152 replies to this topic

[sitting target]

Horseman, on 09 February 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

If your primary weapon mounts are in the arms rather than torso.

Um.. no. Arm speed is anti aim in most situations. Why do you think there are a million posts telling noobs to turn down their mouse speed?

[Malrock]

Johnny Z, on 09 February 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Your long winded wall of text is an argument about balance that isn't even present. Yes there will be balance fine tuning or what ever, so what?

Sum this entire reply up next time with one word, "balance". Thanks.

No it is about unnecessary complexity for the sake of complexity which doesn't improve the game or help new people get into the game or improve their mech. It is about a new skill tree that seems big and complex but has many false choices for new players to gimp themselves with. (no amount of balance will ever make all skills equivalent) The module system is better than this skill tree option because it is less complex, this skill tree is just complexity for the sake of it. It actually helps nothing because there is only one or maybe two actual viable options available.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is the same reason why WoW cut their super complex set of 3 trees with 31 possible points with a max of 41 points each down to a single talent tree with about 8 levels of choice each with 3 skills and you could only get a single skill in each level and that was it. Because the prior tree set up was a complexity tax built as a noob trap, and once we figure it out there will be a superior way to build your mech and any way that deviates form that way will be inferior.

It would be better to eliminate most of the general modules people can purchase other than the 3 I mentioned, and keep the current module system, so people don't make bad choices and can avoid gimping themselves.

[Felbombling]

I can see what PGI is trying to do. They're toning down the offense and beefing up the defense, intel and game mechanics aspects. They're forcing players into making some tougher decisions in the skill tree.

I imagine the Mechs will become less lethal and more durable with this skill tree. TTK should increase, even though some Mechs that never needed quirks will become quite potent [I'm looking at you, Arctic Cheetah].

My big concern is for PGIs bottom line. I'm missing something here, because I don't see the investment need any longer. You don't have to spend 12 million C-Bills on two extra Mechs to Master a single Mech any longer. You have to grind more XP along the way to flesh out a Mech, sure, but it shouldn't amount to a crazy number of games. What does the price of a new bundle look like moving forward? In games like World of Warships or World of Tanks, single units with hero Mech like bonuses cost anywhere from $10 to $100 dollars, depending on tier. Are we prepared to pay $99.95 for a 100-ton Kraken Clan assault Mech?

A tiny improvement... put a little 'm' for meters or 's' for seconds in the mouse-over description and Mech Lab quirk summary for some of the skills. I know they are self-explanatory, but on a glance this extra information would help.

[Corduroy Rab]

Returning player here, essentially a new player though. Conceptually I like the system, that being said in implementation I am concerned.

I don't mind purchasing skill points as the proposed system does, and so long as it is a reasonable cost I don't mind a respec fee. But paying the c-bill cost again to reapply the point feels like it is a tax on experimentation and a additional land mine for new players who don't know how they like to build.

Edit: I'd also prefer it if the trees were trimmed down and mechs given fewer points which had more individually meaningful effects since the current tree feel huge.

Edited by Corduroy Rab, 09 February 2017 - 11:10 AM.

[OneTomboNation]

Malrock, on 09 February 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

What is actually going to happen is an optimal path will be established and anyone who deviates from said path will be running sub optimal builds and gimping themselves. We already see this in the mech module choices people make, it is widely accepted that radar dep, is the way to go, with seismic as second, the only option that gets used other than these two is the zoom for people who like to snipe, and then the wall hack goes for zoom, anything else was a false choice / waste of cbills / general exp. This is the same thing WoW had, everyone went to elitist jerks found out the best new build and just copied it into the game, there is no diversity, or actual options you are just going to have bad players wasting c bills and mech exp because their google foo wasn't up to par. Completely stupid complexity for the sake of complexity which makes the game harder for new players, and puts them at a disadvantage to older players.

This is my only objection to this as well. Yes eventually, a path will be mapped. By eventually, I mean a week because some people are balding and live in moms basement.

When the system ois finished, it should be able to promote the build which you like. You should be able to run a mech that has 3 MLAS, AC10 and 2 SRM6 and be able to not feel like you wouldve been better off dropping and MLAS and stripped your SRMS to boat another AC10. Or if you DID spec out all your weps, you shouldnt feel like you arent able to brawl because everyone is a boat and a tank at the same time. You basically will have poured all your quirks into offense, but that will only end up paying off if you are a midrange or long range mech with a diversified loadout. But who is going to go Gauss, 2LL and LRMS? If you are a brawler, pouring all you SP into offense will come at the cost of being very quickly stripped and outlasted by someone who buffs a 5MLAS SRM6 Treb.


Personally, i run build with MAX 3 weapons. This current system will help say, my Bushwacker Which runs 2 AC10 2 MLAS. I also have the said Treb from above. This tree system AS is helps me, the way I play. But You are also talking to someone who rocked an OG Hunch for like the first eyar and a half. Im not a tinkerer unless Im stubborninly trying to get a mech I have a softspot for to work. And as is, this system lets me do that. But other Mercs in OneMercNation (my unit) looooove to play around. This will really take the fun out of it for them. Itll make them into the solid, stick-with-it Mechwarriors Ive wanted them to become, at the cost of what keeps them playing.

I do not have the solution, and I hate saying anything negative when I do not have something concrete to present. But it should be said even if its not something I think affects me personally.

Like I said, I can't wait to take my wacker with fully quirked AC10s and Med Lasers, Fully armor buffed (so the XL doesnt even matter) into brawls and punch way out of my weightclass. But its more fun to do with enemy's that can counter that.

[ScrapIron Prime]

I like the new system. It will stop module swapping sprees, cut down on new player confusion (because modules and 3-mech-mastery is a hurdle), and focus players on several favorite mechs rather than a massive swarm of them, which is, IMO, more like the source material the game is drawn from.

It will also reward players who have 2-3 different weapon systems in their mechs by enabling them to effectively have modules for all of them (eventually), rather than having to pick one weapon and boat it.

[Malrock]

ScrapIron Prime, on 09 February 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

I like the new system. It will stop module swapping sprees, cut down on new player confusion (because modules and 3-mech-mastery is a hurdle), and focus players on several favorite mechs rather than a massive swarm of them, which is, IMO, more like the source material the game is drawn from.

It will also reward players who have 2-3 different weapon systems in their mechs by enabling them to effectively have modules for all of them (eventually), rather than having to pick one weapon and boat it.

Disagree, it doesn't promote 2-3 weapon systems. Currently it penalizes you for having 2 and severely penalizes you for having 3 weapon systems.

Edited by Malrock, 09 February 2017 - 11:39 AM.

[P4riah1]

I think it has potential if refined. I especially like the idea of no module hunting/swapping (I never had the cash to buy ton of duplicate modules to avoid it).

However, it has a long way to go. Main complaints are it drastically increases the grind time, it costs way too many cbills, and the cost to respec points encourages extreme boating and discourages ever changing your mechs loadout. Hilariously, it also discourages people from buying new mechs because of the daunting cost of upgrading them, and the fact that no one will have the cbills for it.

For me, experimenting with mech builds is half why I play this game, and I won't if its gonna cost me millions of extra cbills to simply swap out to try a new weapons combo.

This could be mostly solved by simply changing the prices of placing and removing a point.

• Drastically lower the cbill cost of placing a point (maybe to 20k or 10k)
  
• Remove the cost of removing a point (and maybe give a reduced price of placing a respec'd point somewhere else)

Fixes most of the problems except boating, which is an issue of the decision to have weapon quirks in the tree at all.

Edited by P4riah1, 09 February 2017 - 11:45 AM.

[Arastoru]

The whole thing looks overwhelming, i think most of new players will run away when they see this. So it needs at least to be trimmed. Also node positioning in most trees should be less chaotic, respec system should be less punishing, and firepower trees should be redesigned to be less boat encouraging.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

With everything except survival and sensor quirks, there seems to be this timidness to give any of the skills meaningful values. Most of the buffs could stand to be doubled. These values need to feel IMPACTFUL. I get that you don't want mastered mechs to be ruling over new player mechs, but if most of the buffs are inconsequential, then what is the point of specializing?

[ScrapIron Prime]

Malrock, on 09 February 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

Disagree, it doesn't promote 2-3 weapon systems. Currently it penalizes you for having 2 and severely penalizes you for having 3 weapon systems.

No, the current system promotes single weapon systems, in that you cannot cram weapon modules on your mech for more than a single type of weapon. With this system, it's intensive to fill out multiple trees, but you can effectively module every weapon on your mech. Eventually.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Arastoru, on 09 February 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

The whole thing looks overwhelming, i think most of new players will run away when they see this. So it needs at least to be trimmed. Also node positioning in most trees should be less chaotic, respec system should be less punishing, and firepower trees should be redesigned to be less boat encouraging.

And that another thing, yeah, this is lazy work here. Don't bury and seperate the best skills at the bottom of the tree unless they're full mechanical changes. Just increase the values on the weaker stats. We should be able to pick exactly what we want. If that's too much power creep, then give us less skill points. Stop demonizing choice.

[Sixpack]

Just quickly reposting my thoughts:
Ok, I do not know if I have the time to actually play on the PTS or not. But having read a few comments and looked over the newspost here are some suggestions:

Cost:

Half the C-Bill cost from 100k to 50k c-bills per skill node.
Maybe increase the XP cost.
Maybe switch out skill node removal to 50% xp and 50% C-Bill refund.

While I understand that you want C-Bill sinks in this game to get them out of the system again your original idea of having them in Faction Warfare is the right way to go. Having another large C-Bill sink for mechs after aquireing them and fitting them out is not a good idea in my opinion. But a higher XP cost should be fine as it is a natural rewarding system for playing the actual mech.

Skill point worth.

Maybe try to frontload the effect of weapon skills.

Right now let's say we get -15% laser duration with all -% laser duration skill points.
This goes as follows:
Laser Duration 1: -3%
....
Laser Duration 5: -3%

This is a linear system and very much favours boating.

A frontloaded system on the other hand makes boating still viable but could potentially make a multitude of weapons a favourable choice:

Laser Duration 1: -5%
Laser Duration 2: -4%
Laser Duration 3: -3%
Laser Duration 4: -2%
Laser Duration 5: -1%

Now, I am believe this to be a good idea for the weapon systems, but it might very well be a bad idea for all ther other parts of the skilltree.

[Malrock]

ScrapIron Prime, on 09 February 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

No, the current system promotes single weapon systems, in that you cannot cram weapon modules on your mech for more than a single type of weapon. With this system, it's intensive to fill out multiple trees, but you can effectively module every weapon on your mech. Eventually.

No you can't. It has already emerged that the defense tree and the lower body tree are mandatory, trees that you need to have, you can at most do 1 or 2 weapon trees. if you go 3 weapon trees then you have gimped your mech because you don't have enough for the other basics like defense. It has been calculated that it takes approximately 60 (58?) points to reclaim your mech bonuses that you have been playing with by mastering your mech with the current skill tree. Which leaves 30 points to actually customize meaning 1.5 trees. You are encouraged to boat all of the same kind of weapons with this tree set up or you have gimped your build.

[Mycroft000]

I'm generally positive on the new system, however I'd like to see all movement skills(speed retention, and hill climb) moved under Mobility, where they belong, instead of shared with Mech Operations; I'd also like to see defensive and offensive sensor abilities split off to separate trees for example sensor range, info gathering, target decay should all be accessible down one branch, and radar dep, seismic, and enhanced ECM should go down a separate path.

The new system as it stands doesn't really promote diversified roles to the extent it would seem, it's just going to show what skills are deemed worth getting through the useless skills(hill climb) to get to.

Sixpack, on 09 February 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Maybe try to frontload the effect of weapon skills.

Right now let's say we get -15% laser duration with all -% laser duration skill points.
This goes as follows:
Laser Duration 1: -3%
....
Laser Duration 5: -3%

This is a linear system and very much favours boating.

A frontloaded system on the other hand makes boating still viable but could potentially make a multitude of weapons a favourable choice:

Laser Duration 1: -5%
Laser Duration 2: -4%
Laser Duration 3: -3%
Laser Duration 4: -2%
Laser Duration 5: -1%

Now, I am believe this to be a good idea for the weapon systems, but it might very well be a bad idea for all ther other parts of the skilltree.

I can't hit like on this enough.

[TorinZ]

I keep seeing people state, it does not promote multiple weapon systems. If you want to build a mech that buffs 3 weapon systems, I am pretty sure you can do that, no one is stopping you. You will just have to give up points you wanted to place in Defense or Mobility. Some may make that choice of a Glass Cannon. It's not like you won't have the normal armor or structure for your mech, or whatever else you choose to not skill up to buff those 3 systems. In many cases, you may even still come out ahead of how that mech is in live seeing that you can boost more than the old module system. This system is more about how a player chooses to skill up their mech. You just cannot have all the bonuses for all the weapons on top of the bonuses for defense, mobility, etc.

It's really not that much different than today in that regard. Mechs in live can only use 2-3 weapon modules. If you spread those modules across 3 different weapon systems, you would still be at a disadvantage to someone who used modules for 1-2 weapon systems.

This new system actually allows you to choose more options for the weapons. Technically, unless I am missing something, you could go purely for offense and build up those 3 weapon class skill trees, and then place what you have left in other trees. So, you chose a better offense is the best defense option. Maybe that works against someone who took a more balanced approach and with less weapon classes. In the end, it will still be which player is working better with their teams against their foes. My advise, try everything in PTS, build it one way, respec and build another, and see what feels best in your drops.

[Guile Votoms]

The skill tree encourages people to min/max even more, makes boating easier and actively punishes diverse builds.
It doesn't make previously mediocre or bad mechs/varients viable but instead improves the already powerful ones even more.

It is overcomplicated, confusing for beginners and includes too many options that should not even be in it in the first place, such as torso yaw or turn speed.

Trying different loadouts/builds is an integral aspect of the gameplay and locking it behind pointless grinding or payments turns it into a chore.

Further, it also punishes new/casual players who don't really know what they are doing (yet) by penalizing every misplaced skill point with a hefty time/money investment, which makes this already niché game even less accessible.

In my opinion, the skill tree completely missed the target and would be an overall detriment to the game.

[VitriolicViolet]

it seems the major concern comes from people who refuse to not use the meta. Do you realise that you dont have to boat weapons right? Unless you slavishly follow the meta i dont see a problem. there will always be a meta as there is always a better way to play, as soon as something is done about boating for example mixed builds might be meta, and then someone would complain about that too. Also boating will probably always be popular as it requires way less skill, so those who arent so good will be drawn to it anyway, like lrms.

I like the tree overall, hell some of the mechs ive run on PTS didnt even invest in weapon quirks. At the same time ive run Highlanders for years and dont often use radar derp, so im not worried about the metawhoring myself.

Edited: As for those who say it doent help mixed builds i beg to differ, my Orion IICs seem to be doing well on PTS same with my Highlanders, and i tend to run mixed builds on most mechs.

Edited by VitriolicViolet, 09 February 2017 - 12:36 PM.

[Quaelgeist]

My two cents:

Where i am coming from: I pilot almost exclusively lights and all my PTS matches were in lights.

I find the new system not bad at all. I can now build the mechs more into the directions i want them to go than before. I especially enjoy the Jump Jet and the Movement Trees.
While it basically seems to be the same game as before, it seems i overheat just a bit more easily. Although by maxing out a weapons tree i can get -5 heat gen, The rest of the skill nodes fall short of the previous Heat related skills with doubled basics. This, combined with the new defensive skill tree lengthens Time-to-kill noticably. I think the defensive skill tree as it is and heat skills, that give you the old firepower-sustainability would suffice to achieve noticably higher time-to-kill.
That being said, i favour the newfound mobility over the previous heat efficiency. Today i could enjoy my FS-9A again.

Considering new players:
It would help new players (and anyone buying a new mech without having a lot of leftover C-Bills after purchase) immensely, if the first few nodes would be made cheaper, so they can be easily gotten with GXP. The last few could be made more expensive of course.

I also like the idea, that was already posted here, concerning skill trees for Weapons cooldown, Heat Buildup and so forth being seperate, (smaller?) trees, but affecting all equipped weapons. I could still boat to my heart's content and bracket builders would have it easier too.

Could mechs, that previously had a third module slot get one or two more Skill nodes to unlock? Same goes for mechs that are weaker in general. (Or just handle this with quirks that stay, i really like it that you left lights their mobility quirks).

It seems to me that many nodes are just there to make the really interesting ones farther down more expensive. If this is your way of balancing Radar Deprivation versus Sensor Range, fine. I would have made every single node accessible individually and distributed the combined efficacy of e.g. Radar Deprivation over one or two more nodes.

While i am not 100% sure, how representative the 4v4 matches on the PTS are for the later 12v12 once it goes live on the real server, i believe the game will not go haywire but rather play similar to before.

And now i am back to the real game server, where the C-Bills i earn can actually be used for something... *cough* transferring earned C-Bills and GXP would help in getting people onto the PTS *cough*

[Tesunie]

Personal feelings after a brief testing:
- C-bills should be unlinked from purchasing skills. This just doesn't feel right.

- Defensive skills should be removed completely. Leave this to quirks. As it stands right now, this will make a huge impact on unskilled vs skilled mechs/players. A new player is going to have just that much harder of a time surviving. (Maybe skills that reduce crit chances would be better placed here?)

- I would rather be able to spend MC/C-bills to preserve experience, but also have a completely free option to do so, where I would lose experience points spent to revert a skill. As I'm always earning more experience on mechs, I'd rather have a reason to play a mech to adjust it's skills and earn more experience. Gives on a reason to continue to play mastered mechs.

- The relation between Radar Deprivation and Adv. Target Decay still doesn't feel right. I had a mech on the test server where I unlocked all the Adv. Decay skills, and I still "instantly lost" locks several times on a mech with Radar Deprivation skills unlocked. This did not feel right.