358 replies to this topic

[AgBaphomet]

FlynnTheAvatar, on 02 March 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

[...]
- 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.
[...]

Exactly!

[Darren Marik]

I really don't know PGI's thinking on this new weapons tree! if i just want missile skills i am forced to waste 10 - 15 nodes on useless stuff like laser duration and range. this tree should allow us to customize our mechs how we want, giving us the options to only optimize systems we want to. having to waste nodes on weapons systems we don't even have on our mechs is not a good idea. there is a reason a convoluted maze of a skill tree has never been seen in any other game. its bad design in my opinion.

I am aware they are trying to deter boating of weapons systems, But if i am running lasers and missiles for example i should be able to pick which system i want to buff with my limited nodes that cost a great deal of c-bills. i should not have to waste gxp and c-bills on nodes i have absolutely no interest in, or skills that do not help my play style because that is what mastering your mech should be is customizing it to optimize your own play-style.

[Zeoraimer]

Skill Point Tax - Thats what this is. Hiding useful Skills behind useless one (useless/undesired, no hardpoints or not a fit for the loadout).

#NoToSkillPointTax

I like the extra abilities/properties though, for AC, LRMs etc. More of that please.

[Darren Marik]

Zeoraimer, on 02 March 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

Skill Point Tax - Thats what this is. Hiding useful Skills behind useless one (useless/undesired, no hardpoints or not a fit for the loadout).

#NoToSkillPointTax

I like the extra abilities/properties though, for AC, LRMs etc. More of that please.

They should implement a tier system of skill trees kinda like they have now. maybe boosting the prices as you go up. but wasting nodes on useless systems doesn't feel like the right solution.

Edited by Darren Marik, 02 March 2017 - 06:12 AM.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

What if PGI hired Extra Credits to help design their game for them? Clearly some fundamental concept mistakes are being made. In order for something like this to work while removing inherent quirks you'd need to give each mech varient it's own personalized skill tree.

Why make the grind longer?? #hellno

[DRlFTER]

Darren Marik, on 02 March 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

They should implement a tier system of skill trees kinda like they have now. maybe boosting the prices as you go up. but wasting nodes on useless systems doesn't feel like the right solution.

Yes. Scrap the tree, and let us assign skills as desired. Have better skills cost more per node, or require more nodes, as the balancing tool. It is simpler, more elegant, and easier to balance.

[Xarchus]

Wow! I think the first attempt was better! Now the tree structure is just so non-linear it seems broken, and begs the question, do any of your devs actually play a significant amount of MWO on the public servers, or read any of the associated player produced materials regarding the game (just looking at stats on a screen doesn't count)? I ask this because it feels like you are pulling in a totally different direction from the majority of the MWO community.

As a seasoned player I can quite happily swallow the C-Bill and XP costs of skilling up my Mechs, although this could seem like an insurmountable challenge to newer players not willing to invest significant amounts of time or real money in the game.

Speaking of new players, do you not think this skill tree/web, in its current iteration, will confuse the living heck out of them? Creating builds can be intimidating enough for somebody with little to no experience of the BattleTech universe, but this non-linear spider web adds a totally unnecessary level of complexity. I know some players relish high learning curves, but you would have to spend one heck of a lot of XP to unlock and re-spec all the nodes on a chassis and that just seems like you are punishing experimentation too. I also feel that the *trickle* like experience of mastering a Mech with the skill tree/web will be far less rewarding and noticeable than it is currently, although that is a minor concern as I appreciate that this is due to the XP being spread across more skills.

I accept that there is a need for change and balance, but making us take useless skill nodes that very few people use the equivalent of currently, or have no use for at all on the chassis they are using, just to get to the skills required for your desired build, feels like you are forcing us to use your poorly implemented mechanics, rather than fixing/improving or replacing said mechanics to make them more desirable to your player base.

Still making up my mind about changes to consumables/cost/amount.

I really hope that you can find a way to balance and reward all the different play styles in the game without completely changing how MWO feels + I will continue to test this build to see if there is something I have missed but I really feel that the tree still needs quite a lot of work!

[- Pestilence -]

1st.
60.000 for cool shot, are you crazy ? And i don't care its cool shot 18 i like the old cool shot 6 for 10.000.
2nd.
Hill Climb, Improved Gyros even Sensor Range it was fine without it before and im sure that most mechs wont be needing this in future.
3rd.
Why we don't have the possibility to move in all directions throughout the skill tree ? Thanks to that we could at least skip some of the unwanted skills.
4th.
I really think that you should check the Path of Exile game and skill tree there. Use it as an example.

Edited by Nexxio, 02 March 2017 - 07:01 AM.

[Dremnon]

This version is better than the first, however there are some glaring issues that still need to be work out.

First and foremost the consumable cost increase, there is no reason that anyone would take 4 consumable slots for 240,000 Cbills per match. It's a great idea, but there is no incentive to take points to unlock all 4 unless you are willing to break even on a win or lose money on a loss. Even 40k per is pricey, but it makes more sense than 60k.

The skill trees in general need to be better compartmentalized to give an actual feel for the mech builds. As an example, in the agility tree you are forced to take arm pitch in order to unlock speed tweak. That makes no sense for any mech that has either no weapons mounted in the arms, or for those that are able to mount torso weapons as a primary build. You should be able to focus points into torso or arms specifically and still be able to unlock speed tweak at the bottom. Also for light mechs that rely on being twitchy and have good torso twist, but have arm mounted weapons (Locust 1E and ACH comes to mind) you almost need to invest all the points in that tree.

Similar with the weapons skill tree. If you're no longer going to focus on specific cooldowns/range/heat gen/etc per weapon type and make them a global percentage for everything, players should be given the option to select those individually and then from there build on the specific weapon type. If you're going to keep things separated out such that it is impossible to select all things within reason (such as range), there needs to be a change such that you're able to get the same performance along the path such that are getting the same results for the modules that are being removed.

I think the last thing that comes to mind when I look at this is the flat 91 skill points regardless of the weight class. In all honesty the points should be scaled such that light mechs have more skill points than mediums, mediums more than heavies, heavies more than assaults. It already been identified through the survival tree that the lights need a higher percentage point increase per point spent, but they need more points in general.

Overall, with this version of the skill tree you are definitely developing more broader and viable options, looking forward to seeing how the final version looks.

~D

[Sky Hawk]

Ok.. Now we have 5% (OST) + 12% (WM) weapon cooldown... so all about 17%...

In the New-New Skill Tree (PTS2) I found just 11 weapon cooldown nodes.. with 0.65% (pro nodes for Clans) and with 0,8% (pro nodes for IS)...

So, all about 7,15% (Clans) and 8,8% (IS) cooldown for weapons... That is barely HALF, what we have NOW..


Have I missed something?

[Dee Eight]

Dremnon, on 02 March 2017 - 06:57 AM, said:

First and foremost the consumable cost increase, there is no reason that anyone would take 4 consumable slots for 240,000 Cbills per match. It's a great idea, but there is no incentive to take points to unlock all 4 unless you are willing to break even on a win or lose money on a loss. Even 40k per is pricey, but it makes more sense than 60k.

I am willing to equip the extra consumables. Also for five nodes you get two coolshot THIRTY SIXES for 60k each as opposed to how it is now, at best a coolshot 28 for 50k. Just because you're carrying them doesn't mean you HAVE to use them every match. The incentive is that proper usage of them can mean the difference between a win and a loss for the team.

Quote

The skill trees in general need to be better compartmentalized to give an actual feel for the mech builds. As an example, in the agility tree you are forced to take arm pitch in order to unlock speed tweak. That makes no sense for any mech that has either no weapons mounted in the arms, or for those that are able to mount torso weapons as a primary build. You should be able to focus points into torso or arms specifically and still be able to unlock speed tweak at the bottom. Also for light mechs that rely on being twitchy and have good torso twist, but have arm mounted weapons (Locust 1E and ACH comes to mind) you almost need to invest all the points in that tree.

That's no different than how it is now. You have to unlock a bunch of the basic quirks to get to the elite ones such as the speed tweak.

Sky Hawk, on 02 March 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

Ok.. Now we have 5% (OST) + 12% (WM) weapon cooldown... so all about 17%...

In the New-New Skill Tree (PTS2) I found just 11 weapon cooldown nodes.. with 0.65% (pro nodes for Clans) and with 0,8% (pro nodes for IS)...

So, all about 7,15% (Clans) and 8,8% (IS) cooldown for weapons... That is barely HALF, what we have NOW..


Have I missed something?

No, many aspects of the new tree changes and de-quirking of mechs are expressly aimed at increasing the TTK. That's been known since mechcon.

[Darren Marik]

Dee Eight, on 02 March 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

That's no different than how it is now. You have to unlock a bunch of the basic quirks to get to the elite ones such as the speed tweak.

there is a big difference, because right now we don't have other options to select. of course im going to pick all skill points if they are ALL available to select or mandatory like we have now.

[Saint Atlas and the Commando Elf]

Dremnon, on 02 March 2017 - 06:57 AM, said:

First and foremost the consumable cost increase, there is no reason that anyone would take 4 consumable slots for 240,000 Cbills per match. It's a great idea, but there is no incentive to take points to unlock all 4 unless you are willing to break even on a win or lose money on a loss. Even 40k per is pricey, but it makes more sense than 60k.

No, 60k is okay.

6 consumables can be quite powerful. The pricing prevents players from using them all the time. However, you have the opportunity to use them if you absolutely must.

To this discussion in general:

-Things will cost C-Bills.
-TTK will increase.

This has been said multiple times. Get used to it. Or at the very least read the official posts before posting here.

Edited by Saint Atlas and the Commando Elf, 02 March 2017 - 07:34 AM.

[Xarchus]

Saint Atlas and the Commando Elf, on 02 March 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

No, 60k is okay.

6 consumables can be quite powerful. The pricing prevents players from using them all the time. However, you have the opportunity to use them if you absolutely must.

To this discussion in general:

-Things will cost C-Bills.
-TTK will increase.

This has been said multiple times. Get used to it. Or at the very least read the official posts before posting here.

Call me cynical, but more TTK + more available consumables at a higher C-Bill price = one hell of a C-Bill sink. Add that to the other C-Bill cost increases and sinks and Joe Casual is going to be extremely mech poor.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having more/more effective consumables is a bad thing, but increased TTK kinda negates them to some extent.

[Arkhangel]

It's already been said to the whiners whining about "having to take nodes they don't use." guess what, you can't be minmax meta[Redacted] anymore. you're GOING to have to take some stuff you don't want in order to get the stuff you do want, or re-work out how you build your mechs.

in other words... the best MWO players will be the best PILOTS in more cases, rather than just the ones who follow the meta closest, which.. honestly is how it should be,

Edited by draiocht, 02 March 2017 - 01:47 PM.
inappropriate language

[Xarchus]

Arkhangel, on 02 March 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

It's already been said to the whiners whining about "having to take nodes they don't use." guess what, you can't be minmax meta[Redacted] anymore. you're GOING to have to take some stuff you don't want in order to get the stuff you do want, or re-work out how you build your mechs.

in other words... the best MWO players will be the best PILOTS in more cases, rather than just the ones who follow the meta closest, which.. honestly is how it should be,

Calling people whiners and min/max meta **** when they are expressing genuine concern about a change that could impact quite a significant time/money investment on their part, is probably the least constructive thing I have read on these forums this week.

Most of those voicing their concerns accept that there needs to be balance and change, they are just asking for a more ordered way of doing it.

Anyway I am pretty sure that the best pilots in this game are those that play at a competitive level, and I'm pretty sure that's also where the meta comes from. If you think these changes will remove the *meta* you are fooling yourself, it will just become something different.

Edited by draiocht, 02 March 2017 - 01:47 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Arkhangel]

@Xarchus: actually.... most of those people don't have a genuine concern. or they'd be proposing an idea that wasn't doing exactly what i just called out on... which is exactly what they're doing. they're resistant to change, and it's still happening one way or the other... and.. honestly, they should probably also remember only about 10% of MWO's player base actually posts here. they really wouldn't actually be that much of a loss if they bailed.

[Dee Eight]

Arkhangel, on 02 March 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

@Xarchus: actually.... most of those people don't have a genuine concern. or they'd be proposing an idea that wasn't doing exactly what i just called out on... which is exactly what they're doing. they're resistant to change, and it's still happening one way or the other... and.. honestly, they should probably also remember only about 10% of MWO's player base actually posts here. they really wouldn't actually be that much of a loss if they bailed.

10% would be 5000 players. Its not even 5% that posts here. At best its 2 or 3%. Currently on the entire forums there are 145 members and 945 guests. So... 145 who could actually post something, out of 50,000 plus players.

Edited by Dee Eight, 02 March 2017 - 08:30 AM.

[Edward Hazen]

Arkhangel, on 02 March 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

It's already been said to the whiners whining about "having to take nodes they don't use." guess what, you can't be minmax meta[Redacted] anymore. you're GOING to have to take some stuff you don't want in order to get the stuff you do want, or re-work out how you build your mechs.

in other words... the best MWO players will be the best PILOTS in more cases, rather than just the ones who follow the meta closest, which.. honestly is how it should be,

What you say is true, but in any game where there is a "skill" or "talent" tree, there will always be an optimal path and min-maxers will always copy the person who finds it. Really, though, if you want to be top-tier why would you play anything but the most effective build?

Dee Eight, on 02 March 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

10% would be 5000 players. Its not even 5% that posts here. At best its 2 or 3%.

Please guys don't argue about rectally produced numbers.

Edited by draiocht, 02 March 2017 - 01:48 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Xarchus]

Arkhangel, on 02 March 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

@Xarchus: actually.... most of those people don't have a genuine concern. or they'd be proposing an idea that wasn't doing exactly what i just called out on... which is exactly what they're doing. they're resistant to change, and it's still happening one way or the other... and.. honestly, they should probably also remember only about 10% of MWO's player base actually posts here. they really wouldn't actually be that much of a loss if they bailed.

Maybe not to you sir, but if a company suddenly loses 10% of its customer base that is going to have a very significant impact.

I agree that criticizing without offering solution is pointless, but it is a very easy trap to fall into that all people *don't like change* and are voicing concern just because they want to have a good old whinge. Some of those *whingers* may have some good points to make. So rather than completely disregard their contributions, it may be a good idea to listen to them, after all if something wasn't wrong they would probably be silent.