358 replies to this topic

[TheLuc]

So funny that now the PTS is live for the skill tree, players are complaining about the exact same things I wrote when it was announced at Mechcon.

[LiYanTintenfisch]

I personally think the firepower tree may need another diets .
there should be some NODE which requires more than one point for example the LBX spread or Laser Duration , and in the same time those special node can be reduced and the tree will be more clean

[Cpt Leprechaun]

Tarogato, on 01 March 2017 - 07:24 PM, said:

This should be a little easier to read (maybe) ...

the lower right is messed up. if you want the last couple range/ heat gen nodes you have to go through lbx spread and some velocity nodes wth?

[FlynnTheAvatar]

Okay PGI, this version of the skill tree is better than the first one:
- Reworked weapons and other trees
- Less costs to unlock nodes

But it is still no fun.
- Valuable skill nodes are still behind useless ones; why do I have to take arms pitch on a Pirates Bane in order to get speed quirk? It cannot mount weapons on the arms, so the skill is beyond useless.
- Old mastery != new mastery; all the veterans with a lot of mastered mechs will REALLY love this (more grinding)
- Similar to above: thanks you for grinding if you have the same mech multiple times (and yes, I have multiple MAL-MX90, CN9-A
,..)
- Too many clicks; do we really need to have so many skill nodes? For mastering new mechs this might be okay, but if you want to skill an mastered mech (old system) you have to: Convert the XP by entering it, clicking at least 40 to 50 times to select the skills (and this is without moving the skill tree at all).
- You still do not see where you used GXP and where you used mech XP. If you clicked on the wrong type, you have to redo everything because you cannot see where you used the wrong XP type. Really great if you trying to re-skill your mechs.
- You still have to enter the legacy XP to convert.
- Please use a different color for nodes that can be unlocked. It is really hard to see wether the node is just unlockable or already unlocked. The difference are just the thicker lines around it.

Balance:
If you wanted to nerf the Locust, you did a great job. Even with all mobility skill nodes unlocked, the Pirates Bane on PTS is much less mobile (turning, torso twisting) than a PB on normal servers with not even all basic skills unlocked.
Urban Mech is the other way around; even with no skills it is much better on PTS.
<need to test more mechs>

Verdict:
The UI is still a nightmare, I could live with this skill tree and balance changes, but do not expect me to give you any money in the future, though.

[Wolfengel]

My previous summary for Part 2:

Positive:
Auxliiary: You can now, if you want it, 6 Consumable slot. So you could take 2 UAV, 2 Coolshot and / or 2 ari strikes,

Neutral:
Jumb capabilities and Sonsoren. Here must you look exactly how to climb through skilltree to get what you want.

Negative:
The remaining skilltrees is nothing but a bunch of together several skilltrees (See Firepower. from 7 to make 1). What remains is, you must to be use unnecessary noods which have never used (improved gyros, hillclimb, speed retention) in the game.

Edited by Wolfengel, 02 March 2017 - 02:24 AM.

[Skybirduk]

Tarogato, on 01 March 2017 - 07:24 PM, said:

This should be a little easier to read (maybe) ...

For me, the problem that first stands out is the clear range node bias in favour of Ballistic weapons, with two extra nodes on the right. This image makes it obvious.

[Thistles]

In reference to Nightbirds comments on : "Bug - couldn't respec by removing and adding nodes (net 0) when 91 nodes was reached, had to remove nodes in one step then add nodes in another." it should be clarified that this is not just once the 91 nodes limit is reached , you simply cant remove a nodes at the same time as adding a node in a single transaction regardless of the number of nodes you have previously saved.

I do support the use of skill trees against the previous basic , elite and master system in general, however, I found the huge combined tree structures a real retrograde step as oppose to previously stand alone specialist modules options like Zoom, radar dep and capture because of the amount of irrelevant items you are now forced to obtain first . Not only are these modules now split , they are all way down.

Also the amount of diversity and the spread of items that relate to heat that are scattered across so many trees is simply too confused, with the difficulty to get all the speed tweaks being my last gripe.

Hopefully not the final cut.

Edited by Gorze, 03 March 2017 - 01:06 AM.

[Aidan Pendragon]

Dee Eight, on 02 March 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

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 !!!

There are about 1000 creative ways to do a skill tree, including ones that would support roles and info warfare (two long-promised goals), ones that would balance skills so that there is no standout "really cool stuff" with the rest dross, and ones that would let players pick just the skills they wanted without creating MIN/MAX meta monsters. PGI's first attempt instead dressed up the old skill system in new clothes, and responded to feedback against that by doubling down...nobody told them to bury skills you need behind stuff you don't have hardpoints for at all.

Dee Eight, on 02 March 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

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.

Easy ways to increase TTK would be to rescale DPS back to the 10-second BattleTech round (e.g., an AC/5 does 5 damage in 10 seconds, not 5 damage each 3 or 4 times it fires in a 10-second interval). Letting people shoot less and sit around waiting to cool off more is the wrong way to do it; letting people shoot as much or more but having it do less damage is the way to go.

Or to use variants more faithfully and restrict hardpoints to prevent boating. Boating is the real problem, and has been the subject of several failed attempts to compensate for it by PGI--ghost heat, energy draw, now this skill rework--but is fundamentally a symptom of having variants with out of control hardpoints combined with pinpoint targeting.

Dee Eight, on 02 March 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

Get used to it or go find another game to play.

I'd hoped the skill tree revamp would revitalize my interest in MWO by really differentiating roles and making the game something other than a constant deathmatch. But this, again, is looking like old wine in a new bottle. At a minimum, I don't think I'll invest any more money in this game. There are plenty of others vying for my time!

Edited by Aidan Pendragon, 02 March 2017 - 03:38 AM.

[mad kat]

A couple of further observations coming from this I see light mechs are going to get hurt badly. Very badly. Even the cicada is being smacked with the NERF bat.

Machine guns are going to be sorely hurt too as a lot of ballistic quirks don't apply to them and seeing as they recently got a rate of fire NERF they are going to cease to be viable unless they have their own specialist quirks.

I'm thinking the Arrow, spider 5k, Huggin, locust 1v, vindicator 1x to name a few are going to get hurt badly by this. And some of those machine gun mechs are heroes which people like me have paid good money for.

[BALIander]

@ Initial XP cost and cost of re-skilling.

Please get rid of the re-skilling punishment.

To pay experience (xp) to unlock skills is clear.
To pay this with in game currency (cb) is harder to get but is still OK.

Where you are loosing me is on why we should spend again xp (EXPERIENCE) into something that was already learned and payed for.

Good that you reduced price on those things, but in my book it still is not OK.


Don't worry, people will avoid the work of re-eqipping and re-skilling for each new game and buy new mechs.

[Michal R]

Still bad.
But no, this is the best idea how to lose player base.

[Tedarin]

As a casual family guy gamer I have about one hour playtime per day. Looking at this skill tree makes me gringe.
I would probably be spending more time with the nodes than actually playing (which could mean longer MM wait times...).
And I don't see how this will make game more fun, and why spend real money on a game that isn't fun?

I would rather see
-a much more simplified version, that doesn't "block"
-skill tree put in the "smurfy" mechlab for quick adjustment

Or just screw the whole thing and make a weapon hardpoint system for the mechs, that would at least bring more variety in the mechs and lessen the need for quirks...

Oh, and more goddamn content, MAPS! (Open a community map competition or something, there are probably some great modders in this community).

Edited by Tedarin, 02 March 2017 - 04:29 AM.

[XX BURT XX]

Many thanks for posting the tree pic. Wow, I am kinda shocked. To be honest this sucks bad and I am completely lost in chaos. If I wanna get the max cooldown for my LL boats, I need to grind throug unwanted things like gauss, lb10 and dozen of other unwanted things??? Whose brain made this real? Its like having a stop at your car service asking for new tires, but they reply you need to upgrade your mirrors, windshield and radio antena first

[Gannycus]

@ PGI

Why Hunchback IIC mobility values are so low compared with all IS and Clan 50t?

I don't understand if it's another nerf to this chassis or a mistake cause the Kodiak for example has the same mobility value of Atlas, King Crab and Direwolf.

[JonDoeIowa]

So let me get this straight, you want to increase our carry capacity of modules, and try to push more role warfare into chassis like lights. But at the same time you bump the cost up 50% per consumable so that it will cost a role warfare mech more to help the team. So now if I want to use my Raven 3L to do that support job and give my team multiple air strikes, and UAVs I am going to be penalized and given a smaller payout cause consumables are the only true "rearm" cost left in the game. The KDK-3 doesn't have to pay for it's 1000 rounds it has to fire off in a match, but can rack up 1000 damage easy. But in my little raven where I am trying to help and be a team player I will be punished as the payout system in this game is highly skewed toward damage for payout at end of match. So if I want to make money at all in my raven I should what boat 6 Artillery strikes and just let that be my only means of attack all game? You really need to look at this and fix the pricing, what mechwarrior in their right mind would choose to boat that many consumables to see at the end of match screen that they didn't even earn enough Cbills to cover the cost of the consumables they used? Support roles don't pay in Mechwarrior Online, so maybe you need to rework the payouts to allow them to be viable? Or bring back ReArm for all those missile and ballistic mechs to feel the same pinch.

Jman5, on 01 March 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

Edited by Jondoeiowa, 02 March 2017 - 04:44 AM.

[JonDoeIowa]

With the new skill tree coming to the game, it puts forth the idea that testing needs to change in this game.

In the current system I need to build my mech, spend the Cbills and then get to take it out and see if it does what I had hoped in the testing grounds.

And with the new Skill Tree we will have to commit to the skills with the cost of Cbills/MC/XP before we can take them out into the testing grounds and see if the points we spent did what we had aimed to achieve.

What I am proposing to PGI is the testing grounds needs to be integrated into the Mechlab. The method being when I build that dream Bushwacker P1 I can then look over to the side and see two choices. "Save" same as now save the mech build and commit to the cost in Cbills. Or the second button should be "Test Build" or something along those lines. This then will take me to the testing grounds map choice menu to pick where I want to take this mech, to run it through it's paces before I choose to commit those Cbills to it.

This same method should then be applied to the skill tree menu to allow players to take that mech out and into the testing ground see how those skill points you just spent your hard earned Cbills and XP on affect it before committing those resources.

Let the player base actually test builds as spending in some cases 20+ million Cbills to deck out my new Javelin with an XL and all the skills etc I want on it is a large commitment.

Please comment and give your opinions on the matter, and hopefully we can get PGI to see the benefit to the players to actually test our builds before we buy.

[CH4CH]

There seem to be some improving about the costing, while the majority of making the balance still not change. As the skill doesn't have the pro and con in itself, It's simply just upgrade all you can do even it's not suit for the Mech's build role.

[Rotteck Koempel]

I simply want to play MWO, not study it...!!!

[Garegaupa]

I think these changes are a huge improvement over the first iteration of the new skill tree system, and that things are definitely moving in the right direction!

The primary change that I would like to see, and that others have already mentioned, is not having to go through weapon nodes that your 'Mech cannot equip to get to all the generic stuff. I don't particularly mind having to choose nodes I don't like/want to get to the "good stuff" (though ideally, the balance should be such that there is no "good stuff" and "bad stuff"), but I do mind having to select a missile node for a 'Mech with only energy hardpoints, for instance.

[Ukos]

I'd like to add my two penneth to the discussion,

I will freely admit that i was looking forward to this new PTS trial as the first although had its issues seemed promising and made me confident i would be able to start using my wolfhounds and other lights more confidently and frequently without feeling that i am hamstringing myself or my team by fielding a low weight unit.

After testing my lights in the testing grounds with and without the mobility quirks I feel i must ask is there an error or bug in the intrinsic deceleration and turning metrics for lights or is the intended design direction?

My Highlander and Marauders feel more responsive and mobile than my lights including my locusts which is surely an issue.

As has been previously noted the change to the accelaration/decelaration had a valid intent to minimise peekaboo fights where nothing happens.
Lamentably this may lead to more of a push into the long range sniping and missile duels we see on the live servers.

I am concerned by the critical damage bonus for missiles as implemented on the test server, perhaps a better choice would be to split the bonus ie half the damage value bonus for LRM's and full damage bonus for SRM's as this would reward the players for taking the risk of fighting where they are at more risk of return damage (risk / reward)

The problem is this will make a lot of 'mech designs less valid for play and reducing variability in matches as we will see a push to more of a high mount or get out mentality to allow most effective trading of damage, as the option for mobility to allow maneuvering in combat will be minimised.

With respect to 'role'fare intentions I agree with the comments made by other pilots if you want to work as a spotter and scout for your team you are penalised for doing so, even though you are likely putting yourself at more risk of being damaged which is compounded by the changes to mobility lights and fast mediums will experience.
A possible solution used in other games of this type is to attribute a proportion of damage caused by an attack that the spotter has made possible to the target / enemy -

Ie

Archer (A) is stood 800 Meters away and has no line of sight (LOS) to the target Banshee ( B )

So A can currently do no damage to B - A = no damage

Raven (C) moves into position to draw LOS to B enabling A to attack

A does 400 damage to B providing C with 100 points of damage on the final scores for working out XP and money scored at the end of the match.

IF C used a Narc or Tag to allow the attack to be made C would gain 200 points of damage to its final total to promote the use of this equipment

If A used its own narc or tag whilst it had line of sight it would gain no additional bonuses
(to prevent gaming of the system)

However if the Narc or Tag from A allowed Maddog (D) to engage and cause damage whilst without LOS to B then A would game the same spotting damage.

(in all events B is having a really poor match and hoping that the next map is not polar highlands )

This mechanic would also hopefully encourage pilots once out of ammo or weapons to stop hiding powered down and remain in the fight to help support their team.

It would also allow a spotter pilot to better evaluate their effectiveness in battle by seeing how much damage the spotter enabled as their contribution to the team.

Edited by Ukos, 02 March 2017 - 05:43 AM.