252 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

What really bugs me about this proposed idea is that you can't respec for free AND it costs money to get any skills at all.

End result: with the removal of the 3 of a kind rule (which I'm glad they removed) and the addition of punishing people for respecing, all you will see on the battlefield is the top-tier meta mechs running the meta builds. There's literally no reason to run anything else now since you don't need to level sub-prime mechs to level the good ones and you're punished for experimenting with different builds. Just get yourself a pop-tart or a Kodiak 3 and call it a day. This is going to hammer PGI's sales, but they don't seem to understand that.

[WarHippy]

I think I would like to see something different. Create 3-4 "classes" such Scout, Skirmisher, Juggernaut, and Fire Support. For each of your mechs you select one of those classes and depending on what you select determines the skill tree you have available in addition to granting some base quirks to the mech that fall in line with the class selected.
Examples:
By selecting Scout your mech automatically gets some mobility related quirk bonuses applied to it such as speed tweak and accelerate/decelerate(you could also add modifiers that give you bonus xp/c-bill for performing tasks a scout would perform). In the tree itself you have a limited number of unlock-able skills that primarily focus on infowar and a few options for a little more combat oriented roles and your ability to survive.

By selecting Juggernaut you automatically start with survival related quirks like bonus armor and a decreased chance to be crit(bonus modifiers that give you more xp/c-bills for taking and dealing damage). In the tree itself you would have options for heat management, damage bonuses, and additional survival skills.

Selecting Skirmisher automatically gives you some mobility and heat management bonuses such as heat containment and turn speed bonuses. The skill tree itself could give addition weapon related bonuses and mild survival bonuses etc.

Selecting Fire Support automatically gives targeting related bonuses and advanced zoom. Skill tree can focus on weapon and velocity related bonuses with little in the way of survival or DPS related options.

Basically your base quirks automatically get applied depending on the class you choose with some choices in the trees to further specialize. Just because you are a light mech doesn't mean you have to select scout so mechs like the Urbanmech for example maybe you want to take Juggernaut and focus more on tankiness and firepower.

[Dee Eight]

Probably Not, on 10 February 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Well, MechWarrior was originally an RPG system for BattleTech, and skill trees are kind of RPG-y.

I'm not necessarily against new things being introduced to MechWarrior as a franchise, but...

Not to mention, battletech has had skills (piloting and gunnery) since 1984 which affected mech performance on the battlefield.

[oldradagast]

WarHippy and others also hit upon a good idea here - why can't we have a much smaller skill tree that focuses on an actual ROLE for the mech to play? What about role warfare? Wasn't that supposed to be a thing?

I'd rather have 20 skill points to distribute on a fully leveled mech if I could pick a useful role for the mech that differentiated it from other mechs. Instead, we get a zillion skills and skill points, complete with false choices and tons of mandatory skills, so in the end all mechs will pick almost the exact same choices resulting in no actual customization but a hell of a lot of wasted money and XP. That's not a good skill tree, it's certainly not role warfare, and it is not what MWO needs.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 February 2017 - 09:46 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

wow one single item used to prove an entire system. Thanks for reminding me why I generally leave you on ignore. *smh*

I wonder if the PGI designers feel the same about you as I do.

[Bishop Steiner]

SeventhSL, on 10 February 2017 - 03:11 AM, said:

I see what your saying about keeping variants and swapping modules. I keep variants, I even have more than one of several variants and I use to swap modules all the time too. 3 modules between 6 mechs? Sure if all your different mechs are essentially the same build on a different chassis but I have found that in practice that is not how it works.

Most mechs are 4 modules and different variants means different weapons so different modules. A Dakka build vs a laser vomit build will cost you 6 mil in weapon modules. An LRM build will cost you another 6 mil in weapon modules plus 6 mil for target decay. Don't need radar dep for scout missions or ECM mechs another 6 mil. If you want to have optimal modules on your different mechs it really starts to add up in CBill and GXP grind to unlock them.

The new system in way easier on new players.

except that new players don't actually NEED modules in MWO .... no one does, unless you are constantly playing in the top tier, which new players wont be doing. In fact, in most cases, once you get all three basice'd a lot of times you only "need to" Elite one... and Mastery definitely only matters at comp level... as that extra module really is a big whoop. I play without modules so often that when I load in a mech and notice the Seismic, etc... it's a novelty almost.

And after spending almost all day yesterday on the PTS the gap between an unlocked and locked chassis? Not only is it a bigger gap than ever, but it's a more confusing experience to the new player (what is actually important to unlock???) and takes a hell of a lot longer.

Heck.... most established players are probably going to need quite some time to sort through our Mechbay and "Skill up".... and once we do, the New Player Experience just went from bad to hell week.

[Dee Eight]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 10 February 2017 - 12:59 AM, said:

I already broke this same asinine point down in another thread, but you are incorrect about your assessment. You have 1 full module broken down into the pieces of 5 and that makes you happy while your Mech is undisputably worse off than it was before.

I love how consistent you are in that EVERYONE who's point you don't agree with is asinine and incorrect. Technically under the existing skill system you have to unlock for the weapon modules, 5 stages of each of them, and for several of the mech modules at least two levels. You may have forgotten this as its been months/years since you unlocked all your pilot skills off or simply ignoring that fact to make your post. I care not which because either prove your statement wrong.

Quote

It is not even a single successful item... he is just clearly wrong. His shining success example is Nerf'd but he has 5 pieces of Modules whereas before he only had the effects of one full one.

Clearly you don't see the big picture that PGI was reducing the effectiveness of seismic sensors just as they've reduced the ECM bubble. All the forum warriors and their "nerf this" and "nerf that" threads got their wishes. I and I expect many others have no problems with having partial effects of various mech modules as an option if we choose not to spend the skill nodes on fully unlocking what's available. 200 meters of seismic is still enough to keep a locust or cheetah from getting into SPL optimal range unnoticed.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nik Reaper, on 10 February 2017 - 03:33 AM, said:

And did you read the lesser evil part, more than half current builds that are on the Ok/Good spectrum side of things are dependent on 2xbasic + speed tweak , with out those they need to switch up things pushing them from the ok/good to lower than that, so how does not having access to those help mechs that are built with a lesser then 340 engine?

My point is that there is a hard bottom line that a mech needs to cross to be competitive and usable in serious play, and many right now need mobility and operations regardless of there weapon quirks to get over that line.

You are saying that mby they, the smaller engine mechs are not a class that needs those type of mobility quirks and instead should get more armor so that it can be a better immobile, slow to twist, slow to accel and deacell punching bags?

exactly this.
The full Lower Chassis Mobility is Mandatory. If you run a Brawler, the Upper May be... even if you don't use arm weapons... because it forces you to unlock them.... just what my BNC-3E always needed! Add to that Full Operations Tree (sans the Magazine capacity, which may help some builds, but doesn't feel mandatory)...and if one is in tier 1 or 2, then Half of InfoWar or so, to unlock the Radar Derp and Seismic to full potential are mandatory.

That's over 50 of the 91 pts right there, without touching Survival (15 of 17 are probably going to prove mandatory in our typical high alpha environ) which leads you enough to maybe fully skill out a single weapons.

And that's IF you are not an ECM Carrier, NARC Carrier, or packing JJs (good news the JJ buffs are so minor, you can currently just skip these).... then you probably cannot even open up a weapon.

So with out "too many points" we will be spending all but 20ish (I'd do the exact math but my head is killing me, waiting for drugs to kick in) Skill Points left to make actual decisions with.... Which largely boil down to what gun will you max out... and what will you maybe half up..if you were able to really skim on a few "mandatory" nodes, etc?

[Dee Eight]

Snazzy Dragon, on 10 February 2017 - 01:02 AM, said:

Congragulations, you took the mostly optimal path of upgrades that every single other mech is going to take with slight variations. Please tell me more about how great the specialization is when I'm choosing the same 70 nodes over and over.

Except...that's just one mech... which didn't ship with any weapon quirks at all...and now the new tree lets me give it some weapon quirking without spending 3 million cbills on a module for it. Also PGI was very up front months ago that they were going to be focusing more to effects of range modules than the cool down modules so what has delivered is pretty much what was announced at mechcon. As to choosing the "same 70 nodes" over and over...actually... i haven't. I re-skilled a dozen different mechs on the pts last night, and I didn't just keep taking the same stuff over on every one of them. As I said in another thread... just how many weapon skills do you really need to put onto a locust ?

[oldradagast]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

Heck.... most established players are probably going to need quite some time to sort through our Mechbay and "Skill up".... and once we do, the New Player Experience just went from bad to hell week.

Exactly. I honestly don't see how these changes fail to kill the game.

Let's look it over: we now need far fewer mechs than before. That ends any need to buy mech packs OR MC, which is generally only used to buy mech bays, which we'll all have plenty of once we sell off the mediocre mechs that we're not going to waste a fortune leveling. Ok, got it - established players won't need to spend another dime on this game.

But what about new players? I'll laugh at that concept for a moment - does this game actually get any new players? The only people I know who play it aside from myself are old-time Battletech fans who will put up with utter garbage just to run in a MadCat one more time. Ok, let's pretend we have new players. Now, instead of a simple and logical skill system, they'll have a far more costly skill system full of false choices, taxes for respecing, and no shortage of confusion. This should do wonders to drive them away from the game... which was already easy to do in its current configuration. Oh, and no - the new players also aren't going to spend a pile of real money on new mechs because they don't have to.

I honestly don't see how this doesn't end badly for PGI and MWO.

[Deathlike]

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

This is exactly how I feel. What's gonna end up happening is that a few vocal peeps (and mostly the same that always complain about everything) are gonna cause PGI to shelve the whole system and we won't see it another year or longer. It breaths fresh life into the game and it's not often we can say that a patch offers legitimate new content rather than just new mechs or a polishing. They can tweak it, but don't be so overly critical that they lock this away in a vault somewhere collecting dust.

I'm complaining alright, but it's mostly due in most part the execution of the idea.

If you exclude all the lame costs (which is a factor for some/many), the tree itself is mostly what we have now plus a little more... but differentiation and uniqueness is not a result. You will still see people getting what would be considered mandatory points like durability quirks (+structure/+armor) or agility quirks (+accel/+decel/+speed) and the after that, you end up deciding which weapon (not so much weapons) you want to specialize in. We do a lot of that with weapon modules as it is.

That's not what would be really "special".

Edited by Deathlike, 10 February 2017 - 10:11 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Zergling, on 10 February 2017 - 01:19 AM, said:

For there to be customisation, there must be varied options to choose from, not 'clearly best options' that beat all others.


Here are the standard 'choices' nearly everyone will make:

So as standard in your world view, nobody will make any choices for the upper torso nodes ?

[Oberost]

Can someone tweet Russ this thread link?

Maybe this way he'll stop thinking that everything is awesome.

[Bishop Steiner]

SeventhSL, on 10 February 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

Ok now I think I'm starting to get it.

I have 65 fully mastered and equipped mechs. I spent my CBills on modules so no need to swap. When they compensate, the modules on each mech will more than cover the Respec so I'll actually be floating in CBills. I kept playing each mech after it was mastered so the historical XP plus GXP refund should be close enough to respec everything. So for me no big impact just the fun of customising each mech.

Now If instead of buying modules for my mechs I bought more mechs and swapped modules then I'd have 150+ mechs and nowhere near enough compensation to get all those mechs back to a state where each one was fully tooled if and when I chose to play it. So there is a big impact to the playability of my mech collection.

So new players win because they will get a fully tooled mech and drop deck faster and without having to grind variants they are not interested in. Players like myself who have smaller select collections, with money spent on modules and playtime split between fewer mechs, will win because compensation combined with the XP currently going to waste on mastered mechs will cover the respec.

Pokemech collectors (nothing wrong with that) get screwed over because, while they receive exact compensation for the CBill and XP actually earned through game play, they do in fact lose a lot of playability of their collections. They are then forced to rationalise their collections or just play a lot of their mechs without them being fully tooled.

Ok me personally I'd give the players two choices of compensation. The first being CBill/XP refund as per their current mechanism. The second being a free respec of each owned mech to the value of the current skill unlocks for that mech. So a fully mastered mech would get 91 free respec points for that specific mech, If the owned mech isn't fully mastered then clearly you are going to get less free respec points for said mech.

At least I now get why some people are fuming about compensation and repec.

Except New Players still don't win, because their initial experience will be terrible as they try to grind through Mechs, as I noted before, not even knowing what Nodes are truly important, and with the severe difference in viability between Locked and Unlocked being WORSE than it is now.

I am not trying to sound dramatic, but with the now even steeper learning curve (You see anything said about adding a skill tree tutorial to Mechwarrior Academy? I honestly don't recall if they plan to. Do you even think, if they do, PGI will explain that in their "diversification" if they want to compete they HAVE to spend 50+ pts on very specific skill nodes on every single mech?), The amount of time it takes to get that one robot ground (it's pretty nuts, I've been here since may of 2012... and have tons of mechs without enough historical XP to even achieve half the 91 nodes... let alone the billion cbills coming since I found Modules to really be NON mandatory before... and now these features are built into my progression)... i would expect our already low new player retention to absolutely tank within the first month of the new skill tree going live.

No hyperbole here, no drama for effect, just honest evaluation.

[Dee Eight]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

That's over 50 of the 91 pts right there, without touching Survival (15 of 17 are probably going to prove mandatory in our typical high alpha environ) which leads you enough to maybe fully skill out a single weapons.

It seems as if you're willfully ignoring the obvious facts that weapons will be shooting slower and mechs will be running hotter under the new tree system when stating that the survival tree is going to be mandatory.

[Deathlike]

Dee Eight, on 10 February 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

So as standard in your world view, nobody will make any choices for the upper torso nodes ?

In the absence of crappy torso twisting quirks, turn quirks become more valuable.

Edited by Deathlike, 10 February 2017 - 10:21 AM.

[KingCobra]

Clearly after 4 years PGI has learned nothing and desires to drive this game into the ground.

First off 80% of the MWO player base IS NON META MECHS OR GROUP PLAYERS? according to PGI which means simply no skill tree is really needed I would assume most base players and new players would just like to play on a balanced level in solo mm and CW/FP if the FP queues were split.

Next you have the 20% group players that want a hard core mode for CW/FP and I say give it to them in there own separate mm FP queues along with the old skill tree(enhanced to reflect more of a role aspect) and call it good scrap the new skill tree or if the meta group players want it let them have the new skill tree fixed the way they want.

If PGI keeps implementing these crazy changes soon this game will be so new player starved it will not be able to fund itself as the older vet players just say I'm not paying anymore.

What would be a interesting thing to see is how many new players there were for the last year month by month and how many uninstalled or just quit playing because the game mechanics are so unfriendly as it is.

After seeing a chart of this you would think PGI would go geez why don't we have any new players staying and playing our game? We need to make it new player-pug-casual player friendly so they pay into my game and make a separate hard core mode for my vets so they continue to play and pay into the future of my game.

Once again who is listening anyway? can I condense this down to 10 words and put it on twittard so it is also ignored?

Edited by KingCobra, 10 February 2017 - 10:22 AM.

[Deathlike]

Dee Eight, on 10 February 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

It seems as if you're willfully ignoring the obvious facts that weapons will be shooting slower and mechs will be running hotter under the new tree system when stating that the survival tree is going to be mandatory.

Actually, it means poptarting/peeking/trading becomes more of a thing over brawling, due to obvious sustainability issues.

That actually doesn't stop people from collecting coolrun and heat containment nodes in an attempt to mitigate it.

Edited by Deathlike, 10 February 2017 - 10:22 AM.

[Dee Eight]

oldradagast, on 10 February 2017 - 10:07 AM, said:

But what about new players? I'll laugh at that concept for a moment - does this game actually get any new players?

Yes, every day. I presume you're a tier 1 or only do group/unit games if you've been avoiding the joy of having total new players daily in QP matches.

[DrxAbstract]

From the games I played yesterday with various specialized Ballistic, Missile and Laser builds across the Light, Medium, Heavy and Assault brackets it seems Ballistics get the most benefits from full-speccing, Missiles to a lesser extent and Lasers straight up get the short end of the stick.

• There's no incentive to use mixed-weapon builds.
  
• Laser and Laser-Missile builds get less cumulative benefits from cross-speccing than Ballistics+Anything.
  
• Magazine perk further reinforces a Ballistic-centric focus.
  
• Lights/Mediums with Ballistic hardpoints literally get nothing while Lights with Missile hardpoints got shafted with the SRM4 nerf (Not every Light can afford the tonnage or slots to even use Artemis and the tree doesn't fully recompense the change) while one of the best skills they could have benefited from (Magazine) ignores Missiles weapons.
  
• Medium, Heavy and Assault Mechs kept their offensive, defensive and mobility quirks only to be compounded further by the skill tree bonuses, making for a very lopsided distribution of power that favors the heavier end of the tonnage spectrum almost entirely to such a gross extent that Lights are basically phased out now.

Those being a handful of my thoughts based on observation thus far. As others have pointed out there is virtually no differentiation and I kid you not every single one of my builds across all weight classes and chassis have the exact same skill tree layout sans their respective weapon type, which are invested in a single weapon type... Pretty sure my KGC doesnt need (And shouldn't have) +50% accel/decel and +30% turn rate as an assault that could strip ammo for an even bigger engine ontop of it.

I dont have much hope for this new system of theirs - Too much to do and so very little time.