368 replies to this topic

[Mycroft000]

Trev Firestorm, on 21 February 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

Well, for myself atleast modules weren't worth the cost. I'd rather skip the marginal boost from a module if it means buying the engine for my next mech, didn't bother moving them from mech to mech, just put them on whichever mechs actually needed the help. Honestly I think this whole thing should be purely using the xp currency and adding cbill cost to it is just silly, but leaving a cbill cost to respec makes more sense than pushing additional grind on every mech right out the gate.

I agree that a CBill cost does make more sense, mostly from an immersion perspective, however people were complaining about that and I understand some of that. But since they do want to retain some kind of respec cost, XP does make a lot of sense since it does make changing your setup cost something, but once you've unlocked everything on a particular mech, 400 mech XP per node to change the setup is almost nothing if you're a remotely decent player.

[MovinTarget]

Dee Eight, on 21 February 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

Who are these players with 370+ mechs ? I doubt there are actually that many of them playing the game. I have 209 mechs. It will cost me 1.08 billion to master them all.

This revision is good for whales. I will have ~275 mechs by the time this drops... under v1 it would cost 2.5billion cbills to resec (assuming no fat fingered goof ups)... with this change imight be able to afford to respec all my mechs (tnx module refund!)

Edited by MovinTarget, 21 February 2017 - 11:44 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

mycroft000, on 21 February 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

I agree that a CBill cost does make more sense, mostly from an immersion perspective, however people were complaining about that and I understand some of that. But since they do want to retain some kind of respec cost, XP does make a lot of sense since it does make changing your setup cost something, but once you've unlocked everything on a particular mech, 400 mech XP per node to change the setup is almost nothing if you 'r e a remotely decent player.

There was a tiny edit needed

[Ravenlord]

mycroft000, on 21 February 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

I've seen some complaints about spending XP on respecs, I don't get it, what else are you going to spend XP on when you've got a mech mastered out and have unlocked every node, and still have 35k MXP on that specific mech?

Edit: Also the "old" new Cbill cost was fine, and there are still complaints about the new costs? Were modules really so expensive that you would spend more time hunting for mounted modules than actually playing the game and earning more CBills? I swapped modules for a while but eventually realized I'd rather actually get into matches than play MechLabWarrior.

Just swap out the modules as soon as you are finished playing the mech for the day or in that config. It really doesn't cost much time, definitely less than grinding the new respec costs.
I don't care if I have thousands of unspent XP on a mech, that doesn't diminish the fun I'm having while playing it. What I DO care about is being finished mastering a mech once and for all and not having to pump ressources into it over and over again when I decide I want to play it with another build on a whim.

Edited by Ravenlord, 21 February 2017 - 11:46 AM.

[Sevronis]

Hmm. Personally, I liked the multiple separate trees as they were, especially the different weapon trees. The only problem I had was the locations of certain nodes. I will have to wait and see how it looks and what I can do when the PTS comes back up.

As for the cost, I'm glad it is not 9.1 million anymore, but there is still an first time cost of Cbills/MC per mech skill. Why is there even a cost anyway when the old system just needed XP/GXP to unlock things? Does anyone at PGI even play any other MMOs? They aren't really making something new with the skills trees concept here. Most of the MMORPGs out there have skill trees where the ONLY cost there is, would be for freeing up all spent points. So, that 2-3 million Cbill cost to free up all 91 points again for a mech was fine as respeccing typically wouldn't happen that frequently. Granted, MWO is a different beast and after the initial unlocks there is just XP per node to re-unlock which would help for game changes later down the line. Still, I'll see how it's like when the PTS comes back up.

I suppose I could toss it out there that those initial Cbill costs would be 'lore-friendly' in a way that tweaks done by a maintenance crew would cost money..

[Kuaron]

You didn't read the PTS forum, did you?

[Norgath]

almost exactly my thoughts on re-balancing the cost of the skill tree. I like it a whole damn lot. While reading the comments of others and their comments on it being more of a web than a tree, I was thinking it was kinda webish kinda treeish. So if there is trouble in refining what you are trying to get out of this particular schema, I would like to suggest something more simple and I believe it would be more tree-like.

I like the design of having the less preferred nodes earlier on in the tree and I applaud the ability to avoid the situational nodes, but those nodes can be very powerful and and can be difficult to place. Some of the nodes like fall fall damage were not unavoidable and undesirable in most cases( not to be seen in the new tree as of yet), but I can see the balance requirements to have such nodes. This new schema could possibly remove the necessity for such a balancing mechanic. I believe it will also remedy the possible incoming imbalance by plateauing weapon bonuses. I have to make note that with the removal of modules that gave a particular weapon 12% cool down has been reduced to the 5% for all weapons(dunno if this was intentional or if anyone really cares).

I've rambled enough. Simplification reduces unnecessary stress and cost. To make the tree more tree-like, cut the strings and stack the nodes(possibly requiring previous nodes to be completed before more potent nodes are unlocked). This will align the tree and make it easier to spot what you want out of your decisions and c-bills. For most of the weapon trees it would be very simple: range, cool down(with the exception of ac2's),and heat generation. the placement of the nodes could even be placed in the hierarchy depending on the weapon or weapon type, i.e. heat generation would be a tier 3 or 4 unlock for lasers and a tier 1 or 2 tier unlock for ballistics. For added effects such as missile spread and laser duration would be the final tier and all the other nodes must be purchased to unlock this node. This makes balancing nodes much much easier. This can apply to the other trees as well though I am not looking at it right now it should be able to follow the same schema. fall damage could be optional in the defense tree and bonus armor could be at the top (end) of the tree right after internal structure. Using this structure will not only make your lives easier but will also give the players (especially new players) a less confusing UI.

As an alternate formation of stacking the nodes on top of each other they could be clustered around a primary node. The primary node giving the most bang for the buck and possibly unlocking the next tier. The surrounding nodes could be optional depending on the weapon.

Edited by Norgath, 21 February 2017 - 12:21 PM.

[Rogue Jedi]

all looks positive, most of my complaints from phase one have been adressed, I will just have to see how it works on the PTS

[Mycroft000]

SuperFunkTron, on 21 February 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

There was a tiny edit needed

I don't know, my unit had one member for a while who would stare at a locked target through the walls on Canyon Network and try to knock down the walls of the canyons with LRMS...it didn't work.

Ravenlord, on 21 February 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

Just swap out the modules as soon as you are finished playing the mech for the day or in that config. It really doesn't cost much time, definitely less than grinding the new respec costs.
I don't care if I have thousands of unspent XP on a mech, that doesn't diminish the fun I'm having while playing it. What I DO care about is being finished mastering a mech once and for all and not having to pump ressources into it over and over again when I decide I want to play it with another build on a whim.

I've only got 60+ mechs and I can't be bothered to waste the time between matches to pull modules off and put them on other mechs when I'm in the group queue. To me the time I save in the mechlab is worth so much more than the cbills I save by swapping modules. I do think the 670mil that I'm getting back will be pretty nice though.

Edited by mycroft000, 21 February 2017 - 12:33 PM.

[Appogee]

Like

• Significantly reduced XP/CBill costs to Master.
  
• Respeccing appears* much more reasonable and affordable.

Dislike

• Nerf to engine size agility. This significantly reduces build and chassis diversity.
  
• Ability to unlock additional Consumable slots. Consumables are no tonnage pay-to-do-extra-damage. They should be removed from the game.

Worries

• Are there still only 91 Skill Nodes? It's not stated. Could the apparent benefit of reduced XP/CBill cost be offset by there being more Skill Nodes required to Master?
  
• * Has the CBill/MC cost to respec been completely removed? That seems suspiciously generous, frankly.
  
• If so, how does PGI plan to make money? Might the Rule-Of-Three be retained?

I can't help but feel there's a 'gotcha' coming that's not mentioned in the preview notes, sorry.

Edited by Appogee, 21 February 2017 - 12:38 PM.

[T0nkaTruckDriver]

The issue of "meaningful tradeoffs" in skill trees is really hard to get right.

This new system as described is basically just a grind, as there will inevitably be skills that are much more useful than others, leading to a "default" skill setup that is the best. Boating is encouraged since investing in only one weapon type allows you to apply skill points to more Survival/Aux/Ops/etc abilities. Once you've earned enough XP to buy the best skill setup, you're done and your mech will look like everyone else's. Congratulations you've reached the endgame.

The system as currently implemented tries to impart tradeoffs to skill choices by limiting the total size of the skill point pool. Unless the skill trees are so deep that you can only unlock the final skills in one (maybe 2) trees, this is not effective.

If you want a skill system to have meaningful tradeoffs, just make there be meaningful tradeoffs. Purchasing skill A locks you out from purchasing skill B. As long as A and B are roughly equal in power (perhaps complimenting different playstyles), this is now an interesting and meaningful choice. There is also now no need to have powerful abilities be relegated to the bottom of a skill tree. Your first option in a skill tree can be powerful and meaningful at the same time, complimenting your chosen playstyle. I personally think XCOM does a great job of this with their skill system. Blizzard has obviously also struggled with this for a long time, and WoW has gone through a number of versions of their skill system settling I think in a pretty good place as well.


I'd also like to echo others' sentiments about the danger of penalizing respecs. There are so many tweaks you can apply to a mech in this game (which is a good thing!) that planning out a final configuration would be painfully difficult and not especially effective, as many in-game nuances would be impossible to consider ahead of time. Many players (myself included) enjoy building robots in the mechbay as much as piloting them on the battlefield - don't discourage this!

Perhaps a system could be implemented where a pilot can respec for free as much as they want, and then "lock" a mech at some point once they're happy with their build. Locking the mech in this way confers some moderate benefit such as 5 additional skill points to spend, or a 5% C-Bill boost, etc. Unlocking the mech for respecs would be expensive - similar in cost to what is being proposed here in these patch notes.

[Ravenlord]

Appogee, on 21 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Are there still only 91 Skill Nodes? It's not stated. Could the apparent benefit of reduced XP/CBill cost be offset by there being more Skill Nodes required to Master?

If anything I would expect the number of skill nodes to be reduced because of merges of some trees into one.

Appogee, on 21 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

* Has the CBill/MC cost to respec been completely removed? That seems suspiciously generous, frankly.

Only the cost to remove nodes and to reacquire ones you had before has been removed. If you want to use skill nodes you never had on that mech for your respec you still have to pay for them. At least that is how I understand it.

Appogee, on 21 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

If so, how does PGI plan to make money? Might the Rule-Of-Three be retained?

Why do they have to make money at all costs with something that is sold to us as an improvement of the game at all? A mechanic that is obviously supposed to milk players for cash by introducing annoyances into the game leaves a really sour taste in my mouth and for me offsets any benefit that supposedly is coming from it. It seems they are doing well enough with mech paks and co, to the point of being able to start a whole new big project like MW5.
As someone who until now has happily paid a lot of cash for lots of mech paks, mech bays and the like it is a major gripe that I now shall be milked repeatedly for all this or alternatively put up with the tremendous annoyance that is repeated mindless grinding.

Edited by Ravenlord, 21 February 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[50 50]

These all seem like good changes, though needing to respec using XP is a bit harder than c-bills. However Mycroft000 made a good point about having a lot of excess XP on mechs that currently sits there. Unless you converted this XP to GXP it pretty much went to waste. When looking at it from that perspective, it seems a very minor cost to change the nodes around and actually use that XP for something.

Uncoupling the mobility bonuses from the engine itself and instead giving mechs better base line stats sounds like a good move. Combining that with the mobility nodes that can then be purchased, this looks like it will increase our options.

The firepower tree sounds like it will be about 1/3rd the size and a few other others have been combined... a few new skills and maybe a few have been expanded on.
Unless we also have a major reduction in the number of skill points to go with this reduction I believe 91 skill points is going to be way too many.
If effectively we could master our mechs and put on 8 modules before, this now seems like we might be able to double that.
This is probably my major concern. Unless we have hard choices about picking up one set of skills in favour of another, eventually it will lead to having a single optimized path. The system really needs a savage reduction in skill points so that there is no one single path.

Looking forward to seeing the changes and having a go on the PTS.

Edited by 50 50, 21 February 2017 - 01:23 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

This system has the potential to make the game a lot better

P.G.I do need though to spend the time getting it right, and not rushing it through

[Hex Mouse]

I'm sorry, I haven't scanned through all the previous postings in these topics. However, I think the decoupling of agility from speed is nice... it does make some of those light builds that are a bit slower more viable because they still won't handle like a heavy.

I'd like to suggest something else... I believe currently that boosts to armour and structure in the defense trees are based on the light / medium / heavy / assault classification. I'd propose that they link to each 5 ton increment in weight instead. Why? Otherwise, if you compare the benefit of the defense tree, it's better for mechs at the top end of each classification... so a 40 to medium will benefit less from an armour boost than a 55 ton medium because the 55 ton mech has higher possible armour and structure values.

Likewise, I'm not sure if the agility skills are based on the same classification listing... but again, a 35 ton light is going to derive more benefit from an increase in agility than a 20 ton light, because the 35 ton mech will have more weapons and armour to make use of that agility.

All in all, I would say that mechs at the 35, 55 and 75 ton and 100 ton weight points will derive more benefit from the current skill system setup.

If you establish a max benefit per node for 20 tons, and a min benefit per node for 100 tons, and then equally distribute between the min and max for each tonnage point (ie 25, 30, 35, 40, etc.) in between, then it would even out those sudden jumps in numbers and make 20, 40, and 60 ton mechs more competitive...

Just my 2 cents... not sure if it makes sense to anyone else?

Edited by Hex Mouse, 21 February 2017 - 01:34 PM.

[Carminus]

Looking forward to the PTS, so far the changes look really good!

Can assault mechs get auto/manual firing aft weapons now? I like to have this to shoot at light mechs:



2 cents given.

[Gorgo7]

Looking forward to seeing the revamped tree.
Especially looking forward to seeing the jump tree actually contribute to the mobility of the Mech in a significant way.
16 m/s max speed was pretty lame. How about 32m/s instead? 20 will be still too slow.

[Big Tin Man]

Cautiously optimistic about this pass. I'd still like to see a give and take system, but that's going to be tough. Economy of this is a lot better.

Something I'd really like to see before the final version goes live is a mech/variant specific skill tree that offers nodes above and beyond the standard trees to encourage lore type builds. Doesn't need to be much, maybe the Awesome gets 2-3 additional PPC nodes, the Victor gets some mobility nodes, known lurm boats get some lurm nodes, etc. Something to let the lore hounds not be punished so harshly for running a lore build, but not so out of whack it's the Dragon 1N super AC5 all over again.

And maybe make these nodes not something covered by the trees. I.E. Awesome PPC's scrambles Huds and ECM 50% longer, Cent gets a tighter LBX spread, Victor can turn while in the air without firing jump jets, etc. Unique things to the mech and the lore, but not enough to make it a 'must have'

[Dee Eight]

Ravenlord, on 21 February 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do they have to make money at all costs with something that is sold to us as an improvement of the game at all? A mechanic that is obviously supposed to milk players for cash by introducing annoyances into the game leaves a really sour taste in my mouth and for me offsets any benefit that supposedly is coming from it. It seems they are doing well enough with mech paks and co, to the point of being able to start a whole new big project like MW5.
As someone who until now has happily paid a lot of cash for lots of mech paks, mech bays and the like it is a major gripe that I now shall be milked repeatedly for all this or alternatively put up with the tremendous annoyance that is repeated mindless grinding.

You've never actually read the terms of usa agreement for the game have you ?

2. Content. We may, from time to time at our sole discretion and without notice or liability, create, amend, change, or delete any content from the PGI Offerings.

Be thankful they ran this thru the PTS first. They actually didn't have to.

Edited by Dee Eight, 21 February 2017 - 02:23 PM.

[PraetorGix]

I am speechless. I am aware these are broad strokes and specific numbers will raise my salt levels again but for the first time in ages I find these ideas 100% correctly and cleverly thought out and I'd love to see what I read implemented live.