814 replies to this topic

[Firefox54]

Astrokazy, on 10 February 2017 - 12:47 AM, said:

As a fairly new player i feel the only thing that scares new players is old players talking about how dead the games going to be, honestly that negativity is the killer cause it makes new players hesitant to invest time and maybe money, at the end of the day i want to drive a giant robot and shoot other giant robots so do as you will and i'll still play even with my crappy 0.3 KDR and all.

The thing for me is i don't like most online games, i like this one, for its nostalgia, setting and also its a unique experience compared to CS/TF and those sorts of games.

I'm also a fairly new player and I've enjoyed playing the game a lot ... people seem worried about new players not joining or leaving.

First, the new system is easier to understand for a new player ... you simply have upgrades for a mech. The current system of having to buy nine mechs of the same weight class was definitely not clear to me at the beginning.

Second, the new system appears to be less of a grind to get one mech upgraded (see my previous post) and should help new players. I also could have been purchasing different mechs instead of buying three of the same variant ... while that's also trying out different mechs, I prefer having the option of the other mechs that I purchase instead of being implicitly forced to buy more mechs of the smae variant/weight class to get my one mech upgraded. That's not to say there aren't tweaks to be made to the new tree (e.g., too many Hill Climbing and Fall Damage [whatever]) to get to some more useful nodes ... but that happens in the same system.

Finally, if you want to help out new players, there needs to be a better intro into the nuances of the game. Understanding the approach to upgrade the mechs in the current system would have been useful, as would having more info on Faction Play. The info is out there, but it needs to be found first.

Anyway ... as a relative new player, I'm sticking with the game for now. Didn't play it for two days because I wasn't sure of where this new change was going, but I played a match last night ... killed it ... and decided that the game was simply just fun

[WANTED]

Good to see new players enjoying the new system. So many people just screaming about "me me me"

[JuIius]

Talking about XP refund for Mechs you own.

What about the mastered ones i have sold because i needed the Mechbays for some others?

[PAQUERA]

im happy with the changes.

Only questioning how unfair is that all the mech have the same points. Is not good that a dragon a victor or a vindicator have the same points that a kodiak or a timber

[Asterios]

WANTED, on 10 February 2017 - 05:42 AM, said:

Good to see new players enjoying the new system. So many people just screaming about "me me me"

And one day...rebalance...and all your skilltree become sh*ttree

[Jownzee]

They should make the legacy XP free to spend on the skill tree since people have already invested the time collecting it all.

[Firefox54]

Asterios, on 10 February 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

And one day...rebalance...and all your skilltree become sh*ttree

I understand that for people playing along time this shift is problematic. What I'm not hearing are possible alternatives.

There are a few people that are suggesting returning SP instead of XP. What if PGI gave you 91 SP for each fully loaded Mech Tree given some number of pilot skills? I've not heard anyone provide any pros/cons on such an idea ... just complaints about the grid it will take to get $9.1M CBills, which is true.

So, what if PGI returned SP to the mechs based on current Mech Skill and Pilot Skill progress? To me, that seems like a benefit. Even for me ... I'm only getting the XP equivalent for 5 SP from a fully completed Basic mech, which needs about 20 SP in the new system and 2M CBills to get them. If they returned SP, I don't necessarily feel I need to get all 20 SP back, but I would like more than the XP equivalent of 5 SP and no CBills.

Does anyone else have any pros/cons on the refund coming in SP instead of XP? and how much SP equivalent would be appropriate?

[Asterios]

Firefox54, on 10 February 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

Does anyone else have any pros/cons on the refund coming in SP instead of XP? and how much SP equivalent would be appropriate?

SP will be much better for me and as much as it cost to recreate the same bonuses.

[Aeryo]

This system will not bring any improvement to MWO.

After play testing for some hours now I am really sick of refitting all my mechs 200+. It takes to much time and it is the same stuff in different form.
This system only supports boating and is much more time consuming.

Played 3 machtes with my IS meta assaults and got recked by meta clan assaults in no time. As expected.
You guys need to rebalance now everything again!

I feel punished for having so many mechs because it will take me ages to lvl the mechs to the point were I am now.

I would really prefer new content instead of this shallow refit. E.g. Cooperative PVE

New players will also have a really hard time to get into this system and have to grind even more + get punished by respecc costs if they find out that their build is not optimal. I think we will see even less mech diversity because we only need the meta mech of a chassis type.

There are not enough players on the PTS because you are not incentivising it, which you should because a lot of players should make up their mind and give feedback for such a huge change.

I am playing for a long time now and welcomed many of your changes but not this one.

Sorry I don`t like the new system.

[SilentScreamer]

Firefox54, on 10 February 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

So, what if PGI returned SP to the mechs based on current Mech Skill and Pilot Skill progress? To me, that seems like a benefit. Even for me ... I'm only getting the XP equivalent for 5 SP from a fully completed Basic mech, which needs about 20 SP in the new system and 2M CBills to get them. If they returned SP, I don't necessarily feel I need to get all 20 SP back, but I would like more than the XP equivalent of 5 SP and no CBills.

Does anyone else have any pros/cons on the refund coming in SP instead of XP? and how much SP equivalent would be appropriate?

Certain skills could translate well, ex Hard Break costs 1,500 xp which is the xp for one SP Node. But I see two problems here:

1) Current mech skills have no C-bill cost. Since unlocking each SP node costs 100,000 c-bills that would be a lot of free cash.

2) Pilot skills are now global unlocks which require a c-bill investment for the modules. If you paid 4,500 GXP for a skill you have that skill for all your mechs, from 1 to infinity, not just the mech you put the 2,000,000 module in. Getting 3 to 20 skill points per mech in this example is a completely unrealistic expectation.

If you did buy modules for each mech you own you will have plenty of c-bills for the new system. If like me only your "best" mechs have modules there is a significant c-bill investment needed under the new system. I think PGI is planning this the right way with XP and c-bills. You get out what you have previously put in.

[Tedarin]

I looked at the new skill system and couldn't figure out what would better than what we currently have.

As a casual player that just drops in for a quick gaming 'fix',
I like our current system which is more focused around player skill rather than MMO unlocks.
I would want to see more mw4 mektek style mechlab, but... meh, this just an old game in a crap engine.

Just put development in maps (destructible buildings etc), gamemodes, balance... ...and make the damn game FUN.
Games should be fun, not chores.

[Kael Posavatz]

Issues, lots and lots of issues.

1) Mechs that can boat a single weapon type (such as Back Knight, Grasshopper, any Omni) are at a distinct advantage over mechs that must bring multiple types (Marauder, Atlas, Orion IIC). The former's weapon nodes are more efficient (or at least able to be used more efficiently) than the latter.

2) Having Standard and ER lasers on the same tree is confusing. No other weapon tree affects two different weapon systems except PPCs

3) The differences between the IS PPC and ERPPC are a lot more profound than the IS Large Laser and ER-Large Laser, giving this skill tree an outsized impact for a particular weapon. Also, since most of the weapon skill trees look the same with cooldown, heat, range, special quality, it was disappointing to see that PPCs don't have nodes affecting their ability to disrupt ECM

4) Some nodes are oddly placed (NARC is buried underneath UAV and capture assist? Really?)

5) There are links between nodes that serve no purpose except to give the illusion of choice. In the following photo red X mark links made redundant by needing to take a preceding node.


6) No Arm-yaw nodes

7) Skill trees look the same across the vast majority (quite possibly all) mechs. That is, the placement of the nodes.

8) Only differentiation of node-values seems to be along IS v Clan lines. While this is, to a degree, expected, it is disappointing that the only differentiation between mechs will be inherent weapon hardpoints and whatever quirks are left in the game

9) Speaking of quirks, after hearing for so long that they'd be removed utterly it is disappointing that they are being left in instead of some other option as starting with some nodes unlocked, or granting those mechs additional nodes

10) cost of respecing will discourage experimentation and diversification. How many are willing to spend more than 25 million c-bills on a mech they don't know will work relatively well? After paying this, how many are going to spend more to try making it better? Not most casual players, certainly not new players.

11) Repeated statements from PGI staff about module-cost reimbursement either overlook or willfully ignore how this will negatively affect the new-player-experience. Yes, the cost to acquire 91 nodes is about how much it cost to module-out a mech (roughly), but now someone can purchase Radar Dep once and swap it around as many mechs as he wants/has patience for. With skill trees this is no longer the case

12) Also, many of the buffs that are now in skill-nodes (turn-rate, speed tweak, etc) used to be acquired at no c-bill cost to the player.

13) Magazine expansion is nice, but overlooks MGs, and all missiles, and is buried at the bottom of a skill tree that has beans to do with weapons. And it is not clear if the expansion is total number of rounds, or on a per-tone basis

14) Mucking about with XP, HXP, and GXP is needlessly complex, and the difference between XP/GXP sides of nodes is not immediately obvious. There should be one place to pay (at the end) with some kind of slider bar so you can choose how much XP is coming from which pool.

15)Most node lines are hopelessly entwined, asking players to pick up nodes that are at best unwanted, and quite possibly unused, in order to get to more useful nodes. Some lines, such as Jump Jets, are better in that players can choose one of three node-lines to ignore, but these are relatively few. One option to address this is reduce the node pool, but make up for it with more straightforward trees.

16) What is the purpose of additional torso yaw on the UrbanMech? Yes, three of the yaw's are end-chains, but both of the others are useful crossover points

17) Consumables are a danger of becoming pay-to-win. Arty/Air/Coolshot lack nodes. Assuming nodes are put in--and this seems likely given this post:

Paul Inouye, on 08 February 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Regarding MC vs CB consumables.

You guys have found an error. It is not intended that the MC versions of Air/Arty/UAV outperform CB versions. This will be corrected prior to release.

-- (and have similar tree sizes as UAV), then 20 nodes (player can only carry 2 consumables)--22% of available nodes--will be needed to bring these in line with MC consumables. Meanwhile, a player willing to spend money will get max-performance consumables and effectively 28% more nodes than someone who maxed out consumable nodes




Non-skill tree issues:

1) Clan components now have the survivability of a wet paper bag in a hailstorm

2) This statement:

InnerSphereNews, on 08 February 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

To address this, Clan Components will see an overall reduction in Health values - excluding cases where those Components are identical to their Inner Sphere counterparts, such as Jump Jets and Actuators.

Implies that actuators (along with things like gyros, engines, sensors, life support systems) actually have health-values now (and can be damaged/destroyed with an in-game impact) rather than being sponges that soak up critical hits to no effect. I have seen no evidence of this.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 10 February 2017 - 07:42 AM.

[wandering Baker]

Stop it bros. New players will go to @#$%&@# after commissionig of that Tree, we will lost a lot of active players.

[SuperFunkTron]

Zergling, on 09 February 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

Here are the skill and module bonuses mechs have currently on live server:

Heat Dissipation = 15%
Max Heat = 20%
Startup Speed = 33%
Acceleration = 15%
Deceleration = 15%
Turn Rate = 5%
Top Speed = 7.5%
Torso Yaw = 5%
Torso Twist Speed = 5%
Arm Speed = 5%
All Weapons Cooldown = 5%
One Weapon Cooldown = 12%
One Weapon Range = 10%
Radar Deprivation
Seismic


Versus duplicating those as close as possible on the PTS:

Heat Dissipation = 10%
Max Heat = 15%
Startup Speed = 35%
Cost = 19 points

Acceleration = 50%
Deceleration = 50%
Turn Rate = 30%
Top Speed = 7.5%
Cost = 20 points

Torso Yaw = 8%
Torso Twist Speed = 4%
Arm Speed = 40%
Cost = 20 points

One Weapon Type Cooldown = 5%
One Weapon Type Range = 10%
Cost = 11 or 12 points

Radar Deprivation
Seismic
Cost = 19 points

Total cost = 89 or 90 points

Using those two columns you provided, I calculated the total Percentage improvement each column offered. The current live system provides 152.5% of overall improvement while the PTS system provides 264.5% of overall improvement. The are clear differences in how much certain things are being buffed. For example, the maximum potential heat dissipation and heat cap have been reduced by 5% each, which will prevent reduce the number of times they can alpha strike or continuously fire before they overheat resulting in a longer Time To Kill (TTK). The other sections also offer buffs in either similar or very different amounts. There appears to be enough difference in the end state of the mechs that it will essentially become a matter of comparing apples to pears (this isn't different enough to make it oranges). Furthermore, everyone will have those same limitations and costs.

I believe that trying to impose the values of the old system as a standard on the new system, especially a system that is looking to achieve a different result and play style for the game, skews the benefits and faults of the new system. A clear example of this would be mobility related buffs. Acceleration and Deceleration nodes all come early, and provide a much great improvement to mech mobility than before (50% vs 15%) while turn rate in the PTS is 30% compared to the live servers 5%. Speed tweak offers the same amount of improvement as before (7.5%) but comes at the very end of the tree. What this means is that maneuverability is considered to be much more important for the mech and that the speed tweak itself, which is a buff of diminishing returns with heavier mechs, becomes less of a standard and more of an option. Sure you could get your Dire Wolf or Mauler to run a few extra km/h faster, but is it really necessary when those mechs aren't in a really in a race to begin with? With the added mobility however, your assault mechs can now turn and face enemies more easily to handle whats going on around them, and that's much more important that buffing the top speed by the time that the assault mechs are actually in an engagement compared to the extra 4-7 km/h they would gain. This also means that mechs that focus on speed will gain more substantial benefits as spending 5 nodes is much more consequential for them and with a larger amount of mechs starting to forgo speed tweak (I'm not going to continue wasting nodes for my assaults, except maybe my gargoyle) to focus on other fields, the speed bonus will become more pronounced when comparing upgraded fast mechs to slow mechs who chose more useful nodes. Mobility will still be available without requiring the extra speed and really creates new options in terms of what players want to prioritize.

Torso Yaw is doubled at 8% in the PTS compared to 4% in Live, Torso twist remains at 4%, while arm speed gets a huge boost to 40% from the Live servers 5%. These are also options that can be more selectively utilized and don't necessarily apply to everyone. Aside from providing a huge incentive to start utilizing arm mounts (spreading weapons will become more necessary as critical hit chances are greatly increased), The IS gains a larger overall advantage from this as they can have more mechs that twist at the elbows in contrast to many clan mechs that can only move their arms up and down.

As I've been typing this and taking a harder look at the numbers, the values they have added in the trees make more and more sense in when it comes to customizing mechs and optimizing them for their particular use. I really do not see there being a single optimized build for all mechs but rather a variety of optimizations based on what mechs could potentially most benefit from and I think that an element of thinking an consideration as to what non weapon quirks are actually meaningful is addressed here and that once people realize the differences in the new system that Customization upgrades will start to vary more and more.

People can continue boating and max out the laser tree for example, but maxing that out gains only 5% heat reduction (not really that substantial). If the points are spread along other weapon trees, the real expense is a slightly reduction in maximum range and fractions of a second in laser burn time, but you can improve weapon velocity of your secondary systems for example.

I have to admit that over my first day of play that I grossly underestimated these upgrades. Thanks to the info columns provided by Zergling and a closer look at upgrade trees, the amount of work and thought in the tree values has become much more apparent to me. Mechs will still be encouraged to play to their strengths by augmenting their strengths, compensating for weaknesses, and considering which "old buffs" are actually needed and applicable to the new system.The increased weapon crits are also a subtle hint to start spreading weapons systems out around the mech and the arm mobility buffs are giving a huge movement advantage to those who do so.

There have been quite a few mentions of weapon buff percentages being distributed differently, with earlier nodes offering more tan later nodes to encourage diversity, but if you look more closely at the way its built now, you are essentially spreading the same potential if you choose more than 1 weapon system. So rather than focusing on improving only a single system with all of that potential, it makes more sense to spread the same amount of potential over a mixed build resulting in more mild improvements for each symptom but a more balanced overall improvement.

To top off the differences, the new trees allow for incremental improvement in a players desired field as opposed to generic blanket quirks that may not benefit the mech at all or as much as another improvement might.

TL:DR- Don't try to recreate Live server buffs on the PTS. You don't need all of those old skills on every mech.
Boating provides minimal gains compared to weapon spreading (compare percentages of end of tree nodes to beginning of tree nodes)

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 10 February 2017 - 08:21 AM.

[LoveWisdom]

Right idea, wrong approach.

I very welcome the skill tree system b/c it offers a broader customization and more uniqueness to a mech one owns but C-Bill and XP prices are too high for casual players or players who don't stick to the meta but rather try out different builds.

I personally don't mind the costs but this system is very detrimental for new players who have to take the first hurdle which is buying a mech and mechs are not cheap, especially clan assaults. Then he would need another 9.1M C-Bills and grind a total of 136500 XP to "master" just one mech. While the C-Bill and XP costs are lower overall to master a mech compared to the old system with 3 different variants they are still to high for new players, imo, and new players is what the game needs most!

The respecing costs are absurdly high, even for older players and whales especially with how balancing is handled. A compromise would be to let players keep the skill points in a specific skill branch but put them into a pool where players can draw from later on if they want to use that specific skill branch again.

Edited by LoveWisdom, 10 February 2017 - 08:35 AM.

[AnHell86]

1) PTS should reward us for spending our time giving you guys feedback and stats. Otherwise, the statistics are not accurate for most of MWO's player base because not many of us want to play without rewards.

2) The Skill Tree should be renamed to Mech Upgrade Tree. This distinction is very important because if you have two of the same mech (say, two Hunchback-4Ps), the skill tree CAN be different in both of them. So it is not a skill, it's an individual mech upgrade for THAT chassis. In the past, The Pilot Skill was inherited between two same chassis mech. Not in this PTS!

3) The Skill Tree is too complicated.

Why do we have "skill walls"? Why do I need Hill Climbing on my Gauss Vomit Warhammer? This is not the best way to do skill trees.

The skill tree should be something simple. For example, the Witcher 3's skill tree. This game has a decent AND simple skill tree system.

4) The skill tree has no diversity between weight classes and gets repetitive. I do almost the same steps for my Oxide, Hunchback and Warhammer.

5) The Skills are not based on tradeoffs. The Upgrades Tab is very complicated. Get rid of nodes and give us slots where to put our skills. It should be something like this for a ballistics brawler with laser backups:
Power (limited by 7 upgrade slots)

Ballistics (limit 5 upgrade slots)

Heat (x)(x)(x)( ) [of maximum % given by PGI]

Range ( )( )( )( ) [of maximum % given by PGI]

Cooldown (x)(x)( )( ) [of maximum % given by PGI]

Energy (limit 5 upgrade slots)

Heat (x)( )( )( ) [of maximum % given by PGI]

Range (x)( )( )( ) [of maximum % given by PGI]

Cooldown ( )( )( )( ) [of maximum % given by PGI]

Missiles (Grayed out)

Heat ( )( )( )( )

Range ( )( )( )( )

Cooldown ( )( )( )( )

Survivability/Mobility (Please populate with Tradeoffs)
Operations/InfoTech (Please populate with Tradeoffs)

6) Let us swap Skill Points (Mech Upgrades) from one position to another. This will let us have more fun by testing without getting punished.

Dudes, it's not easy, but not difficult either. I didn't get paid for these ideas, I do it because I would like to keep MWO fun (yes, it is fun as of now without "Skill Trees"). I had more fun grinding with 3 mechs than "Specializing" with Skill Trees.

TL;DR The Skill tree should be renamed from Skills to Upgrades and it should be based on tradeoffs.

[Zeoraimer]

Functionally, I don't mind the skill tree itself, but I don't think it goes far enough. Right now, there are too many must haves that it eats 2/3 available skill points anyway. That is made worse by Skill Point Tax - the act of placing desired skills behind completely useless skills.

But practically, 9.1 million cbills and 135k XP is too much. Yes, a fully kitted out set of Derp+Seismic+2xWeapon modules make 18 million. But since you can't pilot more than one mech at a time, and in FP you can't place more than 4 mechs in a drop deck, why do you realistically have more than 4 of each anyway? I mean, you could do it if you had plenty of money, and you eat/sleep/breath MWO, but for most of us, we simply do not have time for that - there is something called Real Life.

This may well be an attempt to increase revenue via pay2avoid grind, and to populate the queues more - but IMO, this is going to have the opposite effect...

I certainly don't want to go back to all my now 1/3 levelled mechs, and grind again 1.5x more... Those mechs will now probably be less than "basic'ed". Why do I keep so many mechs? Quirk passes. You never know when something gets buffed - and PGI created this problem!

Even new mechs, I already think its laborious enough under the current system, and the prospect of 2.5x more time is off-putting. Leveling one mech in the time it takes to level 2.5 mech... no thanks.

Also, if everyone goes back to leveling their old mechs (again), what is the incentive to getting new mechs?

Additionally, you are spending 150% LONGER using an un-optimised mechs where previously I could at least put some modules in it from the get-go. Leveling a mech in T2, and speaking to others leveling mechs in T1 (and I am not far from T1 despite my lack of time to play) is more difficult. I've recently stopped leveling mechs to play a few mastered mechs - and I must say, it makes a big difference.

If these values remain, I'll probably play a few of my mechs with plenty of XP already accumulated, but beyond that, I think I may be out. Progress will be too slow and too much work to be enjoyable. And if its no longer enjoyable, then you are better off doing something else.

[Zergling]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Using those two columns you provided, I calculated the total Percentage improvement each column offered. The current live system provides 152.5% of overall improvement while the PTS system provides 264.5% of overall improvement. The are clear differences in how much certain things are being buffed.

That is a terrible method of comparison, because 1% of one bonus does not have the same value as 1% of another.

Eg, 5% of heat dissipation is clearly more valuable than 5% of acceleration.

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

I believe that trying to impose the values of the old system as a standard on the new system, especially a system that is looking to achieve a different result and play style for the game, skews the benefits and faults of the new system. A clear example of this would be mobility related buffs. Acceleration and Deceleration nodes all come early, and provide a much great improvement to mech mobility than before (50% vs 15%) while turn rate in the PTS is 30% compared to the live servers 5%. Speed tweak offers the same amount of improvement as before (7.5%) but comes at the very end of the tree. What this means is that maneuverability is considered to be much more important for the mech and that the speed tweak itself, which is a buff of diminishing returns with heavier mechs, becomes less of a standard and more of an option. Sure you could get your Dire Wolf or Mauler to run a few extra km/h faster, but is it really necessary when those mechs aren't in a really in a race to begin with? With the added mobility however, your assault mechs can now turn and face enemies more easily to handle whats going on around them, and that's much more important that buffing the top speed by the time that the assault mechs are actually in an engagement compared to the extra 4-7 km/h they would gain. This also means that mechs that focus on speed will gain more substantial benefits as spending 5 nodes is much more consequential for them and with a larger amount of mechs starting to forgo speed tweak (I'm not going to continue wasting nodes for my assaults, except maybe my gargoyle) to focus on other fields, the speed bonus will become more pronounced when comparing upgraded fast mechs to slow mechs who chose more useful nodes. Mobility will still be available without requiring the extra speed and really creates new options in terms of what players want to prioritize.

That is an extremely wordy way of saying 'slow mechs don't need speed tweak'.

And despite your opinions on the matter, 5 kph is quite useful. Given it is only 5 points on top of the Acceleration/Deceleration and Turn Rate nodes, it'd be silly to pass it up.

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Torso Yaw is doubled at 8% in the PTS compared to 4% in Live, Torso twist remains at 4%, while arm speed gets a huge boost to 40% from the Live servers 5%. These are also options that can be more selectively utilized and don't necessarily apply to everyone. Aside from providing a huge incentive to start utilizing arm mounts (spreading weapons will become more necessary as critical hit chances are greatly increased), The IS gains a larger overall advantage from this as they can have more mechs that twist at the elbows in contrast to many clan mechs that can only move their arms up and down.

Lol, arm speed buffs are literally worthless, because the base arm movement speed is already so high.

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

As I've been typing this and taking a harder look at the numbers, the values they have added in the trees make more and more sense in when it comes to customizing mechs and optimizing them for their particular use. I really do not see there being a single optimized build for all mechs but rather a variety of optimizations based on what mechs could potentially most benefit from and I think that an element of thinking an consideration as to what non weapon quirks are actually meaningful is addressed here and that once people realize the differences in the new system that Customization upgrades will start to vary more and more.

If you can't see how how there is a single obvious optimised build, then you are simply bad at optimising.

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Mechs will still be encouraged to play to their strengths by augmenting their strengths, compensating for weaknesses, and considering which "old buffs" are actually needed and applicable to the new system.

No, every mech benefits greatly from going for increased durability, increased mobility, increased heat efficiency and sensors.

Eg, why would any mech, even a light jumper like a Mist Lynx, spec in Jumpjets over Survival, when the massive buff to armor and structure is obviously far more useful than enhancing an ability like jumpjets that are almost worthless on many maps?

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

TL:DR- Don't try to recreate Live server buffs on the PTS. You don't need all of those old skills on every mech.

The only skills that people are likely to ignore from the old skill system are the torso yaw/pitch and twist speed bonuses.
While useful, those can be lived without, and are less valuable than weapon buffs or the survival tree.


Here is the 'optimal' build that everyone that is not a potato will be running:

Armor Hardening, 5 nodes
Skeletal Density, 5 nodes
Fall Damage, 4 nodes
Total cost of Survival tree = 14

Cool Run, 5 nodes
Heat Containment, 5 nodes
Quick Ignition, 5 nodes
Hill Climb, 2 nodes
Speed Retention, 2 nodes
Total cost of Operations tree = 19

Kinetic Burst, 5 nodes
Hard Brake, 5 nodes
Turn Rate, 5 nodes
Speed Tweak, 5 nodes
Total cost of Lower Chassis tree = 20

Radar Deprivation, 5 nodes
Seismic Sensor, 2 nodes
Target Info Gathering, 4 nodes
Sensor Range, 4 nodes
Target Decay, 3 nodes
Target Retention, 1 node
Total cost of Sensors tree = 19

That is 72 points, leaving 19 points left for a weapons tree of choice.


The only personal 'customisation' that will occur is f the player requires Advanced Zoom for a long range sniper mech, in which case they will have 2 points less for a weapon tree.
Or if their mech is ECM; they probably won't need Radar Deprivation, which will reduce the cost of the Sensors tree by 2.

Other than those minor tweaks, there is no 'choice' to be had; this build has the best skill nodes selected, and there isn't enough skill points available to specialise in anything else.

[Tordin]

Ravenlord, on 09 February 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Just because you find it promising that doesn't mean that actually is an incontrovertible fact and people not liking the direction these changes would make the game go doesn't make them "cryhards" ot "tryhards" or "meta heads", and you calling them those names doesn't make their opinions any less valid than yours but just makes you look like a dikk.

Incontrovertible fact. Never said that or implied it. No harm meant either.
I was using names people are using regurarly on the extreme end of the spectrum regarding the ultra competive. Then theres the White knights, Black Knights, Salt and Bitter vets and yadda, yadda.
No, noones opinions are any less valid. All have their right to say their opinion for sure, its just how constructive and destructive comments can be and how they affect the community and even PGI to some degree.
And thats where we all come in and how we can affect and make the best out of the new system, hopefully for the better, somehow. We'll see if PGI can keep their head cool and make the most out of their effort... again..

[Korbos]

I'm really looking forward to these changes. I think they all look great!