10 replies to this topic

[Lehmund]

It's simple. Instead of redoing the trees for weapons as per the latest feedback changes, you should have a single weapon tree that does not have ballistics , missiles and energy areas.

Even though your idea is better than the first pass, no matter what you do PGI, ppl will still focus on Ballistics OR energy OR missiles to save on upgrades and maximize the skill take. Thus is still beating.

My suggestion is avoid bal, mois or en altogether in the weapons tree. Focus on upgrades to general elements like weapon cool down , weapon range and why not a weapon power boost (up to 5% damage for ppl who want to focus mor on damage vs survivability or utility etc....

The skill tree should encourage battlefield roles, not try to replicate the module statement.

Fir things lpthat are weapon type specific, have a single node in there on edges fir each type. But only one and easy to reach.
- ballistics : magazine size
- missiles: spread
- energy: beam duration

If out of 91 points there are only a few that are weapon system specific, ppl won't mind taking mixed builds.

Keep the flavour of weapon specific quirks to the chassis and sets of 8 . Leave the skill tree mostly generic and about roles. It'll work out fine.

[soapyfrog]

You are exactly right. There should be an absolute minimum (preferably none) of weapon specific or weapon class specific buffs in the skill tree.

You could weapon skill nodes that buff all weapon classes in some way. Like a node that buffs all of missile spread, projectile velocity, beam duration.

[Reno Blade]

what?
Isnt that what PTS#2 is doing, or am I missing your point here?

Merge all Weapon trees into a single one where one Node affects all weapons.
Only very few Nodes will be weapon specific (e.g. Gauss Charge is only for Gauss).

[Bud Crue]

Reno Blade, on 24 February 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

what?
Isnt that what PTS#2 is doing, or am I missing your point here?

Merge all Weapon trees into a single one where one Node affects all weapons.
Only very few Nodes will be weapon specific (e.g. Gauss Charge is only for Gauss).

It is pretty clear to me that a lot of folks posting over the last few days down here have not read the updated Skills Tree PTS announcment.

[soapyfrog]

There are still a bunch of weapon specific nodes. How many is not clear.

[Guile Votoms]

The easiest way to do it would be to give higher skills diminishing returns.
If you want to boat you can still go all the way to get more out of your chosen weapon type,
but the overall efficiency of "quirks" would be higher with a diverse loadout and only half of each weapon tree.

If they really roll all weapons into one, it will just be another mandatory tree and we're back at square one.

Edited by Guile Votoms, 24 February 2017 - 03:46 PM.

[soapyfrog]

Guile Votoms, on 24 February 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

If they really roll all weapons into one, it will just be another mandatory tree and we're back at square one.

It's mandatory anyway... thats why it is not great if you want to use multiple weapon types, you have to invest in more nodes, giving people who boat a single weapon type an automatic edge.

[FupDup]

Reno Blade, on 24 February 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

what?
Isnt that what PTS#2 is doing, or am I missing your point here?

Merge all Weapon trees into a single one where one Node affects all weapons.
Only very few Nodes will be weapon specific (e.g. Gauss Charge is only for Gauss).

The PTS2 skill tree still has a few weapon-specific "hemispheres" like missile spread and laser duration.

I think PGI should lump together spread/velocity/duration into a single category called Weapon Precision.

[Chound]

FupDup, on 24 February 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

The PTS2 skill tree still has a few weapon-specific "hemispheres" like missile spread and laser duration.

I think PGI should lump together spread/velocity/duration into a single category called Weapon Precision.

The PGI post didn't make a loit of sense in that respect Hemi means half. Balistics, missle energy that's three hemispheres on one tree. ?????? logic error Reduce the number of nodes per catagory so it's seasier to skill out a firepower tree. After I did the other trees I had only enough nodes to fully skill one catagory. I hope there won't be as many useless nodes required to get to the good skills. Ialready know radar derp, advanced zoom, and seismic sensor isn't going to be changed and I am not thrilled about that. It will be interesting to see how much and what they changed.

[Reno Blade]

FupDup, on 24 February 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

The PTS2 skill tree still has a few weapon-specific "hemispheres" like missile spread and laser duration.

I think PGI should lump together spread/velocity/duration into a single category called Weapon Precision.

Yea, but we don't know how much that means.
And I actually prefere to need some "choice", even if I use multiple weapons rather than using 1 Node.

Ofc it makes it easier if I get 3 effects rather than one, but the "Value" per node should be roughly equal over the whole ST -> thats why they said they will increase the Nodes for the "Module" effects, so you have more equal investment for the strong benefit skills.

[Lehmund]

We'll have to see what that weapon tree actually ends up being like. The other changes seem to be fine in the PTS 2 post though.

Frankly, what many of us seem to want is a skill tree that doesn't encourage specific loadouts at all.

What many have wanted for a long time, including myself, is a way to specialize mechs for different roles. For example, I have a LRM support Warhawk and a close range Warhawk on the same chassis. Though I'm not using the exact same omnipods.

What I'd like to be able to do on the LRM Warhawk is specialize it on sensors, missile accuracy/rate, missile defense and heat management. So those would fall into Operations, Auxiliary and Weapon trees.

The Brawling Warhawk, I would like to spend more points on weapons, toughness, speed/agility for the most part.

Most of the PTS skill tree allows this type of specialization, but the weapon tree(s) need to have generic enhancements to avoid mixed builds to be much less competitive than single builds.

Omnimechs wouldn't suffer so much because you can always try to boat with those, but battlemechs don't have that choice.

I also like the idea of separating agility from engine speed/size. This adds flavor and choices in the skill tree. i.e. I would spend those points for my brawling Warhawk, but not for the Lurm boat.

Good discussion overall.