252 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

But I guess I should just shut up and wait for Gman and Metamechs to say the same thing, to make it true, right?

Not saying that at all, if SRMs are more accurate than they were before even with the SRM4 nerf then you are most likely correct (Kiss of death Jenner may make a return) in that for lights SRMs will be a thing again (well their size does hurt them still though).

GMan also hasn't been playing lately so I wouldn't care what he has to say anyway (not that I did in the first place, because he is a butt).

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

I don't give a damn if it[s 4v4 or 12v12, that makes a hell of a difference. Whereas as many lights default to SPL now, the SRM has totally replaced that in the PTS, because of power and sustainability, something the lasers lack.

SPLs and SRMs don't really have that different of sustainability, at least SRM4s don't compared to cSPLs. SRM6s are a different story, especially since the SRM4 got nerfed in this PTS.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2017 - 11:04 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

Agreed. The XP and C-bill costs are just insane. In fact they are so bad it keeps distracting me from other problems I have with the skill trees in general. Maybe that is intentional? For the most part I never needed modules, but the ones I bought I did buy for a fair number of my mechs because I was too lazy to swap them often, but even then I am going to be massively short XP and C-bills under this system. I have 230+ mechs, and I probably won't even be able to fully unlock more than 10 of them. I can't see grinding out another 220+ mechs essentially from scratch. They can pretty much forget me making any purchases on new mechs.

I had maybe 25 out of 200 mechs that were fully unlockable, XP wise. I had 90= that were Mastered under the old system, and another 90 that were fully elites, and collecting XP....and the handful I knew were going to be short because I never used them like the Grasshopper.

But since I own maybe 20 modules in Total? I doubt I'll even have enough Cbills to master the 25 or so that I have enough XP to unlock.

GG PGI.

Well, March 15. You get 1 month, 5 more days from me, before Battletech 2017 Closed Beta starts. Pretty obvious at this point, where I'll be spending my time from then on.

[Wintersdark]

Kdogg788, on 10 February 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

I am truly shocked that there is no differentiation in the skill tree between mech chassis and variants or at the VERY LEAST, between weight classes.

-k

There should *ABSOLUTELY* be different skill trees for different weight classes.


Hell, at the absolute minimum, there should be one extra base tree for each specific weight class, so you get to choose from all the basic skills, AND another tree that's weight class specific. That way, you could add "Juggernaut" type skills for the Assault pilot who wants to tank it up, extra scouty stuff for lights that you don't want Heavy's being able to benefit from, etc.

[DrxAbstract]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

I ran them in the PTS...they are insane. With maxxed out SRMs you are sticking all those SRMs into a single component, at 300 meters. Even without artemis the spread is minimal. Oxide is not just viable in the PTS, it's a fracking bionic piranha at a range it never was effective before.

Gosh, thanks Mods. Too much traction to the topic, so got to try to bury it I see. Well, have fun burying the game with it.

Not sure what you're talking about - I ran a fully specced Oxide with SRM4s(No Artemis) several matches and it was sheer luck to get every missile to even hit the full breadth of a KDK's torso from 100. You can stand 20m from the Awesome in the testing, aim dead center CT and hit its legs... So yeah, not seeing where this "precision" stuff you're talking about is coming from.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Game over, mods moved it

[Pjwned]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

that might work... except to avoid almost constant shutdown with even ballistics, you need to spend 20 something on the Operation tree, alone, literally.

If you cut us down to 30, I promise you, that will be fully maxxed by everyone, and then the rest of the Trees become a bigger joke because it will be effectively (as in practice, vs theory) pointless to have the upper ends of skill trees on any other Skill Path because to achieve them would mean sacrificing your Operations Nodes..which are now absolutely essential to operate.

I guess ideally that would be part of "mak[ing] some tweaks" so that people wouldn't just put everything in Operations? I can't give you a concrete answer to that honestly, but I do see your point.

Maybe people would just have to deal with it and start equipping more heatsinks rather than more firepower? I've hated the power creep coming from modules, quirks, and the skill tree for a long time now and I would honestly be pretty thrilled to see people taking more sensible builds rather than crazy glass cannon builds that only ever feature XL engines propped up by quirks that ruin the game.

Like I said though I'd rather just see no skill tree at all.

Deathlike, on 10 February 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

I don't think that would change things that drastically.

People haven't truly understood the effects of our CURRENT skill tree.. let alone what our PTS has to offer.

I mean, we have someone that doesn't understand that "list" that was put up - had we listed what you get as a bonus for our existing tree, it wouldn't be that dramatically different - yet it's just more "visible" in the new tree...

It's like saying something is "on sale" for 50% off, when the regular price (before the sale) is literally 50% off the retail price... but it's just to get people to pay attention to the word "sale" instead of "this is our normal price dummy, you didn't notice it before".

I don't really see a better solution without expanding the new skill tree massively, which is not something I'm counting on PGI to do at all let alone successfully.

[KingCobra]

Bishop said (Well, March 15. You get 1 month, 5 more days from me, before Battletech 2017 Closed Beta starts. Pretty obvious at this point, where I'll be spending my time from then on.)

DUDE not to be rude but is not BattleTech2017 a PGI?IGP off shoot of the same corporation under a different license? And you wondered where Brian has been? after the Trannyverse debacle died down.

Just a guess ROFL

Edited by KingCobra, 10 February 2017 - 11:09 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

Not saying that at all, if SRMs are more accurate than they were before even with the SRM4 nerf then you are most likely correct (Kiss of death Jenner may make a return) in that for lights SRMs will be a thing again (well their size does hurt them still though).

GMan also hasn't been playing lately so I wouldn't care what he has to say anyway (not that I did in the first place, because he is a butt).


SPLs and SRMs don't really have that different of sustainability, at least SRM4s don't compared to cSPLs. SRM6s are a different story, especially since the SRM4 got nerfed in this PTS.

When 4xSRM6 will core out an Assault in 2 volleys (tested and done) that's all the sustainability they really need. SPLs needed a lot more action to achieve the same results (though Lights and Mediums were just pretty well wrecking Assaults right and left on every drop I was in... though I got a pretty good laugh when Grievous one shot my Pirates Bane... which was completely unskilled... demonstrating the huge disparity between mastered and non in the new system, where the only way people were nailing Locusts were if they stopped.

Also, we had several instances of through armo crits happening, losing components, etc while still having unbreached armor.

DrxAbstract, on 10 February 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Not sure what you're talking about - I ran a fully specced Oxide with SRM4s(No Artemis) several matches and it was sheer luck to get every missile to even hit the full breadth of a KDK's torso from 100. You can stand 20m from the Awesome in the testing, aim dead center CT and hit its legs... So yeah, not seeing where this "precision" stuff you're talking about is coming from.

Lol...ok, sure. I'll have to see what pariah got recorded.

[oldradagast]

Dee Eight, on 10 February 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

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.

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.

[Bishop Steiner]

KingCobra, on 10 February 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Bishop said (Well, March 15. You get 1 month, 5 more days from me, before Battletech 2017 Closed Beta starts. Pretty obvious at this point, where I'll be spending my time from then on.)

DUDE not to be rude but is not BattleTech2017 a PGI?IGP off shoot of the same corporation under a different license? And you wondered where Brian has been? after the Trannyverse debacle died down.

Just a guess ROFL

Actual HBS is a totally different company, with a very visible and approachable CEO named Mitch, who not only communicates, but actually listens. Only connection between them and PGI is the IP and the mech models.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Also, we had several instances of through armo crits happening, losing components, etc while still having unbreached armor.

TACs are the bane of my existence.

[KingCobra]

Bishop said (Actual HBS is a totally different company, with a very visible and approachable CEO named Mitch, who not only communicates, but actually listens. Only connection between them and PGI is the IP and the mech models. )


I think you need to dig a little deeper grasshopper.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 10 February 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

There should *ABSOLUTELY* be different skill trees for different weight classes.

There should just be different skill trees period (well honestly I don't really care, I just want more linear trees with a lot less branches). I don't think every skill tree should be restricted to different weight classes (since some roles cross weight class boundaries) but for some it makes sense.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2017 - 11:13 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

KingCobra, on 10 February 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Bishop said (Actual HBS is a totally different company, with a very visible and approachable CEO named Mitch, who not only communicates, but actually listens. Only connection between them and PGI is the IP and the mech models. )


I think you need to dig a little deeper grasshopper.

I've dug a lot deeper than you, apparently grubworm.

Brian is over at MW5, btw, in case you need to know where he's been hiding. (Also HBS and HyperRabbit RPG are Seattle Based, American companies. But hey, keep running down that rabbit hole)

[WarHippy]

KingCobra, on 10 February 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Bishop said (Well, March 15. You get 1 month, 5 more days from me, before Battletech 2017 Closed Beta starts. Pretty obvious at this point, where I'll be spending my time from then on.)

DUDE not to be rude but is not BattleTech2017 a PGI?IGP off shoot of the same corporation under a different license? And you wondered where Brian has been? after the Trannyverse debacle died down.

Just a guess ROFL

Umm... You are completely off base there. HBS(makers of the upcoming Battletech game) are entirely separate from PGI. The two companies are friendly in part because they are both making games using the same IP, and because PGI is sharing mech models with them.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

There should just be different skill trees period (well honestly I don't really care, I just want more linear trees with a lot less branches). I don't think every skill tree should be restricted to different weight classes (since some roles cross weight class boundaries) but for some it makes sense.

Since you can have a Medium Juggernaut (Hunchback) or a Heavy (Shootist) or Assault (Fafnir, Atlas, etc), or a Light Sniper (Jackal, Hollander, etc) alongwith Assaults (Warhawk, etc) and such, I agree. But there should probably be some "General" Trees, some Weight Class Specific Trees, and then some Role Specific Trees. And one mixes and matches from there.

With a whole lot less of the General being "mandatory" like they are atm with the Operational Nodes.

[Mystere]

WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

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.

I myself would not want such a set up. I'd rather have access to all trees and I will decide for myself which things to specialize on.

Having predefined "roles" just increases the probability of me not liking any of them. In my view, that would also increase the probability of cookie-cutter setups. I'd rather mix and match.

oldradagast, on 10 February 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

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.

As long as the branch progression is logical and does not contain false choices, access to all trees would be fine.

Edited by Mystere, 10 February 2017 - 11:23 AM.

[Mystere]

Probably Not, on 10 February 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

The more I think about it, the more I'm fairly sure that PGI is going to toss the skill tree ....

I have no problem with PGI tossing the concept of a skill tree. I'd rather have none than a big mess.

[DrxAbstract]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Lol...ok, sure. I'll have to see what pariah got recorded.

Well, mathematically speaking, what you're saying is impossible:

SRM4 spread on Live is 3.5, on PTS it's 4. With the generic 10% spread reduction it's 3.6 and adding Artemis for comparison is moot as the base SRM4 spread is inherently worse, meaning the ASRM4 spread is also worse... So laser-precise SRM4s from an Oxide beyond point-blank is factually incorrect because if it couldn't do it on Live it sure as **** isnt going to be doing it on PTS.

And I havnt seen the Huntsman tree, so it very well could have better spread reduction quirks than the Oxide, but given the SRM6 has worse spread than SRM4s it's unlikely your assertion that pinpoint Clan ASRM6's from 300m is completely true.

[WarHippy]

Mystere, on 10 February 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

I myself would not want such a set up. I'd rather have access to all trees and I will decide for myself which things to specialize on.

Having predefined "roles" just increases the probability of me not liking any of them. In my view, that would also increase the probability of cookie-cutter setups. I'd rather mix and match.




As long as the branch progression is logical and does not contain false choices, access to all trees would be fine.

What I described still allows for that. You would be able to choose the tree to work with for each mech, and while the trees would have a focus based on the class you chose you would still be able to specialize within the tree. By selecting scout you would still be able to specialize as a combat scout or a purely infowar scout if you prefer as examples. What I described basically takes it down from one giant tree with multiple paths to a more simplified template set of trees that still allow for unique choices to be made, and for that matter makes it easier to have different awards that matter in a match for mechs performing their intended role.

If you don't like it, you don't like. I was simply throwing out another option to make things more interesting than this current abomination of a tree.