26 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

This has been puzzling me. One how did 91 become the magic number? But more than that, what if it was less making real choices something to be had.

It seams like with 91 you really can flood most trees, making it not really seam like choice persay, just unlocking like the old system. Granted there are somethings that you can boost or choose, but much of it is going to be the same no mater what mech you are in.

I was pondering the idea of lesser nodes. maybe 50 or 60, and i was finding i really had to sacrifice on what i wanted or how i wanted a mech to play. did i really want to put all my eggs into weapons and structure? Or did i want more sensors and move? did i just use a smattering of boxes in a bunch of trees?

boat up weapons and add JJ's with a little sensors? (poptart)

did i boat up structure/weapons/move and skip everything else (brawler)

did i go sensors/move and light weapons, (scout) ect

Playing around using less nodes, i found i really was making harder choices that really effected my playstyle in said mech, verse 91 where i really did kinda feel like i could just take all i wanted/needed for the most part.

Are we set on 91 nodes? or is there a better number?

[FupDup]

91 is definitely a weird number, but I don't think we should reduce the total number of SP until we're allowed to actually choose the skills we want instead of needing to take a bunch of objectively bad skills.

That, and many types of skills have very weak values even when fully maxed out. If the values of some maxed skills were stronger, then it would make more sense to greatly constrict the number of skills we can have.

Edited by FupDup, 03 March 2017 - 01:53 PM.

[process]

I think 50 is a much more reasonable number. I wouldn't necessarily mind if the total XP and cbills cost was redistributed, I just hate all the clicking. There no reason why certain skills couldn't be compacted from 5 nodes to 3.

I think there also needs to be more decision making. Like you say, with 91 points you can acquire pretty much every essential skills, including the equivalent of multiple 6 million cbill skills that we can't have under the current system. I'd like to see a reduction in SP but also some trade-offs and real decision making.

Of course this all assumes the skills are useful and balanced.

Edited by process, 03 March 2017 - 02:07 PM.

[Kuaron]

1 = One single deity, the origin of time
9 = perfection, 3×3 with 3 being the holy number, trinity.
9+1 = 10, the completion of all.

There is no other number more suitable to be the one to be chosen.

[soapyfrog]

I don't really see that there needs to be more than 30-40 nodes total, tbh.

Then we can discuss how many you should be able to unlock, I think 50-60% is probably fine and forces some real choices, especially if the nodes represent real substantial buffs rather than incremental tiny improvements of questionable value.

[Gas Guzzler]

process, on 03 March 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

I think there also needs to be more decision making. Like you say, with 91 points you can acquire pretty much every essential skills, including the equivalent of multiple 6 million cbill skills that we can't have under the current system. I'd like to see a reduction in SP but also some trade-offs and real decision making.

Honestly, there is decision making. None of my mechs can fully specialize more than 2 areas, and I always feel like I am missing out, especially if agility is involved. No, I think the skill tree is okay, but if they reduce the amount of nodes that we can unlock without changing the paths to unlock, then I will be pretty anti-skill tree.

[Dee Eight]

91 was the score Russ lost the dart game with...

[oldradagast]

To give the false impression of "adding content" to the game. The old skill system had 13 nodes, the new one can have up to 91 per mech - isn't that exciting? No, not really, because it means a lot more mindless grinding through trash skills I don't need to get the handful I do need, most of which will be identical on every single mech I own. And what do I get for all this grinding and waste of XP and cbills to re-level all my currently fully leveled mechs? Oh, that's right - mechs that still perform worse than they do currently in the production build.

It's a scam and waste of time, nothing more.

[J0anna]

It's actually very limiting. There is no way to get the current level of performance on live with mechs on PTS. You might be able to get close in one area or another, but overall all mechs will feel worse.

[JC Daxion]

J0anna, on 03 March 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

It's actually very limiting. There is no way to get the current level of performance on live with mechs on PTS. You might be able to get close in one area or another, but overall all mechs will feel worse.

Yes and no.. There aer aspects you can get better on test than on live.. But the mech as a whole seams to run hotter, or moves not as well, or has a bit less firepower. But they can have more hit points, better amounts of sensors, jump jets, ammo counts, a few other weapon things for certain mechs.



I am also hoping they will boost the nodes depending on what class you are in.. Meaning a light would get more out of movement or sensors, and an assault would get more out of structure ect. maybe the mediums got an operations bonus, heavies get a weapon bonus. Boosting the effectiveness of certain trees for certain classes. you can see this already in the Jump Jet tree, the mechs that jump well get a bigger boost on these.

[Acehilator]

Should be 100. They are not even americans, they don't get a pass for using ******** numbers

[That Guy]

I am in agreement that 91 points is way too much



on the live server basically all mechs are generalists and can do anything. with 91 points it does allow more specialization, but even super specialized there are more than enough points to kick around.

40 or 50 points would be a much better option

t

[- Pestilence -]

soapyfrog, on 03 March 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

I don't really see that there needs to be more than 30-40 nodes total, tbh.

Then we can discuss how many you should be able to unlock, I think 50-60% is probably fine and forces some real choices, especially if the nodes represent real substantial buffs rather than incremental tiny improvements of questionable value.

No that's still too much, i think 1 point will be enough or even half point.

Edited by Nexxio, 03 March 2017 - 06:44 PM.

[R Valentine]

92 nodes = maximum C-bill sink. That's all it is. There's no reason for them to spread so thin, so gated by crap you can't even use, and to have so many of them.

[Queen of England]

Kiran Yagami, on 03 March 2017 - 06:57 PM, said:

92 nodes = maximum C-bill sink. That's all it is. There's no reason for them to spread so thin, so gated by crap you can't even use, and to have so many of them.

You don't need any particular number of nodes to serve as a c-bill sink; they could just as easily allow each 'mech to take 4 skill nodes at 2.5 million each.

[soapyfrog]

Queen of England, on 03 March 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

You don't need any particular number of nodes to serve as a c-bill sink; they could just as easily allow each 'mech to take 4 skill nodes at 2.5 million each.

Then people would actually have sticker shock.

As it is you have a lot of people thinking the skill costs are fine because they just cant envision the full costs of the system over time and over their mech collections as they expand.

[Koniks]

Gas Guzzler, on 03 March 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Honestly, there is decision making. None of my mechs can fully specialize more than 2 areas, and I always feel like I am missing out, especially if agility is involved. No, I think the skill tree is okay, but if they reduce the amount of nodes that we can unlock without changing the paths to unlock, then I will be pretty anti-skill tree.

I still think the live model was better. A set of universal core skills to unlock followed by mastery skills for customization.

That should be coupled with a lower skill point total and fewer nodes with bigger bonuses.

And they still need to eliminate some of the dumb linkages like making some of the useless module-equivalent nodes prereqs for the basic-equivalent skills.

[Dee Eight]

JC Daxion, on 03 March 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

This has been puzzling me. One how did 91 become the magic number? But more than that, what if it was less making real choices something to be had.

They threw three darts at the board and hit triple 20, triple 7 and double 5. Stop advocating for less. 91 out of 229 is fine.

[Alistair Winter]

50 would be far better. I am not looking forward to picking 91 skills for 150 mechs when this goes live.

Also, the skill tree should be smaller. It's much more satisfying to level up when the skill points actually do something. Where's the joy in getting a +0.5% range bonus?

[D V Devnull]

Dee Eight, on 03 March 2017 - 11:19 PM, said:

JC Daxion, on 03 March 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

This has been puzzling me. One how did 91 become the magic number? But more than that, what if it was less making real choices something to be had.

They threw three darts at the board and hit triple 20, triple 7 and double 5. Stop advocating for less. 91 out of 229 is fine.

Agreed on telling people to not advocate for less nodes. People should advocate for more nodes. Heck, I like this post...

Acehilator, on 03 March 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

Should be 100. They are not even americans, they don't get a pass for using ******** numbers

...and add this to it...

D V Devnull, on 27 February 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

Skill Tree doesn't currently give enough nodes
Really, I'm NOT kidding around. I've had the chance to play another game that uses Skill Tree systems, namely "Borderlands", and seeing the low limits that PGI is allowing just made me sick. To give you an idea, "Borderlands" allows you "64 to 66, out of 105 nodes" to allocate, and it actually works out right. While I don't think that everyone should be given that insanely great a ratio here in MWO, I did find while watching others' videos and streams that "91 nodes of around 330" is simply not enough. If PGI really wants to see what people can bring out, what diverse designs can come to the field, then they need to make it at least "100 to 105 nodes, out of around 330" to be picked and allocated. There needs to be proper compensation for build allocation, and there just doesn't appear to be enough at this time, but what I suggest here really wouldn't 'break the bank' (as the old saying goes). Otherwise, they're choking too many Pilots and their Mechs, and all that can do is hurt PGI's Business-based Bottom Line in terms of Cash Flow. I'm sure PGI doesn't want to hurt themselves, so they should up the allowed number of nodes to at least 100 to 105, right?

...which I posted while down with a cold, but had the chance to view a ton of New Skill Tree PTS videos and form a useful opinion, due to being unable to get to the PTS myself because of Real Life Issues.

After seeing some videos regarding the 'New Skill Tree: Version 2, PTS Release', I've come to the realization that even my own words still hold mostly true. However, with how PGI is now arranging things, it seems like even a boost of 14 nodes wouldn't be enough for proper specialization. I've got the feeling PGI really doesn't understand how critical it is that all teammates can perform well on the battlefields, each with their Mech tuned properly for their playstyle and personal abilities. At this point, I now feel and think that PGI should place the Allowed Node Count at '120 of 229', a grand total of 29 Additional Nodes beyond their number of 91, and barely enough to cover only about one additional section -- maybe a little more -- of the New Skill Tree system. Otherwise, we're looking at a Major Community Breakdown as people tear each other apart over how they think their build path is better than any other, and a Major Backlash Against PGI for trying to force people through nodes that their equipment load can't even use while having pre-choked them out of even really using a proper set of New Skill Tree Sections. But hey, this is just my current mental mileage, although I can see in the form of a temporal cascading tree as to all the problems that PGI hasn't accounted for and could end up with causing their own destruction.

By the way, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to take aim at you, Dee Eight. Your post just happened to be the best point at which for me to come along, add some of my own thoughts to this thread, and therefore add to discussion contained within here.

~Mr. D. V. "Damnit, PGI's whole 'New Skill Tree PTS' mess has me going wall-of-text seemingly every time I post!" Devnull




[Minor Edit by Post Author for a missed piece of a thought.]

Edited by D V Devnull, 04 March 2017 - 04:03 AM.