I already have mastered. The c-bill requirement makes this entirely out of reach. I have ~230 mechs and a good number of them mastered, but I will in no way have the c-bills to get myself back to where I was before this update. One thing I hate more than just about anything else is having my time and money entirely negated without proper compensation.

[EXEOBUREC]

hmm let me find some more elephants in the closet:
1. people love min /maxing and new system in current state lead us all to new 70% laser 25% lrm 5% ballistic meta say hello to 1+km sniping/lrm kemps just because its universal slots while ballistics works only on few mechs
2. there are BAD desicio of different tonnage mechs that make mech with most tonnage in mechclasss have better stats that low tonnage mechs - for example 75 tonn heavy would have about half more effect from armor hardening skills 3% per node vs 2% per node compare to 80 tonn assault - this may lead us to situation when 75 tonns have better survivability than 80 tonn in raw hp (or so close that 80 tonn feels like waste) same for 35-40 tonns and 55-60 tonns mechs
3. pgi shot his leg with removal of 3 chasis for mastering system and make about 80% of mechs usless compare to best variants.

I suggest make all simple and less frustrating to players - just keep old system and add the new skill trees as mastered mechs only avaliable and remove this stupid 91 skill restriction - This will let players have some more fun with mechs they like most also removes whole bunch of problems and make all skills usefull - of course no one will take narc or other @******@ skills first - but when player can take all the skills then it only matter of time. As for new player exp just give em some bonuses for first mechs of each class so they can have halfly upgraded mech in time they finishing new recruit bonus.

[StumbleBee]

Sorry, but this version is a mess. I had high hopes, but I'd hate to see this move forward.

Cost is one issue, but far more than that I fear the rigidity it will impose. The current system doesn't exactly reward mixed-weapon builds, but it doesn't punish them like this. Similarly, quirks haven't completely balanced the current mechs, but this would be much harsher on the variants with sub-optimal hardpoints.

If we're going to have hundreds of variants, the game should offer reasons to use at least most of them. This would leave us with, what, a couple dozen viable chassis? And most of those would use the same narrow set of builds.

I don't understand why every variant should use the same skill trees. Yes, differences would reintroduce the possibility of imbalance, but what's presented here undoes current progress toward balance and makes future balancing more difficult.

[Brandiment]

Probably Not, on 09 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

There's one thing I keep seeing people talk about with the new skill tree - how it encourages boating. Now, I personally think this new skill tree system is fraught with issues that have already been covered multiple times, but...

Why exactly is boating so bad again?

Because it kills variety. I like to use multi weapon mechs like the Bushwhacker, Atlas, and King Crab, but with this tree it will hurt even more to do builds like that.

[justcallme A S H]

Have a look at something a friend whipped up.




So a good mech now becomes insane, because quirks? A SB with extra torso pitch, no longer are lights safe around the legs.

This totally unbalance the game. Sorry, bit poorly thought out and adding in far too much complication for new players. The game knowledge gap just extended a football field.

[SuperFunkTron]

EXEOBUREC, on 09 February 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

hmm let me find some more elephants in the closet:
1. people love min /maxing and new system in current state lead us all to new 70% laser 25% lrm 5% ballistic meta say hello to 1+km sniping/lrm kemps just because its universal slots while ballistics works only on few mechs
2. there are BAD desicio of different tonnage mechs that make mech with most tonnage in mechclasss have better stats that low tonnage mechs - for example 75 tonn heavy would have about half more effect from armor hardening skills 3% per node vs 2% per node compare to 80 tonn assault - this may lead us to situation when 75 tonns have better survivability than 80 tonn in raw hp (or so close that 80 tonn feels like waste) same for 35-40 tonns and 55-60 tonns mechs
3. pgi shot his leg with removal of 3 chasis for mastering system and make about 80% of mechs usless compare to best variants.

I suggest make all simple and less frustrating to players - just keep old system and add the new skill trees as mastered mechs only avaliable and remove this stupid 91 skill restriction - This will let players have some more fun with mechs they like most also removes whole bunch of problems and make all skills usefull - of course no one will take narc or other @******@ skills first - but when player can take all the skills then it only matter of time. As for new player exp just give em some bonuses for first mechs of each class so they can have halfly upgraded mech in time they finishing new recruit bonus.

Opening up all nodes to every mech is a terrible idea. It would eliminate any diversity this system actually creates (and those infotech/durability/mobility trees create a lot of welcomed diversity). Further, those who have the c-bills would end up with such a substantial advantage over standard mechs that it would open up a whole new can of worms in balancing. We need to embrace the roles that those trees rather than try to maintain the current "jack of all trades" warrior we have. Cutting costs so new guys have a chance is definitely important, and being able to focus on buffing your mech to help it excel in the role you are building it for will increase the number of strategies seen and the variety of situations you will see based on how your enemies spec their mechs.

[kuma8877]

Morggo, on 09 February 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

I've tried to read all pages, if I missed where someone already suggested this give them the credit

• From what I've tested so far, I like the trees and how they work. They have a pretty familiar feel to other skill tree-type games so other than few tweaks I'll post up after more PTS I'm liking it. Actually have a use now for all my variants, especially the duplicates.
  
• For NEW mechs, this should work out well, if they adjust the XP and cbill costs down. 1000XP per node is more in line. I do think that 75K cbilll is more reasonable. Now you are looking at about a node per drop, possibly two if you did really well. Unlocking a new skill every 8 - 10 minutes seems almost fast to me, but there are 91 to get to.
  
• ISSUE: Now here is the one spot I believe they missed the boat: Existing Mechs. Here they really need to make sure all mechs are "made whole". How I would do it...
  
  • Pretty simple, especially since it's all database queries. Just unlock all the matching skills that a mech has already purchased. And, to save people all that time checking little hexes, just pre-unlock them on patch release day. So, if you had a fully Elited mech with all 12 skills, when you open it up on patch day you'd have those nodes open. (I've seen posts saying this is around 54 nodes to achieve today's "mastered" skill levels?)
    
  • Still refund the xp and cbills as planned. Why? For the buffing beyond today's "master" skills. The mech's I've skilled up on PTS so far are exponentially better than the Live versions. I'm very happy, but a tad concerned over power creep. I've got better in that I've got ALL the modules 'equipped' now at the same time that I couldn't before. Plus my important mobilities, PLUS buckets more armor and structure I didn't have AND still have my primary weapon tuned out. (BSW-P2 was the first one I did plus several others). It rekt in drops.

One thing that is overlooked in nearly every post the past 15 pages with a few exceptions.... people are tossing around the costs to "master" their mechs at the 91 node level. This is just wrong. There are really two terms and concepts that people will need to come to grips with

• Old Mastery....I'll probably use oMastery as reference in future
  
• Ultra Master... or uMastery.

Again, to regain the overall effect of all the mechs you previously mastered ( oMastery) is not 91 nodes.


NOW... that said... it still does NOT address the fact we should NOT have to pay to unlock these initial oMaster nodes. Give me those pre-unlocked, refund the cbills/xp as planned.

I know hate is inbound, but thinking about logic, fairness, grind, and what "I" like in a skill tree game... those are muh opinions.

And it's just day 1.5 in PTS.. if I've gotten a number or calc off, just let me know. Always happy to admit to bad maths.

One problem tho, how do you deal with module related skills that someone shuffled the module for currently? What mech does that SP go to? Because you could only get as many legacy SP's as you had modules? You can't give someone's entire stable of mechs the equivalent of a full tree unlock because they have one module, whether weapon or system that they swapped around to complete their active build. Totally unfair to the people who actually purchased and outfitted each variant entirely with it's own modules (I'm a module swapper myself). And that's the real rub of the transition to the new system.

We are getting back exactly what we put into the system prior to the skillset tree. And lot's of people don't seem to like that, even though it's actually fair and impartial for the most part. The module swappers aren't the base endgame metric for a completed player variant, a fully kitted and module loaded player variant is. Like it or not.