252 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 10 February 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

That's totally fair, I wouldn't want (for example) every Hunchback variant to have the same skill tree because the role for each variant is supposed to be fairly different.

Except you have to be very careful because those different Hunchbacks could easily infringe on a role that another chassis was BUILT for that just doesn't translate quite as well in MWO. For example the HBK-4SP and HBK-4J both do a role another chassis does and do it better than them (HBK-4J vs Trenchbuckets, HBK-4SP vs Kintaro) which is honestly why we should get rid of a lot of these variants, especially ones that are redundant (for example do we really need both the HBK-4G and HBK-4H or could they just be rolled into one?).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2017 - 02:30 PM.

[Pjwned]

Dee Eight, on 10 February 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Its only a grind if you mentally treat it as such. I find a more involved skill system more fun. So do a lot of other players. I suppose that's because I have an ACTUAL RPG background not just a tabletop gaming miniatures background.

It is by definition a grind, you have to spend time (and/or money) in order to unlock objective advantages for your mech.

You being a pleb and having **** taste because you like grinding doesn't make it not a grind, sorry.

Quote

What HUGE disadvantage is that ?

I would think it's extremely obvious that if you don't gain any benefits from the skill tree and you're facing opponents that do benefit from grinding out the skill tree, then you're at a disadvantage against them.

Quote

I'm closer to the "new" player category than you are, by THREE years, and I still remember what being a new player here meant. A lot of folks who are open/closed beta era seem to think they know still what "new" players actually mean...when they clearly do not.

Spell it out for me then, since apparently I don't remember what it was like as a new player according to you.

[Dee Eight]

oldradagast, on 10 February 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

I meant no offense in that comment; I'm not tier 1 and I don't spend that much time in group games.

All I'm getting at is that it is very difficult to keep new players interested in this game, and this expensive, complicated skill tree full of false choices and punishments for respecing is only going to make that harder. Plus, with the drop of the 3 mech rule and the previously mentioned punishment for experimentation, you're only going to see meta-mechs with meta-builds on the field... and those will do a fine job of slaughtering new players.

i DIDN'T take it as offensive, but without knowing if you a T1/Group only player... I just found it hard to believe you weren't experiencing QP games with new players daily as I am (and since Tina has said the matchmaker now blends four tier levels... its 1 thru 4 or 2 thru 5). I think something PGI really needs to do is put the QP button behind finishing the academy tutorial missions (make unlocking it an achievement), and then the FW button unlocks after you get thru the 25 cadet bonus missions in QP first.

[oldradagast]

Dee Eight, on 10 February 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

i DIDN'T take it as offensive, but without knowing if you a T1/Group only player... I just found it hard to believe you weren't experiencing QP games with new players daily as I am (and since Tina has said the matchmaker now blends four tier levels... its 1 thru 4 or 2 thru 5). I think something PGI really needs to do is put the QP button behind finishing the academy tutorial missions (make unlocking it an achievement), and then the FW button unlocks after you get thru the 25 cadet bonus missions in QP first.

Well, when I speak of new players, I was really speaking of my own experiences in trying to get others to play the game. I suppose it's possible that tons of new players are entering the game regularly, but based on my personal experiences where the only people who kept at it in MWO were hard-core, old-school Battletech players... well, I doubt the game really is seeing a large influx of new players. The cruddy players we see regularly could have been there for a long time and remained cruddy, and each of has bad days when we play cruddy. All I'm getting at is this new, convoluted system just feels like another way to discourage new players, something which the game seems to lack currently.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

I get what you are saying, but they are generally built with a role in mind, same as today. YOu have Fighters, Bombers, abd "Attack" planes, along with recon, AWACs, etc. You have MBTs, Scout Vehicles, IFV, Tracked Arty, Ainti-air vehicles, Missile Batteries, etc.

While you can certainly modify your RIfleman or Jager to be a brawler, they are built and engineered to be a Sniper/AA design. Thus it makes no sense to have brawler specific or juggernaut Trees open to them. You want a mech to do those roles.. then get a Thunderbolt or Orion, a Mech designed for the role you desire. (Or, one could make a slight case for the Rifleman 3C, though it's more a skirmisher with it's armor levels)

Insisting that everything be generic gunbags... just makes having different mechs pointless to begin with.

But PGI insists that everything be generic gunbags cause that is the only thing that you get rewarded sufficiently for doing... I personally would rather see the Reward System COMPLETELY & TOTALLY reworked over the Skill System. Rewarding different behavior is the ONLY way to promote Role Warfare... when the only Role that gets rewarded is Gunbag, then the only Role that will exist is Gunbag!!!

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Except you have to be very careful because those different Hunchbacks could easily infringe on a role that another chassis was BUILT for that just doesn't translate quite as well in MWO. For example the HBK-4SP and HBK-4J both do a role another chassis does and do it better than them (HBK-4J vs Trenchbuckets, HBK-4SP vs Kintaro) which is honestly why we should get rid of a lot of these variants, especially ones that are redundant (for example do we really need both the HBK-4G and HBK-4H or could they just be rolled into one?).

Hmmm...

Perhaps in that example the Hunchbacks wouldn't have as much access to all the role skills then? By that I mean the Trebuchets & Kintaros would have full access to that part of the skill tree (I guess?) whereas the Hunchback variants would have partial access to the same skills but they couldn't specialize in it as much.

That's getting pretty deep though, and I don't have a grand system in mind to accommodate all that because that starts getting really detailed.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 10 February 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

That's getting pretty deep though, and I don't have a grand system in mind to accommodate all that because that starts getting really detailed.

I mean you could fix that by getting rid of those variants

I know it won't ever happen because people would be VERY upset with removal of things like that, but as far as I'm concerned the variant bloat is getting in the way of chassis diversity/flavor. Those mechs will ALWAYS compete against each other such that there is always an optimal mech in that situation and unfortunately in many cases the chassis that was designed for that role is the one that loses out rather than the mech that was more of ad-hoc mech (this seems more common with 3025-era variants more than other eras imo).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2017 - 02:55 PM.

[FireStoat]

I've spent some hours on the PTS trying out different builds on a Timberwolf, Marauder IIC, Kit Fox, and Huntsman. I've spent hours studying the skill tree and different choices. I've also studied the Experience points required and C-bills required.

I then compare it to how things are on the current live game, and time investment for a given mech.

I'm out. I'll drop by around the summer to see how the new technology addition patches roll in, and what their effect will be. Perhaps there will still be a somewhat healthy player base for this game, or perhaps not. I'm just facing the cold truth and common sense of the time I have set aside for video game enjoyment and the direction the skill tree is taking this game. There are better options for me to be looking at. It's just how it is.

Edited by FireStoat, 10 February 2017 - 03:06 PM.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Welcome to the absolute world of "MetaMech" . . . if you thought it was bad to begin with, everyone will be running the exact same builds mainly due to the excessive costs in building, re-specking and trying out different load outs etc. Instead of expanding the game and choice, this will effectively contract the whole thing.

May as well start a new forum now of Meta Skill Tree/Chassis now

[VanillaG]

WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

To use your example of Thunderbolts I have the 9S, 5SS, and 9SE. Under the old system I had to level all 3 at ~60k XP each, but under the new system I still have all 3(I'm not selling 2 of them and I have them setup completely different from one another), but I need ~130k XP for each of them. ~180k for 3 mastered mechs under the old system is a great deal less than ~390k for 3 mastered mechs under the new system.

This is not entirely accurate. You only need to spend a little over 60 skill points, around 90k xp, to get the equivalent quirks of a mastered mech in the current tree. I am aware that the overall effectiveness of the quirks are lower but this is as close as your are going to get with the new tree. The other points are for things that are currently covered by modules so are really a different pool.

In my opinion the skill nodes for the quirks that are equivalent to the old skill tree should be reduced to 25k Cbills and 1000XP. That way existing mastered mechs would cost around 1.5 mil CBills and almost no extra XP to get equivalent performance.

[Whiskey Dharma]

How will PGI compensate players when their balance changes affect a player's SP investments? Even minor balance tweaks will have big implications for players, who can only be fairly compensated with a free, total (all nodes, XP, and CBills) respec.

For example, if I spec a mech into LPLs, I would need a free respec every time that PGI changes:

the stats of LPLs
the stats of lasers or energy generally
the stats of LPL skill nodes
the stats of all nodes affecting lasers or energy generally
any remaining quirks for that mech that affect LPLs, lasers, or energy

Respecs would be coming fast and furious, with each patch.

And these would have to be 100% respecs, because the skill trees introduce dependencies (that is, you must invest in nodes "X" and "Y" to reach skill node "Z"). If, for example, LPLs were nerfed into the ground and I wanted to move away from them, I would need to get back all of the XP and CBills for the LPL skills, AND ALSO for all the skills I bought to get to the LPL skills. That's the only way I could reach an equivalent skill position with a new weapon.

And I hope it goes without saying that any chassis- or variant-wide nerfs would give the player a 100% XP and CBill refund for that chassis or variant.

[VitriolicViolet]

anyone notice that some mechs are worse off compared to lighter ones? An ONI-IIC can carry more armor than a ZEU-5S. With both mechs at max defensive the ONI ends up with 111 front armor (8 rear) and the ZEU 101 front armor (8 rear).

I dont think the Orion IIc heavy should be tankier than a Zeus assault, especially when it also hits harder and they both move at near the same speed (in the builds im using).

Another thing you can only do here is give a Highlander 150+ front armor.

i think the problem isnt that 91 is too much, its that each tree is so small. i should be able to invest nearly every point into defense alone if i wish, it would allow true specialisation if you could dump 70+ points into 1 tree. Become a unstoppable tank, or a glass cannon or run rings around anyone by maxing mobility.

JJ tree is in need of a significant improvement, like literally triple its current bonuse.

Also i dont think the cost is much of an issue compared to what i posted above. Currently a ZEU-5S is known for be fairly tanky, and the Onion is good for firepower. Now on PTS ONI-IIC is superior in virtually every aspect. anyone else find cases like that?

Edited: on the cost issue im someone who only has 16+ modules and 150+ mechs. also if PGI decides to buff or nerf weapons chassis etc then they should give out a limited 'free; respec to all players to avoid all the salt and butthurt from balance changes.

Edited by VitriolicViolet, 10 February 2017 - 03:52 PM.

[Qmoney7]

One of the best parts of this game in current state is the ability to take you favourite mechs and try different builds in them once you own the equipment.

My biggest annoyance with this so far has been:
- the time when you are forced to switch in/out of ferro-fibrous, endosteel, or artemis and have to waste a few million c-bills (which happened rarely).
- The decision to force players to painstakingly switch equipment between mechs (supposedly to encourage them to buy multiple copies of everything)

It seems irrefutable that the main purpose of this change is to make the cost of re-purposing a mech insanely high. You won't be able to truly test the viability of a new build without sinking an entire mech purchase worth of c-bills.

With this system, all they need to do is re-balance some aspect of play and players are forced to either:
- re-spec at high c-bill cost, then purchase new nodes
- buy a copy of the same mech and purchase new nodes
- Abandon what used to be a good mech and repeat the process with a new chassis with a ridiculous amount of grinding

[Khobai]

Quote

Seismic doesn't eliminate the need for lights to scout, it just gives assaults warnings of when to clinch. Not that all assaults deserve that warning, just wanted to clarify that statement a bit.

it still gives assault information they should not have

seismic should not be available to assaults or most heavies. it should only be for lights and mediums to reinforce a scouting/skrimisher role.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

it still gives assault information they should not have

seismic should not be available to assaults or most heavies. it should only be for lights and mediums to reinforce a scouting/skrimisher role.

I don't bother with it anymore. At 200 meters you can be shot by SRMs and cSPL before you see them anyway, its not really worth it. Will just use my ears.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

I mean you could fix that by getting rid of those variants

I know it won't ever happen because people would be VERY upset with removal of things like that, but as far as I'm concerned the variant bloat is getting in the way of chassis diversity/flavor. Those mechs will ALWAYS compete against each other such that there is always an optimal mech in that situation and unfortunately in many cases the chassis that was designed for that role is the one that loses out rather than the mech that was more of ad-hoc mech (this seems more common with 3025-era variants more than other eras imo).

I guess if it was such a problem then the roles could actually be determined by chassis so you don't have 1 mech variant stepping on the toes of another entire chassis, and that wouldn't be so bad, but I think it's kind of a shame to do that and not acknowledge that even certain variants are supposed to have a different role within the same chassis e.g the Hunchback variants; maybe that's the right answer anyways though.

I agree with Mystere that I wouldn't want to see roles by weight class though, that would be lame.

Edited by Pjwned, 10 February 2017 - 04:15 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Reno Blade, on 10 February 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

I think the whole Mech-Ops, Survival and Movement branches should have a total cap, so you have to choose between being more tough, or having better agility, or better sensors or better heat control.

e.g. 30 points max for these skill classes/branches.


Then the Weapons and InfoTech should be the rest of the points (e.g. 61).

That would also give you more points to spend on multiple weapons rather than puthing 60+ into your mech.
Giving you more reason to actually spec AND use multiple weapons instead of single weapon type and boating that.

interesting, IDK if I totally am behind it, but would definitely be willing to test it out in said format. But they would also have to clean up those trees and allow for more linear progression, IMO, for that to be a viable answer... after all, as it is currently, capped points just mean that a chunk of each tree is pointless.

I have no trouble with the though of capping them, just that if we do have such a limitation, we should only "get what we pay for", too, instead of being forced to get Hill Climb or other things we roundly ignored as Modules.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 February 2017 - 05:12 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Except you have to be very careful because those different Hunchbacks could easily infringe on a role that another chassis was BUILT for that just doesn't translate quite as well in MWO. For example the HBK-4SP and HBK-4J both do a role another chassis does and do it better than them (HBK-4J vs Trenchbuckets, HBK-4SP vs Kintaro) which is honestly why we should get rid of a lot of these variants, especially ones that are redundant (for example do we really need both the HBK-4G and HBK-4H or could they just be rolled into one?).

I am all for more variants, honestly, simply because it often comes down to preference. There are other ways to differentiate the Trebuchet from an HBK-4J. I mean , what you are saying, we should essentially remove the Assasin, as it steps on the Jenner's toes, the Cicada or the Locust...don't need both.... Um... Let's see, we have the HBK-4J, Trebuchet, Whitwhorth and Dervish all doing the same thing.. so let's eliminate all of them but one... you know the 55 ton Triplets have a lot of variants that kind of tread on each other's toes.... maybe we just get rid of the Griffin and Wolverine, entirely?

Extreme, perhaps... but that's just taking that path to it's logical conclusion (with possibly a dash of hyperbole for drama).

The Trebuchet, for instance, is more mobile, and less well armored than the 4J. So while their Missiles may overlap... one might get a superior Mobility Tree, whereas the Other gets a Superior Survivability tree.

Now both coexist... but cater to different playstyles of Missile Support.... one still more of a tank, one more of a flanker.

More options, not less. (though I admit, the HBK-4H and GI honestly can rot in hades for all I care... but then, I am a bit of a 4G Snob.)

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

it still gives assault information they should not have

seismic should not be available to assaults or most heavies. it should only be for lights and mediums to reinforce a scouting/skrimisher role.

and this is what happens when one lets opinion override facts and data. You don't LIKE Assaults having it. SO it's bad, got it. Not that it is actually unbalancing anything.

Perhaps a better option...would be to have some viable alternatives that make things like Radar Derp and Seismic NON automatic choices. But naw... that doesn't fit your personal desire.

[T e c h 4 9]

T Decker, on 09 February 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

It's expensive for a reason: They need a new revenue stream after announcing the "cheaper" Mech prices for new chassis. Instead, they're now trying to force people into spending real money on C-Bills and GXP to spend on the skill tree to stay competitive.

What I'd REALLY like to see is someone taking b the time to document all their current mechs, skill trees, and modules, and once the new skill tree is released (as well as the supposed "refund" of GXP and C-bills from the current system, and see if it's even possible to get their mechs back to where they were before the change. I guarantee it's not possible. Why? The new skill tree requires purchasing quirks/skills that aren't desired or needed in the current configuration, leading to spending 2 to 3 times the resources to get a mech on the new system the equivalent of the current system. PGI is robbing everyone of the work they've already done, and are forcing everyone to pay up.

I've actually already done that for all of my 105 'mechs as I keep a spreadsheet to track everything (unfortunately, I started doing this about 6 months AFTER I started playing the game). I know exactly what I've spent on this game: real money, MC, C-bills; every 'mech, every module, all the XP/GXP. The only thing I can't really say is the exact XP-GXP split, since I did spend some GXP to level 'mechs, and I also converted alot of XP to GXP. I'm probably about 80% accurate on the XP/GXP.

I don't doubt I'd get "refunded" the C-bills and XP/GXP, and that's not why I started tracking this stuff. I just thought it would be interesting to track these metrics.

All in all, I think the new skill tree system in the PTS is just a different implementation of exactly what we have now, there is really nothing "new", except maybe some nerfs. A real shame. I was really hoping that PGI would create a system that allowed 'mechs to have widely varying strengths and weaknesses, abilities and capabilities. This system is just the same thing in a different box.

Edited by T e c h 4 9, 10 February 2017 - 05:37 PM.

[Exard3k]

In general, I like the update....some flaws, yes, but nothing you can't optimize in a short timeframe. But gameplay feels great, the more matches I play, the more I like things like new crit system, TTK and stuff.

Boating thing has to go, only one skilltree for all weapon types combined. JJ tree needs some love. And I'm finally piloting a timber wolf once this goes live as I don't have to spend 70m cbills anymore to get it mastered and fully equipped. Respeccing system is fairest of all F2P games I encountered. You don't have to regrind xp and you don't HAVE to spend real money on it.

Edited by Exard3k, 10 February 2017 - 05:50 PM.