15 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

Greetings MechWarriors. Today I have a simple question. How does the PTS look like with the new skill tree and agility dissasociation from engine rating? Is it even up yet?

[Bud Crue]

Still offline.

[cazidin]

Bud Crue, on 24 February 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

Still offline.

What has Russ said on Twitter about this?

[Bud Crue]

Silence since the 22nd. Nothing on the PTS or Skills tree.

Edited by Bud Crue, 24 February 2017 - 05:39 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Tina Benoit posted that it is delayed and will be up early next week. So enjoy the lack of a significant Supernova event...for no good reason.

[soapyfrog]

I'm honestly not really motivated to play at all until they can fix the punitive aspects of the skill tree costs.

Why play if my time and money are to be wasted in a future patch?

[cazidin]

PGI, get Skill Tree PTS II up already!

[MechaBattler]

The crit system was pretty borked. Along with a few other bugs. Wouldn't be surprised they're having issues with making it work right.

[D V Devnull]

MechaBattler, on 27 February 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

The crit system was pretty borked. Along with a few other bugs. Wouldn't be surprised they're having issues with making it work right.

What's worse is that I've detected a few problems with the Skill Tree PTS, and I'm in a situation where I can't even get in to check it out in person. Not good when someone who can't get close, can still sniff out issues, and all by watching other pilots who produce videos. Just to name a few...

• LRM Range should not have the Baseline lowered
  You're probably wondering, "What is this guy talking about?" Simply put, there's a reason that LRMs have a 1000-meter Baseline. To start, Missile-type weapons explode at their Max Range without doing damage if they don't hit anything. Taking it down to 900 meters only gives more of an advantage to all those nuts who are trying to get LRMs done away with. Further, it advantages those Anti-LRM-minded users and their 'Energy-based Boats', 'Ballistic-based boats', and 'Mixed Energy/Ballistic boats', while actively causing deprecation to anything using LRMs. PGI complains about people not using the LRM Range Modules, but yet they didn't provide enough Weapon Module slots in the first place to encourage using those modules alongside other modules. (If they had, I definitely would have been actively using the LRM Range Modules in more of my own designs! As it stands, I've only got one Mech using it right now.) Further, by lowering the Baseline Max Range, it gives more of an advantage to one single LRM-using Mech in the game, an 85-ton Stalker 'STK-5M' Chassis Variant. Loss of Max Range would actively break too many competing LRM-using designs, while only giving that one Mech Variant a massive advantage against any other on the field and enabling it to be the only thing pounding from longer ranges. This would also cause a severe Clan-vs.-I.S. imbalance, as then only the I.S. would have the ability to pound from rather long range with at least one weapon type. Stack on top of this the obvious fact that lowering the Baseline Max Range to 900 would actively force LRM Range in the Skill Trees to be a "Forced Necessary Skill", where PGI intended build diversity to be a wanted thing, and it seals why the 1000-meter Baseline should NOT be changed. You don't get build diversity when you make something all too necessary, so I hope PGI remembers that fact, and moves the LRM Range Baseline back to 1000-meters. Heck, if they're going to introduce MRMs, lowering the LRM Range Baseline hurts the insertion gap that would be needed to make MRMs a worthwhile choice.
  
• Skill Tree doesn't currently give enough nodes
  Really, I'm NOT kidding around. I've had the chance to play another game that uses Skill Tree systems, namely "Borderlands", and seeing the low limits that PGI is allowing just made me sick. To give you an idea, "Borderlands" allows you "64 to 66, out of 105 nodes" to allocate, and it actually works out right. While I don't think that everyone should be given that insanely great a ratio here in MWO, I did find while watching others' videos and streams that "91 nodes of around 330" is simply not enough. If PGI really wants to see what people can bring out, what diverse designs can come to the field, then they need to make it at least "100 to 105 nodes, out of around 330" to be picked and allocated. There needs to be proper compensation for build allocation, and there just doesn't appear to be enough at this time, but what I suggest here really wouldn't 'break the bank' (as the old saying goes). Otherwise, they're choking too many Pilots and their Mechs, and all that can do is hurt PGI's Business-based Bottom Line in terms of Cash Flow. I'm sure PGI doesn't want to hurt themselves, so they should up the allowed number of nodes to at least 100 to 105, right?
  
• Better indication of Skill Tree progression
  Currently, PGI is only indicating when you've Mastered a Mech with the Skill Tree. I think they should add more indication, by showing a proper state of "Basic at 58% Node Allocation" and "Elite at 87% Node Allocation". While this doesn't track with the Old Skill Tree System (8/13 = 61%, 12/13 = 92%, & 13/13 = 100%), adjustment is needed for the change in the number of nodes to be allocated, and how pilots will feel distance in the Node Allocation curve.
  
• Only C-Bill () Consumables should be affected by Skill Tree Nodes
  While I may only be actively using (C-Bill) Consumables myself, as I am an F2P-type player, I do not feel that those who pay and have (MC) Consumables should have to fight their way through the Skill Trees to enhance Consumables that should already be enhanced in the first place. But at the same time, then those Consumables should NOT be enhanced even further beyond their pre-enhanced states by the Skill Tree Nodes, in order to keep things in relative balance between those who use -versions and those who use -versions of the Consumables. This falls under "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" in regards to changing from the Old Skill Tree System to the New Skill Tree System.

...and while I would probably have more to say, I unfortunately got had recently by somebody bringing a nasty cold home with them. So, I'm rather thrashed and out of energy at this time, and have at least provided my opinions to what I can remember to identify as the biggest visible points that stood out in my view. Also, I understand posting this much probably could have been posted out into an entirely different thread start, but I think I would have had a lot more trouble doing it that way, and this seemed the best location to simply be additive to a discussion. Anyway, please excuse me while I stumble back to a JumpShip Medical Station now...

~Mr. D. V. "It took a lot of observation, but I stumbled in while sick, and here's my thoughts..." Devnull

[Doctor Dinosaur]

"Skill Tree doesn't currently give enough nodes"
Problem is that many nodes are straight up useless (upper torso->Arm movement...) while some are absolutely mandatory (movement speed, radar deprivation).
As anounced changes have been made in this regard, so we'll see if the next iteration will be better.
I would be ok with just 4 possible skills and 2 skill points (choose 2 out of: Armor, Movement, Intel, Firepower) just to define the role you want to play:
Scout: Movement + Intel
Brawler: Armor + Firepower
Sniper: Firepower + Intel
Backstabber: Movement + Firepower

If MWO had something like information sharing, there could be things like Armor + Intel, too, but that's changing topics already.

EDIT: I messed up the roles with same skill sets for different roles. Fixed that. Of course not every combination makes sense.

Edited by Doctor Dinosaur, 28 February 2017 - 02:45 AM.

[kapusta11]

PTS, what is that?

Btw, wanna buy new resistance heroes?

[Lehmund]

Doctor Dinosaur, on 28 February 2017 - 02:39 AM, said:

"Skill Tree doesn't currently give enough nodes"
Problem is that many nodes are straight up useless (upper torso->Arm movement...) while some are absolutely mandatory (movement speed, radar deprivation).
As anounced changes have been made in this regard, so we'll see if the next iteration will be better.
I would be ok with just 4 possible skills and 2 skill points (choose 2 out of: Armor, Movement, Intel, Firepower) just to define the role you want to play:
Scout: Movement + Intel
Brawler: Armor + Firepower
Sniper: Firepower + Intel
Backstabber: Movement + Firepower

If MWO had something like information sharing, there could be things like Armor + Intel, too, but that's changing topics already.

EDIT: I messed up the roles with same skill sets for different roles. Fixed that. Of course not every combination makes sense.

Though I'm all for customization, and the skill tree being worked on has definite potential, I think a much simpler role-based skill tree as suggested here would work much better.

In essence, PGI could reduce all the prospective skill trees planned to a single Node each, or perhaps a progression of 3 notes per tree, with each node giving increasingly high bonuses.

I forget how many trees we'll end up with but say it is 6 for this exercise and each one of them (Firepower, Armor, Operations, Mobility etc....) has 3 nodes. That,s 18 possible nodes to buy.

You get say 10 points per mech to allocate. So you could make say a tanky brawl Atlas. All right. Spend 3 in Armor, 3 in Firepower for the punch, 2 in Mobility to get some speed and agility to get and stay in front of the group and sprinkle 2 more for taste.

We don't necessarily need all the minute adjustments. Many players in fact have dozens of mechs they'll need to skill up when this goes live. That's a lot of time to convert.

And will a hugely complex skill tree where each node makes a 1% adjustment to a single mech parameter be really needed here? I get the feeling the variety of purchases in the skill trees won't be that great with most people taking up most or all of a few skill trees to optimize the role they want to take with their mechs.

For new players as well, a simpler tree with fewer nodes would be way, way more intuitive and easier to buy into.

Also, easier to tweak and maintain a smaller tree for PGI.

L

[McHoshi]

Bud Crue, on 24 February 2017 - 05:39 PM, said:

Silence since the 22nd. Nothing on the PTS or Skills tree.

Early this week!

[Bud Crue]

McHoshi, on 28 February 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

Early this week!

Any word? Or has "early" this week, transitioned to "mid-week or later"? Give us a hint PGI.

[Bud Crue]

Its up
https://mwomercs.com...-skill-tree-pts

Crap. Just updated again.

Edited by Bud Crue, 28 February 2017 - 05:37 PM.

[D V Devnull]

Bud Crue, on 28 February 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

Its up
https://mwomercs.com...-skill-tree-pts

Crap. Just updated again.

Yeah... PGI really should think of running each segment of the Skill Tree PTS for longer, as well as being more honest with their estimates of when things will happen. Doing so would give proper time for more people to get in, test, identify problems, and provide feedback. There are also people who won't just ram through install processes, because they're careful not to let their computers get damaged in unusual ways. There are even people who have Real Life Things to deal with that can prevent them from arriving as fast as PGI would like for the PTS Cycles. This causes hard delays in how fast that people can get in on testing, and if the PTS period is too short, then a chunk of people who should have arrived to test won't get to. On top of all this, PGI keeps trying to set overly short completion dates, and something like this should have been looked at more as at least a 'Next July/August' kind of item (Frankly, I think it is more a 'Any Time After February/March/April 2018' kind of thing!) with the overall scale of what they're intending to do. There may be players who are insanely bent on "having everything now", but the simple truth is that coding this stuff takes tons of time, and tons more to get it done right the first time and avoid any game-crippling bugs. Personally, I would rather to see this take a long while, be done right, and have people enjoying happily. The alternative of being full of incomplete junk that people complain about is one I would rather not look at. Would you agree?

~D. V. "Already seeing enough problems, and not wanting more..." Devnull