10 replies to this topic

[SuperFunkTron]

In regards to the new system, here is an exploration into why the trees were most likely built the way that they were. The goal is to understand what and why the tree offers what it does rather than act as a direct comparison to the current system.

Spoiler

In the context of the live server, they seem to be more problematic than helpful. However, in the context of the PTS where heat is much more prevalent (which will eventually reduce # of alphas before overheating), durability is increased, weapon crit increases, and an over all quirk reduction across almost all mechs, the game dynamics will be quite a bit different that what we currently have.
The weapon tress, for example, require more investment to get the full heat reduction or weapon cooldown or heat reduction benefits of a measly 5%. Range benefits are at about 10%, which are something, but not overwhelming at the same time. Even if someone maxes out a tree as opposed to spreading those nodes across multiple, it just translates to an edge over those who spend their nodes in other ways. Choosing mixed weapon trees will provided a milder benefit, but could help extend ranges of shorter range weapons so that they can extend their utility. Maxing a single tree, for example lasers, will give someone an edge if they can maintain range, but they will also be over heating because they just run that much hotter now. The laser boats will actually NEED the that extra 5% heat benefit in order to be able to keep on firing instead of overheating too quickly. I really don't think boating lasers is going to prove to be so much benefit as heat management will increase the time they need to deliver the same amount of damage as the live server.

In the defensive skills tree, an argument can be made that fall damage is a wasted node for many players, but if you were to compare it to a tree in which you increase the cost of more advanced nodes (i.e. a level 4 node would cost 2 SP instead of 1), we are really getting away with a bonus of reduced fall damage in the PTS tree. Yes, it does appear as a waste, but it also provides a benefit that we would not get if nodes had varying SP prices. I am more than happy to get fall damage reduction for free rather than more pay more SP to get only that which is mistakenly perceived as a better deal.

Upper Chassis upgrades are a much trickier area to analyze. Arm Pitch and Speed are questionable nodes to force on clan trees as they have a lot of mechs that can only track up and down and not side to side. Aside from that particular issue, this tree will go undervalued for a long time until people start to think more abut torso twisting and fighting and and torso/arm ranges. Using a summoner with an unskilled torso in the PTS made it feel incredibly sluggish compared to what we have on the live server, which demonstrated that being able to track an enemy wit your torso alone is going to be a slower process. Depending on how it starts to play out in matches, it may become a significantly more valued skill for tanks and brawlers so they ca better distribute damage taken and to generally track faster moving enemies.

The Operations Tree is one that looks to some questionable nodes, but a few make some sense when examined specifically in the context of XP. Quick ignition clearly is most applicable to mechs that will be overheating. Though many will dismiss its value, the fact that heat will play a bigger role in the system means that mechs prone to shut down need to consider that buff more. Heat Containment and Cool Run become an extension of the Quick Ignition as those buffs are not required for builds that are very heat efficient, but are increasingly valuable for those that need all the heat dissipation they can get. Hill Climb and Speed retention are other skills that seems to be unnecessary at first, but if you consider that mechs that need to be careful with their heat will benefit from keeping more of their speed when going over terrain. It is a subtle difference, but its application will lead to those extra fractions of a second being reduced while moving to cover. That coupled with increased overall durability of mechs translates to longer survival and a chance for hot mechs as they gain further benefit from choosing nodes aimed to help cope with heat management. The justification for Magazine Capacity being in this tree only makes sense to me in the context of it being a "mechanical operation". It can be argued that there are a lot of unnecessary nodes required to get this and it should just be a high cost node in a linear tree, but in the PTS system you would gain a lot of benefits, even if just subtle, on the way to unlocking that node.

Infotech and Auxiliary trees mostly offer the acquisition of battlefield intel at an increased rate. By reducing the general effectiveness of those two fields across all mechs, these trees create an important role for scouting and info gathering mechs. It will become less worthwhile for dedicated high damage output mechs to invest in these fields instead of more battle oriented nodes. With ECM currently being a small cost for large benefit, the node cost requires a reasonable investment requires a significant investment to bring out its full potential. Again, the idea of "unnecessary nodes" on the way to get the ECM buffs are really provide better battlefield intel for a mech and its allies to take advantage of. Seismic censor being high cost further adds to the important role of "info" mechs providing that intel benefit but at a cost. Realistically, mechs specializing in infotech will likely end up with smaller weapons perk as the cost for their ability to provide faster targeting info, better ECM coverage, and longer locks to name a few.

I think the people who are claiming that this system wasn't thought really haven't put any time into actually trying to figure out why the trees are set up they way that they are in the context of the new heat and base health values in the PTS. Is it a lot to figure out? Hell yes. This has taken me days to look at different trees, questioning what value they bring to the game and if the ones that people will naturally gravitate to at first are really as valuable as they seem. Filling the majority of the Survivability tree will likely remain a standard, with only 14 out of the 17 nodes needed to get all the armor and structure benefits (2 ams and 1 fall damage node would remain unfilled), it makes sense that those becoming priority nodes. Even if they follow through with the initial costs of 100k per node, 1.4 million is a reasonable cost for 15% more armor and 25% more structure (could potentially be used to free up critical slots on IS mechs that need them instead of using Ferro).

The last point to really address is the complaint that people won't be able to max out all of their current elite mechs in the new system. I understand the frustration, but I believe it is rooted in misunderstanding. The reality of the new system is not that the new upgrades are equivalent to the old system, but are rather an expansion on them. The tree grew, and thus allow for MORE improvement. I think that is a critical piece of information that wasn't made clear to those with large numbers of mechs and feel that they are not being fairly compensated for their earlier efforts.

If you are trying to specifically recreate the benefits of the old tree, you are understandably going to be very disappointed. If you have played on the PTS, you surely would have noticed already the huge change in the game play feel. Mechs feel tankier, run hotter, and lose weapons more often, just to name a few differences. What the over all game play changes translate to is a very different experience over all. Applied percentage changes will not directly translate from the Live server experience to the PTS. A side by side comparison of numbers alone however, does not do justice to the gravity of the changes implemented.

When you consider the PTS as a separate experience rather than trying to translate the Live server experience into the PTS, you can much more clearly explore the value and thought put into the PTS. Combat roles are introduced and given value in the new system. Investment in specific tech provides greater potential benefit than just placing the item itself on the mech to reap the full benefits. Scouting and infotech are by far the clearest examples of the new system's strengths. ECM for example, requires investment in order to get its full benefits, benefits that affect team mates more as they are invested in. Target info gathering speed, target decay, target retention... these are skills that are very useful, but not every single mech needs them if you have one or two players on a team providing that information for mechs that are more concerned with putting out damage. Auxiliary nodes extend scouting value by requiring an investment to provide improved intel gathering. These are things that are generically efficient across mechs in the live server. If the goal was to improve everything compared to the live system, we'd end up with a big jump in power creep as opposed to the PTS addressing power creep by providing a general nerf then allowing players to decide what they believe to be most useful to a specific mech and its intended use. If you need more examples just refer back to the spoiler notes, I've provided a lot in there.

TL, DR:
Don't try to recreate the Live system in the PTS, it leads only to disapointment.
Do look at it as a new system of how you upgrade your mechs from the beginning and consider the context of why PGI thought to place the nodes the way they did. That will allow you to see the thought, complexity, and value the new system provides.

Please offer thoughts and opinions, preferably with evidence or a thought out basis to it.

[JuggernautAlpha]

I like your point of view about the new skill tree.

I agree evaluating the PTS against the current game is not going to work.

[Rurikk82]

Very well put SuperFunkTron. I agree with your views mostly and understand them fully. I actually like the "Concept" of the new skill tree system. My only concern is for the newer players and players who may only have time for a few hours a week to play. They are not going to be able to complete readily with the veteran player base. the costs in c-bills/MC and the xp/gxp are a bit high. That is the only real concern I have for the system myself.

[Knighthawk26]

I understand what you are saying SuperFunkTron. I could live with a reasonable number of intermediate skills being prerequisite to getting the best skills. A tanky dakka mech seemed to play better on the PTS than a laser vomit which is just a change, as long as balance does not go too far toward one meta, some changes are fine.

But many loyal players / PGI customers (including myself) were simply pissed off that we were going to be unable to keep a roughly equivalent number of "elite / mastered" mechs after all the bonuses were applied in the new system. The cost in c-bills and xp was far too high. We were going to be treated unjustly and be unable to get back skill levels on more than half of our mechs. Skills that we spent a lot of time and money to get, were going to be lost with inadequate compensation in return.

Also the extreme cost involved for respecing or fixing errors committed in the skill trees was going to be very negative for the game.

And these issues with respecing, and huge costs to obtain skills was going to be very negative to new players, which the game (and PGI) need badly.

From what PGI has said concerning changes they are making now, it seems they heard us and at least addressed the most important issues. I look forward to the PTS reset. If the bigger problems are resolved then the general ideas behind the new skill tree could improve the game.

KH

[Roughneck45]

I agree. If the current system proves anything its that certain skills and modules are far superior to others. I like the separate trees and that you have to invest to get the best stuff, feels like you are building it rather than running down a checklist.

If I was to alter one thing I would make some of the trees more powerful for the heavily quirked mechs rather than baseline quirks, or eliminate specific trees from being available at all to certain mechs. The sensors branch being more powerful for Ravens, or the JJ branch being stronger for Victors. It would be harder to balance, for sure, but would give mechs a stronger identity.

Knighthawk26, on 23 February 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

The cost in c-bills and xp was far too high. We were going to be treated unjustly and be unable to get back skill levels on more than half of our mechs. Skills that we spent a lot of time and money to get, were going to be lost with inadequate compensation in return.

This is the problem. Specifically for players with large garages that generally have supported the game the most. The new system devalues our purchases and gives us a mind boggling grind. After you master a variant the next variant should have a cost reduction, and it should stack. If they do that, everything will be peachy.

Edited by Roughneck45, 23 February 2017 - 04:11 PM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Roughneck45, on 23 February 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

I agree. If the current system proves anything its that certain skills and modules are far superior to others. I like the separate trees and that you have to invest to get the best stuff, feels like you are building it rather than running down a checklist.

If I was to alter one thing I would make some of the trees more powerful for the heavily quirked mechs rather than baseline quirks, or eliminate specific trees from being available at all to certain mechs. The sensors branch being more powerful for Ravens, or the JJ branch being stronger for Victors. It would be harder to balance, for sure, but would give mechs a stronger identity.


This is the problem. Specifically for players with large garages that generally have supported the game the most. The new system devalues our purchases and gives us a mind boggling grind. After you master a variant the next variant should have a cost reduction, and it should stack. If they do that, everything will be peachy.

I'm at a bit of a mixed opinion in regards to the reimbursement. I know that there are a lot of guys who will barely have enough c-bills to master a few of their mechs when the new system is activated, but what about those guys who purchased more modules to maximize a smaller number of mechs? Those who bought many mechs and few modules "mastered" the XP component of the upgrade tree, but they didn't really max out the full upgrade tree of mechs that don't have a full module set.

This is a very hot issue that is made more complicated by the fact that the new upgrade system is far from a 1 to 1 conversion from the current system as its a combination of the 2 trees we currently have. I went over this in another thread in which a "zero point" of where the cost benefits of the new system are equal to the old. In the example where anew player is trying to build a drop deck, no less than 84 million c-bills in upgrades would be needed in the current system to have 4 mechs fully maxed out, not to mention at least 12 chassis elited and 4 of those mastered. In the new system, 4 mechs could be maxed out with under 22 million c-bills and have the benefits of a larger number of modules. The point at which the 2 systems meet for those who save by module swapping is that 84 million c-bills. However, for the cost of those modules alone, 15 mechs can be maxed out in the new system. The XP difference is just 25% over the current "master" level and if we wanted to determine a c-bill value to each of those XP points to draw a more clear cost comparison between new and old systems, each XP point is worth about 1,000 c-bills.

I think the unfortunate reality of the upcoming change will be guys with large hangers needing to grind c-bills to fully upgrade their mechs. The flip side of that is that is that those who purchased fewer mechs but invested more heavily in max out the upgrades will likely be able to maximize most of their mechs in the new system.

I'm somewhere in the middle of these two situations with about 50-70 modules between my 115 mechs, I'll at least be able to immediately master my most important mechs,but will have to grind for the rest. It's really fine by me because I'm not in a rush to the mechs I dislike, but when I do finally get around to them, I will be able to work on them from the ground up and really see how much the new tree improves them. I'm already saving up c-bills for the system change. I'd rather be prepared than play a game of Pokemech Master Badger.

One of the arguments I hear is that a lot of people will stop buying mechs if they have to go back and remaster their stables, but I think it is a mixed bag. I just happily bought the full supernova pack fully aware of the upcoming changes. I'm shrugging off the loss of my elite and master badges and just looking forward to playing my mechs in the new system.

[Roughneck45]

I have 330 mechs and 100+ modules. I spend my c-bills kitting out my mechs and I rarely sell things. So I am both of those categories.

A higher cost is okay with me, I understand that the new trees offer more and cost more than the old ones because the modules were integrated . The new system is going to offer a better new player experience. I am looking forward to it as well.

I just think a couple billion c-bills is a bit ridiculous to get the garage to where it used to be.

The reason to not buy packs anymore is that the 3 rule is gone and there is no benefit to having multiple variants. You had a reason to get those mechs because you needed them to master the one you want. Getting rid of the 3 rule is a good thing, but zero benefit to having multiple variants makes the packs less appealing and devalues previous purchases.

So, if there was a stacking cost reduction for a mech each time you mastered a variant you'd have a benefit to multiple variants, a more realistic grind, and more mech pack appeal.

Edited by Roughneck45, 24 February 2017 - 10:57 AM.

[T3N5POT]

SuperFunkTron, on 14 February 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

In the defensive skills tree, an argument can be made that fall damage is a wasted node for many players, but if you were to compare it to a tree in which you increase the cost of more advanced nodes (i.e. a level 4 node would cost 2 SP instead of 1), we are really getting away with a bonus of reduced fall damage in the PTS tree. Yes, it does appear as a waste, but it also provides a benefit that we would not get if nodes had varying SP prices. I am more than happy to get fall damage reduction for free rather than more pay more SP to get only that which is mistakenly perceived as a better deal.

This section misunderstands the issue. The issue is not that the points could be spent on other perks, but that forcing everyone to have a perk is the same as there being no perk at all. There are a variety of perks like fall damage, ecm, sensor range, etc... which have value but not in there original setup of the skill tree. A perfect skill tree is one where each individual user picks a different path and comes out with a different set of advantages and disadvantages.

IMO a tiered skill tree would have been a much better way to go for them. I.E. (Ignore the actual numbers and focus on the style of the tree.)

Edited by T3N5POT, 24 February 2017 - 01:24 PM.

[Human Fighter]

i feel like if the goal and draw of mwo is to customize mechs to fight each other and skills cost currency we spent time to acrue.... why are we stuck dealing with dump nodes whose only function is to bleed resources for PGI? I was optimistic however looking at the numbers and how mechs got screwed up and how clans are still getting shafted and how the game is getting more and more lopsided and difficult to predict because of weekly changes... Id almost say PGI owes everyone who paid money for anything most of it back as this feels verry bait and switchy.

[SuperFunkTron]

Human Fighter, on 03 March 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

i feel like if the goal and draw of mwo is to customize mechs to fight each other and skills cost currency we spent time to acrue.... why are we stuck dealing with dump nodes whose only function is to bleed resources for PGI? I was optimistic however looking at the numbers and how mechs got screwed up and how clans are still getting shafted and how the game is getting more and more lopsided and difficult to predict because of weekly changes... Id almost say PGI owes everyone who paid money for anything most of it back as this feels verry bait and switchy.

The "dump nodes" can be compared to charging more points per node. But rather than charging multiple points per node, you end up with a "lesser" buff en route to the more valuable one. It's a way of forcing more investment to get those prime improvements, while giving us something along the way so its not a total loss.

[Defensores 6]

SuperFunkTron, on 03 March 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

The "dump nodes" can be compared to charging more points per node. But rather than charging multiple points per node, you end up with a "lesser" buff en route to the more valuable one. It's a way of forcing more investment to get those prime improvements, while giving us something along the way so its not a total loss.

Tron, I have to respectfully disagree. In comparison to the current system, new player vs. long-time player, etc. The skill-tree system as demonstrated on the PTS is a total negative in mech capability, play, overall cost to level in every way. To what benefit is this effort to the game in your opinion. Additionally, for a long-time player with hundreds of mechs, completely maxed-out skills, dozens of nearly every module in the game, and multi-million XP count on nearly all of my mechs, how does this change help me? This effort will devalue mech XP for tenured players and inflate value on cbills and MC. Sure, PGI will make some cash in the short term until the community activity begins to wain and then we (the loyal players) will have to suffer through more needless change while they "fix" the issues again.