19 replies to this topic

[Old-dirty B]

The whole skill tree attempt will be a failure just like all the previous attempts to solve all "problems" and balance this game. It will be a matter of time if not right away that we end up with the current system or the current system repackaged into another grind...

Why?

Because the core mechanics of the skill tree system are flawed, its a design failure. On top of that a lot of other changes / "fixes" are pulled into this system that impact or influence testing the core functionality and will affect the overall evaluation and acceptance of the system.

Design failure
No real choices or decisions are made and most people will end up with the same set of skills for almost every mech, only some specific weapon skills will differ. Its never a choice between 2 significant good skill sets but always a choice what minor or useless skills to take to get to the good ones. Quirks and tweaks for balance will incorporated into the values of specific skills which only "forces"the user even more into the same we already have. For example Locust mobility / agility tweaks will force the user to invest in the mobility tree instead of adding skill points so that the user could invest in durability, for an Atlas vice versa. Extra skill points (for balance) are only worth something if you can spend them on something significantly and not having to waste them on stuff that isn't applicable for said mech...

TLDR
The new skill tree system in its current form / direction will only bring pointless change and be a failure in terms of balance and solving gameplay problems. We will end up with the same problematics as we now have, this is just a matter of time.

I promote change, evolution and development but it has to bring something good. The new skill tree system will not bring better gameplay or balance then the current system we have been using.

Cheers B3R3ND

Edited by B3R3ND, 02 March 2017 - 01:56 AM.

[l33tworks]

I had huge hopes for the skill tree even after pts1 but now thevway i see they are going It will probably fail. Its because PGI started of with a good idea and then flicked the switch of progress into reverse and floor the derp pedal.

Instead of constantly considating nodes they just have made them FREESTYLE where the player has a real choice and simply given the good mechs less nodes to work with or made their nodes less effective or made the good nodes cost more.

What we have is a giant blob of a meaningless skill tree with very little player choice within each tree only frustration and confusion as you wade throuhh all the junk you never wanted.

Then theres also the fact they thought it was a good idea to ALSO decouple engine size to mobility at the same time which only throws the game even more out.

Edited by l33tworks, 02 March 2017 - 02:00 AM.

[Pjwned]

I'd rather just not have a skill tree at all personally for multiple reasons, or at the very least a "skill tree" where every skill comes with a negative drawback.

It does have the potential to be a big improvement over what we have now though and still work reasonably well, so even though I'd prefer to just see it removed entirely I'm not actively campaigning against it saying it will fail, because 1) that's not helpful at all and 2) the skill tree is realistically not going away.

I will continue to say I'd rather have no skill tree, but I might as well also try to provide good feedback and have good discussions about how to make it better since it's far from being a lost cause.

[Old-dirty B]

I agree that campaigning against ideas and development are usually worse then providing feedback (which i have done before like others) that could help improve.

Anyway, im not per se against a new skill tree system, even not in which other problems are solve eventually as well (in the end that seems optimal actually). I was hoping for a something a lot more promising!
The whole system could have been so much better, so much more improvement, innovative and creative that the current implementation and its direction is just a big disappointment.

Its the basic idea, the way that this system is being developed (all at once, additional changes and fixes added), how feedback is given and how that is translated back into the development is showing of another failure (just like we have seen with Energy draw), that i believe its better to stop this and rethink what really matters and how to achieve that...

Edited by B3R3ND, 02 March 2017 - 03:37 AM.

[Skribs]

They should just remove the rule of 3 and change pinpoint to an armor buff and leave it at that.

[Old-dirty B]

"Based on results and feedback from the recent rounds of public testing we have decided to delay the release of the new Skill Tree until a future patch."

We have a saying where i come from "Van uitstel komt afstel" (dutch), which freely translates to "Policies delayed are policies denied".
Exactly what i was expecting, which in the end is very unfortunate. I just wish PGi for once thinks trough great concepts and takes the time to come up with a thorough plan that fits the game AND the players - something that relates to a vision or goal set clearly for mwo.

Hopefully they now take the time and work this out really well - something that will suprise most of us in a very positive way - showing they listened and put everything together into a plan with a proper and total vision.

Edited by B3R3ND, 14 March 2017 - 12:12 AM.

[oldradagast]

Skribs, on 02 March 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

They should just remove the rule of 3 and change pinpoint to an armor buff and leave it at that.

While I'd like more than that, even that would be an improvement.

Years ago, I just wanted something like that - a durability buff in place of Pinpoint since every buff in the game so far either only helps attack or helps both attack and defense. I also wanted the top-level skill to either be a module slot or something unique to that weight class. Even that would have been an improvement over what we have and what they proposed.

[R Valentine]

Gating good skills with useless crap is the definition of no choice, not the answer to it. They were just replacing the old skill tree with the old skill tree in new and improved grind form. It is not a choice to put missile skills in front of my cool down nodes where my mech has no missile hard points to speak of. It's just a speed bump I have to hurdle to get to the good stuff. I still need the cool down. Putting hill climb in front of radar dep doesn't make me choose. It's just another speed bump, but in the end everyone will take it and get radar dep because that's the skill that matters, not the dumb gate you had to crash to get there. If you want choices then either make roles, or line up all the good skills(all 2 of them) on one tier and say "you get one and only one". Then we might have real choices, but the garbage they vomited out was just regurgitation, not invention.

[oldradagast]

Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 05:44 AM, said:

If you want choices then either make roles, or line up all the good skills(all 2 of them) on one tier and say "you get one and only one". Then we might have real choices, but the garbage they vomited out was just regurgitation, not invention.

As you said, grind is neither choice nor content.

[Athom83]

Wasn't the intent of making you go through less useful things to get that godsend skill was to get you to make sacrifices to get what you want? There are times in the current system where I would've loved to have hill climb, but my modules are full of other things. Or advanced zoom. "Getting good skills with useless crap is the definition of no choice", quite the opposite. Its the definition of choosing to sacrifice something to get what you want. And it isn't like that "Useless crap" wouldn't benefit you (except if you get a weapon skill of a type you cant use, but again "sacrifice"). But something I will agree on, they did mess it up at the end by nerfing the survival tree. They could've just buffed the other trees a bit more.

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 14 March 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

Wasn't the intent of making you go through less useful things to get that godsend skill was to get you to make sacrifices to get what you want? There are times in the current system where I would've loved to have hill climb, but my modules are full of other things. Or advanced zoom. "Getting good skills with useless crap is the definition of no choice", quite the opposite. Its the definition of choosing to sacrifice something to get what you want. And it isn't like that "Useless crap" wouldn't benefit you (except if you get a weapon skill of a type you cant use, but again "sacrifice"). But something I will agree on, they did mess it up at the end by nerfing the survival tree. They could've just buffed the other trees a bit more.

That was the intent, but systems like that have already proven to be failures. Gating good skills with bad skills actually lowers choice. It is not a "sacrifice" to have to go through bad skills to get to good skills, because you need the good skills no matter what. So hill climb now blocks radar dep and I don't want hill climb. Well, radar dep is so good that I'm willing to go through hill climb. In fact, it's so good EVERYONE is willing to go through hill climb. There are still optimal paths to take through the skill tree, and everyone is going to choose those because anything else is sub-optimal, and no one wants to intentionally handicap themselves. The skill tree didn't even add anything new. All of the skills in the tree already exist. They just changed how you go about getting them, but in the end, it's just what we have repackaged as another grind. WoW tried this system ages ago, and they have sense gotten rid of it completely. Why? Because it doesn't work. Players still go through the bad skills to get to the good skills and refusing to do so handicaps your character. That isn't choice or sacrifice. Why PGI is reusing a failed system is just beyond me. Learn from other games. They discarded this system for a reason.

[l33tworks]

Athom83, on 14 March 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

Wasn't the intent of making you go through less useful things to get that godsend skill was to get you to make sacrifices to get what you want? There are times in the current system where I would've loved to have hill climb, but my modules are full of other things. Or advanced zoom. "Getting good skills with useless crap is the definition of no choice", quite the opposite. Its the definition of choosing to sacrifice something to get what you want. And it isn't like that "Useless crap" wouldn't benefit you (except if you get a weapon skill of a type you cant use, but again "sacrifice"). But something I will agree on, they did mess it up at the end by nerfing the survival tree. They could've just buffed the other trees a bit more.

You and the Entire PGI dev team are 100% wrong on this even from a design and balance standpoint, not to mention the most important factor, which is human emotion. People DO NOT want to be forced to take what the DO NOT want. Gating the good skills with random or bad skills for an attempt at balance is a bad idea in any respect because there are far far better alternatives, and its ludicrous to do so because it annoys the hell out of people.

I have honestly never seen it before in my life and was extremely disappointment they went this bizarre route and they just kept consolidating things more and more until it was a big blob of meaningless mess where you had almost zero freedom.

You dont force players to make "sacrifices" by having to choose things they dont want to get to what they want, you do it by making what the want cost more. The solution is the linear skill tree. Cooldown to laser duration much more powerful than hill climb?

Solution is SIMPLE

Make "good skills" like cooldown or radar derp take 8 or 9 nodes to reach effectiveness and make hill climb only one.

This is the perfect balancing mechanic that NEVER forces people to take what they dont want, but hey since the "bad" stuff is only 1 node and the good stuff is 10 or so, maybe they will choose to forgo all the good stuff and take the "bad" stuff too.

In addition it is the PERFECT system that allows for Constant updates and balance changes with minial effort or distruption.

You can always add more nodes to a OP skill to reduce its effectiveness ON THE FLY without affecting the skill tree whatsoever, but you can never Rearrange PGIs skill tree without needing intervention from the player or altering their selections.

For the love of god someone explain this important point to PGI. WIth a linear tree their work will be easier.





The solution so so simple I really cannot believe the team dont just go ahead with the linear tree and simply refund all mastered mechs in terms of cbills. It will make everyone happy

Edited by l33tworks, 16 March 2017 - 03:47 PM.

[Athom83]

@l33tworks The reason is, in the most up to date tree, you only needed 45 nodes to get to the current system's "mastery". The rest can be used to buff your firepower even more, buff your survivability, equip "modules", or other things. And why is it that every single example the people against the tree give is that you "have to get hill climb to get to radar dep"? And how is that even bad? What part of making my mechs that should use radar dep (my fast skirmishers) more maneuverable and responsive on uneven terrain when that said terrain would slow me so much in some cases I'm an easy target or get me stuck altogether? Every "mockup" I see of the "linear" trees just don't look apealing to me. It seems like it promotes boating of a single type of weapon as you only need to get skills for one type of weapon as you can "pick and choose". And "perfect because it allows for easy updates"? Like adding another dozen skills per weapon type when people are already complaining of too many nodes to choose from? Is that a joke? And making the "good stuff" (most of what you classify as "good stuff" I hardly ever use as they don't interest me or are useles on the mechs I use) super expensive turns me away. I'd rather spend 5 points to halfway tech out many modules than 5 to halfway tech out a single module that I already never use. Also, changing the cost of nodes "on the fly" for "balance" is a very bad idea. You will have many people complaining that they lost effectiveness and need to grind more for what they have already. Sound familiar?

Edit; And why is everyone against the skill tree (as is) spelling "getting" as "gatting"?

Edited by Athom83, 15 March 2017 - 04:42 AM.

[MechaBattler]

The skill tree was fine. The only legitimate reason to delay was the cost and negative impact it would have on the whale population. It wasn't delayed because of the bad design. It was delayed because the whales, who carry this game financially, refunded their pre-orders.

Really gating skills? So when they remove them. And lower the total points. Will you have more choice? No. You won't. The net results are the same. I'm sure right now the guy working on it is concocting an evil version of the skill tree with "less buttons to click". It's going to be the same thing with less points and the 'useless' ones consolidated, but still in the way. And with the whales sated by free mastery of their luxurious mech stables. The outrage will dry up, it'll be the same arm chair devs getting in a circle, glassing about how great their idea is and how bad PGI is.

[l33tworks]

@athom83

-LOL@ you thinking everyone agaisnt a non linear tree is conspiring to spell getting "gating"

I havent had a real chuckle at a comical notion like that in a while.

Look up the word in a dictionary http://www.dictionar...m/browse/gating

-Getting hill climb to get radar derp is complete nonsense. Its just the poster child for showing that even something as unrelated as that are forced onto the player? For the purpose of balance??..What...? Or its just a poorly thought out mess of a system randomly thrown together...Wonder which one is more likely...

Its bad because it does not allow the player to make choice whether they want hill climb or not. What if they dont like the way hill climb makes their mech handle? like they keep falling of terrain? Why should they be forced to get it when they dont want it to have radar derp?

Similarly why should you be forced to get laser duration if you simply want range or cooldown....

-Single weapon boating doesnt have to be a problem in a linear tree. Look at the video. E.G you can allow a set a limitation on nodes allowed per weapon that also can be applied for no charge to other weapon tyopes too or you can have all encompasing nodes like we do now, but instead all linear.

-People loose effectiveness of their mech everytime a game is patched. Its nothing new and not unique to a linear tree. If radar derp is too stronk at 5 nodes for maximum effectiveness make it 10 nodes for max effectiveness. Those that have the 5 derps selected will have their radar derp effectiveness cut in half, as they would with any other balance changes, which is the point of the change, however with the linear tree it does not cause dustruption to any other aspect of a mech or any other arrangement of the skill tree! To get back full.effect you will simply need to remove 5 nodes from some other aspect to place extra in radar derp however, you can do that as you please instead of having it affect 8 other random unrelated things on your mech! Not to mention pgi will need to spend ages rewriting the entire arragement of a tree wheras with a linear tree its ZERO effort or rearranging.

-You are 100% wrong on the number of nodes and yet again it shows you clearly dont know how a linear tree works.
Want 10 nodes worth of radar derp, cooldown and laser duration each? Simply click on the 10th node and the previous 9 are automatically selected. You've just replaced 30 clicks of the current system to 3!

So which system sounds more of a joke? One where it takes 30 clicks to get mostly stuff you dont want or one where it takes 3 clicks to get exactly what you want?

Edited by l33tworks, 16 March 2017 - 04:41 PM.

[Athom83]

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

-LOL@ you thinking everyone agaisnt a non linear tree is conspiring to spell getting "gating" I havent had a real chuckle at a comical notion like that in a while. Look up the word in a dictionary http://www.dictionar...m/browse/gating

I apologize for not being from the 9th Century and knowing every Old English world such as thee.

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

-Getting hill climb to get radar derp is complete nonsense. Its just the poster child for showing that even something as unrelated as that are forced onto the player? For the purpose of balance??..What...? Or its just a poorly thought out mess of a system randomly thrown together...Wonder which one is more likely...

https://static.mwome...6fc5e428d47.png
Man, it sure looks tough getting Radar Dep through all that hill climb.

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

Similarly why should you be forced to get laser duration if you simply want range or cooldown....

Logic and understanding of how some unreleased technologies can help discover something else. When you rationally think about what mechanics would go into how you boost laser range/cooldown/duration in a realistic setting, you can see the connections. To modify range, you would have to change out/adjust the focus lens while still keeping the damage potential at the closer ranges. Cooldown would entail modifications to the inputs of energy and the output of heat to make the weapon ready to be fired sooner. Duration would require changes to the fire system to release the stored energy faster without overloading the focusing lens, heat pumps, energy intake system, or other parts of the weapon. In the context of ACs; Range requires the modification of the barrel, breach, and/or the ammo itself to give the shell higher velocities while compensating for the increased pressure. Heat-gen requires modifications to the barrel and breach mechanisms to better dissipate heat into the surroundings and not into the mech and/or modifications to the charge in the ammo to produce the same effect at a lower temperature. Cooldown requires the modification of the breach shell ejection, shell intake, and firing systems to make them quicker and more efficient while reinforcing the barrel to take the increased pressure change load.

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

-Single weapon boating doesnt have to be a problem in a linear tree. Look at the video. E.G you can allow a set a limitation on nodes allowed per weapon that also can be applied for no charge to other weapon tyopes too or you can have all encompasing nodes like we do now, but instead all linear.

That just isn't a good way to do things. You are literally forcing players to do something they don't want to do because they have things outright locked to them because "meta".

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

-People loose effectiveness of their mech everytime a game is patched. Its nothing new and not unique to a linear tree. If radar derp is too stronk at 5 nodes for maximum effectiveness make it 10 nodes for max effectiveness. Those that have the 5 derps selected will have their radar derp effectiveness cut in half, as they would with any other balance changes, which is the point of the change, however with the linear tree it does not cause dustruption to any other aspect of a mech or any other arrangement of the skill tree! To get back full.effect you will simply need to remove 5 nodes from some other aspect to place extra in radar derp however, you can do that as you please instead of having it affect 8 other random unrelated things on your mech! Not to mention pgi will need to spend ages rewriting the entire arragement of a tree wheras with a linear tree its ZERO effort or rearranging.

*refer to the above picture* Those things seem quite related to radar deprivation. And you're right, a linear tree requires 0 effort. I don't like things that require 0 effort.

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

-You are 100% wrong on the number of nodes and yet again it shows you clearly dont know how a linear tree works.
Want 10 nodes worth of radar derp, cooldown and laser duration each? Simply click on the 10th node and the previous 9 are automatically selected. You've just replaced 30 clicks of the current system to 3!

I have no idea to which part of what I said you are referring to. Are you referring to the 45 node things? That is correct, you can do the math yourself if you wanted to. Or were you referring to my thing on the 5 nodes for modules? I still stand by what I said, even referring to your video. I'd rather put one into advanced zoom, 2 into Target Retention, and the other two into either sensor range or Target Decay. I'd get more out of those than putting those 5 points all into Radar Deprivation.

l33tworks, on 16 March 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

So which system sounds more of a joke? One where it takes 30 clicks to get mostly stuff you dont want or one where it takes 3 clicks to get exactly what you want?

So you just want a shortcut to click on one node and the tree fill out the fastest way to that node? Well PGI could do that with the webbed tree as well. And who in the right mind would do 30 clicks to get everything he doesn't want and not 30 click to get things he does want? I see very few things in the tree as stuff I don't want, and even those I would want in some cases (and with the new tech).

Edited by Athom83, 17 March 2017 - 06:50 AM.

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 17 March 2017 - 06:43 AM, said:

I apologize for not being from the 9th Century and knowing every Old English world such as thee.

https://static.mwome...6fc5e428d47.png
Man, it sure looks tough getting Radar Dep through all that hill climb.

Logic and understanding of how some unreleased technologies can help discover something else. When you rationally think about what mechanics would go into how you boost laser range/cooldown/duration in a realistic setting, you can see the connections. To modify range, you would have to change out/adjust the focus lens while still keeping the damage potential at the closer ranges. Cooldown would entail modifications to the inputs of energy and the output of heat to make the weapon ready to be fired sooner. Duration would require changes to the fire system to release the stored energy faster without overloading the focusing lens, heat pumps, energy intake system, or other parts of the weapon. In the context of ACs; Range requires the modification of the barrel, breach, and/or the ammo itself to give the shell higher velocities while compensating for the increased pressure. Heat-gen requires modifications to the barrel and breach mechanisms to better dissipate heat into the surroundings and not into the mech and/or modifications to the charge in the ammo to produce the same effect at a lower temperature. Cooldown requires the modification of the breach shell ejection, shell intake, and firing systems to make them quicker and more efficient while reinforcing the barrel to take the increased pressure change load.

That just isn't a good way to do things. You are literally forcing players to do something they don't want to do because they have things outright locked to them because "meta".

*refer to the above picture* Those things seem quite related to radar deprivation. And you're right, a linear tree requires 0 effort. I don't like things that require 0 effort.

I have no idea to which part of what I said you are referring to. Are you referring to the 45 node things? That is correct, you can do the math yourself if you wanted to. Or were you referring to my thing on the 5 nodes for modules? I still stand by what I said, even referring to your video. I'd rather put one into advanced zoom, 2 into Target Retention, and the other two into either sensor range or Target Decay. I'd get more out of those than putting those 5 points all into Radar Deprivation.
So you just want a shortcut to click on one node and the tree fill out the fastest way to that node? Well PGI could do that with the webbed tree as well. And who in the right mind would do 30 clicks to get everything he doesn't want and not 30 click to get things he does want? I see very few things in the tree as stuff I don't want, and even those I would want in some cases (and with the new tech).

You keep regurgitating the same argument, but it's just not true. "Linear trees take 0 effort". The new system only takes "effort" for new players, and for them it's way too much effort because they don't understand the game yet. Everyone else will just wait until the top tier players map the trees on their websites, then copy that. The trees are still not choice, just the illusion of that choice. That illusion will disappear as soon as someone finds the optimal route to every necessary skill and then that'll be that. We'll be right back where we are now. Everyone has the same skills with slightly different modules(and even those hardly vary. Too many modules are garbage). That's still 0 effort. Even the "sacrifice" you keep praising is another illusion. It's not sacrifice. Gating good skills with bad ones is an artificial way of reducing the skill point cap. Take 2 skill points off the top and make the path linear and you get the exact same result. No one sacrificed anything. They just did the math and came to the conclusion that useless nodes are inevitable, but must have skills are still must have skills. Again, this system has been tried before in several games and every one of them has long since discarded it. It makes no sense to try what other games have already proven to be a failure.

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 17 March 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

You keep regurgitating the same argument, but it's just not true.

As do you.

Kiran Yagami, on 17 March 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

"Linear trees take 0 effort". The new system only takes "effort" for new players, and for them it's way too much effort because they don't understand the game yet. Everyone else will just wait until the top tier players map the trees on their websites, then copy that.

As do people in the current system. As will players in any system for anything. Ever hear of metamechs.com? And like I've said before, you can slowly introduce new players to the skill system by outfitting "trail" mechs with some skills (and having the "Skills" button more visible so they understand that the mech is being affected by skills).

Kiran Yagami, on 17 March 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

The trees are still not choice, just the illusion of that choice. That illusion will disappear as soon as someone finds the optimal route to every necessary skill and then that'll be that. We'll be right back where we are now. Everyone has the same skills with slightly different modules(and even those hardly vary. Too many modules are garbage). That's still 0 effort. Even the "sacrifice" you keep praising is another illusion. It's not sacrifice.

Hence why I think there should be MORE skills, better higher end ones with more interesting and varied filler, and more kinds of special skills. Examples; Reduced damage from overheat.

Kiran Yagami, on 17 March 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

Gating good skills with bad ones is an artificial way of reducing the skill point cap. Take 2 skill points off the top and make the path linear and you get the exact same result. No one sacrificed anything.

"Everyone else will just wait until the top tier players map the trees on their websites, then copy that."

Kiran Yagami, on 17 March 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

They just did the math and came to the conclusion that useless nodes are inevitable, but must have skills are still must have skills. Again, this system has been tried before in several games and every one of them has long since discarded it. It makes no sense to try what other games have already proven to be a failure.

Seismic is useless for a mech that never stops. Radar Dep on a mech with ECM systems is almost useless (plus the upcoming Stealth armor will make it even worthless for those mechs). With my playstyle, those modules seem useless. Hillclimb is a godsend for fast and maneuverable mechs without JJ on hilly maps. Advanced Zoom is helpfull on wide open maps when you have a ranged loadout (AC2, Gauss, LBX, ERPPCs). My playstyle prefers those modules over the other "must have" ones.

Edited by Athom83, 17 March 2017 - 05:58 PM.

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 17 March 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

As do you.

As do people in the current system. As will players in any system for anything. Ever hear of mettamechs.com? And like I've said before, you can slowly introduce new players to the skill system by outfitting "trail" mechs with some skills (and having the "Skills" button more visible so they understand that the mech is being affected by skills).

Hence why I think there should be MORE skills, better higher end ones with more interesting and varied filler, and more kinds of special skills. Examples; Reduced damage from overheat.

"Everyone else will just wait until the top tier players map the trees on their websites, then copy that."

Seismic is useless for a mech that never stops. Radar Dep on a mech with ECM systems is almost useless (plus the upcoming Stealth armor will make it even worthless for those mechs). With my playstyle, those modules seem useless. Hillclimb is a godsend for fast and maneuverable mechs without JJ on hilly maps. Advanced Zoom is helpfull on wide open maps when you have a ranged loadout (AC2, Gauss, LBX, ERPPCs). My playstyle prefers those modules over the other "must have" ones.

Everything you said only reinforces my point. New system = old system = pointless. Glad we agree.

[soapyfrog]

Athom83 no one uses advanced zoom or hill climb. Advanced zoom is actually a handicap, you literally hurt your chance of hitting anything at long range with it. Hill climb is of marginal value, never have I played any mech and wished it climbs hills better.

The problem is that fantastical justifications for filler nodes and half baked rationalizations for skill mazes are not going to convince anyone. The practical truth is that the costs are too high and the system to unwieldy to gain general acceptance. It absolutely would be better with far less nodes, far less points to allocate, and actual meaningful choices, like imagine if you opted to be more agile and increase your firepower, increased toughness would simply be out of reach. You know, a system with real sacrifices and choices.... And yes with maybe 10 clicks instead of 91.