27 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Another observation:

As I've stated above, from the perspective of a former whale with lots of mechs and lots of duplicative variants of mechs the system is in effect a punishment for past purchases. So be it. But even if I had sufficient XP to fully remaster all my currently mastered duplicate mechs, the system encourages their moncultureization in that no mater how diverse the build most of them are going to use the same 70 or so base quirks:

Defense all but AMS: 15 nodes.
Lower Chassis: 20 nodes.
Sensors: 25 nodes (to get to full rderp and seismic).
Any ballistics based mech is going to want to go with 12 nodes (or so) on mech operations tree, just to get to Magazine Capacity, and lots of folks will want most of the tree just for things like quick ignition and the heat nodes as well so even without magazine capacity as the goal most players are going to use several nodes here so I will stick with at least 12 as the base.

That comes out to 72 nodes before even looking at weapons. And those 72 nodes still don't get you to the performance level of a formerly mastered mech...though I admit it is hard to do an apples to apples comparison as the defense tree is largely new, but it is also clear that most of that tree's nodes are an inherent necessity for most mechs.

I'm also assuming most players will ignore the whole of the upper chassis tree, which has quirks many of us took for granted under the old system (torso twist, etc). If you do fully invest here that is 25 nodes and you are now over your allotted 91. I think it safe to assume that most will skip this branch and want the remaining 19 or so nodes for weapons. Most will likely even skimp on some of the stuff above, in order to get a few more weapons nodes, so lets call it 20-25 nodes left for weapons.

So out of 91 nodes 72 (maybe a few less) are auto fill in nearly every mech you own. Lets say that leaves 20 for "customization". That isn't encouraging diversity. It certainly isn't going to encourage me to take a diverse array of weapons, or build my dup mechs with dramatically different set ups.

TLDR: So 2 issues: one, most players are going to take the same 70 or so nodes on every mech leaving 20 or so to build this greater and more diverse population of mechs that the PTS notes say is the goal of the skills tree. Second issue, is that even if you used all 91 nodes on branches unrelated to weapons you still will not get your mechs up to the performance level they previously enjoyed as mastered mechs under the old system. Blech.

Edited by Bud Crue, 11 February 2017 - 04:07 AM.

[Ori Disciple]

you know that you don't NEED to get radar derp and seismic crutch, right? I mostly just get target info gathering for brawlers and that's it. Same with speed tweak really. Don't build your mech around needing speed tweak and you won't NEED to get that either. frees up more skill slots for whatever.

[Bud Crue]

Ori Disciple, on 11 February 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:

you know that you don't NEED to get radar derp and seismic crutch, right? I mostly just get target info gathering for brawlers and that's it. Same with speed tweak really. Don't build your mech around needing speed tweak and you won't NEED to get that either. frees up more skill slots for whatever.

Certainly, but I am trying to make apples to apples comparison to establish base line vales from which to compare the PTS to the current game.

To do that apples to apples comparison I do have to get derp. In the current system when I QP, group queue or even the horror of CW I have Radar derp on my mechs (unless ECM equipped), and often seismic. In the PTS, If I get derp, it is like 3 more nodes to get seismic, so its almost foolish not to. Same issue with the the rest of the performance characteristics.

I suspect that if this goes live, as is I will do largely as you suggest, but for now I am trying to build currently mastered mechs in the new system and I am finding that it cannot be done.

The new system, while adding defensive squirks, requires you to lose many of the skills we had as part of the skills path of the old system. Moreover even if you ignore the 15 nodes of the defensive tree (for purposes of a true apples to apples comparison) you cannot build a mechs using 91 nodes that has the same performance in the PTS as a mastered mech with appropriate modules in the current system.

Simply put: the new system takes away performance. Add in the nerfs to the mechs also introduced in the PTS and the loss of performance is just well...punitive...for a lot of my mechs.

[Ori Disciple]

You should have to make sacrifices though to get certain things, like radar derp and seismic crutch. While I DO think that at least one of each should be further up the tree, those two modules have been nothing but bad habit forming for the former, and hampering your ability to learn a vital skill (situational awareness) in the latter. You don't need them anyway, as you will get a better feel of things when your not relying on them. I will say though that hard brake and kinetic burst are partially must haves for poking though. Is it really that punitive though? you won't need 100% radar derp to really get something out of it. When I use it, I stick to the left side of the tree so I can get 60% (I think it's 3 nodes) of that, plus one of Seismic because I usually have a spare SP laying around.

If you can get the matches, try using only partial radar derp to see if it's effective or not.

[Bud Crue]

Ori Disciple, on 11 February 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

You should have to make sacrifices though to get certain things...Is it really that punitive though?...

I heartily agree that the tree should be about sacrifices and real choices with pros and cons. No argument. My comparison and criticisms thus far, as well as my commentary regarding the new system being punitive should be viewed through the lens of a comparison to what we have currently in the live server. If the PTS were an abstract creation with nothing to compare to I probably would have a different view, but when trying to make a baseline comparison of the characteristics of the mechs I play currently to how those same mechs may be squirked out under the PTS, the PTS provides a mech of lesser performance...a mech of less value, than that which I currently enjoy on the live server.

I think in the abstract, I largely would like the squirks tree (but for lack of real consequences within the given branches), but it isn't an abstraction it is a derivation from what we have, and as such when compared to what we have it provides less than what we have. In that sense it is punitivei n my eyes.

[Bud Crue]

More observations:

Role warfare is really dead no isn't it? Tell me how to build a Spider Anansi to make it some how more diverse? Tell me what nodes to use to give it a special role and still be competitive.

I mean what the heck is the point of most mediums and lights under the PTS? How are they provided with greater choices under the PTS than in the live server?

E.g. A min/maxed Wolfhound, Cicada, Firestarter is basically a faster, lighter, weaker version of a bigger mech in the PTS or live server; but I thought the goal here was to finally give a sense of roles and to increase diversity. I'm not seeing that anywhere but especially with lights and mediums. With such mechs you can afford to waste...I mean choose...to use nodes for things like the ancillary branch and other role encouraging stuff any more than you can with bigger mechs. In the game we play you still need to be able to take damage and dish it out if you want to win and/or earn XP and cbills. So if you are being essentially forced to take the same 70 or so nodes in the defensive branch, lower torso branch, sensor branch, etc. that every other mech is essentially forced to take, you still have 20 nodes or so to choose to apply to weapons or waste on things like arm speed squirks or ancillary quirks like improved UAV performance. Anyone actually think this is a realistic choice? I certainly don't...cuz,see in this here stompy robot game you still need to be able to shoot and endure being shot by other stompy robots; and adding 2% UAV time is not going to help with that or give you some special "role" other than "weaker than normal mech"...not a particularly fun or useful "role" that.

Summary: Tell me how you squirk out a wolfhound, a panther, or hell even a Phoenix Hawk and you will have told me how to squirk out nearly every other mech in the game. No mater how special, unique, or diverse you care to make that mech, and still be competitive in the game we play, it will have 90% the same nodes as every other mech. The best part is that such a mech will still have at least some clearly identifiable shortcomings over how that same mech performs in the current live server.

The PTS in function is utterly contrary to its stated build goals.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

As to the Balance issue, I'm afraid the system will have to go live to get enough data to really see how it plays out. It's looking like all mechs will have increased time to kill, with more defensive abilities in the skill trees combined with less overall heat efficiency as we have under the old system. However, with the IS vs Clan issue, how far did balance get blown out of the water by giving Clan mechs a boost in squirks they never had before plus taking some of the IS squirks away unless you repurchase them in the tree at the expense of something else? I just don't think the data is there yet.

[Bud Crue]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 12 February 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

As to the Balance issue, I'm afraid the system will have to go live to get enough data to really see how it plays out. It's looking like all mechs will have increased time to kill, with more defensive abilities in the skill trees combined with less overall heat efficiency as we have under the old system. However, with the IS vs Clan issue, how far did balance get blown out of the water by giving Clan mechs a boost in squirks they never had before plus taking some of the IS squirks away unless you repurchase them in the tree at the expense of something else? I just don't think the data is there yet.

Nor will it be. They have already announced an update to the PTS and noted that it will address some of the more common criticisms. While this apparent responsiveness to criticism pleases me, it's also nice to see that even they (PGI) can occasionally admit that their oft cited fallacy that "we can't/won't make a change to the game until the underlying data is studied extensively" really is BS.

https://mwomercs.com...tree-pts-build/