814 replies to this topic

[Kael Posavatz]

Korbos, on 10 February 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

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

Good for you. I'm glad you have the courage to say so. That said, I'm not and I don't.

[Grixa19]

Korbos, on 10 February 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

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

U just aint good in math...

[SuperFunkTron]

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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.

That is your opinion and others would argue that the minimal return for investment is less important than other things they may be more interested in. For example, I'd be more concerned about my assault being able to put out more efficient damage in a battle than being able to run to the engagement 5 kph faster

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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

With the way that weapons are being easily destroyed, having the option to speed arms in order to fire off a salvo will affect torso twisting just and shielding. Just because you don't see the value in it doesn't mean its not there.

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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

This is again opinionated. If you feel that there is one generic way to upgrade your mechs, that's your call. No reason to stop others from improving things they feel are more useful. Doesn't make them a potato for not playing like you, it creates diversity.

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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

I agree, every mech does benefit from those, but not every mech needs to have the same combination of those to be equally effective. Certain builds will reap more benefit from different variations of those abilities in those trees. You believe that those who don't follow your system are potatoes, others don't really care if they can make those alternate builds more effective for their play style.

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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?

If you consider things like role warfare, armor and structure, mobility, sensors, and jumpjets are all solid options. Again, people may be more concerned about spotting for the rest of their team or getting intel based tactical advantages. Not everyone will build just like you do.

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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.

This system gives people the option to choose what they prefer. I believe atlases are big on torso twist to help with dispersing damage. You don't have to agree with or even see the value in those things, but that doesn't mean that others can't/won't take advantage of them.

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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.

That's great that you have a generic formula. I'm proud that you can apply generic schemes and convince yourself its the single solution in a game that is affected by so many variables.

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

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.

To sum up your post, everyone who doesn't build as you believe is optimal is a potato and there is no reason they should think, play, or build differently than you to support the play style or role they choose for a mech. You are comfortable with trying to rebuild what the majority of the hold trees and that is fine.

Others will finally have a chance to upgrade things they feel are more important and ignore the things they don't feel provide as much return for the investment.

If you want to keep throwing your opinions out as absolutes and deride others for disagreeing with your "optimized" upgrade choices, just be aware that there will be other people who think you equally incompetent for thinking the way you do. We both have points in this and the new upgrade trees allow us to improve what will be most helpful to achieve our individual goals. That's a pretty big success to allow people to improve in their preferred ways rather than force a generic norm on everyone.

[Sergeant Miles]

I'm confused just reading the changes.

What's happening to all the pilot modules we unlocked?

What will happen to all the mechs I master and then filled with expensive pilot modules?

Am I going to have to go back to all 30+ mech's I have a try and fiddle with each?..OMG..say NO.

This feels like your making it far to complicated.

I'm not sure I'll like his from what I've read so far.

This just isn't clear what happens with all the work we already did to master each mech?

idk

not sure what I think about this yet. Seems to complicated

[Darkfieros]

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

I don't think everyone is quite understanding of this issue. If you put the full 91 points yes...it will cost you 9.1 million cbills and the xp. The problem with everyone quoting this number as the end of the world is that with the 91 skill points you should be able to get weapon enhancements that cost you at least 6 million for 2 modules before the skill tree and if you get Radar Deprivation and seismic those modules would cost you 12 million for the 2 of them. So, before this would cost 18 million cbills to fully skill and module a mech (generic modules I know...but you aren't putting in cap accelerator on an assault clowns.) The fact you have to do this to each individual mech does suck though. The real problem is balancing. Having a KDK3 getting AC or LBX quirks, or a Scorch. Giving agility quirks to clan mechs that are already more mobile. This skill tree wasn't thought through on a big picture scale of what it will do. Not to mention the fact that it is too big and unwieldy and not new player friendly. Maybe if you tiered 30 points per mastery level so you could only spend so many points. I don't know. To have the same skill tree apply to all mechs when there are differences in IS and Clan mechs is just not smart.

[Sergeant Miles]

O M G.. the cost alone of remastering any mech is just stupid... it's broken.

I should NOT have to re-master any mech over again.. this is waste of time.

I'm going to hate this New skill tree.

It's terrible.

I can't believe that this is coming.. it's totally broken and runis all the plans I made.. and is going to make me waste hours and hours of time trying to re-do all my mechs from ground UP.

I hate this idea of having to start over on 30+ mechs... UGH..I hate this idea.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Every completionist pilot with mild OCD are going to spazz over the fact that all their time has been wasted in collecting,building and equipping mechs that they have to redo under the new system.

These same pilots, are more than likely the whales throwing money into the game month after month. I seriously think in its current form on the PTS that the revenue stream will be smashed to bits.

Edited by Racerxintegra2k, 10 February 2017 - 10:13 AM.

[Ravenlord]

SuperFunkTron, on 10 February 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

That is your opinion and others would argue that the minimal return for investment is less important than other things they may be more interested in. For example, I'd be more concerned about my assault being able to put out more efficient damage in a battle than being able to run to the engagement 5 kph faster

If you consider things like role warfare, armor and structure, mobility, sensors, and jumpjets are all solid options. Again, people may be more concerned about spotting for the rest of their team or getting intel based tactical advantages. Not everyone will build just like you do.

Answer me three quick questions then:

1. How often assaults are already being left behind (and destroyed because of it) as it is right now with speed tweak "mandatory", do you honestly think NOT giving your assault speed tweak or being forced to put in a bigger engine does help with that?
2. Do you think you will be able to kill those pesky lights (that have added structure and armor now) that singled you out while you were lumbering hundreds of meters behind your team with your dandy skills that enable you to "put out more efficient damage"?
3. How often do you actually see someone in game being content with spotting and "getting intel based tactical advantages" instead of taking part in the fight?
4. What exactly do you mean by "getting intel based advantages" except popping an uav in a good position and how can skills for that be more important than for example survivability or speed in a game where you stumble upon the enemy in the first minute most of the time, if you are looking for them or not?

What I see when I read your posts is a lot of idealism and ideas that sound great and fun in theory but don't translate into what is actual ingame reality.




On another note, am I the only one who sees a problem with Hero mechs and cbill boosted variants like (S) and (C)? I am paying for those with real money and then I am expected to grind another 9 million of ingame cbills and close to the amount of XP I previously needed to master 3 full variants before I can use them to their full potential? Sure, I needed to master them in the old system, too, but it didn't cost me a thing, I could put modules in right from the start and due to it only being about one third of the grind it will be with the new skill tree could be done in a reasonably timely fashion.

Edited by Ravenlord, 10 February 2017 - 10:15 AM.

[Tallyslav]

We need to keep hammering it through that this is a progress wipe. Nothing more.

PGI plans to monetize mech customization and the new grind after they nuke their playerbase's progess back to 0-20% of what it once was.

We need to call them on this.

[Rhialto]

anhell86, on 10 February 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

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 ( )( )( )( )

That could be the start of a good idea... and we could easily remove points to place somewhere else with a basic (+/-) system. That would make it more noob proof too and less frustrating for everyone.

[Dee Eight]

Firefox54, on 10 February 2017 - 04:18 AM, said:

I'm still unclear about the comments associated with the grind for new mechs ... having played for only a month (Tier 5, not very good), I average 70K CBills and 500 XP a match. That means in three matches I have enough for a node (1500 XP and 100K CBills) and 110K CBills left over. I can get all 91 nodes for a mech in under 300 matches ... I'd also have over 30 MILLION CBills left over for another mech (which now doesn't have to be a variant or even the same weight class) or equipment upgrades for my current mech.

Right now, I've played about the same number of games ... I have five mechs, three of which have the basic tree completed, and none of my mechs are at elite and I still need to purchase four more mechs and upgrade them to get one mech mastered.

So how is the new approach such a grind for new mechs? I'm not asking this sarcastically ... I would like someone to provide a counter as to why the new approach is more of a grind than the current approach.

(I understand if you have a lot of mechs getting them back to current specs will be a huge grind ... that's a different issue)

Its not. The people complaining the most often are the ones furthers from "new" players as you can get. Yet they think they can still talk about what new players know / think / want for the game.

[Musashi Alexander]

I wonder if it makes sense to scale the cost of opening skill nodes - 1000cbills for the first 30, 10,000 cbills for the next 30 and 100,000 cbills for the last 31

[Sonny Black]

What part of Master Up Your Best/Favorite Mech First, don't people get? Now I've studied the rule book very carefully, and no where does it say you Must Master Up ALL your mechs at once.

[-Pik-]

i also posted this in another thread:

Keep the node cb/xp prices, but make the mech come with 45-50 nodes unlocked by default.
this would help new players because they can start customize right away and it would reduce the grind for veterans.

respec should be free, nothing less.

merge weapon trees to prevent boating or punish it harsher via ghost heat.

[mad kat]

After playing a handful games on the test server I'm going to try and be constructive. I've already vented fury at both the XP and cbills cost but getting on too the actual nodes.

After having a quick tweak of my firebrand with two lpl and two uac5's it turned out to be ridiculously hot but very manouvreable and surprisingly tanky. It took on a Kodiak with relative ease despite shutting down every two seconds, took a beating but got killed by another jagermech with machine guns. This may be due to the revised critical hits system which appears to be the one and only good thing about this set up.

Then I tried my locust 1e with 6spl and hell God no it handled like a direwhale and felt as slow as one too it was a mess the thing was unplayable and that's both the firebrand and locust with the full 91 points.

So my point is you have to budget an extra 2.5 million cbills for when you inevitably have to reskill the mech again because you've not even been able to trial the thing even in the testing grounds.

Cost aside even the skills thing is a nightmare to navigate and the sheer stops preventing you from at least trialling the skills is a mess.

Edited by mad kat, 10 February 2017 - 12:07 PM.

[Flashover23]

Sergeant Miles, on 10 February 2017 - 10:07 AM, said:

O M G.. the cost alone of remastering any mech is just stupid... it's broken.

I should NOT have to re-master any mech over again.. this is waste of time.

I'm going to hate this New skill tree.

It's terrible.

I can't believe that this is coming.. it's totally broken and runis all the plans I made.. and is going to make me waste hours and hours of time trying to re-do all my mechs from ground UP.

I hate this idea of having to start over on 30+ mechs... UGH..I hate this idea.

It's worse than you think.

Those mechs you have mastered and kitted out with modules? With a maximum of 91 SP to spend on each, you can't get the performance back up to what you currently have.

[Dee Eight]

Kael Posavatz, on 10 February 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Issues, lots and lots of issues.

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.

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

5. Agreed.

9. Not everything is being de-quirked immediately. And actually they've been saying for six weeks now that some quirks will be kept as part of "inherent" abilities of the mechs. Mechs known to be "tanky" for example are largely going to armor bonuses instead of structure bonuses.

Quote

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.

10. This point only affects existing players who are pokemech collectors. New players won't think its bad because they can avoid having to buy three variants to master JUST the one they want. Existing players who got their pokemech fixes playing M:TG or similar collectible trading games that had physical tangible assets with real dollar values that could be sold/traded won't care at all either because we (and I'm one of them) can just buy the single mech variants we want and avoid the ones we don't. I ONLY wanted the legend killer rifleman for example... but was forced to buy two other rifleman just to basic so I could elite the RFL-LK. I didn't keep either of those basic rifleman, and lost cbills selling them back, and wasted time playing them and time is the one commodity in life you never get back.

11. New players benefit because they don't need to spend 6 million cbills plus GXP to unlock and own a radar dep module. Instead they can just spend money and xp on nodes that they need for that particular mech. Also existing players who didn't have space for the radar dep module for whatever build they were using, now can get the benefits of it along with whatever other mech module they previously used. My Archer 5W for example... 5xLRM5, 2xSRM4 and 2xSRM6. Only missile quirk was an LRM velocity one. I ran target decay, adv sensor range, and the LRM5 cooldown and range modules. Didn't have an AMS fitted so I had to seek cover and largely shoot indirect with the LRMs to avoid counter-battery fire. Well now I can have LRM and SRM skill nodes.. and improved sensors and radar derp and a seismic and target decay and improved target info gathering all at the same time.

12. New players after the patch won't know this (unless they read the forums) and thus won't care. Only the forum whiners among the existing players actually seem to care.

Quote

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:

15 & 16... this is why they're doing a playtest now ahead of the patch. Constructive feedback is useful. Whining complaints about how the sky is falling is not.

17. Then they were already pay-to-win because we already had them.

Quote

-- (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

They've already said that cbill consumables will NOT be less effective than MC consumables and that the changes will be in place before the patch happens.

Quote

Non-skill tree issues:

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

2) This statement:
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.

yes, the criticals are coming MUCH too easily now... and even the internal structure seems to have gone wet noodle.

[Ravenlord]

Sonny Black, on 10 February 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

What part of Master Up Your Best/Favorite Mech First, don't people get? Now I've studied the rule book very carefully, and no where does it say you Must Master Up ALL your mechs at once.

What part of "I have already mastered those mechs and it cost me lots of time playing and it is inacceptable for me to be forced to grind a not insignificant amount of time AND cbills just to get where I was" don't you get?

Also for a game to be enjoyable and more important MOTIVATING there needs to be PROGRESS, if with all the new mechs coming out and all the old ones I need to remaster at a significantly increased cost, XP and cbills wise, because my previous progress was RESET, this becomes NEGATIVE PROGRESS instead that is immensely frustrating and demotivating.

Edited by Ravenlord, 10 February 2017 - 12:18 PM.

[TK Romero]

Plenty that's already been said about the skill tree implementation. Going to leave it at hoping that it gets some reconsideration before it goes live and that the PTS can help address issues.

[SuperFunkTron]

Ravenlord, on 10 February 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

Answer me three quick questions then:

1. How often assaults are already being left behind (and destroyed because of it) as it is right now with speed tweak "mandatory", do you honestly think NOT giving your assault speed tweak or being forced to put in a bigger engine does help with that?
2. Do you think you will be able to kill those pesky lights (that have added structure and armor now) that singled you out while you were lumbering hundreds of meters behind your team with your dandy skills that enable you to "put out more efficient damage"?
3. How often do you actually see someone in game being content with spotting and "getting intel based tactical advantages" instead of taking part in the fight?
4. What exactly do you mean by "getting intel based advantages" except popping an uav in a good position and how can skills for that be more important than for example survivability or speed in a game where you stumble upon the enemy in the first minute most of the time, if you are looking for them or not?

What I see when I read your posts is a lot of idealism and ideas that sound great and fun in theory but don't translate into what is actual ingame reality.

1. Assaults being left behind IS the status quo in quick play. Regardless of whether or not an assault has that extra 5 kph doesn't change that they are left behind. That is empirical proof that speed tweak does not solve that issue. Further, when a team works together in Faction play, they are typically waiting for the assaults before they make their pushes. The new system is at worst, comparable to what we have now, and at best offers multiple ways to handle being left behind according to the player preference

2.What this skill tree offers is a of mobility buffs for them on the way to that speed tweak that help with acceleration, deceleration, turning and twisting. Those are all abilities that help an assault deal with lights if they get left behind and have to deal with them alone. The extra 5 points they save by not touching the speed tweak can also be added to the durability tree, to help deal with those lights that surely put durability buffs on as well, that balances out. The assaults surely have also invested in at least 1 weapon tree so that should make their weapons a bit more effective as well. This tree provides multiple ways to handle that issue based on player preference.

3/4. Infotech and Auxillary upgrades are no mutually exclusive from durability and mobility. Have you never played a match where someone is runs off on their own letting you know that they are scouting and finding out where the enemy is going, what it looks like they are doing, maybe narcing for other players, using UAVs to help with all of that. Considering that target info gathering time is greatly increased as below, it will take longer to see what components are weakened unless you have someone providing that info to you. The role of a scout is much more prominent in the new PTS, even if we don't have enough mechs to clearly show it yet. This is obviously more nuanced, but those who like to have Target Info to focus fire on particular sections of an enemy gain a lot of utility from this rather than spreading damage while waiting to see what is already weakened.

• Base Short Range Target Info Gathering time increased to 2s (from 1s).

• Base Medium Range Target Info Gathering time increased to 4.5s (from 3s).

• Base Large Range Target Info Gathering time increased to 7s (from 5s).

• Target Info Gathering time can be reduced through Skill Tree advancement.

Beyond the info tech, those same lights can still get their durability and maneuverability instead of focusing on a full weapons tree. I'm sure that bonuses for scouting could be buffed as well to incentivize people to play that role. Is scouting a requirement? No. Will it provide an advantage in the new system? Definitely.

My ideas are not idealism but rather the consequence of analyzing multiple features of the new trees other than durability, maxing a weapons tree, and thinking certain abilities like speed tweak are requirements. If you approach the skill tree trying to replicate the old model, the experience will suck. If you approach it as a new system in which you need to reconsider what is more important for a particular mech and how you plan to use it, the experience is significantly different and offers a much more robust experience with many more options. I'm adapting to the new idea, not gripping tight to what will soon be past.