152 replies to this topic

[Odanan]

This topic is intended to unify the feedback for the new Skill Tree Public Test Session.

PS: Criticism is better when followed by solutions.

PPS: I recommend giving your feedback AFTER testing.

PPPS: this poll and topic are not sanctioned by PGI.

Edited by Odanan, 09 February 2017 - 12:27 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

The only viable solution is scrap the whole thing, or have to go hybrid at least. Here are detailed explanations.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5606365


And in PTS example.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5607392


For new gamers, it won't change much of the game's difficulty.... Actually they may be more confused with a lot of these skill points.


Plus : But, even if you go for hybrid solution, you will never, never, NEVER get rid of boating issue caused by new skill tree system. It's by design, not by numbers.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 09 February 2017 - 03:35 AM.

[AnTi90d]

1.) Sorry, but.. "Heil, grammar!" .. It's, "worse," not, "worst."

2.) I still had this in my clipboard from posting.. so I'll just plop it down.

• This new skill system really hurts the new player experience.

New players buy one Radar Derp and pass it around their mechs while they level them up.


Now, every single fresh, 0xp mech is going to be easily spotted / murdered by LRMs for the first few dozen matches until that player can save up enough xp and Cbills to afford Derp.

This makes leveling up new mechs more difficult than ever, which is a burden that new players will have to deal with.. especially in Tier 4/5, where LRMs are very popular.


The solution:

Give every single mech ~20 free nodes to unlock, right out of the box.


-----

• The biggest issue with this new skill system is that it encourages boating one weapon and penalizes build diversity. Mauler MX90 / Nova / Kodiak 3 / Grasshopper or any mech with multiples of one hardpoint type get to upgrade all of their weapons. Marauder / Orion / Victor / Vindicator are severely punished by having multiple types of hardpoints.

PGI claims that this system, and I quote:

Quote

Promote greater build and 'Mech diversity

The system utterly fails at their own design goal.


The solution:

Don't have individual weapon skills. Consolidate weapon skills into categories that affect all three weapon types.

-Rate of fire: Reduce weapons cooldown for all weapons
-Range: Increase range for all weapons
-Heat efficiency: Reduce heat generation for all weapons
-Precision: Consolidate missile spread, LBX spread, laser duration, and projectile velocity into a single catch-all skill.

BOOM, then boats would be on the same footing as mechs that are forced to have a small number of three types of hardpoints.


-----

• The new system allows overperforming mechs to become even more powerful.

The Kodiak 3, the Marauder IIc and other mechs that are already clear overperformers manage to get an even larger leg-up on the competition within their weight bracket, with the new skill system.



The solution:

Overperforming mechs should have fewer nodes available to them.

Underperforming mechs should have more nodes available to them.

PGI has the stats. They know which mechs score, on average, more damage / kills than the other mechs within their weight bracket. The mechs that have better hitboxes / hardpoints should receive fewer nodes than ones that have terrible hitboxes and low / spread / diverse hardpoints.

[Odanan]

Here is my (succinct) feedback:

1- The current system favors weapon boating and less experimentation with builds. Solution: consolidate weapon trees into categories that affect all three weapon types at the same time (skill trees like: Rate of Fire, Range, Heat, Precision).

2- The current system doesn't encourage owning several different variants of the same mech (heck, it doesn't encourage owning several chassis at all) because of the cost in mastering them. Solution: severely reduce the C-Bills cost to buy skill nodes. Let people spend money in mechs, not in mastering. Less mechs = less MCs spent (with mechbays, camos, heroes...).

3- The current system boosts equally mechs that perform very differently. A Kodiak 3 has the same number of skill points than a Victor, which is wrong. Solution: make the number of skill points variable for each mech/variant. This could even (almost) eliminate from the game the need of basic quirks.

4- The UI is complicated. Too many currencies, clumsy XP conversion (why do you need to convert historical XP at all?)... Solution: keep it simple! Intuitive interface, less clicks to do the job, more visible buttons, less currencies, etc.

5- Some Skill Trees are mostly useless, like the "Jump Jets tree" (I mean, really useless). While some are absolutely mandatory. Solution: to merge some trees, balance the nodes, decrease the number of too specialized nodes (but greatly increase their bonuses).

Conclusion: the new skill tree system is a great concept but far from ready to release.

Edited by Odanan, 12 February 2017 - 03:24 PM.

[ForceUser]

Tested it and I find it a very good system as a whole. It's important to not get stuck on individual numbers but look at the system in it's entirety. Also not how it'll affect me personally but the game as a whole, especially for a new players. It's not perfect yet by all means but it's pretty slick and I think will offer a lot of tools for PGI going forward in potential balance changes.

One of the biggest things is that in the old system a lot of the skills just said 'increase x' not mention by how much or anything like that. Every single thing in the new system has numbers. That means it's easy for people to quantify the effect a node will have and make suggestions on if the value needs to change. One piece of critique is that they need to add measurements. Like seismic for example is just +200. 200 what? (I know it's supposed to be 200m) so I assume that's just something they still need to add.

I think that playing around with the number of skill points can make a huge difference in how strong mechs are. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having certain trees be 'mandatory' (looking at you sensors) and I definitely do not mind having to go through 'less optimal' nodes to get to the good stuff. It's a good way to add a node tax to powerful skills but still giving you a little something something to take out the sting. I think a lot of people underestimate the 'soft stats' that some of those nodes improve.

To be honest I think this is very good, a lot better than I expected.

[Donnerkeil666]

Didn't they say at mech con that every mech was gonna have a distinct skill tree?

Edited by Donnerkeil666, 09 February 2017 - 03:42 AM.

[Accused]

It's a cluster.

The trees don't make sense. Too many nodes trapped behind useless skill point sinks (other nodes). It's almost,almost, as if PGI tried to do a tech tree then realized there wasn't enough tech to make a tree.

For new players the system will penalize them for wrong mistakes both in skillpoints, cbills and hardware. The UI is difficult to understand overall unnecessary.

It encourages boating. In fact to get the nodes you want you need to take most nodes in a tree.

[kapusta11]

I like it. Clans got 20% ppc velocity instead of boring weapon modules and rapid fire elite skill. IS got 15% laser duration. SRMs buffed. Everyone got their armor and structure increased, and cooldowns were slightly reduced.

Some tweaks here and there are needed but overall it's ok.

Kodiak is still the best mech out there but I hope PGI will tone down its skill tree. In similar fasion, I'd like to see quirks removed and skill trees of mechs in question buffed.

IS vs Clan XL engine disparity is not addressed at all however and that sucks.

Edited by kapusta11, 09 February 2017 - 04:36 AM.

[DeeHawk]

kapusta11, on 09 February 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

IS vs Clan XL engine disparity is not addressed at all however and that sucks.

In the last few news post, it has been addressed clearly that the solution to this disparity is a work in progress, and it will be balanced over several installments. Also the January patch brought their first move in this process by doubling the penalty to cooling efficiency on losing a Clan XL side torso.

[Fox2232]

I've made comprehensive feedback thread. I see it as step in right direction. But many changes would be welcome.
And here is Pricing Revamp.

As relatively new player who spends a lot of time on wiki/excel sheets to understand and plan what I want:
What do you think about the new Skill Tree system?
- Better than previous system, no matter what angle I look at it from.

How does it work for new players?
- Getting 1st mech. Realizing that there are skills to make it work properly. Realizing that I need another 2 mechs which will start from nothing and that I do not have cash to buy 3rd one. Finally getting 3rd one to start from nothing again. Getting unlocks while feeling like in the pointless loop.
I can say this: "Anyone telling me that old system of making step forward and two back is better is either mentally challenged or enjoys play against new player/new mech who have quite disadvantage for long time."

How does it affect the meta?
One of my Ebon Jaguars is meta mech. It does not matter that central torso is impossible to miss. That arms can't move sideways. That they are so wide that one needs to take care not to shoot friendlies. And that one can't avoid being shot by friendlies. Who cares that those very same problematic arms have quite low hanging guns?
It is meta for me, because I work around those problems. And it took quite some time to test all those combinations to find one which suits best to way I play this mech.

In other words: "Each mech has its advantages and disadvantages. MWO is asymmetric multiplayer game and there should not be situation where two different mechs are equal."

Edited by Fox2232, 09 February 2017 - 12:06 PM.

[Ibrandul Mike]

Ok, I took the poll but... I have to add to all three questions.

1. What do you think about the new Skill Tree system?
I chose the "needs some changes" option.
The costs seem ok as long as you currently only have a few mechs / are new to the game OR if you have a lot and the modules for them.
For other cases it is a major C-Bill sink. Then there is the respecc cost part. I get that you have to pay to set the points free again. But why do you have to pay twice?
I would propose setting the SP free and make them usable again without paying again. Take XP for that option or something like that. Make the refund only half the XP and don't pull out even more C-Bills for people wanting to test their builds.

Also I get why the system has the filler skills in it. What I dislike is that you can only access points from above. It looks more like a family tree than a skill tree. Why not have them accessible from top and below?
Don't want to wall so I stop here.

2. How does it work for new players?
Same complexity as what we already have

Which is not really my opinion. It is not worse or better if you think a bit about it. Your choices are more meaningful. Which might lead to a lot more problems with wrong skilling and then having to pay too much for a simple mistake.
More options means more complexity but it is easier to understand all in all.
What you have as a problem is the point that making the "right" choices is not as easy as it was before. You go cookie cutter or you go potatoe... at least after a few months. Regardless if there are perhaps more viable meta choices... you might have a hand full of "good" skilled mechs and a lot of bad skilled mechs.
I really really would love to have a kind of tutorial, not mandatory, that would explain all the choices. Or the possibility to test skilltrees in the training grounds, without having to buy them first. THAT would be fantastic and help a lot.
So all in all the same level or a bit more complex in my opinion.


3. How does it affect the meta?
No significant changes to the meta

Actually I think that there is no way to not significantly change the meta with that system. If it is for better or worse I have no idea. It is like car racing. I don't know if driving assistance and faster races is the way to go or not. And I have no clue if it will impact the competitive scene in a negative or positive way. It will impact them obviously.

[NoFace]

Problems with current implementation.
1. New system favors weapon boating and less experimentation with builds. Solution: Make first levels of tree stronger, and top nodes weaker, so if I want to boat 1 weapon system, I can use 10+ points in it and get 15% buffs. Or I can use 5 points on 2 systems and get 10% in both.
2. It doesn't solve problems with balance between mechs. Solution: Give different skill trees for different mechs. So mechs can play in their roles better. For example Highlander. Give him stronger jumpjet nodes. It is THE jumping assault in lore after all. Or Atlas can get better nodes in defence than any other mech. This way any mech can have it's niche. If possible Awesome can have a node at top of ppc tree that let it use 3 ppc without heat penalty. This way we can get rid of basic quirks completely.
3. In general, I think that new system is better for new players. Amount of gxp and C-Bills that is needed to max your first mech(by max I mean real top, with full modules) is lower than on main servers. But it is more grindy overall. Solution(if solutions from previous points are used then this one becomes even better): Diversify point costs. For example give first 10 free(basic), 11-30 only XP(elite) and rest with current price(mastery). This way we can get personal basic quirks from first game, farm C-Bills for next mech while eliting, and sink our money in it if we want to master.

Adding point 4 from later post.
4. It seems, that to use xp from sold variants I need to rebuy it, convert HXP to mech XP and than use MC for converting XP to GXP. That is not good. Really, you made us buy unwanted variants to lvlup and now we can't use that xp? Solution: make HXP common for all variants of mech. This way we can use all our basics. And it makes much better customer experience.

Edited by NoFace, 09 February 2017 - 10:54 PM.

[ingramli]

What do you think about the new Skill Tree system?


Ans: it forces people to waste SP on things that they dont need to get what are essential to them.

How does it work for new players?


Ans: it took much longer for the new player to master their fast mech, create a grind (or pay) to win environment.

How does it affect the meta?


Ans: Once people is settled down with a build, they will avoid switching to different loadout whenever possible to avoid respecing cost associated with the switch (it cost more than 2M C-Bills to switch a weapon module, which was FREE before once u unlock and purchased the module, in addition, that could be equipped on any chassis with no extra cost).


Overall, the new skill tree would do more harm than good. People will be forced to pay for premium time, not for collecting more mechs, but for the sake of mastering and/or switching loadouts. It will inevitably harm the gaming experience of mwo, forcing players to uninstall the game and spend their time and money somewhere else.

Bottom line: I understand PGI is to make money from the game, but customer satisfaction should not be compromised in achieving that. Under the new skill system, players who have limited time to grind is forced to buy premium time, and they literally get nothing in return, just for the sake of keeping them as competitive as they used to be. I don't see it to be an ethical way in making money.

P.S.
I was considering the buy 25K MC during the MC 3 event to get the free timber wolf hero. Now i feel that the plan has to be halted. A mech that excels in one meta is less affected by it, but omnipod mechs which are doable in many different loadouts really hurts with the new skill tree. Every time a change in loadout cost me 2M on a weapon category, i just cant afford it, so i am sorry but i have to tell you,

PGI, you just lost 100 bucks of revenue from me because of the new skill tree system.

Edited by ingramli, 09 February 2017 - 04:52 AM.

[Horseman]

To summarize https://mwomercs.com...skill-tree-pts/ even more briefly...

• UI clutter: skill trees and nodes visible on mechs that can never invest SPs in them (due to not having JJs, not having ECM or AMS slots, or only having one or two types of hardpoints). The tree system could be represented much more cleanly in the UI without displaying the actual trees, just gating certain upgrade levels behind previously investing at least a certain amount of points into the skill category..
  
• Lack of a feeling of impact to the upgrades until you have the full tree. Bump up the costs and values and you're onto something.
  
• Encourages maxing out on a handful of skills - and boating weapons - instead of diversifying. Easily fixed if you cap the number of SPs that can be spent per tree and rearrange the nodes so that you can specialize in no more than two aspects of a weapon's functionality at a time. Having some options that are exclusive with each other might also add some variety (what if I want to increase spread of some weapons or laser beam duration to serve as more useful critseekers against opened up opponents?). Having some generic skills ("Weapons", "Ballistic weapons" etc) that unlock the more specific trees with sufficient point investment might work better.
  
• Skills that add more utility than just improving raw weapon DPS or the amount of salvos it takes me to overheat (eg Jump Vectoring) are a step in the right direction... that isn't capitalized on at all.What if we could instead of radar deprivation buy a node that reduces the range in which our mech can be detected? Not quite ECM, but benefits sneaky brawlers. What if the ECM disruption effect of PPCs could be enhanced to last longer?
  
• Some skills should belong to different trees, in different arrangements. The current defense, mobility and sensor trees are prime culprits, and sometimes force the player to buy skills that are useless to their build. Break up Defense into Resilience, Redundancy and Defensive Tech (moving ECM and Radar Dep to that) and you are onto something.
  
• It doesn't promote lore-friendly loadouts except for canon boats. Individual trees are called for for at least certain mechs (eg a HBK-4G having a dedicated AC/20 tree)
  
• The armor/structure quirks in the defense tree are insufficiently clear to their effects and insufficiently specific.in their application. I'd like to see some room for flexibility (apart from generic buffs that cover the entire mech, also things like "upper chassis armor", "left side armor", "leg structure" etc)

Edited by Horseman, 09 February 2017 - 05:13 AM.

[Naaaaak]

If PGI shipped the Skill Tree as-is tomorrow, I'd be extremely happy with the changes.


It would mean fewer "affirmative action" mechs given "quirk scholarships", more overall improvements to existing mechs that don't suck.

The skill tree, as-is, is the best gameplay change PGI has done in years.

[Duke Nedo]

First impression is that faction balance is worse. Much worse.

So, IS mechs get 5% cooldown instead of clans that get 4%... that's a pretty big boost to clan mechs relatively speaking. In the old system IS mechs that were closest to being balanced with clan mechs had at least an advantage of 10 %-units in cooldown, now it's only 1 %-unit... that will totally work well given that IS is by a fair margin the weaker faction already.

[Exard3k]

New Player Experience. Mixed.

On the one hand you got no "rule of 3" anymore, that is way better for new players and I'd like MWO to be like that back when I started in 2015 when I was struggling and almost quitting because I wanted to elite my clan mech (first mech after a bad purchase of the trebuchet I didn't like back then).

On the other hand you got 6-7 different currencies, a freakin' excel spreadsheet from hell (upper right hand corner, skills screen) and a complex skill tree you have to scroll alot sideways like with panorama pictures on my cellphone and at a depth I only encountered in project management chart back in the university. So pro AND con. Balance isn't that much of a concern for new players because you are happy to make your first steps and don't worry about PPFLD Meta build stuff and tier 1 / CW content.

UI...I like the design. hexagons are battetech and the effects are nice, looks pretty but in terms of usability it is a nightmare right now. You just can't bring freaking big, complex tables to a F2P Shooter everyone should be able to play even though MWO is more complex than others.

Legacy issues.....its a huge change that mostly don't hurt new users, but long-term customers / veterans may and probably will get pissed on the SP cbill issue. PGI has to offer these customers a smooth transition to the new system that is not implemented in todays PTS build.

These customers are proud of their achievements to earn all those mechs and the achievement to master them. Taking this away and forcing at least a part of these customers into a grind for an achievement they already earned (mastering 3 variants) because they lack the cbills to remaster them with the new system, having these to basically declare bankrupcy because they used the valid and free mechanic to switch modules between mechs back and forth, is not a solution that is sufficient.

We need a more smooth transition old system <=> new system.

Balance stuff: So many new things....there are a LOT of changes you could fill 3 months worth of discussion on the changes on LRM performance alone and that's only a fraction of the dimension the new skill system brings. I'm no expert on this and I'll leave that to the Pro's.

Thats the most important things in my opinion. Everything else is micromanaging values in some tables.

The skill system was a very eager and bold move from PGI. I don't expect this from software companies nowadays and I admire that decision to remove the old and make something new that other companies are shy of. I know there were lots of manhours necessary to bring us this PTS because the players wanted that feature for a long time an there is also an opportunity to get revenue out of it. Quid pro quo.

But don't hurry. Two weeks to go is little time for lots of people to get infos on that very complex and new system. I don't need a flawed system in two weeks, I want a good system this year where everyone is having fun. People hate delayed schedules (everyone does), but they hate bad products and services even more.

Edited by Exard3k, 09 February 2017 - 06:30 AM.

[Jehofi]

9.1 mill C-bills is too expensive, 1/4 of that would be the maximum (IMHO). So 25.000 per Skill Node. Regarding XP also cut that to at least 750 per Skill Node.
Why? Because currently you buy 1-2 sets of an module and swap the around. If oyu have 100+ masterd Mechs you are basically screwed. When the skill tree is implemented there is no way to get to where you are (mastery wise), thus PGI is taking away something from their players.
Which is usually considered to be a **** move and a big no go, no matter how you argue it DON'T TOUCH YOUR PLAYERS STUFF!!!.

The System favours weapon boating! Make Range, Cooldown, ... universal so that mixed loadouts can be feasible.
Why? Investing 15-20 skill Points into one Weapongroup gives you the full bonus for that and leaves you enough Skillpoints to "have all the ohter good stuff", If you have 2 different weapons (e.g. LRM/Lazor) you need 30-40 skill Points, starving you of durability or utility.

The system is not "choose and pick", its pay extra for what you want. Make it so that we do not need to take useless nodes in order to get what we want, just up the skill price on the more usefully nodes.
Why? Now you have to buy nodes to get to the lower ones, just make them lines that get increasingly expensive. So it does not feel like a skill "tax" to get that radar derp.

The System favors Clan Mechs over IS Mechs. Make it so that they have fewer Skill Points or cannot unlock all the nodes in one Tree. And dont stop on a Clan/IS level, do that for all Mechs and Variants so that you have a degree of Freedom there for balancing.
Why? Largely reducing the Weapon Quirks IS mechs needed in order to be viable and having them being able to be bought back per skillpoints (which should compensate for the module loss) is just a nerf of that variants. Allowing Quirkless Clan mechs to get additional Durability is a buff for them. OFC ther are also looser Variants on Clan side but at the moment the quick update seems very unbalanced with regard to the Module bonus loss.


There are a some more minor thing i dont like, however these ones are largely the deal breakers. Also I omit the positive stuff as i dont have enough time to write that down (maybe later).

[Kuaron]

I voted for the system needing some changes, and it indeed does:

There are expectedly very unpopular branches
There is a boating problem
There are concerns about the quirk changes

But overall, I wish we will see an (improved!) skill system on live!

[MrKvola]

1. Skill Points - if they retain their current cost they need to be an unlock, not a one-time investment (yes, I know I get the XP back). The charge for re-skill should be OK as it is, but the skill points need to remain unlocked and free to use after a re-skill (partial or full). Charging the full price for a skill point each time I re-assign it kills variety and experimentation.

2. XP requirement - in order to fully upgrade a 'mech you require 136500 XP. Before the Skill Tree 35750 XP were sufficient to elite the chassis. The additional module slot was ever so often not a requirement, or that useful. That is almost 4 times (3.82 to be exact) more than previously. And even if I discount that additional module slot which would equal say 10 skill points, that makes it still almost 3.5 times as much. The grind is real. And there is going to be significantly more of it than before.

Now a lot of people argument that you do not need 3 'mechs anymore. That may be true, but with the new system you get 1 elited 'mech for the cost of three - by cost I mean time you need to invest in order to level it up. So now if I WANT those three variants (because with battlemechs it is the only way to have different hardpoints on a chassis) I need to spend more than three times as much time to get there. Bye bye Pokemech.

3. C-Bill cost - it is just massive. As it is you would normally buy a chassis, equip it and level it. Once done levelling you would usually have sufficient (or at least a significant portion of) funds for another chassis. With the new system you need to buy a chassis, equip it and then spend all the money you get while grinding XP to actually level it up. So once you are done levelling a chassis you have no or limited cash on hand and you need to grind more c-bills to get another one. Or use cash to buy it. Take away from this what you want.

4. Weapon skills - the new system blatantly promotes weapon boating. A good suggestion was to have a general firepower tree with cooldown, range, heat, precision and jam chance/cooldown. Or have uneven skill point weight distribution where lowest skill points would add the biggest value and specialization would bring only minor bonuses.

5. Useless skills - quite a lot of trees do not allow you to choose specific skills you are after, but force you to take skills that are not important for you or may even not apply - i.e. arm mobility skills for 'mechs that do not have anything in them - say a Locust PB.