42 replies to this topic

[SQW]

I run my raven as scout currently - ecm, narc, radar dep, seismic, narc module - with 3MPLs for defense.

The new tree looks like PGI thinks everyone run RVNs with 2ERLLs or every Light mechs pilot sees nothing but SPLs.

[Bud Crue]

Clownwarlord, on 04 March 2017 - 12:58 AM, said:

Just a thought, but what if this new skill tree is just step one. Second step would be to balance the base stats, to help bring bad mechs up. Step three might be a ways away if it happens but introduction of weight class specific or roll specific skill tree (with some extra SP to spend).

Just a thought at what might happen in the future, but for all the grips this could just be step one. Would be nice if we had a Town Hall and Russ was asked if this is the case, but I doubt it ... haven't had a Town Hall to ask questions in a long time. (Would also be nice to ask questions about future tech too.)

Methinks that town hall would not be nearly as informative as you hope. From a historical perspective, here's that town hall and how that question would be asked:

NGNG Guys: So Russ, now that we've rambled on for 3 hours about how great MWO is, lets take our final 37 seconds and take a question or two from the online audience. OK? First question, lets see. Ah here's one from Clownwarlord:

(Printed Question: "Is the Skill Tree implementation merely step one to a greater balance effort wherein quirks and baseline values will be reevaluated on a mech by mech basis, and lower performing mechs given buffs to compensate for their poor relative capabilities?")

Question as presented by NGNG: "Russ, love the Skills Tree! What's next?" Great question Clownwarlord! Yeah Russ, what's next? The Skills Tree has been universally praised so is it safe to assume that this is just the start of more greatness? I suppose Solaris will be right around the corner?!

Russ: Yes my skills tree is brilliant. Thanks for noticing.

NGNG Guys: Great town hall everyone thanks for participating!
---

[Acehilator]

Bud Crue, on 04 March 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

Methinks that town hall would not be nearly as informative as you hope. From a historical perspective, here's that town hall and how that question would be asked:

NGNG Guys: So Russ, now that we've rambled on for 3 hours about how great MWO is, lets take our final 37 seconds and take a question or two from the online audience. OK? First question, lets see. Ah here's one from Clownwarlord:

(Printed Question: "Is the Skill Tree implementation merely step one to a greater balance effort wherein quirks and baseline values will be reevaluated on a mech by mech basis, and lower performing mechs given buffs to compensate for their poor relative capabilities?")

Question as presented by NGNG: "Russ, love the Skills Tree! What's next?" Great question Clownwarlord! Yeah Russ, what's next? The Skills Tree has been universally praised so is it safe to assume that this is just the start of more greatness? I suppose Solaris will be right around the corner?!

Russ: Yes my skills tree is brilliant. Thanks for noticing.

NGNG Guys: Great town hall everyone thanks for participating!
---

Ahh rofl, good job. The burn is real

And then you realize: we all would like this game to be better

@OP: Come on Bishop, you should know better. That they included as many changes as they did from PTS1 to PTS2 is already a miracle.

[DjPush]

This was my suggestion on the skill trees:

https://mwomercs.com...n/#entry5635453

Picking one skill locks a complimentary skill.

[Mystere]

XtremWarrior, on 04 March 2017 - 01:07 AM, said:

Well, while trying to Skill up my Black-Knight on the PTS, i realised that the Weapons Tree actually "punish" boating.
An energy boat will have to spend points in a lot of Velocity / High Explosives / Ammo+ nodes to reach all the Heat Generation and Cooldown buffs.
I don't see that as a bad thing in general, but that's a bit frustrating when you have a Mech fitted with Energy Hardpoints only and you know that none of those nodes-step will actually do anything on your ride.

PS: ofc, you're not forced to get all those Heat Gen buffs but, then, less than half of the Weapon's Tree remains usefull...

It's not a bad thing in general?

It's absolutely terrible. You yourself gave the reason why.

s0da72, on 04 March 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

This is what I thought the skill tree was going to be, more like a project management triangle.

https://upload.wikim...ct-triangle.svg

https://en.wikipedia...gement_triangle

just replace fast, good, and cheap with fire power, armor, and speed...

If I pick pure fire power I need to sacrifice armor and speed, or if I pick armor I sacrifice speed and fire power.

You actually expect people terrible at project management to know what a project management triangle is?

Edited by Mystere, 04 March 2017 - 07:00 AM.

[XtremWarrior]

Mystere, on 04 March 2017 - 06:57 AM, said:

It's not a bad thing in general?

It's absolutely terrible. You yourself gave the reason why.

What i meant is that I could deal with wasting a few SP in Nodes i don't realy want to get the ones i want. It's not a great way to limit uber-optimisation, but it's one i could live with.
Though, there's a very big difference between unwanted nodes and totally useless nodes.

[C E Dwyer]

s0da72, on 04 March 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

This is what I thought the skill tree was going to be, more like a project management triangle.

https://upload.wikim...ct-triangle.svg

https://en.wikipedia...gement_triangle

just replace fast, good, and cheap with fire power, armor, and speed...

If I pick pure fire power I need to sacrifice armor and speed, or if I pick armor I sacrifice speed and fire power.

If I'm honest this is how I thought it would work until I saw the node mess at Mech con, which sent me into a rant and rage.

It's not as terrible as I imagined it was going to be, it still has the ability to work if p.g.i actually modify it to some extent be like a lot of the suggestions around here, but it's still not going to be as good as a triangle method

[Mystere]

XtremWarrior, on 04 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

What i meant is that I could deal with wasting a few SP in Nodes i don't realy want to get the ones i want. It's not a great way to limit uber-optimisation, but it's one i could live with.
Though, there's a very big difference between unwanted nodes and totally useless nodes.

Well, I myself frankly don't want to.

It's just terrible to force any nodes -- even if it is just a single one -- on any Mech that has nothing to do with it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 04 March 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well, I myself frankly don't want to.

It's just terrible to force any nodes -- even if it is just a single one -- on any Mech that has nothing to do with it.

I agree that any mech that cannot use a node, should be able to skip it... which is different that "i don't want this cuz it wont help me meta"... which can suck it, as far as I'm concerned.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Mystere, on 04 March 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well, I myself frankly don't want to.
It's just terrible to force any nodes -- even if it is just a single one -- on any Mech that has nothing to do with it.

I actually kinda like it WHEN it really penalises (or rather brings in line) boating a bit. If you have to pick a useless (for this boat) node to max out on all useful (for this boat) nodes, it practically means that you need to pay a bit extra for building a boat and maxing out its weapons, which is fine and good on the balance and gameplay. The price in nodes is there to balance out (a bit) for your mech already having an advantageous loadout. Yeah that MAY SEEM unfair/unfun/unreasonable to you as the boat owner, but it's practically the same as if the game would just make boats use two nodes for final unlocks, or giving bonus nodes to mixed builds, which wouldn't seem that unfair/unfun/unreasonable while providing exactly the same result. Well, almost exactly the same, as other options could most probably be exploited, while the one chosen by PGI cannot.

EDIT: The best solution here could be something like an option to "skip" nodes - you wouldn't need to PAY for the node you "skip" and could go from this node to nodes below, but you also wouldn't get any benefits from it and this node would still count towards the node limit. Something like that would ease on the perceived unfairness, while serving the same purpose - balancing boats a bit.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 04 March 2017 - 06:11 PM.

[Mystere]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 04 March 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

I actually kinda like it WHEN it really penalises (or rather brings in line) boating a bit. If you have to pick a useless (for this boat) node to max out on all useful (for this boat) nodes, it practically means that you need to pay a bit extra for building a boat and maxing out its weapons, which is fine and good on the balance and gameplay. The price in nodes is there to balance out (a bit) for your mech already having an advantageous loadout. Yeah that MAY SEEM unfair/unfun/unreasonable to you as the boat owner, but it's practically the same as if the game would just make boats use two nodes for final unlocks, or giving bonus nodes to mixed builds, which wouldn't seem that unfair/unfun/unreasonable while providing exactly the same result. Well, almost exactly the same, as other options could most probably be exploited, while the one chosen by PGI cannot.

EDIT: The best solution here could be something like an option to "skip" nodes - you wouldn't need to PAY for the node you "skip" and could go from this node to nodes below, but you also wouldn't get any benefits from it and this node would still count towards the node limit. Something like that would ease on the perceived unfairness, while serving the same purpose - balancing boats a bit.

If it's practically the same, why then choose doing something illogical over something logical?

I don't know about you, but to me this kind of thought process is lazy at best and outright stupid at worst.

But then again this is 2017 and anything can happen.

<Damn! Where is that extinction-level comet when you need one?>

Edited by Mystere, 04 March 2017 - 06:31 PM.

[Sjorpha]

My problem is this:

Someone actually designed the first skill tree iteration and thought it was good. I could perhaps have swallowed that with a bucket of salt.

But then the same someone looked at the feedback, went back to the drawing board, and made this second iteration...and it's just too much.

When the feedback was to make the weapons skill nodes generic weapon buffs with diminishing returns to combat boating, that someone instead mashed all the weapons skills into a huge clustercuck spiderweb of insanity, still super specific micro hell buffs but jumbled into a mess and...that's it, and seriously imagined that that was a plausible response to the feedback?

When engine decoupling from agility is discussed and some tentatively positive voices talk about how it might buff lights and mediums (sorely needed) that someone took that feedback, went back to the drawing board and implemented it in a way that is a gigantic nerf to...lights and mediums, wht?

When the feedback was to make the trees role specific, different from each mech, and to remove all instances of useless skills that does nothing for that mech blocking useful skills, that someone not only does not address this problem, but adds MORE of the same into the weapons tree. Again, what the hell?

I could test this more, I could perhaps make suggestions (as if there wasn't enough good suggestions already provided), I could go into dissecting the problems and so on.

But what makes me hesitate to put in that works is that the first skill tree iteration was clearly not the work of someone with the slightest clue or experience with designing skills and leveling in games. And the second iteration was clearly not the work of someone understanding the feedback given on the first, and it makse me despair.

I know it's the right thing to do to be constructive, I know I should try, but I'm too disillusioned right now.

[XtremWarrior]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 March 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

I agree that any mech that cannot use a node, should be able to skip it... which is different that "i don't want this cuz it wont help me meta"... which can suck it, as far as I'm concerned.

My thought, exactly.

[C E Dwyer]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 March 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

I agree that any mech that cannot use a node, should be able to skip it... which is different that "i don't want this cuz it wont help me meta"... which can suck it, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree also, but P.G.I haven't helped their cause by insisting on putting in skills that people so few people, ever used under the module system.

They should have sat down looked at all the data, as they always claim this is how they balance the game. To see that sensor skills and zoom get used, and that modules like hill climb, speed retention get used so little they might not exist, so we'll remove the the waste of space ones the ones that are used somewhat we'll include but put them out the way.

This is where a lot of the ranting comes from, people are being forced to take skills that none have ever taken from day one because they were clearly very bad.

Of course if P.G.I had used a sensible system like on world of warcraft (sighs I so hate that game, so using it as an example, of what's good galls me) which goes further than a triangle system, which would still be much better than what P.G.I presented us with.

There would be more people on board and less ranting towards nodes.

Of course what's also got under the skin of many people that did support P.G.I's inferior node system, like my self, is they're displaying all their worse habits once more, by slashing the survival skill armour and structure returns by 50% instead of sensible gentle increments.

This only erodes confidence people have in them, as it sadly shows that dartboard and club hammer balancing is still alive and healthy at P.G.I

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Mystere, on 04 March 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

If it's practically the same, why then choose doing something illogical over something logical?

I don't know about you, but to me this kind of thought process is lazy at best and outright stupid at worst.

But then again this is 2017 and anything can happen.

<Damn! Where is that extinction-level comet when you need one?>

Well, it is a PTS after all.

Sjorpha, on 04 March 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

My problem is this:

Someone actually designed the first skill tree iteration and thought it was good. I could perhaps have swallowed that with a bucket of salt.

But then the same someone looked at the feedback, went back to the drawing board, and made this second iteration...and it's just too much.

When the feedback was to make the weapons skill nodes generic weapon buffs with diminishing returns to combat boating, that someone instead mashed all the weapons skills into a huge clustercuck spiderweb of insanity, still super specific micro hell buffs but jumbled into a mess and...that's it, and seriously imagined that that was a plausible response to the feedback?

When engine decoupling from agility is discussed and some tentatively positive voices talk about how it might buff lights and mediums (sorely needed) that someone took that feedback, went back to the drawing board and implemented it in a way that is a gigantic nerf to...lights and mediums, wht?

When the feedback was to make the trees role specific, different from each mech, and to remove all instances of useless skills that does nothing for that mech blocking useful skills, that someone not only does not address this problem, but adds MORE of the same into the weapons tree. Again, what the hell?

I could test this more, I could perhaps make suggestions (as if there wasn't enough good suggestions already provided), I could go into dissecting the problems and so on.

But what makes me hesitate to put in that works is that the first skill tree iteration was clearly not the work of someone with the slightest clue or experience with designing skills and leveling in games. And the second iteration was clearly not the work of someone understanding the feedback given on the first, and it makse me despair.

I know it's the right thing to do to be constructive, I know I should try, but I'm too disillusioned right now.

Here, we differ in opinions. I wouldn't swallow the first iteration of the PTS with all the salt in the eart. For me, this one is far better. Still far from implementable, but a lot better. They addressed the issues we complained most about like P2W consumables, boating promotion, gigantic costs. Some smaller complaints were adressed too, like uneven structure bonuses for different tonnages. Decoupling was designed to balance out clan vs is differences, and it helps, but unfortunately the skill tree itself did not promote already best (mostly clan) mechs in the game. Now it's just time to whine PGI into using decoupling to balance the weight classess as well.

All in all, this PTS is IMHO a step in right direction. We'll need maybe 2 or 3 more to fix most problems, so as far as PGI does not tries to push it into live prematurely, we should be fine.

[Lightfoot]

I agree that the mechs should have inherent roles where maybe that path is easiest to apply the level-ups too.

I have to get back on Test to try more things out, but it seems to block experimentation and the use of different chassis variants. Going to have a lot of empty mech bays and a pile of CBills if this goes Live.

[Bud Crue]

Cathy, on 05 March 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

They should have sat down looked at all the data, as they always claim this is how they balance the game.

HA! I missed the rest of your post because I can't stop hysterically laughing.

If they use their vaunted "data" we are all REALLY screwed.

In the past they have claimed "data" showed that UAC performance on the Enforcer 5P and Shadow Hawk 3M was over performing and so two mechs that are rarely seen in game were nerfed...because data. The have claimed their data shows the Grasshopper 5P is the worst performing Grasshopper...the same Grasshopper comp teams consistently use in MRBC, the Grasshopper that is thee hopper of choice in CW; but their data shows it as being so bad that while the H, N and J have all been repeatedly (repeatedly!) nerfed since rescale, the 5P remains untouched because "data". Their data showed performance far "above internally established target values" for Gauss and UACs in ALL mechs mind you...at just after the time the Kodiak-3 was introduced. How odd, that the data failed to show such a problem before the Kodiak 3. Oh, and while we are on the subject, the data also apparently showed that ALL Kodiaks were over performing, thus necessitating ALL of them being repeatedly nerfed. Lets go further back...remember god tier Black Jack structure quirks? They cited data when called out for that. Yup, they suggested that their "data" suggested that this one mech, out of all mechs in the game...needed super duper structure quirks. What kind of data suggested that one mech needed the structure of an Atlas vs every other mech? Guess what they mentioned when those quirks were inevitably removed?

If such "data" is used to support their past and some current boondoggles, god help us all if they use the same sort of data for development of the skills tree.

Oh crud.

Edited by Bud Crue, 05 March 2017 - 06:12 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Sjorpha, on 04 March 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

But what makes me hesitate to put in that works is that the first skill tree iteration was clearly not the work of someone with the slightest clue or experience with designing skills and leveling in games. And the second iteration was clearly not the work of someone understanding the feedback given on the first, and it makse me despair.

That's exactly what I was thinking.
Given PGI's track record (Infotech PTS, Energy Draw PTS) we should feel lucky to have the game in it's current form. Either the people who had designed the core systems have already left the company, or it was a one-time stroke of genius .

I wanted a meaningful skill tree, but now I realize we might end up with a system that is even worse than what we had. Not only worse for the players. But worse for PGI itself.

Edited by Kmieciu, 05 March 2017 - 07:03 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 05 March 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

HA! I missed the rest of your post because I can't stop hysterically laughing.

If they use their vaunted "data" we are all REALLY screwed.

In the past they have claimed "data" showed that UAC performance on the Enforcer 5P and Shadow Hawk 3M was over performing and so two mechs that are rarely seen in game were nerfed...because data. The have claimed their data shows the Grasshopper 5P is the worst performing Grasshopper...the same Grasshopper comp teams consistently use in MRBC, the Grasshopper that is thee hopper of choice in CW; but their data shows it as being so bad that while the H, N and J have all been repeatedly (repeatedly!) nerfed since rescale, the 5P remains untouched because "data". Their data showed performance far "above internally established target values" for Gauss and UACs in ALL mechs mind you...at just after the time the Kodiak-3 was introduced. How odd, that the data failed to show such a problem before the Kodiak 3. Oh, and while we are on the subject, the data also apparently showed that ALL Kodiaks were over performing, thus necessitating ALL of them being repeatedly nerfed. Lets go further back...remember god tier Black Jack structure quirks? They cited data when called out for that. Yup, they suggested that their "data" suggested that this one mech, out of all mechs in the game...needed super duper structure quirks. What kind of data suggested that one mech needed the structure of an Atlas vs every other mech? Guess what they mentioned when those quirks were inevitably removed?

If such "data" is used to support their past and some current boondoggles, god help us all if they use the same sort of data for development of the skills tree.

Oh crud.

They also claimed the SMN Prime was an over performer..... which may have been true... except likely on the CT, Head and Legs were actually the prime. The rest were other omnipods slapped on to the Prime, probably by those with the Invasion model, to get their 30% cbill boost.

[oldradagast]

Kmieciu, on 05 March 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

That's exactly what I was thinking.
Given PGI's track record (Infotech PTS, Energy Draw PTS) we should feel lucky to have the game in it's current form. Either the people who had designed the core systems have already left the company, or it was a one-time stroke of genius .

I wanted a meaningful skill tree, but now I realize we might end up with a system that is even worse than what we had. Not only worse for the players. But worse for PGI itself.

It will be FAR worse for PGI. There is NO incentive to buy ANYTHING under the new system. You don't need 3 mechs of a kind anymore AND it takes a ton of XP and cbills to level your existing mechs, and it's not even a fun process. Instead, you have to waste time understanding the skill maze and searching through it, and then waste more time grinding through skills that are totally useless to get to the same batch of good ones that you'll put on most of your mechs. That's not fun.

I have no idea what they are thinking at this point, but clearly the future of the company and the game hasn't crossed their mind when they are proposing global nerfs, de-leveling people's mechs, punishing people for leveling mechs with more grind and useless skills, and removing any reason to buy new mechs or much of anything else.

Edited by oldradagast, 05 March 2017 - 09:32 AM.