13 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

By that, I mean that you spend more points as you invest more into a skill OR as the level gets higher, a skill gives you less benefit.

Imagine that there are hypothetical "laser skill" and "ballistic skill". In order to invest fully (100%) in one of them, you need 100 points. On the other hand, those same 100 points could give you 80% in both "laser skill" and "ballistic skill" if you decide to invest in both. To recap, 100% in either skill or 80% in both skills due to diminishing return OR increasing cost.

Did PGI issue any statement on this? What do you think about the idea?


EDIT: sorry, I thought I was in the PTS subforum.....

Edited by Hit the Deck, 03 March 2017 - 03:05 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

Hit the Deck, on 03 March 2017 - 02:59 AM, said:

By that, I mean that you spend more points as you invest more into a skill OR as the level gets higher, a skill gives you less benefit.

Imagine that there are hypothetical "laser skill" and "ballistic skill". In order to invest fully (100%) in one of them, you need 100 points. On the other hand, those same 100 points could give you 80% in both "laser skill" and "ballistic skill" if you decide to invest in both. To recap, 100% in either skill or 80% in both skills due to diminishing return OR increasing cost.

Did PGI issue any statement on this? What do you think about the idea?


EDIT: sorry, I thought I was in the PTS subforum.....

No. Here is the reason why. If you do that then you are allowing people to not feel the "burn" of their choices. From the new skill system PGI has this new idea of, "You want that, then we are taking this away." So if you want to invest those 100 points into 100 points for energy nodes then you better understand that's all your points. In other words it is putting more weight on the players choice more so than saying "here is everything that is great, now go play". Instead it will be I hope my choices are good choices and that I can work it because now I do not have radar derp because I spent all my nodes before I could get it.

[Hit the Deck]

Clownwarlord, on 03 March 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

No. Here is the reason why. If you do that then you are allowing people to not feel the "burn" of their choices....

This is done so that you need to spend more if you want to specialize. It's like a triathlon athlete can run 80% as well as a dedicated runner but he can also swim and bike as well as he can run.

As for the "tree", basically you don't need a tree with this system but this could be combined with a skill tree to give the players even bigger restriction.

[Marius Romanis]

Someone please move this thread to the correct forum section. You know, the skill tree one ?

[Clownwarlord]

CadoAzazel, on 03 March 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:

Someone please move this thread to the correct forum section. You know, the skill tree one ?

Wrong again This is not a discussion on the or about the PTS but about the Skill Tree in itself. The difference not giving feed back on the PTS but instead talking about game feature (as if we where to talk about the new hero mechs).

Hit the Deck, on 03 March 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

This is done so that you need to spend more if you want to specialize. It's like a triathlon athlete can run 80% as well as a dedicated runner but he can also swim and bike as well as he can run.

As for the "tree", basically you don't need a tree with this system but this could be combined with a skill tree to give the players even bigger restriction.

Well I agree this isn't a skill tree but more like a mech upgrade tree. But still this tree will work with build diversity, and forcing players to pick and choose what is more important to them. This instead of everyone popping in the same modules; Radar Derp, two weapon mods, if mastered seismic sensor, and then consumables.

[FupDup]

I don't agree with dimishing returns because I think that if a player invests a large number of SP into something specific, they should be rewarded for it.

If anything I'd rather have the bonuses start small but increase as you get further down the tree so that you have to make a choice whether to specialize at X at the cost of not having any Y.

[Bishop Steiner]

Either it should be increasing cost, so minmaxxing actual requires an investment, or at least have the costs increase to the mid point then start reducing again, along with the bonuses for doing so, so that 1 dimensional builds do hit a point of diminishing returns for it.

[Clownwarlord]

I disagree with both of you and prefer a balance between the nodes you want to specify in. The reason has to do with if you weight them early then people do not feel the burn of spending their SP. But on the other hand if you weight them later into the skill tree you are not only making them feel the burn but saying, "hay if you want to specify you are going to burn more to go all out to get the best boost possible."

[Bishop Steiner]

Clownwarlord, on 03 March 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

I disagree with both of you and prefer a balance between the nodes you want to specify in. The reason has to do with if you weight them early then people do not feel the burn of spending their SP. But on the other hand if you weight them later into the skill tree you are not only making them feel the burn but saying, "hay if you want to specify you are going to burn more to go all out to get the best boost possible."

that is the whole idea...if you want to be an uber specialist, you SHOULD have to sacrifice elsewhere to do so.

the last damn thing we need is for people to uber specialize mechs in multiple areas.

[Clownwarlord]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

that is the whole idea...if you want to be an uber specialist, you SHOULD have to sacrifice elsewhere to do so.

the last damn thing we need is for people to uber specialize mechs in multiple areas.

But you already have that with some filler nodes, do we not?

[Bishop Steiner]

Clownwarlord, on 03 March 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

But you already have that with some filler nodes, do we not?

I believe most people talking about this are referring to an alternative to the shotgun node approach and referring to more linear node progression. Regardless, front loading skill node cost just leads to taking just enough to get the best, then nothing else. No one would ever max specialize, because it would not make sense to.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

...No one would ever max specialize, because it would not make sense to.

Actually one would if they compete or regularly play in a coordinated group drop but those specialized 'Mechs wouldn't be best for the chaos of solo drop though, where more well rounded 'Mechs are expected to run about.

[MischiefSC]

I really dislike the principle of "we're needing everything and then selling you back 80% of what you have at a steep price increase".

There is no way that's not going to drive off a lot of long time players, prevent long absent players from coming back and do nothing to bring new ones in.

It is all around a bad idea that will go badly.

Give smaller, more direct trees with scaling UP benefits but fewer total points. Also make the trees of comparable value. Only idiots will spend points on JJ tree currently just as an example. Anyone who gives up weapon armor buffs for minor tweaks to their hoverjets is just fodder to farm anyway.

The new system has a plethora of goofy quirks of minimal/ no value it wants to force you to buy to get a small handful of good quirks - I say "good" because their purpose is to help get mech back to what is being removed in the first place.

The truth is that if the system isn't going to let me get my existing mech back to the exact point they are before the skill tree, as in get back from all my mech what I already have for the costs in time and money I've already spent it's just a overly complex system of screwing us all.

As such it will be hated and reviled and drive players out while reducing player satisfaction with MWO overall.

Yrs, there's a handful of new things too. That's great. Let us choose to give up some of what we have to get that instead as a tradeoff. However starting from the basis of "we're screwing you, let's just see how badly".

[Dino Might]

I am disappointed in the implementation.

A better system would be a plethora of skill tree options, and you can take as many or as few as you want. But each perk has an associated deficiency. There's no pure bonus set of skills. So you can specialize your mech, or leave it a jack of all trades. You can't just buff it across the board without any downsides.

And I would incorporate diminishing returns in this system, so while specializing would be good for players with a particular playstyle in mind, there would be a happy compromise for spreading the skills around just a bit.

The system would make each choice important, whereas now, it's just a choice of what end-of-tree skills you want, and then buy everything to get to them.

Edited by Dino Might, 03 March 2017 - 08:52 PM.