252 replies to this topic

[BearFlag]

I like the idea of a skill tree and appreciate the effort and thought PGI has put into it. But OP is correct; it needs some tuning.

A following node requires the preceding node in most systems because it represents a progression OR a dependency. Speed Tweak depending on Hill Climb doesn't make sense to me. The Electronic Warfare section could have dependencies that make sense. The others not so much.

A more linear system, with perhaps fewer SP's available, would be better, IMO.

Don't know about the CBill/XP costs. I'm one of those people too lazy to move modules and engines around. So I have a boat load of money and GXP. I defer.

Mech specialization requires a couple of things. Built-in quirks or skill tree paths with less resistance than others AND in-game perks to play that role. Otherwise it's all about the guns.

This may not be a popular idea....but the Skill Tree is all upside. I would not be against other "costs" connected with eliting. These would be intended to partially balance cost/reward somewhat. Weapons are the most obvious example. For example, an IS ML range increment may come with a duration increase. This is in keeping with what we might call "The Clan Paradigm." Better range/damage for hotter, slower, longer burn weapons. Still worth it, but not all upside. Gives the newbie with stock MLs a slight edge in a category (shorter burn in this example). Lasers might go like this:

+Range = longer burn
-Cooldown = more heat (already the case, bump more?)
-Duration = Shorter range or longer cooldown
-Heat = less damage
+Damage = a lot more heat (bad idea, prob.)

The idea is not to nullify the advantages of skilling up, but to create some give-and-take and create paths of hyper-specialization at a cost. You could take a linear path to lower heat, for example, at a cost of lower damage. In some cases, stock weapons might be the sweet spot - SP's could be used in other (read: less popular) parts of the tree. With costs in place, you might have room to buff the elite advantage a tad. (And yes, some of these paths vie against one another and so would probably be decision points on the tree.)

As principle, this could applied across the board. Again, linear paths to high specialization at a cost. Speed Tweak +15!?! Turn rate of lights/mediums or Deceleration of heavies/assaults reduced significantly.

I think the combination of linear path with cost would actually encourage focus and so specialization. My two CBills worth.

Edited by BearFlag, 09 February 2017 - 09:34 PM.

[Alan Davion]

LastPaladin, on 09 February 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

Criticisms are probably right, but what is the point?

They've already decided what they are going to do, they've designed it and programmed it. If it's a disaster, it won't matter, you are going to be stuck with it.

Wrong.

The PTS runs for Energy Draw and Info War were disasters and they were SHELVED. Forgotten by PGI because of the overtly negative reaction by the players.

If people make enough of a stink about this skill system, which they're actually doing right now as far as I can tell, both here and the PTS sub forum, if a few people maybe tweet Russ as well, they'll either take notice of how EXTREMELY displeased everyone is and do one of two things.

One: They'll pull their collective heads out of the sand, take the criticisms people are making, fix them and run a new PTS to make sure it all shakes out right.

I think we all know this likely won't happen though.

Or Two: They'll shut the PTS down and forget they ever tried it like they did with Energy Draw and Info War.

This is by far the more likely eventuality for many reasons. For example, the fact that PGI have so completely and utterly buggered up several of the core game mechanics since day one that they would have to literally start from scratch in order to get things properly balanced again.

This fact also played into the failure of the Info War and Energy Draw PTS, cause they were trying to alter, or introduce new game mechanics on top of the core mechanics that were so screwed up to begin with that they made things even worse than they already were.

MWO is a sucking chest wound of a game, and PGI is trying to fix it with bandaid after bandaid instead of addressing the CORE SYMPTOMS.

Why?

M.V.P.

Minimal.

Viable.

Product.

Addressing the real core problems of the game would probably mean at least a years worth of work resetting literally everything back to base TT values and going in a completely different direction.

I don't know about you but I don't think most people believe PGI has anywhere near the competency level required to undertake such a monumental balancing overhaul.

[Ace Selin]

LastPaladin, on 09 February 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

All my brain is thinking is "Am I going to bother grinding on a game I only play casually anymore just to maybe get back somewhere close to the capabilities I have now (already bought and paid for, surely never to be reimbursed)?"

And the obvious answer is "Not bloody likely".

Took a break from MWO near the start of year, likely wont be back for a few more months, but changes like this may make it a permanent break.

[MacClearly]

I am struggling with this system. Keep going back to if I am going to have to accept it, I want to feel as a paying customer that there is value in there for me. So far not feeling it.

Will always be concerned about what it is going to do to variants, especially things that are based on all lasers like Black Knights and Crabs. I guess I can choose to make them feel different but moving forward I will wait to see which crab has highest engine cap or base quirks and the six instead of five hardpoints?

Of coarse like many others I don't want to have to unlock arm movement to get bareable yaw and pitch on things like the Kodiak (which is ridiculously OP again in PTS with added ammo!!!).

Also because there is some things I don't want to change. Like the Jester. I love it. So I want to configure that particular mech back to exactly how I have it now because of how much I love it how I have it. So struggling to get that balance right now.

Speaking of balance, I don't like the all or nothing this is going to promote. Invest all in pulse lasers or get mediocre in two. Or make two weapons sync up nice but at the expense of agility or armour or tech. Maybe with less points and more linear trees I could get what I want while not making it too crazy? Been waiting so long for the Bushwacker and got introduced to the Centurion via free NCIX (in all fairness would have got to it eventually for the Yen-Lo-Wang and the D) version they gave out. Shooting a canon then missiles, finishing off with a couple of med lasers brought me away from the limited builds that I had been running such as a bunch of large pulse and medium lasers or ppc's and ppc's and guass. Feeling like this will hurt builds like that.

And last I am struggling seeing what I envision as equipment like seismic and radar derp being in a skill tree. I like it being equipable. I know others are not a fan of either but it feels off to me having them in a skill tree. Then if I want to respec there will be a cost...hate that. Would much rather see value wise that I open up the points and then get to mess around continually.

[Davegt27]

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=87I2-y7cV8E

Video I found

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Bombast, on 09 February 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

No, it isn't. It is astoundingly high because it's twice as high as it is now. I have to regrind 19 mechs, plus 4 that I haven't even mastered under the old system.

And good for you, you can get a mech a quarter of the way through the new system in a week. By my rough math, an average player will take over 60 days to master a mech under this new system, assuming one x2 match a day.

This.

I have duplicates of several mastered 'Mechs, either from event rewards or just plain liking the chassis. For example, right now, I have two CN9-AHs. Both are mastered because I mastered one of them. If the XP cost for the new tree is doubled, then the XP cost to get both mastered again is quadrupled. The cbill cost for mastering each is very nearly equal to the total value of the chassis, engine, and upgrades (just shy of 10 million, after selling the stock engine and LRM launcher). So, I basically have to pay the cost of re-buying and fully re-equipping both 'Mechs in order to master their skill trees. Plus the XP cost, which means re-mastering both 'Mechs twice over.

And that's for one variant of one chassis- one which is more or less in the same price range as the skill tree itself.

All of my mastered lights? Those are gonna cost more to master than the 'Mech itself is worth, even with upgrades and equipment included. 50% more, for the Urbies and Commandos.

Mediums, as mentioned, are more or less +1x purchase cost.

Since selling a 'Mech only returns 50% of the purchase price, not counting the DHS and endo/ferro fees, that means I'd have to scrap roughly 75% of the 'Mechs I own just to break even on mastering the remainder. About half of my 'Mechs were bought with real money, which means that in order to achieve that magical point of just breaking even on cbill costs, I would be taking an actual financial loss by selling 'Mechs I paid actual, honest-to-goodness realbucks on. Just to avoid the cbill grind, which is the whole reason I paid real money in the first place. That's silly. I would be a silly person for doing that. I would be just as silly for spending the time to grind all of that back up to current specs. Adding a cbill grind to those same 'Mechs now devalues money already spent, and that's just seventeen different kinds of not frikkin' cool.

One for one with current mastery investment is absolutely essential. Otherwise, it's time to move on to greener pastures.

[Snowbluff]

Alan Davion, on 09 February 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

Why?

M.V.P.

Minimal.

Viable.

Product.

"This game is an underdeveloped product and that's why I don't want them to develop it any further."

[Zergling]

Honestly, I agree with the criticisms here, but I hope they don't shelve it, because as bad as the whole thing is and how it completely fails to achieve its goals of 'choice and diversity', it just might make the game a little less stagnant.

Like, it will shift the meta in some direction, but most players will adapt as they always do. I guess the one benefit of the whole thing will be increased TTK due to everyone running the survival tree.

However, I would like them to reduce the costs (and dump respec cost entirely) before it is released to the live server.

Edited by Zergling, 09 February 2017 - 10:08 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Snowbluff, on 09 February 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

"This game is an underdeveloped product and that's why I don't want them to develop it any further."

You see that?

That was my point going completely over your head.

I want them to develop the game further, problem is they have proven time and time again they are completely incapable of doing so.

They have had I can't even begin to imagine how many opportunities to fix the game and develop it further, and every single flipping time they have failed, spectacularly in some cases.

Info War for example. That could have been a HUGE game changer, but they so utterly BORKED IT UP, the reaction of the players forced them to completely shelve the concept and they haven't touched it since.

This skill tree system is just the latest example of how they can't do anything right beyond make good looking and more powerful mechs to sell us.

[Rizzwind]

FupDup, on 09 February 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

I'm going to disagree on the sub-point of having too few SP. As it is now, we can basically branch out into five trees and almost completely fill out those five. Every skill configuration I try to make ends up as a generalist. The system prevents me from specializing in only one or two trees.

I'd like for each tree to have more nodes so I could do something crazy like invest all of my points into pure defense or whatever. Right now, role specialization is impossible because we're forced to pick four to five full trees. Right now, every mech gets to pick almost everything.

I have to agree with you here. I kept coming across the same thing with all but a very few scout mechs.

[Snazzy Dragon]

I was planning on skipping seismic (shocker) to save points and just grab radar dep, but by the time I invested enough to get radar dep I was like "wow, that cost a f***ton, and the paths to seismic are right there.. why not."

There's really no choice between the two. You either get them both or you don't.

[meteorol]

First of all, i'm going to say i like the idea behind it, The implementation is atrocious though.

I can't really share your criticism on having to spent points on skills you don't like. As a long time RPG player, this somewhat seems "natural" to me, and is a key point of a skill "tree" in countless RPGs. Countless games make you spent a few "waste" points to get into branches you really like. So while i can see how people don't like this, i'm simply so used to it that it doesn't really offend me.

What is a no-go on the other hand is that every mech has the same skills. Spending "waste" points is one thing, spending them on skills don't benefit your mech at all unacceptable (like arm speed on a mech without arm hardpoints). So while the "waste" point in general are not like a red rag for me, the trees have to be reworked to prevent stuff like this. I'd like them to change the branches a bit to give a better choice on where you want to spec though. Like one branch leads to seismic, one to radar derp, with different, but less "waste" points. Right now 100m seismic is a no brainer if you are putting points towards radar derp because of the trees layout.

All in all i'd say i can live with waste points, but I would like them to redo the branches so you got less of them and actually have to chose between where you want to spec.

Oh, they really need to rework some of the values. 4% cooldown is useless. It's simply not worth using, ever.

What is unacceptable though, and this is out of question, is the current pricing model.

9.1 mio cbill and 124k xp per mech is not tolerable.

Some, and luckily it's only some people keep saying

• But you don't need to buy three mech variants now, it's actually way cheaper now
  
• But you will get millions back from your modules, you will easily be able to pay for all your mechs

this is a terribly narrow-minded way to see things, probably the way PGI saw things aswell, and the reason why we are sitting infront of the trainwreck we got. This mindset completely ignores that:

• People don't need to buy three mechs anymore, but they have already bought three variants and maybe like to play all three of them. If you like to use all three variants (especially on omni mechs!) you are now sitting on way way way higher XP costs and 27.3 mio cbills to master them.
  
• A lot of people, i would even guess the majority of players doesn't get a 1 billion cbill refund because they switched modules. There are players with 100+ mastered mechs but only like 20 modules. Those players will be flat out reset to almost zero, unable to master the mechs they already had mastered and get their mechs on the level they had before.

Now, this doesn't affect me. I only ever play a handful of mechs, never bought subpar mechs and don't touch mechs that fell out of the meta. I'm sitting on 450mio cbills before module refunds. "I" can take this fee. But i can see upon first sight that there will be countless players who can't. This will brutally punish people who spent most on their cbills on mechs and switched modules.

I can imagine people who can't afford to master their already mastered mechs again won't do the grind all over, but simply drop the game. This is something that really could considerably bleed MWOs if it goes live this way.

Edited by meteorol, 09 February 2017 - 10:38 PM.

[Tripzter]

I'd be quite happy to see the tech tree be more like the paragon levels in diablo. infinitely many points but each point requiring longer and longer to grind.

[meteorol]

Tripzter, on 09 February 2017 - 10:34 PM, said:

I'd be quite happy to see the tech tree be more like the paragon levels in diablo. infinitely many points but each point requiring longer and longer to grind.

Don't think that's a good idea.

This is a PVP game. If you don't hardcap skills at some point, people who spent much time with the game get a huge advantage based on the fact that they are spending much time, not based on their skill level.

D3s paragon levels really only work because Blizz flat out lied into the face of the playerbase when they promised PVP will be added to the game (and you guys though the 3PV lie was a big thing)

Edited by meteorol, 09 February 2017 - 10:41 PM.

[Wintersdark]

RestosIII, on 09 February 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

Around 50-60k XP to master a mech right now. 130k in the new system. Plus 9.1m C-Bills. That's a goddamn lot, especially considering it's on a per-mech basis. So if you own 2 Adder Primes? Gotta grind that amount out twice.

do you feel modules are mandatory to play currently?

It costs more because modules are rolled into it now.

Yes, you can currently move modules around, but you still need to unlock with GXP currently (huge grind for new players) and buy them (another huge grind for new players), AND need to buy and level three mechs (cost! Grind!)

The new tree IS grindier, but not twice as bad when you consider all the factors.

[KingCobra]

After playing the PTS on my founders account I can only say one thing (this game will die from lack of new players) as they will just install MWO figure out the costs and grind time and uninstall.

It was bad enough a new player was starved of C-bills to even outfit a mech halfway capable of playing in a CW/FW match or having to outfit 3 mechs to get mastered.

MWO seems to be moving backward again into a non friendly new-player experience then who is going to pay when the VETS say I have had enough?

Its simple logic PGI make the game new player friendly first then add a separate hard core mode that requires specific roles load-outs and skills to play for the hardcore group players for CW/FW.

I could add more but why? it is never listened to anyways. Here is a simple phrase from my grandfather to me when I was young and you might want to learn it PGI (Keep it simple stupid).

[RestosIII]

Wintersdark, on 09 February 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

do you feel modules are mandatory to play currently?

It costs more because modules are rolled into it now.

Yes, you can currently move modules around, but you still need to unlock with GXP currently (huge grind for new players) and buy them (another huge grind for new players), AND need to buy and level three mechs (cost! Grind!)

The new tree IS grindier, but not twice as bad when you consider all the factors.

Getting Speed Tweak, heat containment, cool run, etc. didn't cost C-Bills before. Now they do. Now, I'm stuck having to spend a minimum of 2.5-4m C-Bills on every mech I own just to get to what I had before. Per variant. Here's an example of why this is insane: When the Mad Cat MK II inevitably drops, I was planning on having 2 of its main variant, one for a lore build, and one for a close range brawler. With the live system? Zero C-Bill costs for the actual skills, and the XP only needs to be grinded once. The XP to mastery goes into other mechs as well that, if I actually like the chassis, I will probably use as well, so it's a win-win. With this new system, I'm going to have to grind it twice, since I own multiple variants, while spending C-Bills I would normally be able to use to properly outfit the mech, or buy more mechs.

So, for me personally, this system is entirely screwing me over. Whenever someone says "Oh, you didn't need modules before, well, you won't need the skill tree either", I just have to point out THAT I STILL GODDAMN MASTERED MY MECHS. But with this new system, to get all of my mechs back to mastery levels, I'll have to spend over 200,000 C-Bills.

C-Bills shouldn't enter the equation. It screws over anyone that wasn't in love with modules or had a massive stockpile of C-Bills, or just started the game.

[kuma8877]

Noone has really brought up the fact that FW has taken a more primary role in PGI's focus, and this skill tree pushes you towards FW play due to the higher payouts and use of compromise to create role focused builds (and yes, you can do it but you can't have your cake and eat it too and need to compromise on your chosen nodes) and shorten the overall grind. Perhaps considering the tree in the FW environment, rather than just QP can put it more into perspective.

[RestosIII]

kuma8877, on 09 February 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

Noone has really brought up the fact that FW has taken a more primary role in PGI's focus, and this skill tree pushes you towards FW play due to the higher payouts and use of compromise to create role focused builds (and yes, you can do it but you can't have your cake and eat it too and need to compromise on your chosen nodes) and shorten the overall grind. Perhaps considering the tree in the FW environment, rather than just QP can put it more into perspective.

I don't play FW currently. So if they base the game on FW, guess what I'll be doing. I'll not be playing FW still, that's for sure.

[Undercover Brother]

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.