358 replies to this topic

[ARM32]

ok, after some thoughts - maybe, it can be better with system like:
1.Example skill - "Energy range" - it comes as +0 from start and ends on +100%. Cut it on 2.5% step. So, from 0 to 10% u spent 4SP(SkillPoints = SP), 1 per 2.5% after 10% - 2SP for 2.5%. So for 10% - 4SP, for 20% - 12SP for 30% 24SP. So, it can give chance ride some mechs with like 75% energy cooldown, BUT, on this mech you will not get any structure\sensors\speed\etc...
2.Set some "boosts" for some mechs, lice a "Locust" got weapon boost, so, up to 30% - 1SP per 2.5% - so 30% = 12SP, 40% = 20SP.
3.This "boosts" can give "new life" for "not so used" mechs... Like "MadDog" can get boost on ballistic, so 2 LBX20 MDD - more often can gets on a battlefield...

So yes, it will asks time for balance (PTS is good for it), but, it can comes more effective to bring some old mechs online again.
Still like idea of new skill tree, but, still needs rethink. Deep rethink.

[cougurt]

ARM32, on 07 March 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

ok, after some thoughts - maybe, it can be better with system like:
1.Example skill - "Energy range" - it comes as +0 from start and ends on +100%. Cut it on 2.5% step. So, from 0 to 10% u spent 4SP(SkillPoints = SP), 1 per 2.5% after 10% - 2SP for 2.5%. So for 10% - 4SP, for 20% - 12SP for 30% 24SP. So, it can give chance ride some mechs with like 75% energy cooldown, BUT, on this mech you will not get any structure\sensors\speed\etc...
2.Set some "boosts" for some mechs, lice a "Locust" got weapon boost, so, up to 30% - 1SP per 2.5% - so 30% = 12SP, 40% = 20SP.
3.This "boosts" can give "new life" for "not so used" mechs... Like "MadDog" can get boost on ballistic, so 2 LBX20 MDD - more often can gets on a battlefield...

So yes, it will asks time for balance (PTS is good for it), but, it can comes more effective to bring some old mechs online again.
Still like idea of new skill tree, but, still needs rethink. Deep rethink.

i like this idea. i think a lot of resistance to the skill tree comes from the fact that everything is basically being reduced in effectiveness. while that does mean that things should be mostly the same in terms of relative balance, doing it this way creates a negative perception. in order to counter that, you have to "give back" elsewhere, by allowing for specialization beyond what was previously possible.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

cougurt, on 07 March 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

i like this idea. i think a lot of resistance to the skill tree comes from the fact that everything is basically being reduced in effectiveness. while that does mean that things should be mostly the same in terms of relative balance, doing it this way creates a negative perception. in order to counter that, you have to "give back" elsewhere, by allowing for specialization beyond what was previously possible.

If you're going to up the cost at least give us something to be excited about

[Threat Doc]

I thought one of the main ideas in using the Skill Trees was to help in differentiating 'Mechs? Perhaps I've simply missed it in all the reading I've done, but it seems to me the only differentiation comes in the weapons mounted on each 'Mech. This Set of Eight applies to each 'Mech as continuing quirks, right? Is that meant to make enough of a difference between 'Mech roles to separate them. To be honest, the differences I've seen, thus far, are not truly enough to help define Role Warfare.

If there's word on this which I've not yet been privileged to read, would someone be so kind as to point me in that direction, and I'll read some more, please?

[MovinTarget]

I have been asking this as well...

I could understand homogeneous trees during testing and balancing, but I've heard no follow up that they would ultimately be tailored to the variant...

[Threat Doc]

Well, they're still deep in the PTS testing... I'm wondering, however, if it's still too early to worry about 'Mech skills delineation. Like you said, it's during testing, and the basics are being taken care of. I just wonder when the separation is going to start.

[SQW]

Why is the Narc skill nodes tied to UAV and Bombardment nodes and on two sides?!

Is UAV inherently more useful than Narc or is it required for Narc to function? No!

Is there a reason why two narc nodes are on the opposite sides other than symmetry? Also no!

[Threat Doc]

In truth, I was wondering about some of the weapons, as they're all now clustered together, where you have to purchase a step in something unrelated to missiles in order to get to a few missile related nodes. Were it me developing it, I would take a good deal more care in node distribution; I don't have time to go through a complete layout the way I would do it for each of the sections, not just weapons, but something I might suggest doing is separating the weapons out, again, but if you purchase a cool-down time reduction node, for instance, and it also applies to Gauss and/or AC weaponry, it's selected on that/those weapon tree(s), as well. Combining them all together, as they are, it's going to be impossible to get to various nodes without purchasing nodes you don't want, and which are not used on your 'Mech. Truth be told, I liked the separate trees the way they were, and I might even have separated out the weapon types further, not lumping PPCs and flamers in with lasers, setting LRM and SRM use more separate, separating Autocannons from Gauss, etc.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 07 March 2017 - 10:09 PM.

[ZortPointNarf]

So I gave the new tree a go, and I mostly like it. The only thing I would change at this point would be to not tie the firepower skills such as cooldown, range, etc behind any weapon type. I see no point to invest even a single skill point in ballistics if I am running a Lrm boat. There are a few of these scattered about, where you have a dependency on something that should be purely optional, such as hill climb, screen shake etc. A lrm boat gains no benefit from a reduction in screen shake, if I am taking hits, the screen shaking is the least of my worries.
Great job on listening to the community on this, I think it will go a long way to restoring the lack of trust I've seen quite prevalent on the forums.
My final suggestion would be to have an MC unlock option to a skill point, instead of spending CB, you can pay to win a little bit. This value should be low though, as it would need to fall into the impulse buy category, I have 10mc to unlock this, I don't feel like grinding it out just now, I want to lock this skill and get back to play now.
Some will hate this, bu they have the option to spend CB, this is purely for the people that can and want to spend MC instead of CB. (The cost should be slightly in favour of MC, if you were to buy CB with MC)

[Venshaw Kerensky]

Skill Tree? w/e - it's fine. It's not what the game really needs, and it's doesn't fix what is WRONG with the game but like I said whatever. DEV's need to do something to justify taking our money even if it's just a rewrapping.

[Wintersdark]

Kay Wolf, on 07 March 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

In truth, I was wondering about some of the weapons, as they're all now clustered together, where you have to purchase a step in something unrelated to missiles in order to get to a few missile related nodes. Were it me developing it, I would take a good deal more care in node distribution; I don't have time to go through a complete layout the way I would do it for each of the sections, not just weapons, but something I might suggest doing is separating the weapons out, again, but if you purchase a cool-down time reduction node, for instance, and it also applies to Gauss and/or AC weaponry, it's selected on that/those weapon tree(s), as well. Combining them all together, as they are, it's going to be impossible to get to various nodes without purchasing nodes you don't want, and which are not used on your 'Mech. Truth be told, I liked the separate trees the way they were, and I might even have separated out the weapon types further, not lumping PPCs and flamers in with lasers, setting LRM and SRM use more separate, separating Autocannons from Gauss, etc.

they are separate, except for the range and cool down buffs, and those are scattered as they are intentionally not hapazardly. It's like that specifically to give a buff to players running multiple weapon types.

[Garegaupa]

Wintersdark, on 08 March 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

they are separate, except for the range and cool down buffs, and those are scattered as they are intentionally not hapazardly. It's like that specifically to give a buff to players running multiple weapon types.

The more I think about this, the more sense it makes. This was previously my only real gripe with the latest iteration of the skill tree system, but I've changed my opinion. I agree that this may help promote build diversity, or at least make diverse builds more feasible.

As it stands now I'm more than ready to see this on the live servers. I think the final balance issues can best be sorted out there.

Edited by Garegaupa, 08 March 2017 - 04:17 AM.

[mad kat]

Ok lets do some maths. (Thinking out loud and i'm going to ignore respeccing for now).

I have 67 mechs

60,000 x 91 = 5,460,000/mech
5,460,000 x 67 = 365,820,000 cbills to max efficiencies

i'm expecting 36,000,000 back from modules

+

5,840,331 from current balance

+

5,185,584 if i sell three spare XL engines before selling anything else.

=

47,025,915 cbills

47,025,915/365,820,000 = 12.8% of the total required

Now not all off my mechs are mastered but all are at least elited and good chunk of them are mastered or close to it.

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell i'm going to get anywhere near what i already have (AND HAVE PAID FOR I MIGHT ADD) based on cbills alone. This system will work for mechs going forward but is going to screw all my existing mechs. I'm going to have to cherry pick them.

Xp Wise that's a different ball game

we need 72,800 xp to master now, 22 of my mechs have sufficient XP to cover that, several are close but that leaves many that are far short despite having double basic's now.

I haven't worked out what i'll get back in GXP but i suspect adding it to the 14,240 balance i have i suspect its still going to have a noticeable deficit.

Basically i'd say about 75% of my mechs which are running how i want them now are going to be set back by at least 50% efficiency.

Seriously PGI this is a ******* DISASTER! I demand a refund.

Edited by mad kat, 08 March 2017 - 11:52 PM.

[TheLuc]

I wrote many times before, PGI they do have good ideas but when comes the time they screw up.

Since MWO is the experimental platform they are running for future projects, they are learning from it, well I do hope so but so far there is some one not learning. Copying other games for MWO ( SOLARIS7 ONLINE ) is a mistake and the skill tree which has nothing to do with actual skills is a mess, more grind for less, IS XL Engine still not fixed and tech balance is still off.

ATM it feels like they trying to trade 3 quarters of theirs for one dollar from us, I was expecting such but never that bad.
lets enjoy the current system while it there.

[Wintersdark]

mad kat, on 08 March 2017 - 04:47 AM, said:

Ok lets do some maths. (Thinking out loud and i'm going to ignore respeccing for now).

I have 67 mechs

60,000 x 91 = 5,460,000/mech
5,460,000 x 67 = 365,820,000 cbills to max efficiencies

i'm expecting 36,000,000 back from modules

+

5,840,331 from current balance

+

5,185,584 if i sell three spare XL engines before selling anything else.

=

47,025,915 cbills

47,025,915/365,820,000 = 12.8% of the total required

Now not all off my mechs are mastered but all are elited and good chunk of them are mastered or close to it.

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell i'm going to get anywhere near what i allready have (AND HAVE PAID FOR I MIGHT ADD) based on cbills alone. This system will work for mechs going forward but is going to screw all my existing mechs. I'm going to have to cherry pick them.

Xp Wise that's a different ball game

we need 72,800 xp to master now, 22 of my mechs have sufficient XP to cover that, several are close but that leaves many that are far short despite having double basic's now.

I havn't worked out what i'll get back in GXP but i suspect adding it to the 14,240 balance i have i suspect its still going to have a noticeable deficit.

Basically i'd say about 75% of my mechs which are running how i want them now are going to be set back by at least 50% efficiency.

Seriously PGI this is a ******* DISASTER! I demand a refund.

Your math is deeply.flawed. There are cost issues, but you're comparing "mastered" today with "mastered" on the skill tree and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You can get basically all the current day skills for a pretty small chunk of skill points. If you only have a couple modules (36m cbills is like 6 modules) then you're definitely going to lose cbills getting your "basic" skills, as you DIDN'T spend cbills skilling up the first time but you have to now.

So, no, it's not good, but it's also not nearly as huge a loss as you make it out to be.

Mastered in the new skill tree != Mastered in the current skill tree.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

Wintersdark, on 08 March 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

Your math is deeply.flawed. There are cost issues, but you're comparing "mastered" today with "mastered" on the skill tree and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You can get basically all the current day skills for a pretty small chunk of skill points. If you only have a couple modules (36m cbills is like 6 modules) then you're definitely going to lose cbills getting your "basic" skills, as you DIDN'T spend cbills skilling up the first time but you have to now.

So, no, it's not good, but it's also not nearly as huge a loss as you make it out to be.

Mastered in the new skill tree != Mastered in the current skill tree.

Wait what????? No ... What kind of backwards logic??

Edited by Krocodockle, 08 March 2017 - 08:19 AM.

[XX BURT XX]

cash cow

[L Y N X]

Rather than making several steps to get max benefit from a skill say for example laser range, 1,2,3,4,5; why not just have one skill that give the combined laser range improvement at the combined xp and cbill costs? I mean why bother to complicate things, just make it simpler please.

[Weeny Machine]

Wintersdark, on 08 March 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

Your math is deeply.flawed. There are cost issues, but you're comparing "mastered" today with "mastered" on the skill tree and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You can get basically all the current day skills for a pretty small chunk of skill points. If you only have a couple modules (36m cbills is like 6 modules) then you're definitely going to lose cbills getting your "basic" skills, as you DIDN'T spend cbills skilling up the first time but you have to now.

So, no, it's not good, but it's also not nearly as huge a loss as you make it out to be.

Mastered in the new skill tree != Mastered in the current skill tree.

Boah, boy I got lucky then. A month ago I brought my car into a garage for a routine inspection. The board computer of my car got a software update and they didn't charge me another 10.000 despite I paid the old price for the car but after the software update it is basically a totally altered car. Not only that, I am also more skilled at driving this particular type of car and this again could have resulted in charging me more money. And I paid NOTHING. Win-Win-Win for me!!!

[Wintersdark]

Bush Hopper, on 08 March 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

Boah, boy I got lucky then. A month ago I brought my car into a garage for a routine inspection. The board computer of my car got a software update and they didn't charge me another 10.000 despite I paid the old price for the car but after the software update it is basically a totally altered car. Not only that, I am also more skilled at driving this particular type of car and this again could have resulted in charging me more money. And I paid NOTHING. Win-Win-Win for me!!!

what the hell are you talking about? I think in your haste to argue, you didn't pay attention to what I wrote.

Krocodockle, on 08 March 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

Wait what????? No ... What kind of backwards logic??

What, specifically, am I wrong about? Or are you just assuming I'm saying it's all roses and flowers?