252 replies to this topic

[Nik Reaper]

At this point it isn't even about the price, if it was done right. The most glaring problem is that the "basic" upgrades we are all used to, and know are worth it, or to say are essential, cost the vast majority of the max points.

Because there is no basic efficientis that are separate from the "enhancements" we need most of enhancements just to catch up and after that there are some obvious choices, like defense and sensors.

Now if not every mech had the same choices of the trees , had varied basic stats, through quirks but not just the under performers, then mechs could have character by choosing to enhance or not a trait, like twist speed, that they are passable at instead needing to speck in to it just to be passable at it...

P.S.
This system enhances the Engine problem, ei. the agility of a mech is tied to the engine size and thanks to that so many mechs and builds on them are just sub par or even unusable due to the lack of mobility that was mostly mended up till now by x2 basics, now you have to spend most of the points to get that, not leaving you many points for any really interesting choices after that.

Those that were "basic x2" quirks are much more important than the numbers you get with the other choices, making them not a choice at all, but a necessity and that defeats the point of getting choice. Many in the PTS noted that not taking operations makes mechs so much hotter that they regretted not getting those straight away, and many other less skilled players might assume they don't even need those, only to find that they do and now they need to pay for a respec and pay for the new nodes... fun times ahead.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 10 February 2017 - 02:51 AM.

[Khobai]

Seems like you get way too many skill points to me. Having so many skill points means you dont have to make tough choices because you can get every skill you want. That's bad. They need to either reduce the number of skill points or make the skill trees deeper in order to promote choice.

Also having one generic skill tree doesnt promote role diversity. Instead of having one generic skill tree they need at least 3 different skill trees (i.e. command/support, striker/assault, recon/skirmisher). And each mech would get the skill tree that best reflects its intended role.

[Guile Votoms]

As people have already pointed out, the mobility, operational and defense trees are pretty much mandatory,
which leaves you with a choice between one weapon, jumpjets or sensors.
There aren't enough points to branch out in a meaningful way.

It does nothing for variety but instead makes existing problems even worse.
Lackluster mechs are left further in the dust and already powerful ones become even better.

It's overcomplicated and clunky and will confuse beginners and casual players
as well as force everyone into an endless grind for c-bills and xp.

Even further, it severely punishes everyone for experimenting with the trees with more grinding.

I am baffled by how poorly this system was thought through (or wasn't).
It doesn't improve the game at all but instead turns one of it's key gameplay aspects into a chore,
solves no problems and increases the gap between new/casual and regular players even more.

[Hanky Spam]

I think PGI should postpone the Skilltree by at least 2 weeks.

There is of course improvement and new possibilites that come with the Skilltree but also alot of shade in its current state and I don't think that PGI will properly listen to it's customers.

Some things that I noticed which needs to be addressed have I summarized here in my thread: https://mwomercs.com...day-on-the-pts/

[Khobai]

Quote

As people have already pointed out, the mobility, operational and defense trees are pretty much mandatory,
which leaves you with a choice between one weapon, jumpjets or sensors.

actually the problem is you get too many skill points. a good skill tree forces choices. it forces you to choose mobility or defense. it doesnt let you take both. a skill tree that allows you to take every mandatory skill should be sending up red flags.

also we need at least 3 different skill trees to promote role diversity. allowing every mech access to the same skills doesnt promote role diversity. the whole point of role diversity is that not every mech should have access to the same skills and that you need to combine different roles together to get access to all the skills.

lastly repeccing needs to be free. once you pay for a skill point you should be able to respec that skill point whenever you want for free. customization is this games only real appealing feature, and you dont block your games best feature behind a paywall. all that will do is make people stop playing your game real fast

Edited by Khobai, 10 February 2017 - 03:17 AM.

[SeventhSL]

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.

[l33tworks]

.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

better special Skilltrees and Research for the special Role of a Chassie .. seeing War Thunder...Star Conflict ...Xcom 2 ...diverse Roleplaying Multiplayergames ...

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 February 2017 - 03:18 AM.

[Guile Votoms]

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

actually the problem is you get too many skill points. a good skill tree forces choices. it forces you to choose mobility or defense. it doesnt let you take both.

A good skill tree gives you meaningful options, not a choice between the lesser evil.
If you reduce the number of skill points, players will still default to mobility and defense and ignore weapons and sensors instead.

Mobility is already linked to engines. With the skill tree, taking higher engines becomes even more costly.

Mobility, weapons and armour options should not be in the skill tree.

[Khobai]

Quote

If you reduce the number of skill points, players will still default to mobility and defense and ignore weapons and sensors instead

which is why i said they needed at least 3 different skill trees to promote role diversity. did you even read my second paragraph? theyre related ideas.

mobility and defense shouldnt even be in the same skill trees for example. having lots of armor and structure should be mutually exclusive with going faster and vice versa.

defense should be in the striker/assault tree
while mobility should be in the recon/skirmisher tree

Edited by Khobai, 10 February 2017 - 03:27 AM.

[Guile Votoms]

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

did you read my second paragraph?

If you edit it in after I already replied, how would I have been able to read it?

[Nik Reaper]

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

which is why i said they needed at least 3 different skill trees to promote role diversity. did you even read my second paragraph? theyre related ideas.

mobility and defense shouldnt even be in the same skill trees for example. having lots of armor and structure should be mutually exclusive with going faster and vice versa.

defense should be in the striker/assault tree
while mobility should be in the recon/skirmisher tree

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?

Edited by Nik Reaper, 10 February 2017 - 03:38 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

If you edit it in after I already replied, how would I have been able to read it?

I edited at 6:17 you posted at 6:19

timestamps bro

[TWIAFU]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

*MODS...this is intentionally placed here instead of the PTS Skill Tree section. No matter how much you may desire, most people read the General Discussion and will likely not even LOOK in the SkilL Tree section.*

So, after playing on the PTS for the afternoon, these are my conclusions.

The Skill Tree system is not a bad idea in theory.... but it's execution is lazy, sloppy and the Devs are being pretty dang disingenuous in how they present it, as it certainly will cost us a hell of a lot more, across the board, than previously.

I like the idea of there being Various Skill Trees, and you not being able to just max out everything. But.... they do it in as generic and lazy a manner possible.

-They do nothing to promote the actual Roles of individual Mechs

-It's the same options for everyone... to the point where your mechs with NO LOWER ARM ACTUATORS... are still required to waste Skill Points on Nodes dedicated to Arm Yaw. WTF?

-The Node Trees are not remotely Linear, and require you to cross pollinate on Skill Nodes you may have ZERO desire to spend your points on.

-91 Skill Points seems like a lot... it's not. Almost everyone is going to want to open up 90% of the Mobility and Operational Skill Nodes... and there goes 1/2 to 2/3 of your Points there. Then you get to decide between spending on super itemized weapon systems, most will want 15 of the 17 Defensive Nodes.... and that is without even touching InfoWar.

- Too expensive, requiring XP, GXP and Copious CBills expenditures, well beyond what one has to spend now, even with the 3 way XP Trees.

-The New User Experience is going to Hell in a Handbasket. The Time, XP and Cost needed to grind out a new chassis... is going to leave the Noobs farther in the dust than ever before.

-A lot of the actual percentages are still completely ludicrous when one maxes out.

Mind you, I'm not saying all is lost. Please don't do like you did with the InfoWar PTS, get sulky and chuck the whole thing because of a few butthurt Cryhards. Take the critiques and ADJUST THE DAMN THING.

-Diversify the Skill Trees, to actually promote the intended ROLES of each Mech. Scout, Sniper, Skirmisher, Juggernaut, etc.
http://www.sarna.net...attleMech_roles

-Streamline the Node Trees themselves so we are not forced into purchasing Nodes we do not want, unless they directly impact the next level of a Node. I should not have to unlock Arm Yaw to affect Torso Speed, etc. And don't force Mechs without Lower Arms to waste already scarce skill points on bloody Arm Yaw to get to torso Quirks.

-Re-evaluate the Prices. Realize there is a hell of a difference between the Smurfy Cost of a Maxed Out Mech, and the REAL cost, since most of us have not and will not EVER buy an individual Seismic, Radar Derp, etc, for each and every one of our 200 Gundams, no matter how you try to dress it up. Please for once, respect our intelligence.

PGI... you have a chance to do things real well here, or to ship it out halfassed. The idea is not bad, the execution, as seen in the PTS? Is execrable. (And that's not even getting into the real poor UI)

Everyone, take note!

This is how feedback looks and should be presented.

PGI, please read this, Bishop has done a commendable job in pointing out some flaws in the system. Well thought out, direct, and on topic.

Excellent job Bishop!

/respect!!

[Nik Reaper]

If PGI would enhance the basic mobility of some mechs that build with sub 340 engine ( heavy and assault , mediums and lights are mostly ok on mobility but still get an edge with bonuses ) and if we had select-able gamemodes where mechs could specialize and not need to cross the baseline of mobility to compete then it wouldn't be such a problem, but alas it's not to be.

[Guile Votoms]

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 03:33 AM, said:

I edited at 6:17 you posted at 6:19

timestamps bro

Yes, and it took me some time to write that post, genius.

Edited by Guile Votoms, 10 February 2017 - 03:55 AM.

[Bombast]

TWIAFU, on 10 February 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

Everyone, take note!

This is how feedback looks and should be presented.

But how do I fit that all into a Twitter post, and still have space for a snide remark?

Edited by Bombast, 10 February 2017 - 04:01 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Bombast, on 10 February 2017 - 04:01 AM, said:

But how do I fit that all into a Twitter post, and still have space for a snide remark?

USE ALL CAPS! SAD!

[Bombast]

TWIAFU, on 10 February 2017 - 04:04 AM, said:

USE ALL CAPS! SAD!

I'll give it a shot.

Thanks though, this whole thing has reminded me I need to keep spamming Russ's twitter feed with requests to fix the CIcada's engine cap. Not that anyone has responded to me so far... Maybe I should go full Trump.

[Oberost]

Bombast, on 10 February 2017 - 04:08 AM, said:

I'll give it a shot.

Thanks though, this whole thing has reminded me I need to keep spamming Russ's twitter feed with requests to fix the CIcada's engine cap. Not that anyone has responded to me so far... Maybe I should go full Trump.