358 replies to this topic

[DAYLEET]

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,

I don't think you understand what min/max meta is. It's not a set of attributes or numbers or rules. It's what people figure out give them the most bang for their money and the more restrictive a system is the harder it is for people like me to justify not going meta. Because taking something anti meta becomes a lot more punishing. If i cant properly spec into somerthing that isnt popular while still being able to spec into something else then i just become a generalised mess. Add in that you have to pay to master and re-master and test your mech and you will want to meta even harder."What mech do you recommend?" is about to become, "What should i take in the skill tree?". Not exactly a step forward.

The more restrictive a system is the more important it will be to min/max it. You will never prevent people from min/maxing their mech without making everything unimportant and/or irrelevant. This "locked" system penalise the Anti-Meta people a lot more than a free system where people like me could spec into something that isnt meta. Unless i can afford those nodes while still being able to take make clear choice about others i will have to stick to meta. It has been suggested many times, buff or entirely change unattractive perks instead of making them mandatory to take the good one and. Lower the number of nodes per mech/weight. In a free (unlocked and no weird progression) system, its a lot easier to balance.

The Balance argument. The more restrictive a system is the harder it is to use it to balance things. Take the number of nodes for example. People pointed out that a KDK shouldnt have the same amounts of points as a PHX. In a free system you can reduce the KDK points by half. This severely restrict its choice but still allow it to spec something. In this locked system you have to take into account node that you dont want to take and this make it much harsher with less benefit. You have to take more baby steps and be more careful because you have to account for more stuff.

Forcing unrelated nodes to be taken only generalise mechs while reducing strength of different build as well as reducing any reasons to not run current meta. No this does not reduce meta, it RE-ENFORCES IT until the generalisation and bastardisation has been pushed far enough that all mech are again all the same(our current system). Completely negating the reason for a skill tree to exist in the first place.

Ill play more with the skill tree tonight with many *same variant* of a chassis and different spec to get a better feel of what i can do with different weight class. The KDK i build last night wouldnt be able to turn to save its life versus anything else than an another assault. Thats mostly fine because its a KDK and because while testing, i took nodes i wouldnt take on a slow assault on live. Its less fine because i took half of the mobility tree at the expense of other things and it hurts. I can already tell that will not be an option for me so already i am losing choices and customisation. Might be just me.

Further more, 4vs4 is not representative of 12vs12 and im not interested in playing unhinged scout mission with no matchmaking and possibly no weight balancing. You balance things for scout mission and you're gona get bad surprises. My experience in scouting 4vs4 is that it's a lot easier and you have a much bigger impact on the match.


I just wish this was live already. That PGI would say "OK for the next 2 months EVERYBODY is going to play and help balance things out. We are going to do a lot of iteration so hang in there. Here's extra cbill bonus for every body or whatever people want". I dont care if it sucks right now, this needs to be addressed and field tested by everyone.

Edited by draiocht, 02 March 2017 - 01:50 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[ThiefofAlways]

Fixes

1.Separate up and lower chassis again. This gives people the option to have the movements they like. I have mechs that I care more about upper movement that lover and others the other way around. Just to have full lower moment I need 32 out of 40 nodes, that's 80% just to have my lower movement alone.

2.Separate weapon trees again. Why should I need to have missle effects, mag cap or LBX spread to get max range on my laser weapons or UAC jam chance. All does is force people to get the mechs that have the Quirks aka Enhancements that give them the best weapon bonuses. Give people the chance to run more mechs like they like and you will have people buying and filling more mech bays. As it stands you need ~62% or 45 nodes in the weapons tree just to max out lasers. Not sure on he math on the rest but it would be similar I am sure. That's half of what you are giving us.

If you aren't going to do these, increase the number of points so we can get the things we want. Add just 1 and 2 together and I have spent 77 out of 91 nodes an still don't have close to what I did have with either the old or V1 system. If is about lowering DPS or increasing TTK then just drop the weapon damages or increase over all armor more than you are.

This just looks like an over all reduction in mech bonuses over they way things are or even the Skill Tree V1.

[Appogee]

Really HATE that players will be able to buy more consumable slots.

Consumables negate heat management and/or add significant damage ... all at no extra tonnage. So we're going to see cashed up veterans buying maximum coolshots so they can keep alphaing energy weapons longer, and dropping even more strikes to gain free damage.

Letting players avoid heat and tonnage caps in this waY is not going to be good for the game.

[Felicitatem Parco]

"The Meta" is the sub-game that surrounds the main game. Once the skill tree drops, we will have 3 Metas:

1.) Faction Play map to track territory owners
2.) Mech loadouts and which weapons/Mechs work best
3.) Skill Tree meta to determine which skills are most valuable

The first is an actual MetaGame, the second two are looser interpretations of the term Meta.

Appogee, on 02 March 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Really HATE that players will be able to buy more consumable slots.

Consumables negate heat management and/or add significant damage ... all at no extra tonnage. So we're going to see cashed up veterans buying maximum coolshots so they can keep alphaing energy weapons longer, and dropping even more strikes to gain free damage.

Letting players avoid heat and tonnage caps in this waY is not going to be good for the game.

Quick Play probably won't be affected too much by this because people trybtonearn as much money as possible in QP, not spend 160,000 in consumables per match. In terms of FP, those players should be wealthy already and the payouts should suffice to cover your expenses... So I think it will be a more even field than you portray.

[-Pik-]

DAYLEET, on 02 March 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

Ill play more with the skill tree tonight with many *same variant* of a chassis and different spec to get a better feel of what i can do with different weight class. The KDK i build last night wouldnt be able to turn to save its life versus anything else than an another assault. Thats mostly fine because its a KDK and because while testing, i took nodes i wouldnt take on a slow assault on live. Its less fine because i took half of the mobility tree at the expense of other things and it hurts. I can already tell that will not be an option for me so already i am losing choices and customisation. Might be just me.

So you are testing different builds now, but how is that less choices when in the old system you had to have every available skill to master it and the only choice were 2 mech- and 2 weapon-modules?

Appogee, on 02 March 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Really HATE that players will be able to buy more consumable slots.

Consumables negate heat management and/or add significant damage ... all at no extra tonnage. So we're going to see cashed up veterans buying maximum coolshots so they can keep alphaing energy weapons longer, and dropping even more strikes to gain free damage.

Letting players avoid heat and tonnage caps in this waY is not going to be good for the game.

Those players have to skill 20 nodes to get those, people are going apeshit here because the have to skill 2-3 nodes they don't like. So its a choice and a rather expensive one, skill- and cbill-wise.

[DAYLEET]

-Pik-, on 02 March 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

So you are testing different builds now, but how is that less choices when in the old system you had to have every available skill to master it and the only choice were 2 mech- and 2 weapon-modules?

Who said these choice will be usable? Im just testing for feel right now. So far my finding was that half the mobility tree wasnt an option for assault for me and it would be best to either not take it at all or fully take it. IF taking it versus not taking it is an option, we dont know that yet.

Im no mix/maxer and i dont pretend to be and in the live current system its easy for me to survive without going meta. What i find on the pts might actually be irrelevant once the pros come out with their own things, at which point ill have to oblige and do the same. Right now meta is weapons and some mech, its not hard for me to not play meta because all mech obey the same rules and i just have to work a little harder. The skill tree might just make worse mech with worse loadout and worse skills even worse than they already are right now. Rather than give them the ability to spec something and be good at it.

Edited by DAYLEET, 02 March 2017 - 01:05 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

DAYLEET, on 02 March 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Who said these choice will be usable? Im just testing for feel right now. So far my finding was that half the mobility tree wasnt an option for assault for me and it would be best to either not take it at all or fully take it. IF taking it versus not taking it is an option, we dont know that yet.

Im no mix/maxer and i dont pretend to be and in the live current system its easy for me to survive without going meta. What i find on the pts might actually be irrelevant once the pros come out with their own things, at which point ill have to oblige and do the same. Right now meta is weapons and some mech, its not hard for me to not play meta because all mech obey the same rules and i just have to work a little harder. The skill tree might just make worse mech with worse loadout and worse skills even worse than they already are right now. Rather than give them the ability to spec something and be good at it.

Hey, chasing the Meta might be more annoying than it's worth, seeing that you'll have to reSkill and reBuild Mechs all the time. A change to PPC base stats or something can shift both the build and skill metas.

Personally, I am just going to do whatever is most fun and let minor balancing changes slough off me

[-Pik-]

DAYLEET, on 02 March 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Who said these choice will be usable? Im just testing for feel right now. So far my finding was that half the mobility tree wasnt an option for assault for me and it would be best to either not take it at all or fully take it. IF taking it versus not taking it is an option, we dont know that yet.

Im no mix/maxer and i dont pretend to be and in the live current system its easy for me to survive without going meta. What i find on the pts might actually be irrelevant once the pros come out with their own things, at which point ill have to oblige and do the same. Right now meta is weapons and some mech, its not hard for me to not play meta because all mech obey the same rules and i just have to work a little harder. The skill tree might just make worse mech with worse loadout and worse skills even worse than they already are right now. Rather than give them the ability to spec something and be good at it.

That's reasonable and i kinda share this view. But i think most people here believe the skill tree by itself should balance the game. It can't do that in its current form, but it could be a powerful tool for PGI in the future. i.e. change the boni a node gives to nerf a certain weapon type or even various points per chassi.

Right now I'm ready to try if I can get away with only 60% radar depr or only lvl1 seismic to put those points into other stuff, maybe in 6 months having improved gyros will be seen as mandatory in pubs.

Basically I don't think the skill tree is fundamentally flawed and will make the game more interesting for me. There will be bumps balancing and bugfixing it, deal with it.

[DAYLEET]

Prosperity Park, on 02 March 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

Hey, chasing the Meta might be more annoying than it's worth, seeing that you'll have to reSkill and reBuild Mechs all the time. A change to PPC base stats or something can shift both the build and skill metas.

Personally, I am just going to do whatever is most fun and let minor balancing changes slough off me

Yeah, PGI is known for their frequent balance pass every eight months The cost is another reason why youll do what everyone else is doing. Maybe not for meta purposes but you might not have other good alternative choice whether you are meta or not. We shall see. I guess. The way they talked, i thought the tree would be close to be finished by now but i feel like we still needs months.

-Pik-, on 02 March 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

That's reasonable and i kinda share this view. But i think most people here believe the skill tree by itself should balance the game. It can't do that in its current form, but it could be a powerful tool for PGI in the future. i.e. change the boni a node gives to nerf a certain weapon type or even various points per chassi.

Right now I'm ready to try if I can get away with only 60% radar depr or only lvl1 seismic to put those points into other stuff, maybe in 6 months having improved gyros will be seen as mandatory in pubs.

Basically I don't think the skill tree is fundamentally flawed and will make the game more interesting for me. There will be bumps balancing and bugfixing it, deal with it.

Use the PTS well because when it goes live it could cost cbills and xp to find to find out a "balance" between how many you need and how many isnt useful. Which is why i will see what the meta* do for once and might actually listen for once.

Edited by DAYLEET, 02 March 2017 - 01:29 PM.

[-Pik-]

As you mentioned before, can't test most of it on PTS with 4v4. I will most likely skill only 70 points or so and add a couple points every few matches depending how it goes.Those matches should cover the cbill/xp node cost.

[Dee Eight]

I find with the mixed weapons table its harder to resist JUST favoring ONE weapon type if your mech carries all three.

[WarHippy]

DAYLEET, on 02 March 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

I don't think you understand what min/max meta is. It's not a set of attributes or numbers or rules. It's what people figure out give them the most bang for their money and the more restrictive a system is the harder it is for people like me to justify not going meta. Because taking something anti meta becomes a lot more punishing. If i cant properly spec into somerthing that isnt popular while still being able to spec into something else then i just become a generalised mess. Add in that you have to pay to master and re-master and test your mech and you will want to meta even harder."What mech do you recommend?" is about to become, "What should i take in the skill tree?". Not exactly a step forward.

The more restrictive a system is the more important it will be to min/max it. You will never prevent people from min/maxing their mech without making everything unimportant and/or irrelevant. This "locked" system penalise the Anti-Meta people a lot more than a free system where people like me could spec into something that isnt meta. Unless i can afford those nodes while still being able to take make clear choice about others i will have to stick to meta. It has been suggested many times, buff or entirely change unattractive perks instead of making them mandatory to take the good one and. Lower the number of nodes per mech/weight. In a free (unlocked and no weird progression) system, its a lot easier to balance.

The Balance argument. The more restrictive a system is the harder it is to use it to balance things. Take the number of nodes for example. People pointed out that a KDK shouldnt have the same amounts of points as a PHX. In a free system you can reduce the KDK points by half. This severely restrict its choice but still allow it to spec something. In this locked system you have to take into account node that you dont want to take and this make it much harsher with less benefit. You have to take more baby steps and be more careful because you have to account for more stuff.

Forcing unrelated nodes to be taken only generalise mechs while reducing strength of different build as well as reducing any reasons to not run current meta. No this does not reduce meta, it RE-ENFORCES IT until the generalisation and bastardisation has been pushed far enough that all mech are again all the same(our current system). Completely negating the reason for a skill tree to exist in the first place.

Ill play more with the skill tree tonight with many *same variant* of a chassis and different spec to get a better feel of what i can do with different weight class. The KDK i build last night wouldnt be able to turn to save its life versus anything else than an another assault. Thats mostly fine because its a KDK and because while testing, i took nodes i wouldnt take on a slow assault on live. Its less fine because i took half of the mobility tree at the expense of other things and it hurts. I can already tell that will not be an option for me so already i am losing choices and customisation. Might be just me.

Further more, 4vs4 is not representative of 12vs12 and im not interested in playing unhinged scout mission with no matchmaking and possibly no weight balancing. You balance things for scout mission and you're gona get bad surprises. My experience in scouting 4vs4 is that it's a lot easier and you have a much bigger impact on the match.


I just wish this was live already. That PGI would say "OK for the next 2 months EVERYBODY is going to play and help balance things out. We are going to do a lot of iteration so hang in there. Here's extra cbill bonus for every body or whatever people want". I dont care if it sucks right now, this needs to be addressed and field tested by everyone.

I agree with everything but that last part. You should never test things in your live environment. While I understand how enticing it is to have more testers etc. the potential consequences are significant and not something to be taken so lightly.

[Joe Decker]

Darren Marik, on 02 March 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

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.

Well, there is a Game that is using this Kind of Skilltree already and I thought that would be a good Idea. In Path of Exile you got this. Posted one Picture of it below.

But still in Path of Exile these Skill Nodes were arranged in a meaningful Way. Something that you do not see in the Skill Tree for MWO that PGI invented now.

As someone wrote, why do I have to fix my Mirror when I just need new Tyres ?

I also suggest to massively DECREASE Costs for Consumables or have a massive INCREASE for CBill Gains when using Consumables !

Not INCREASE CBill Costs for Consumables just in Hopes of selling some more for MC. Same with the Skill Tree. Hoping that People buy lots of MC to finance their new Skill Nodes will not work. People will not buy Skillnodes for MC. People will reduce the Amount of Mechs they play, Variety on the Battlefield will shrink even more and the huge Danger is that the Game becomes even more of the same over and over again.

Think again PGI or the Game will go downhill even more.

Edited by Joe Decker, 02 March 2017 - 02:00 PM.

[DAYLEET]

WarHippy, on 02 March 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

I agree with everything but that last part. You should never test things in your live environment. While I understand how enticing it is to have more testers etc. the potential consequences are significant and not something to be taken so lightly.

Yeah its kind of a bad idea. But it wouldnt be the worse thing we've seen in mwo. The only problem i see is that its not free but that can be fixed easily. I dont think when PGI decide to release it it will be the end of the testing. With everyone playing it there will be more changes to be made im sure.

Joe Decker, on 02 March 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

Well, there is a Game that is using this Kind of Skilltree already and I thought that would be a good Idea. In Path of Exile you got this. Posted one Picture of it below.

Imagine if the attribute nodes required to get to your skills were stuff you dont need and dont want and it wouldnt change the game in any ways. Suddenly that tree would seem like its crap and be hard to navigate, even if the gameplay didnt change. In poe, you spec, in mwo, you take a bunch of stuff.

Edited by DAYLEET, 02 March 2017 - 02:05 PM.

[JORMUNGANDR MIDGARDSORMR]

The proposed changes to the skill tree in their entirety are cumbersome and tedious. I would rather play Mechwarrior Online than play Mechlab Online. This system is not rewarding in the least bit but is wholly punitive. This becomes more obvious in mechs that pilots have years of experience piloting under the current, functional and enjoyable skill tree system.

This new skill tree is a global nerf and a feeble attempt at balancing a heretofore unbalanced game. Why would any of these changes go live prior to the advent and injection of new tech and weapons systems into the game this coming summer is baffling in the extreme. There is literally no incentive to spec out an already mastered mech under the current system only to have to respec it this summer when the new tech becomes available. That does not even take into account how many different builds with the new tech one would even wish to try out, especially prior to it even approaching any sort of balance with the currently available tech.

Furthermore, burying ECM upgrades behind a wall of unnecessary items further demonstrates the arbitrarily assigned nerfs and taxes to gameplay for mechs that we have become accustomed to playing, in some cases, for years. Are you then going to finally unlock BAP and Jump Jets from those mechs that are forced to take them by virtue of merely purchasing them and using them? Why should tech that we first must purchase the mech or omnipod for be terrible out of the box? Especially when they take up hardpoints and tonnage on the actual mech instead of existing merely on a skill tree, only to have to upgrade with useless and unnecessary augmentations to approximate the gameplay that we currently enjoy? Clumsy balancing decisions like this make no sense at all.

If I were to try to upgrade and improve the performance of my car, would I first have to make sure that my rear view mirror was motorized, and once that was done, install seat warmers for the back seats, and only after that work was completed make certain to install pneumatically driven power locks, only to finally be able to make minor adjustments to the engine itself?

Mechwarrior is not an MMORPG. We should be able to customize the mechs in a fine-tuned, functional way. Each upgrade should have it's own tree, not be buried behind some "give and take" patchwork balancing mechanism.

Additionally, whatever historical XP we have generated should be made available for the chassis, not locked to the variant. For by the same reasoning that we now, finally and thankfully, only have to use one mech to be able to unlock Mastery, the work that we put into being able to unlock that level for one mech by having to Basic 3 should be applicable across the variants under this new system simply because the costs are higher; and in some cases, one may not actually have accrued the necessary XP under the proposed system to take an already mastered mech and be able to apply Mastery to it now. Why should my mastered Locusts that do not have enough current XP required to be mastered under the new proposed system not have access to the XP from my other Locusts that I never play? Why would anyone ever want to re-grind a mech?

As it stands, the number of mechs that I enjoy playing will drop considerably as it requires more effort to attempt to approach the same basic playability for each mech I currently enjoy piloting. Why? This is a game. It should be fun. For the new, unitiated player, this game must be a staggering challenge on the road to being entertaining fun. I cannot even begin to understand how such changes can be justified, especially by the player who swapped modules! That alone is a money pit of frustration. Being able to play a lot of different mechs whenever we want to change things up is part of what makes this game enjoyable. Why alter that avenue of entertainment?

I think it would go a long way to make this new skill tree applicable to the module system and quirks alone, and only unlockable after mastering the tree we currently have.

I would also suggest that as far as revenue stream is concerned, after a mech is mastered allow the player to pay the full MC price to apply the 30% Cbill boost the current Hero mechs afford. That is a simple way for players to spend money on the game to help offset some of the grind. I would also recommend finally being able to sell armor as we were told we would be able to do when the first change to the Mechlab went live. That could defray some of the cbill costs of this proposed system. I would go further than that as well and recommend that we finally be able to sell mechbays at 50% off MC price. Why do we need all those mechbays we purchased now that we only need one mech instead of 3? Such small overtures to the community could go a long way toward customer satisfaction.

Cheers,

Jorm

[ThiefofAlways]

JORMUNGANDR MIDGARDSORMR, on 02 March 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

The proposed changes to the skill tree in their entirety are cumbersome and tedious. I would rather play Mechwarrior Online than play Mechlab Online. This system is not rewarding in the least bit but is wholly punitive. This becomes more obvious in mechs that pilots have years of experience piloting under the current, functional and enjoyable skill tree system.

This new skill tree is a global nerf and a feeble attempt at balancing a heretofore unbalanced game. Why would any of these changes go live prior to the advent and injection of new tech and weapons systems into the game this coming summer is baffling in the extreme. There is literally no incentive to spec out an already mastered mech under the current system only to have to respec it this summer when the new tech becomes available. That does not even take into account how many different builds with the new tech one would even wish to try out, especially prior to it even approaching any sort of balance with the currently available tech.

Furthermore, burying ECM upgrades behind a wall of unnecessary items further demonstrates the arbitrarily assigned nerfs and taxes to gameplay for mechs that we have become accustomed to playing, in some cases, for years. Are you then going to finally unlock BAP and Jump Jets from those mechs that are forced to take them by virtue of merely purchasing them and using them? Why should tech that we first must purchase the mech or omnipod for be terrible out of the box? Especially when they take up hardpoints and tonnage on the actual mech instead of existing merely on a skill tree, only to have to upgrade with useless and unnecessary augmentations to approximate the gameplay that we currently enjoy? Clumsy balancing decisions like this make no sense at all.

If I were to try to upgrade and improve the performance of my car, would I first have to make sure that my rear view mirror was motorized, and once that was done, install seat warmers for the back seats, and only after that work was completed make certain to install pneumatically driven power locks, only to finally be able to make minor adjustments to the engine itself?

Mechwarrior is not an MMORPG. We should be able to customize the mechs in a fine-tuned, functional way. Each upgrade should have it's own tree, not be buried behind some "give and take" patchwork balancing mechanism.

Additionally, whatever historical XP we have generated should be made available for the chassis, not locked to the variant. For by the same reasoning that we now, finally and thankfully, only have to use one mech to be able to unlock Mastery, the work that we put into being able to unlock that level for one mech by having to Basic 3 should be applicable across the variants under this new system simply because the costs are higher; and in some cases, one may not actually have accrued the necessary XP under the proposed system to take an already mastered mech and be able to apply Mastery to it now. Why should my mastered Locusts that do not have enough current XP required to be mastered under the new proposed system not have access to the XP from my other Locusts that I never play? Why would anyone ever want to re-grind a mech?

As it stands, the number of mechs that I enjoy playing will drop considerably as it requires more effort to attempt to approach the same basic playability for each mech I currently enjoy piloting. Why? This is a game. It should be fun. For the new, unitiated player, this game must be a staggering challenge on the road to being entertaining fun. I cannot even begin to understand how such changes can be justified, especially by the player who swapped modules! That alone is a money pit of frustration. Being able to play a lot of different mechs whenever we want to change things up is part of what makes this game enjoyable. Why alter that avenue of entertainment?

I think it would go a long way to make this new skill tree applicable to the module system and quirks alone, and only unlockable after mastering the tree we currently have.

I would also suggest that as far as revenue stream is concerned, after a mech is mastered allow the player to pay the full MC price to apply the 30% Cbill boost the current Hero mechs afford. That is a simple way for players to spend money on the game to help offset some of the grind. I would also recommend finally being able to sell armor as we were told we would be able to do when the first change to the Mechlab went live. That could defray some of the cbill costs of this proposed system. I would go further than that as well and recommend that we finally be able to sell mechbays at 50% off MC price. Why do we need all those mechbays we purchased now that we only need one mech instead of 3? Such small overtures to the community could go a long way toward customer satisfaction.

Cheers,

Jorm

You said what I have attempted to in a much more etiquette way where I spoke more to the numbers. I to will play less mechs and desire to master even fewer. It will lead to me having and buying less. This attempt only hurts the game over all. I had high hopes for the V2 skill tree after what I felt was a pretty good V1. The requirement to take things that have no relevance to my play style or desired play style I find as an insult.


Thief

[Perilthecat]

Like... all the data entry errors... Why is this even up on the PTS?

What good does it do to test broken versions of potentially broken changes? Re: accel/decel

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

I say they scrap the entire thing and start over.

1. A dragon will always need more help than a warhammer. Each varient needs its own skill tree.

2. Skill nodes should all attempt to be equally tempting when selecting for that individual varient.

The system proposed is total crap

[-Pik-]

ThiefofAlways, on 02 March 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

You said what I have attempted to in a much more etiquette way where I spoke more to the numbers. I to will play less mechs and desire to master even fewer. It will lead to me having and buying less. This attempt only hurts the game over all. I had high hopes for the V2 skill tree after what I felt was a pretty good V1. The requirement to take things that have no relevance to my play style or desired play style I find as an insult.


Thief

So in the current system you make use of every quirk a mech has, use every machine gun rof quirk and never put weapons without quirks on them? Equip something in every available hardpoint? Does that trigger your OCD too?

You have 91 points in the new system, pretty sure that number is balanced around the fact you don't only get to pick A+ skill nodes.

Edited by -Pik-, 02 March 2017 - 02:51 PM.

[ARM32]

Ok, so, if not counting "speed bug":

new skill tree not as bad as "energy draw".
Problems:
1 - If i'm use mech, with ONLY torso (CT LT RT) weapons, for good work i still take some arm something and waste skill points.
2 - For full range (same range as i use before) - needs to waste lots of skill points fore useless "addons".
3 - Control of mechs seems changed, not in good way. Less comfort on some mechs.
As end - 8.5/10 for idea 6.5/10 for what i'm see on PTS.