152 replies to this topic

[Malrock]

Kael Posavatz, on 14 February 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

What if instead of increasing the payouts, the final bonus came with a voucher for 1 mech and mechbay?

I actually think they need to come with a voucher for more than 1 mech. I think a new player needs 2-3..... probably 3 mechs to really get into the swing of the game. This provides them with some variety in their stable, and reason to get jazzed about customization, and the chance to learn while not burning out on a single mech (ie gives them variety). It may also make sense to limit which mechs they can get with those vouchers. Maybe just mediums and heavies since those seem to be easier / more forgiving to pilot for new players? Or maybe have a limited stable of mechs that new players can pick 3 of. Perhaps 3 mechs focused on 3 different weapons systems so that the new player can get some familiarity with everything? I think a single mech isn't enough to get the juice flowing. I left the game after having ground out just 2 mechs, and was sick of piloting lights (my first mech purchase to earn c bills.). When I came back I bought a mech pack and this greatly increased my enjoyment of the game, so I think a new player getting 3 varients to start would really get them going and jazzed about the game, plus give them a taste for more mech packs. I know I didn't stop after my first pack and bought 2 more after that, just to round out my stable further.

[VoodooLou Kerensky]

Hate to say this but I think MWO just became the Testers of features for MW5. I would be fine with this if PGI would say that, but couching it as being solely for MWO makes me suspect that we're guinea pigs so that MW5 will appeal to us so we'll buy it.

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

On the whole I like the concept of the skill tree. I am however extremely glad that it has not been implemented in its current state.

The whole issue about C-Bill cost for respecs, whilst not convenient, isn't a huge problem. I enjoy the game, and playing more of it does not constitute grind for me.

What I would like to see are more tradeoffs and some refinements.

Take the lower chassis tree for example. I think two branching tress of mutually exclusive nodes would be better. One tree will grant additional armor and structure, whilst the other will give bonuses to acceleration, top speed and turn rates.

Part of me wants to write out a new skill tree and post it, although I feel I may just be adding more chaff to separate from the wheat.

As to the above post about us being a test bed for MW5, I think its a moot point. I think fans of Battletech like myself will buy it regardless, unless it infects you with AIDS or something. I still play MW4:Mercenaries from time to time.

Edited by Verticorda, 15 February 2017 - 12:50 PM.

[Ruar]

I think the new skill tree does a poor job of balancing mechs. Either the skill tree needs to be crafted on a mech by mech basis to avoid OP builds or they should just use quirks. Since they are keeping quirks anyway I think that is the answer. Instead of choosing from the skill tree we should be looking at a list of quirks with a maximum amount we can take. Weaker mechs can take more while stronger mechs only get a few options.

The skill tree is a good solution for modules and skills, but it doesn't work for mech balance.

The complexity of the new system isn't horrible, but it also isn't easy. The biggest problem is the need to select useless skills for my current build in order to get to the skills I want. Add to this trying to figure out the overall bonuses provided to the mech and it becomes difficult to pick the right options. Then you get charged to change your selections and things went from complicated to not fun.

As far as the meta is concerned I think the skill tree causes problems. Strong mechs and builds become even stronger. Some skills will be so critical they will be a requirement continuing the cookie cutter builds.

Ultimately I think there are some good concepts in the skill tree but it's trying to do too many things at once and is failing hardcore at almost all of them.

[Trev Firestorm]

goddamn forums logging me out when I hit post thus deleting said post

Its more like what we were originally expecting way back in the beginning. The initial cbill cost has to go though, it adds crippling extra grind to new players who need their limited funds for new weapons/engines/mechs and demotivating for longtime players with large mechbays and limited cbill balance. (several thousand extra games just to grind the cbills for my current mechs to get back to where they are today? Yeah no, that is just not going to work)

[Mad Dog Morgan]

This new skill system really reinforces boating and harms player retention in its current implementation.

It bolsters the present meta even further (because re-specs are hugely costly and people will focus on one specific weapon type per mech chassis).

Edited by Vaskadar, 16 February 2017 - 11:11 AM.

[n00biwan]

Explanatory Post:

It needs changes, BIG changes (ok, so changes are coming, hope they are good ones).

In short make the skill tree make more sense - so you don't need to buy arm mobility if you don't want to, it's been done to death everywhere, so +1 from me.

Something more like Diablo 2 or Borderlands.

It's going to hurt new players, it's VERY expensive and the "skill" gap between fresh and maxxed mechs will be huge.

It's confusing, both because it's poorly explained, and because it'll befuddle anyone why they have to choose only one type of AC, and then have to buff aspects they don't want to buff to buff things they do.

It's going to cost established players a fortune to get even back to "half" mastery that seems to be about what is allegedly "parity" with old mastery, I've only got 50 or so mechs, mostly mastered and many with mods, but I'm REALLY not looking forwards to it.

The meta will be awful, no? Every warhammer will look the same, since individually we'll all decide that the best obvious fit is clearly whatever it is and it'll be annoying to change (and EXPENSIVE). Add in the fact that "if changing around costs CBills, I'll just look up the meta and do that" and you'll have less poeple playing around with setups for fun and variety... you know, core game values.

Really, so if:
1) It feels like unfair treatment for established players (personally, I'm happy with being zero-d, as long as what comes after is better)

or

2) the fun is dead

aside from the surge you'll get after patch "trying it out" the trough in player numbers that follows will be the worst in MWO history.

New players won't know different, but if it's stupid and annoying they won't bother. There are lots of amazing games out there wanting our time...

[DGTLDaemon]

The idea behind the Skill Tree might look promising, but the current implementation is an abomination. It suffers from a number of fundamental flaws that need to be addressed:

- The XP cost of mastering a mech went up from 56k to 136k (a 2.5 times increase) for no apparent reason. This is a totally unjustified, artificial XP sink, obviously designed to make players grind more in order to achieve the same result. What PGI don't realize is that it's going to turn players away from the game instead of retaining them.

- The C-Bill cost of mastering a mech is very high. Apparently, PGI were trying to emulate the cost of equipping a mech with modules, but they ignored the fact that many players swap modules between their mechs. The need for more C-Bills further adds to the grind, and really hurts those players who have many mechs sharing a few modules.

- The Skill Tree structure is fundamentally wrong. Instead of making the skill branches linear, PGI went for a web-style layout, forcing players to pick up multiple unwanted skills in order to get to the ones they want. This is simply a sign of bad game design: PGI apparently realized that they've failed to create a skill system where all skills would be equally attractive, and decided to simply shove the less desirable skills down the players' throats. What's worse, this limits the customization options because no matter how you dance around the skill trees, they always end up looking practically the same because of multiple pre-requisites. Essentially, if you want to pick one skill (e.g. Radar Deprivation under Infotech), you'll end up picking most of the skills in that branch anyway.

- The Skill Tree encourages boating a single weapon type. This is partially related to the previous item: because of the huge number of "trash" skills that you're forced to invest in, the number of skill points available for unlocking "actual" skills is really limited, and investing in more than one weapon branch hurts other skill branches too much. This is an inherent flaw of the system where weapon and mech skills draw from the same skill point pool.

- The respec cost strongly discourages experimenting with builds. Under the current system, you're free to rebuild your mechs however you want - all you need to do is swap weapons and modules around. Under the new system, your builds are set in stone. This is simply wrong, there's no other way to describe it.

- The gap between mastered and unmastered mechs has been increased significantly. Right now you can at least equip your freshly purchased mech with modules to help with leveling it. The new Skill Tree doesn't give you this option, so you'll have a really hard time competing against players with fully mastered mechs. And given the huge increase in grind, new players (or old players with new mechs) will have to spend a lot of time playing with a handicap.

All in all, what I've seen on PTS is so bad that I'm already mentally prepared to quit and uninstall if this crap ever goes live. I'm not claiming that the Skill Tree is hopeless, but it needs a total overhaul. It's simply non-viable in its current state.

Edited by DGTLDaemon, 16 February 2017 - 12:18 PM.

[soapyfrog]

Well put.

I might add that a longer grind most certainly would discourage new mech purchases, so it's hard to see how this is going to help the financial health of the game.

[50 50]

Kael Posavatz, on 12 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

1) Skill nodes need to follow independent progression paths, whether it be 'armor hardening' or 'X Weapon cooldown'. The paths should be homogenous, allowing acquisition of sequential nodes without necessitating the acquisition of 'other' nodes. This is particularly important for the UrbanMech since the torso Yaw increase nodes fill two rather important cross-over points but will have absolutely no effect on this mech. Also, a complete weapon system (NARC) is buried behind two particularly obnoxious walls (one a risk of a pay-to-win mechanic [see #2] and the other seldom useful).

If the number of points we had available was significatly reduced then a streamlined tree allowing us to be very specific in our selections becomes more relevant. However, there is a bit of merit in having some cross over skills be required, particularly if they tie in logically, as the less we can min/max our builds the less there is a 'single choice' on what to select and the less it creates a gulf between new and veteran players. It merely becomes 'a choice'. Setting it up like a stepping stone to get to the next level means that a focused build does have to have some diversity, this might be particularly true with the weapons which may help with the boating issue.

Kael Posavatz, on 12 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

2) Consumable skill trees need to be made independent of mech skill tree. If part of broad 'pilot' skill tree that tree needs to have no restrictions placed on it. Otherwise, instead of players paying MC for early access to max-performance consumables, they are instead paying for the privilege to use skill nodes to further buff their mech (or potentially pilot). This is the definition of a pay-to-win game mechanic.

An alternative would be to make it feel more like an upgrade to what consumable could be equiped on the mech.
Bit of an options to expand the consumables here as well.
EG: You can upgrade your mech to take the MK2 UAV launcher which can launch a drone with increased range.
Then we just need a default consumable UAV that has increased range.
Not really a skill... but that might work.

Kael Posavatz, on 12 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

3) The c-bill cost to respec a mech needs to be drastically reduced. 125-k is decent payout for a QP game without premium time. That is too high to encourage tinkering, especially for any OmniMechs in the game where tinkering might include removal or replacement of a hardpoint type (ballistic for energy, for example) rather than swapping around specific weapons without a subtype (AC10 for AC20)

Kind of benefits the battlemechs a bit more when you put it that way.
Not sure what the answer is.
I kind of see these skill nodes as knowing how to rewire our mechs to function a bit better in different ways. If we were paying a mechanic to modify our car and we changed our minds afterwards we would have to pay at both ends.
The cost of learning and respec does help keep the desire to buy more mechs. If we get one variant up to where we want, then it makes it a bit clearer if we want to configure another variant for a different purpose.
Maybe the cost is too high, maybe the respec cost is too much... Not sure.

If we do look at it from the point of progression with a brand new mech or brand new player then it's not too bad. 1 good match could instantly net 1 skill point. Otherwise it might take 2 - 4 matches per point. that's probably about the equivalent of what we have now XP wise.

Kael Posavatz, on 12 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Other things that would be nice
a) reduce cost of skill nodes. Yes, the cost is less than buying a full set of modules. But modules could be swapped between mechs, and the skill tree previously came free. Playing without equipping any modules wasn't terrible, but I don't see that being the case with skill nodes

I imagine most players will go for a certain set of nodes that they will never change. It's really just the weapon ones that potentially will be swapped back and forth. A mixed loadout might have a bit of an advantage in this scenario as it would seem sensible to take nodes of a particular type for each weapon. Eg: Only Range nodes.
It's the mechs that will boat a weapon type which would conceivably want to swap an entire tree.
In that line of thinking, do we cry tears for the boats?
Not sure.
If players do not want to be tied down to certain weapons, then logically they should not invest in any weapon enhancements. This might seem like penalizing yourself, but the problem is more about having too many points to spend and a mech can have too many bonuses and not miss out on anything. A mech that takes advantage of trees other than the weapon trees should have advantages over one that does. It should balance itself out and who knows, maybe that will help time to kill.

Kael Posavatz, on 12 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

b] 'Generic' quirks need to be renamed since there are no 'generic' weapon nodes. As it stands there are two terminology systems using the same words in different ways. For example, 'Laser Range+10%' quirk would appear to affect only the Standard/ER lasers since that is what the 'Laser' skill nodes affect, rather than a buff to all laser weapons.

Kael Posavatz, on 12 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

c) Magazine buff should be placed with either relevant weapon trees, or if it remains approximately where is, it needs to be made clear that it is a one-time buff, or based on ammunition tonnage. MG, missile, and AMS ammunition should be affected as well.

I don't mind that that one is in a different tree. As it is, ammo is a one ton, one critical space item regardless of the caliber of weapon. So treating it as a separate upgrade for an improved bin capacity/ammo feeder or whatever seems ok. Would like to have it scale up to level 5 and cover all the ammo weapons though.

[Reno Blade]

what would you think about unlocking a build similar to having 2 drop-decks?
e.g. once you master a mech/variant/chassis, you can save a build (or part of it) to that mech/variant/chassis.

If that would work for a variant and you had multiples of the same variant, the switch of the build could be free.
Thats bonus for the ones with Special variants from packages (usually you also have the normal variant)

Now if that would be usable for a whole chassis (e.g. you create a template with mech-ops and survival for all your Hunchbacks)... that would be a major bonus for all of us who got the 3x variants...
BUT that only works if you want the same SP on each of these builds, so not the perfect option.

But a better way could be to just give discount per chassis/variant.
Reduce the cost for additional variants of the same chassis by 33% (e.g. HBK-4P and a HBK-4G) and further increase the discount if you have multiples of the same variant (e.g. 2x HBK-4G) by total of 66%.
That way you give people a reason to USE and OWN multiple variants rather than picking only one.
This also provides a reason for all the collectors who want /already own over 100 mechs.

-> Only downside: The refund on release of the Skill tree might be a more difficult to calculate, if they also reduce the refund for all your additional variants...

Edited by Reno Blade, 17 February 2017 - 09:29 AM.

[Tiantara]

- Need some changes...

[Christopher Hamilton]

problem: this thing ruins the fun.
solution: scrap the skill tree. keep modules, let us buy them for MC. makes life a lot more fun.


and as much as i like some of the ideas, this only leads to boating "just one skilltree" of weapons.
aka reinforced kodiak3/grashopper/whatever meta.
and the prohibitive cost of leveling will make anything but best costoptimized meta path learning and finally meta loadout completely go away. no room to toy with setups. its too expensive. THATS NO FUN.

Edited by Christopher Hamilton, 20 February 2017 - 04:27 PM.