Jump to content

Latest Skill Tree Build Now Live On Pts!


358 replies to this topic

#21 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 01 March 2017 - 07:59 PM

View PostNlGHTBlRD, on 01 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

Main complaint: Cooldown is too weak, currently modules + fast fire = 17%, with the tree you're limited to 4-5 or less. This plus 20-30% more hp and you're looking at a huge increase to TTK. Please make cooldown max =15% from all nodes if not 20%.

If you are referring to weapon cool down, I don't think the lasers need anymore than what is in the pts right now. With dissipation feeling much slower, it will only lead to more over heating rather than being a positive buff.

Heat seems to be more of an issue, which comes the benefit of encouraging fire control and slowing time to kill.

View PostGas Guzzler, on 01 March 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

Yeah its definitely an improvement, but I would agree the mobility tree is a little bit expensive.

I'm thinking that the high price for speed tweak is intentional. It already has minimal return for slow moving mechs, but high speed mechs stand to gain a lot of benefit from the high investment cost, especially if a large number of players are starting to move from 5-15 kph slower.

Deceleration is slower now, which adds an interesting dynamic to planning use of cover more carefully and makes "peek-a-boo" tactics for heavies and assaults much riskier.

#22 Cpt Contego

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 73 posts
  • LocationQueensland, Australia

Posted 01 March 2017 - 07:59 PM

View PostAnTi90d, on 01 March 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

I really like the new weapons tree.. even if it's size and complexity is a bit offputting.

Maybe color code it like Tarocat's example.


--


Also, I really think Clan vs Inner Sphere balance is going to suffer with the removal of way too many IS weapon quirks.

In the current system on the LIVE server, we have IS weapon quirks along with modules versus clan mechs with few weapon quirks along with modules. (IS with weapon quirks + modules) = (Clan without weapon quirks + modules.)

Taking away too many IS weapon quirks is buffing both sides by the same amount, since they both will only have the skill tree. An IS Hunchback with the skill tree will not perform as well as a Clan Hunchback with the skill tree. (IS without weapon quirks + skill tree bonuses) =/= (Clan without weapon quirks + skill tree bonuses)

This system is punishing IS mechs and will hurt balance. You take away IS quirks and modules, but only take away Clan modules because they don't have quirks. This will create an even greater performance gap between the two sides which will shine brightest on the IS mechs that are only marginally relevant, now, because of their weapon quirks.

Yeah I raised this also a little further up. (just wanted to quote your post so it gets noticed more).

#23 DjPush

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 07:59 PM

I posted my feedback here:
https://mwomercs.com...n/#entry5635453

#24 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:00 PM

View PostNexxio, on 01 March 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

I have a feeling that soon we will have major requirking of all mechs.


If we get as much new tech as it sounds like they're going to have to do this anyway.

Still kind of sad to see a 20% cooldown nerf on a spider and locust that is almost never used.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 01 March 2017 - 08:04 PM.


#25 Gentleman Reaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrench
  • The Wrench
  • 733 posts
  • LocationWinnipeg, the land of slurpees and potholes

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:02 PM

View PostAnTi90d, on 01 March 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

I really like the new weapons tree.. even if it's size and complexity is a bit offputting.

Maybe color code it like Tarocat's example.


--


Also, I really think Clan vs Inner Sphere balance is going to suffer with the removal of way too many IS weapon quirks.

In the current system on the LIVE server, we have IS weapon quirks along with modules versus clan mechs with few weapon quirks along with modules. (IS with weapon quirks + modules) = (Clan without weapon quirks + modules.)

Taking away too many IS weapon quirks is buffing both sides by the same amount, since they both will only have the skill tree. An IS Hunchback with the skill tree will not perform as well as a Clan Hunchback with the skill tree. (IS without weapon quirks + skill tree bonuses) =/= (Clan without weapon quirks + skill tree bonuses)

This system is punishing IS mechs and will hurt balance. You take away IS quirks and modules, but only take away Clan modules because they don't have quirks. This will create an even greater performance gap between the two sides which will shine brightest on the IS mechs that are only marginally relevant, now, because of their weapon quirks.


I agree, that IS mechs do get punished with this, but providing even skill bonuses for both tech bases means that there's a good baseline for them to balance the two, I'd rather PGI works on equipment balance rather than simply offering Clan mechs less impactful skills.

#26 Jingseng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 962 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:04 PM

With the greater emphasis on mobility skill tree (as noted by devs) being important, and rolling quirks into base parameters (but removing from clans), AND the disparity in skill tree values... I can't help but think that those 'minor differences' are anything but. Indeed, why bother if they are minor?

Besides which, I'm not at all optimistic that, given how polarizing the clan vs IS view points are, that anyone who is bothering to actually compare IS mechs and Clan mech performances is giving unbiased feedback. I hope the devs are 'monitoring the situation' very careful, and with huge grains of salt (there's plenty in the forums)

#27 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:08 PM

While overall the changes are a massive improvement and movement in the right direction, there is still a LOT of work to be done. However, most of it simply revolves around two facets: Fixing node placement in the trees and STILL the skill tree Economy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, think on this: Look at the fact that you're now FORCING mechs to take non-relevant weapon specific nodes in order to get all of the passive nodes that they might want. That's just plain WRONG!!!! We know that you know you're doing it, because you even disabled the "if you don't have these weapons you can't take these nodes" feature. What if all a person wants is weapon range and heat generation nodes and nothing weapon-specific? They can't do that; and again, that's just plain wrong!

In a similar vein, look at the auxiliary tree as another prime example. Why MUST a person invest in improving artillery consumables in order to improve their NARC system? That makes absolutely zero sense.

Suggestion: Split the nodes into purely defined zones/lines that distinctly benefit the linking systems. Make each tree have numerous "starting points" that allow you to advance down a line of investment based on what the pilot wants. Either that, or just allow people to directly pick and choose what they wish . . . after all, we could pick and choose the order we wanted to acquire skills in the old system, why can't we do something similar in this system?

Here are some examples for handling this, focusing on the Firepower and Auxiliary Trees:

- In the Firepower Tree put in starting points (each going straight down their own line) for Range, Cooldown, Heat Generation, Velocity, Laser Duration, Missile Spread, etc. etc. These can then even interconnect in a honeycomb fashion if desired, but lines should be placed next to something sensible; and they should not act as a senseless barrier between two non-relevant lines of nodes.

- If PGI feels that "investment" of a certain amount of nodes is required to get to something specific, like Gauss Charge, for example, then place them at the bottom of one of these main lines. Using Gauss Charge as the continued example, you could place it at the bottom of the Velocity line. Jam Chance could be at the end of the cooldown line, spread nodes could also fall under velocity, duration nodes could be double-linked at the bottom of both Heat Gen and Cooldown, and ammunition nodes could also fall at the bottom of the cooldown line.

- In the Auxiliary Tree you can create a similar situation where you have a line for extra slots, UAV nodes, Artillery nodes, Coolshot nodes, NARC, etc. If need-be for levels of investment, as an example, do something like put the UAV duration under the UAV range nodes and the extra UAV all the way at the bottom of the UAV line.

- This same premise can be carried through all the other trees (Mobility, Survival, Jump Jets, Sensors, and Operations) to equal effect with zero issues.

- If certain nodes feel like distinct "winners" and "losers", then PGI should consider altering the values of these nodes until they feel valuable enough to compete with everything else. We shouldn't have certain nodes forced down our throat if they have neither nothing to do with our build nor are obviously sub-par nodes that are mere obstructions to get to more desirable nodes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another line of thought I still think the economy needs work. I realize that mastered mechs in this system aren't going to be mastered mechs from the old system. However, we're still not even getting what we had when trying to remaster mechs . . . we don't even get to start remotely close to where we left off. Veteran players in particular with large rosters of mechs stand to lose a great deal through this change.

Under the old system I could earn 57250 experience and have a mech in its "mastered" state with ZERO c-bill investment. The c-bill side of things came from modules, which were a more end-game facet and supposed to be more grind based. However, these were also swappable and most people only kept enough modules to fill out a FW deck (if that) and aren't getting back the billions of c-bills required just to get their mechs where they were before. Regardless, I'm now also being charged c-bills just to get back skills that I could have on mechs by default through just experience.

On the flip side of things, this is a F2P game, and PGI needs methods of monetization. The first iteration was horrifically costly, but it still gave PGI some monetization options. This current method oddly guts PGI monetization options and yet it still doesn't even give players the ability to get back what they had under the old system without massive c-bill costs.

SUGGESTION . . . Different Node Unlock Methods:

- One option is a large but strictly XP investment . . . say 1600 XP per node, for example.

- Another option is what's currently listed of 60k c-bills and 800xp.

- The final option is MC replacing the c-bills (going off of ~400-425MC to 1 mil c-bills in MC mech purchases) for ~24-25 MC and 800xp.

- Respec is handled the same as it is now.

This creates various advancement methods that cater to different kinds of players. Not only that, but it also gives PGI more monetization options for people who wish to use a few MC to save c-bills for other things OR who have hoards of GXP that they've converted and are willing to build up mechs through pure GXP conversions.

EDIT: Again, posting this here and in the appropriate feedback section of the forums to ensure it is noticed.

Edited by Sereglach, 01 March 2017 - 08:09 PM.


#28 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:09 PM

View PostAnTi90d, on 01 March 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

I really like the new weapons tree.. even if it's size and complexity is a bit offputting.

Maybe color code it like Tarocat's example.


--


Also, I really think Clan vs Inner Sphere balance is going to suffer with the removal of way too many IS weapon quirks.

In the current system on the LIVE server, we have IS weapon quirks along with modules versus clan mechs with few weapon quirks along with modules. (IS with weapon quirks + modules) = (Clan without weapon quirks + modules.)

Taking away too many IS weapon quirks is buffing both sides by the same amount, since they both will only have the skill tree. An IS Hunchback with the skill tree will not perform as well as a Clan Hunchback with the skill tree. (IS without weapon quirks + skill tree bonuses) =/= (Clan without weapon quirks + skill tree bonuses)

This system is punishing IS mechs and will hurt balance. You take away IS quirks and modules, but only take away Clan modules because they don't have quirks. This will create an even greater performance gap between the two sides which will shine brightest on the IS mechs that are only marginally relevant, now, because of their weapon quirks.


The skill tree is better but for what i can tell balance is worse than before because they didn't balance anything.

Along with the old nerfs taking out some mechs and nothing to other we have a new engine system. I ran the kdk and boy is it slow with the 400xl. This might be ok for the kdk3 but all the others? ewwww

I really hope the next round is about balance.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 01 March 2017 - 08:10 PM.


#29 silberfuchs

    Member

  • Pip
  • The Hitman
  • The Hitman
  • 16 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:22 PM

I'll have to look through this more thoroughly in a bit, but the worst thing still has to be overall reduction in cooldown and nerfing of the IS mechs on weapon quirks. That's one of the best things about playing IS...playing to the strength of a particular mech. They may not all be canon and some seem like they hit the dart board in the wrong place, but they made each chassis interesting. Reducing it down to 5% in some cases and taking away/reducing module cooldowns and fast fire makes the mechs feeling more vanilla.


Still no love for flamers and Machine guns!

#30 DAYLEET

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 4,316 posts
  • LocationLinoleum.

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:28 PM

The loading screen has tips such as "Once a module is purchased you can move it between 'Mechs for no additional costs". Will it be replaced with "Be advised that all mech now cost 6million cbills more than before"?

C'mon, why is this necessary? Find why you need to put everyone in the hole and fix that problem rather than punish everyone. Remove cbill cost for the tree and have a mc option that does not require xp.

#31 Exbe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 102 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 09:44 PM

I have black screen of death after login screen. Am I the only one?

#32 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 09:49 PM

Why did you jack up the price of consumables by 50%?

60,000 cbills per consumable is crazy.

Edited by Jman5, 01 March 2017 - 09:50 PM.


#33 Slowth

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 54 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 09:53 PM

Maybe if we ignore this new stuff enough, it will go the way of the Power Draw system.

#34 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 01 March 2017 - 10:15 PM

View PostJman5, on 01 March 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

Why did you jack up the price of consumables by 50%?

60,000 cbills per consumable is crazy.
where did you see that? That's a huge cost for Mechs that invest in multiple consumables - and thus is basically insane to do that for regular play.

4xconsumables would be 240,000 cbills. Your basically giving up your earnings completely if you win, and losing money on a loss. Why would you pay skill points for that?

#35 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 10:26 PM

View PostWintersdark, on 01 March 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

where did you see that? That's a huge cost for Mechs that invest in multiple consumables - and thus is basically insane to do that for regular play.

4xconsumables would be 240,000 cbills. Your basically giving up your earnings completely if you win, and losing money on a loss. Why would you pay skill points for that?



Posted Image

#36 Agent X52

    Rookie

  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 11:28 PM

I was testing out a mech with PPCs on it and I noticed that the skill points I selected for it were not being applied. Specifically, I used the right hand side (ballistics) of the firepower tree to attempt to increase PPC velocity and range with a few cool-down nodes mixed in. http://imgur.com/VdZVPVK

However, when I hovered over the weapon to confirm that the skill nodes were applied correctly to the weapon, none of the bonuses I had selected were applied. http://imgur.com/rRak5J0

So were the PPC velocity skill nodes removed entirely, or is there a glitch regarding that those "ballistic" nodes apply only to ballistic weapons?

In addition, the Hill Climb 3 node is missing a description. http://imgur.com/toXlYGx

#37 Cyrilis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Rasalhague
  • Hero of Rasalhague
  • 760 posts
  • LocationRas Alhague Insane Asylum, most of the time in the pen where they lock up the Urbie pilots

Posted 01 March 2017 - 11:55 PM

concerning that the numbers of nodes was increased in 'firepower' and 'mobility' trees...

pls think about increasing the number of unlockable nodes per 'Mech

#38 Cauur

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:24 AM

I think this whole skill tree thing has gotten needlessly complicated. Simple is better. There are WAY too many talents. Most are so incremental that they seem like they're there to add complication. Droping the number of available skills and skill points makes each of the individual skills more valuable. That lets players put points in things that might matter more to them. Why are there 6000 Range/CD nodes in the weapon tree? So that I can take another .00025% range increase? No thanks.

There's also no way to "test" nodes. So I have to test by taking the talent. Find out its crap or I did it wrong or, its not implemented correctly, and I'm penalized in order to fix it. Yeah, you dropped the economy cost, but its still a penalty.

Tried to re-spec and got an error that it was a feature that was "unavailable". Thanks.

#39 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:45 AM

View PostAidan Pendragon, on 01 March 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

FAIL.

What part of everyone saying "we don't want to have to pay to unlock random and unrelated nodes to get at the skills we want" didn't register with you, PGI?


Why is it so hard for folks to grasp that they will never allow players to just MIN/MAX the nodes to suit their mech builds to create epic boated meta builds ? Whatever tree layout they present is going to require unlocking nodes that individuals may not want/need/use to get to the really cool stuff. So all the complaining has done is to take a system of nodes dedicated to specific weapon class trees for example where you'd only be unlocking the nodes for your hardpoints including ones you saw as not useful (but others might have) to a generalized weapon tree where you now get penalized with needing to unlock nodes for stuff you don't have hardpoints for at all. Congratulations !!!

#40 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:55 AM

View PostNlGHTBlRD, on 01 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

Main complaint: Cooldown is too weak, currently modules + fast fire = 17%, with the tree you're limited to 4-5 or less. This plus 20-30% more hp and you're looking at a huge increase to TTK. Please make cooldown max =15% from all nodes if not 20%.


That's not a mistake. That's intentional and has been known since mechcon when Russ first presented the skill tree setup. PGI is unhappy with the TTK and thus between the loss of cooldown modules and an easily unlocked fast fire skill, and reducing weapon quirks, and adding survival nodes, and mechs running hotter... TTK's will increase. This is going to apply to everyone. Get used to it or go find another game to play.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users