*post Updated* Latest News Regarding Upcoming Skill Tree Pts
#81
Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:36 AM
Thanks for listening to all the feedback!
Economy
-> Biggest improvement, I'd say.
No more CBills for respec and cheap XP -sink
Good to keep the "convert XP" useful, but prevent total grind required - AND uncoupled from buying stuff (mechs and mechlab)
Firepower tree
-> Sounds great.
No more boating prefered.
Looking forward to actually see how many nodes you can/need to spend here now.
Survival/Mobility/Operations trees
-> Sounds great on paper.
More nodes to gain same benefit, hopefully without requiring unwanted nodes, just more.
If the commitment/requirement to one/multiple trees is now higher to max the best stats, it might be finally a "choice".
Let's see how many nodes are required and if we are still able to get "mandatory" stuff with 75 points (with rest in weapons/infotech).
Jumpjets/Aux trees
-> Great to hear the additions!
Maybe then I will have some flying Phoenix Hawk soon...
Engine mobility moved to base stats of each mech weight
-> Finally!
Long time advantage of big XL engines boosting all kinds of mobility.
Now we can out-turn someone with a smaller engine (e.g. zombie Centurion vs Timberwolf) with base stats + skill points rather than to have to equip the highest possible engine.
overall very happy with the announced changes!
Looking forward to the next PTS and the finally patch more than anything.
#82
Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:38 AM
Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 08:35 AM, said:
Lights are going to sacrifice speed for firepower? You think?
Assaults pulling 70KPH are doing it with MUCH larger engines than 250.
Mid range(mediums, heavies), this is a great buff for the Inner Sphere. They'll be able to mount smaller engines and conserve more tonnage for weapons, without sacrificing so much vs. their clan counterparts - also making Standard engines a more viable choice. Clan side, it's often not an option. The Timberwolf is still going to be mounting it's 375XL. Sure, an Orion IIC can mount a smaller engine, but it's still an Orion.
Explain how this is a bad thing.
Sure. Here you go.
#83
Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:41 AM
Heavies receive 5% structure/armor while mediums receive 7%, so 60t mad dog receives less structure armor than 55t Stormcrow because of that.
Dee Eight, on 21 February 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:
I don't think you've understood how the skill nodes work. To just equal the current tree bonuses does not require all 91 nodes be unlocked.
Agree, billions is a bit exagerated, you get the point though.
And no, I do not consider Skill tree revapm as a current skill tree replacement, in fact it gives you more than quirks+skill+modules alltogether in the current system (or at least it's supposed to). That's why I don't mind additional XP-grind and C-Bill costs, but costs are still high IMHO.
C-bills were not required to level mechs before, they were required to outfit them with modules. And once you've grinded the most desirable modules (or outfitted your dropdeck), you can stop grinding. Under new system it's no longer the case, non-stop grind will be a real thing, so cost will be a huge factor.
#84
Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:45 AM
Quote
Survival
While were happy to see enthusiasm for the Survival Skill Tree, we feel the average investment seen in these Nodes did not represent a compelling give-and-take scenario. In the vast majority of cases investing all the way into the Survival Tree was almost seen as mandatory. As a result we have altered the overall layout of the Survival Tree, spreading the bonuses across a greater number of Nodes within the Tree. We have also introduced a new defense-oriented Skill Node which will allow for a reduction in your chances of receiving a Critical Hit.
With the changes youll see to the Survival Tree, unlocking the full potential of Structure and Armor Skills will need greater investment, requiring you to evaluate the potential commitment more deeply.
This got me worried that all your going to do is spread the 'good' skills across the tree intermingled even more so with 'crap' skills.
Remember PGI, one of the key issues a lot of people have is the way a player is forced to spend to many skill points in nodes that they just don't want.
Quote
Firepower
While the various Firepower Skill Branches were intended to provide players with a similar analogue to the Module system, the distinct Branches overwhelmingly favored single-weapon Loadouts and provided Mechs suited to that configuration with a significant number of Skill Points to invest elsewhere. Mechs with an array of Hardpoints of different types did not share that freedom.
In the upcoming PTS update youll see a significant rework of the distinct Firepower Skill Branch into a single, all-encompassing Firepower Branch. All individual Weapon Branches have been removed, such as the LBX Skill Branch or the Autocannon Skill Branch. The new Firepower Branch will contain Skill Nodes which provide universal bonuses to all weapons. There are no longer distinct Cooldown Nodes specifically for Autocannon weaponry, for example. In their place are all-encompassing Weapon Cooldown Nodes affecting all Ballistic, Energy, and Missile weaponry.
Some weapon-specific Nodes such as UAC Jam Chance and Gauss Extended Charge do still remain, and will be located in a Ballistic hemisphere of the Firepower Tree. Laser Duration Nodes also still remain, located in an Energy hemisphere of the Firepower Tree, while Missile Spread Nodes are located in a Missile hemisphere.
The goal here is to provide players with more options for skilling Mechs with multiple Hardpoint types, ensuring that investing into Firepower Skills will provide the same benefits to a much larger variety of builds.
More detailed information regarding the consolidated Firepower Tree will be provided when the PTS update arrives.
My only concern here is that it will be much harder to balance the skills for individual weapons.
For example. CoolDown.
Lets say a Bonus of 5% is chosen for all weapons.
That is 'ok' for say a AC20 with its 4 second CD. The result would be 3.8 seconds. A reduction of 0.2 seconds.
Where as a AC2 with its 0.72 CD would result in a CD of 0.684 seconds. A reduction of only 0.036 seconds, which is next to nothing.
If quirks go the way of the dodo then 5% wont be enough to make the use of, what looks to be a ever diminishing amount of 'free' skill points after defensive, mobility, operations, and sensor/auxiliary, essential skill points are taken.
Even if it was 10%, while that may be good enough for a AC20, 10% of 0.72 on a AC2 however is still next to nothing at only 0.072 second reduction.
My advice would be to have the skill bonuses effect a weapon differently based on size. Much like how the armor bonus effects mechs differently based on class. This would require you to , if you have not already done so, add a hidden classification to weapons such as 'small' (ac2), 'medium' (ac5), 'large' (ac10), and possibly even 'extra large'(ac20). Each classification would essentially be a modifier that the skill tree uses.
So for example. Skill tree bonus of 28% CD reduction across 7 nodes (4% per)
Small - 1x multiplier (E.G ac2 CD 0.72 down to 0.52) 0.20 reduction
Medium - 0.5x (E.G ac5 CD 1.66 down to 1.43) 0.23 reduction
Large - 0.38x (E.G ac10 CD 2.5 down to 2.23) 0.27 reduction
Extra Large - 0.25x (E.G ac20 CD 4.0 down to 3.72) 0.28 reduction
Anyway this is just an example to show my point. Too many skill trees for weapons made boating the only real viable option going by the skill tree, whilst putting them all into one creates a problem with balancing bonuses for different weapons, even those within the same category.
Also still no mention of 'weapon convergence'. The current live Pilot Skills has weapon convergence. But the PTS skill tree didn't have a replacement for it. What is happening with weapon convergence ? (NOT weapon spread for things like SRM,LRM, or LBX)
Finally, will you be doing anything additional to increase TTK and decrease alpha damage ?
Many players reported an increase in TTK but the PTS didn't have full 12 v 12 groups, that's a lot more dmg on the field to deal with than a small 4 v 4 skirmish. Thus I doubt TTK will have actually increased much when in a proper 12 v 12 drop.
My thoughts on reducing alpha damage was a simple reduction in heat capacity.
OR
Just the removal of 'Heat Containment' as a skill, and the introduction of a buffed Cool run skill or an replacement for heat containment that increases cooling efficiency further at the cost of heat capacity.
Thus giving the player the OPTION to CHOOSE between standard heat capacity of 40 + normal cool run, OR lower capacity (35?) + normal cool run + additional faster cooling, allowing for more DPS and stager fire builds over the ever meta Alpha strike builds.
#85
Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:46 AM
I'll wait and find out how the weapon nodes look like and work before I throw praise at the attempt to limit the impact of single weapon type builds. A lot depends on how this new node or trees pathway is actually set up, I still think front loading is probably still needed but we'll see when it goes live.
The Jump Jet changes could possibly be for me the biggest change other than above, if it works.
Respec costs.
If P.G.I hand out free respecs each time they make changes to the game, it's probably o.k. it's certainly a good deal better than the first offering, if though P.G.I don't hand out the freebies when changes they make invalidate builds, then it's still a pigs ear, and even with the changes they make, though not as bad as before, it still makes life much easier for the vets around than a genuine new player.
See how it works, but it's still a big positive step, and I really can't think of a way to make it totally fair for new starts, and this closes the gap by a large amount, it does rely on those free respecs after balance changes, to make it good though.
Mobility tied to engine costs being normalised is pretty massive, P.G.I have finally chosen to deal with this and normalise it, to be the same whether you have a 300 or a 350 engine in the case of assaults is a very good thing, hats off.
Standardising by weight is also a good thing, but removing agility quirks, but giving bigger bonuses has me a bit confused.
Does this mean that the quirks still be there, in everything but name, and just hidden unrecorded, or does this mean that for each node opened in say torso twist, it gives more gain to chassis that had larger twist quirks, if so this gives a massive advantage to chassis that had minor agility quirks over those like the Awesome that needed them to be semi viable ?
If this is as I suspect extra node bonuses, this no way compensates for the loss of mobility quirks and they will need to be reinstated partially in some cases or in others possibly the complete package.
A Kodiak is superior to an Atlas with it's current quirks.
If mobility is now going to have to be paid for by the Atlas to regain them, it increases the difference further between the two, as the Kodiak may only need to open one node to regain what it lost, the Atlas possibly the whole line, giving the Kodiak more flexibility to boost other aspects which the Atlas cannot do, because it spent them on torso twist.
#86
Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:52 AM
My greatest concerns have been the respec cost and the degradation of build diversity, which seems to be resolved nicely. Though maybe the respec cost might be reduced (removed?) even further, to further encourage the testing of new builds. I spend a lot of time in the mechlab, (maybe even more than playing) as it is a part of the gaming experience in MWO for me. But generally I think everybody can live with some XP cost.
One other thing is the initial cost of skilling for players with more than just a few mechs. Maybe it is possible to refund some sort of "Historic - CB" (as the HXP) for each owned and elited/mastered mechs. These "HCB" may only be used for the in the Skilltree. This way players that not only own but also mastered a lot of mechs don´t have to grind forever.
A PTS event might be nice as well, I just was not able to get a drop on the PTS. But I guess with the Supernova incoming...
#87
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:14 AM
#88
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:15 AM
"Re-acquiring Nodes you previously purchased at full cost will only require 400 XP."
Only 400 XP per node. Better never change your nodes again or u will have to pay for xp convertion or play this mech a very long time to change some nodes!!
#89
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:18 AM
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.
Even just a single BILLION is an insane number..
#90
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:26 AM
Cathy, on 21 February 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:
...
Mobility tied to engine costs being normalised is pretty massive, P.G.I have finally chosen to deal with this and normalise it, to be the same whether you have a 300 or a 350 engine in the case of assaults is a very good thing, hats off.
Standardising by weight is also a good thing, but removing agility quirks, but giving bigger bonuses has me a bit confused.
Does this mean that the quirks still be there, in everything but name, and just hidden unrecorded, or does this mean that for each node opened in say torso twist, it gives more gain to chassis that had larger twist quirks, if so this gives a massive advantage to chassis that had minor agility quirks over those like the Awesome that needed them to be semi viable ?
If this is as I suspect extra node bonuses, this no way compensates for the loss of mobility quirks and they will need to be reinstated partially in some cases or in others possibly the complete package.
afaik
current mobility:
- all mechs have same base stat for turn/twist/pitch
- this is multiplied more by engine factor the higher the engine (e.g. 300 vs 350 engine)
- quirks are added on top (e.g. +90% for locust)
- skills are only multiplying the base stats (e.g. "anchor turn" is not adding more on a locust than on a Atlas, as both get a flat % bonus on base stats before the quirks)
result= same mech with 300 engine is turning/twisting slower than with a 350 engine
new system:
- mechs are now using different base stats (e.g. all 20t mechs are faster turning than all 25t mechs which are faster turning than all 30t mechs ...)
- engine is not changing these mobility stats
- skills are affecting the different base stats now, so a 10% increase is better on smaller mechs as the quirks are now already in the base stat.
quirks are now just pushing the weight dependent base mobility (instead of the shared base stats of all mechs).
result= less cluttered quirks (e.g. "+10% mobility" on one variant and +15% mobilty on another variant instead of +90% and +120%) and freedom of engine choice.
#91
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:29 AM
23203, on 21 February 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:
"Re-acquiring Nodes you previously purchased at full cost will only require 400 XP."
Only 400 XP per node. Better never change your nodes again or u will have to pay for xp convertion or play this mech a very long time to change some nodes!!
How much XP do you have on any of your mastered mech now?
I am sitting on 20k minimum and used up some hundred$ worth of MC at some point for XP->GXP conversion when my favorites had over 100k XP after some months of playing the same mechs.
I think it's a good think that there is "some" small cost involved to have a XP sink.
Else there is NO use in the XP you have.
See it from the positive side:
Now you have use of the excess XP on a mastered mech and you don't feel "forced" to spend MC to convert it to GXP anymore.
More free for the F2P players, less reason to buy MC.
#92
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:33 AM
Blockpirat, on 21 February 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:
I own 358. Close enough?
I'm a Pokemech collector. Just 29 more and I'll own every variant (some of them multiple times). My goal is to also master every single one. It might take a few more years, but I'll eventually get there.
I have invested thousands of € and thousands of hours into this game. Literally.
Though I've unlocked every single module and - because I bought quite a lot of them - will be getting a refund of roughly three hundred million C-Bills, it still won't be enough to reach the status quo of Mech mastery prior to the Skill Tree changes. Not by a long shot.
Sure, PGI has listened to us and lowered the costs. I appreciate that.
Nevertheless: Post-change I suddenly have to invest millions of C-Bills into previously mastered Mechs to remaster them. And I need more XP than before to do so. This feels like a slap in my face.
What made the previous Skill Tree feel good was the feeling of accomplishment. You earned XP until every skill was unlocked and the Mech was mastered. Done. Finished. You could still tinker with the build, but the leveling itself was done.
With the new system, you are never really done. Whenever you want to experiment with your build you have to respec. You have to pay XP. In essence it feels like losing progress when you have to invest even more XP into a Mech you had already mastered.
I could live with not being able to unlock everything, with having to make meaningful choices. But as long as the new Skill Tree effectively sets back my mastery progress in this game and as long as I incur XP losses through every respec, I do not get the impression that PGI values Pokemech whales like me who have spent a fortune on this game and just want to own and master all Mechs.
From what I've read here and on Reddit I can't be the only one feeling this way.
Oh, another, unrelated thought about the Skill Tree:
Previously, some Mechs (e.g. Timber Wolf) only had two non-consumable module slots, while others (e.g. Locust) had four. With the bonuses previously given by modules now shifting to the new Skill Tree system and with every Mech now getting the same amount of Skill Points, this basically leads to a stealth buff to the Timby/stealth nerf to the Locust.
Very well put, and no you definitely aren't the only one. This is essentialy why I am very sceptical of the upcoming changes as a whole and afraid they will have a big impact on the fun and motivation I'm having in the game, regardless of boating issues solved etc. I just couldn't express it so spot on.
Especially the "never being really done" part is what bothers me tremendously and what I meant by "negative progress" in another post of mine.
Edited by Ravenlord, 21 February 2017 - 09:35 AM.
#93
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:35 AM
Think about it with the current system buying three mechs had a cost based on a weight and chassis basis. With this new flat charge is better value for assaults than lights and if the last movement values were anything to go buy lights are getting a serious NERF and will cease to be viable.
#94
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:36 AM
Also, under the current system if you wanted to change loadouts you also had to switch modules, which cost GXP and C-Bills if you didn't have them already so this might be cheaper in the long run.
If there was the announcement that unlocking the same node on additional variants of the same chassis it would make my poke-mech self very happy and make it worthwhile to play them all.
Oh, and mobility tied to tonnage and chassis is a great change! Hopefully it will lead to mediums and lights being more playable vs. heavies and assaults.
#95
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:37 AM
Well, PGI recognized important problems and is going to propose solutions. I’m looking forward to seeing the unified firepower tree, and the learning cost adjustment sound well, too.
But concerning quirks, resp. their replacement by skills (which isn’t a bad thing by its own), I don’t see solutions to the problem described here:
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5606114
Instead mobility (quirks) could even experience the same problem.
Devs, please do something about it!
#96
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:49 AM
Reno Blade, on 21 February 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:
Thanks for listening to all the feedback!
Economy
-> Biggest improvement, I'd say.
No more CBills for respec and cheap XP -sink
Good to keep the "convert XP" useful, but prevent total grind required - AND uncoupled from buying stuff (mechs and mechlab)
"No more CBills for respec" is NOT true, at least if I understand the changes correctly. Only regaining skill nodes you HAD BEFORE will be free CBills wise (and still cost XP). Every node you never had on this mech WILL STILL cost CBills. This means, in order to be able to respec to your hearts content without paying CBills (but still XP!) you will have to pay for EVERY SINGLE NODE ON THE SKILLTREE and this for every single variant... I still think it would be a much better solution (and the only one not forcing pointless, frustrating grind) to buy unallocated skill points once, and once you bought them you can allocate and reallocate however you may please and how often you may please.
#97
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:50 AM
Edited by Trev Firestorm, 21 February 2017 - 09:51 AM.
#98
Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:54 AM
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.
Edited by mycroft000, 21 February 2017 - 09:56 AM.
#99
Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:18 AM
mycroft000, on 21 February 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:
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.
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.
#100
Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:24 AM
EDIT ->> This would be a special Decal for the test and only available to testers during this time frame.
Edited by Cerender, 21 February 2017 - 11:25 AM.
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users