17 replies to this topic

[Reno Blade]

I see a lot of people saying most branches are way too scattered...

Would you prefere to have the weapon branch separated in certain groups/lanes instead like in Option 1 or 2?

EDIT: added option3
EDIT: added more poll options for total % and %-per-node
EDIT: added new design for radial role-based all-in-one tree as option 5

Current PTS2 Weapon skill branch colored by type

Spoiler

Option1
Regrouping for multiple "lanes" with same number of Nodes per type:

Spoiler

Option2
Regrouping of attribute types with some number changes also:

Spoiler

Option3
Lanes per weapon attribute with max values
edit: missed green cooldown text (14x 0.85% = 12%)

Spoiler

Edit 2017-03-05:

Adding Option 4
Radial starting point with skill types grouped next to each other (eg. heat between missiles and energy)

Spoiler

EDIT: 2017-03-06:
Adding Option 5 (role based radial tree)
Ok, now I've went ahead and created my own radial attribute based role-tree.

Nodes in tier 2, 3 and 4 (outer region) cost more, but also provide more bonus.

Unlocking a tier will provide certain extra bonus values.

Skirmisher preset uses
5 red (operation) nodes unlocking tier3 operation bonus
3 white (sensor) nodes unlocking tier2 sensor bonus
10 purple (firepower) nodes unlocking tier4 weapon bonus
12 blue (mobility) nodes unlocking tier4 mobility bonus



Command preset uses
12 red (operation) nodes unlocking tier4 operation bonus
1 white (sensor) nodes
4 purple (firepower) nodes unlocking tier3 weapon bonus
13 yellow (defense) nodes unlocking tier4 defense/survival bonus
10 green (command) nodes unlocking tier4 command bonus (incl. aux and other module improvements)

Edited by Reno Blade, 06 March 2017 - 12:10 PM.

[Bud Crue]

I'd prefer a skills tree where we can pick a path to go down. That simple. Take your last option presented above. Why do I have to start at the top of the grey path? Why can't I just go down the red path or the green path?

Oh because PGI wants to force you to make "choices". Well If I could take the red path then I have less ability to take other paths. That ought to be the choice.

The problem with any version of the current tree is the fact that PGI treats all nodes equally when we all know that they are not. If some nodes are useless remove them, and if necessary reduce the number of nodes available. If some nodes are of different value than others, then make that part of the decision making tree. But the current tree and even all of your options still require a path through nodes that are either useless, or of no value to specific builds. That's not choice it a sink to force you to waste your "choice"; nothing more. No matter how you color code it or organize it, the current tree is designed and laid out to force irrelevancy on the chooser for zero reason other than to make you waste your nodes. That's stupid, and I don't think PGI is going to change it.

[Cato Phoenix]

The last option is better than the current.

However, I still feel something like Alistair's linear-branched layout would be better. I'd have to see the specific nodes to judge your idea against that.

[Reno Blade]

Would you take 10 red nodes to gain 15% heat and nothing else?

I would imagine that taking cooldown AND heat / range AND possibly weapon specific buffs together.
Then you would spend over 20 points anyway, so the path itself is irrelevant.

Current scattered layout provides less benefit for min-max, as that would mean you try to only invest in one specific trait (e.g. cooldown).
That means the current branch favors heavy investment for multi-weapon-class mechs, as they gain the full benefit of the scattered cd and heat nodes.

In summary the scattering just increases the investment vs gain. (e.g. 15 nodes to reach 5% rather than just 5 nodes).
It's just a method of making it more difficult (where you need to choose) rather than providing linear lines of skill X times for Y%.

BUT in the end, the result would be similar:
Linear trees would need to have different amount of nodes to balance.
e.g. (requested linear layouts)
10 nodes to gain 10% heat
15 nodes to gain 10% cooldown
5 nodes to gain 25% PPC velocity
2 nodes to gain hill climb

Using higher % per nodes allow for les number of Nodes, but requires to have "filler" to reach, so the total amount of investment would be the same. (similar to current layout)
e.g. 5 nodes to gain 10% heat, but 5 "filler" between (could be velocity or range)
e.g. 5 nodes to gain 10% cooldown, but 10 "filler" between (could be heat or spread)
e.g. 2 nodes to gain 25% PPC velocity, but 3 "filler" between (could be heat or cooldown)
e.g. 1 nodes to gain full hill climb%, but 1 "filler" between (could be sensor range or movement speed)

In the end, the difference is that we will still GAIN the benefit of the filler nodes.
I think that it shows the benefit if you invest heavily in a tree without trying to focus on a single attribute, but the overall % of the gained fillers are very low if you only try to reach that single attribute.

[Gentleman Reaper]

I'm going with a variation of PTS2. Keep the general give-or-take idea, but move the ballistic and missile trees off to the side, and combine duration with velocity.

I simply don't think that linear trees will be good for the game, you just get a crap-load of min-maxing and it doesn't really present a good choice for speccing the same build. I'm fine with the concept behind the current trees, although I wouldn't be against role-based trees.

[Reno Blade]

EDIT: added option3
EDIT: added more poll options for total % and %-per-node

Option3
Lanes per weapon attribute with max values, as people ask for something like that.
Aiming for about 10-15% total buff value in about 10-12 nodes here.

edit: missed green cooldown text (14x 0.85% = 12%)

Edited by Reno Blade, 05 March 2017 - 12:37 AM.

[Pyed]

I voted for "my own" because I don't think there's a good way to fix the web structure that both doesn't encourage boating and isn't going to result in cookie-cutter choices.

That being said I prefer your layouts to PGI's.

Edited by Pyed, 04 March 2017 - 01:51 PM.

[Rogue Jedi]

here is an example of my only real problem with the system as it is.

On Live I would only take cooldown modules if my Mech runs cool, if I am looking for heat reduction it is because my Mech runs hot and I absolutely do not want the hot running Mech to fire faster, so why would I take a cooldown quirk increasing rate of fire and therefore generate more heat to get to a heat reduction quirk which by that point is doing little or nothing?

I would want 1 or the other but certainly not both, some people may want both so taking both should be an option, but not compulsary, in most cases you literaly have to unlock the cooldown quirk to get at the heat reduction quirk, so literaly have to make your Mech run hotter to access the run cooler quirk which effectively maintains the current heat level and therefore is useless to me.

other examples are having to unlock torso quirks to get to the arm quirks, arm and torso are inderpendant so why unlock one to get to the other?

most of the trees have simular issues.

I am also not a fan of the pricing although that has dropped from crippeling to mearly high, especialy for people who are also trying to save up for Mechs ^{(I get most of my Mechs through the preorders and will have enough cbills refunded to master my favorate 20 or so Mechs, so not realy a problem for me, although remastering all my 200 or so Mechs would take several years, so I will probably just sell most of the ones I do not use reguraly)}

Edited by Rogue Jedi, 04 March 2017 - 02:26 PM.

[Cato Phoenix]

+1 to RJ, echoing that sentiment.

[Reno Blade]

I think many players take cooldown as the priority, even if it makes your mech hotter.
It might be better to be able to push out more burst dmg and then cool down a bit longer vs. sustained dps.

Firing 3 volleys faster than your opponent does can decide the battle.
If you also hit where you need to, you will have the upper hand.
That's why so many people are so angry they need to "waste" SP on "useless" nodes.

If you have anything you like to see as an option here that can be done with photoshop, let me know.

[Chound]

Bud Crue, on 04 March 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

I'd prefer a skills tree where we can pick a path to go down. That simple. Take your last option presented above. Why do I have to start at the top of the grey path? Why can't I just go down the red path or the green path?

Oh because PGI wants to force you to make "choices". Well If I could take the red path then I have less ability to take other paths. That ought to be the choice.

The problem with any version of the current tree is the fact that PGI treats all nodes equally when we all know that they are not. If some nodes are useless remove them, and if necessary reduce the number of nodes available. If some nodes are of different value than others, then make that part of the decision making tree. But the current tree and even all of your options still require a path through nodes that are either useless, or of no value to specific builds. That's not choice it a sink to force you to waste your "choice"; nothing more. No matter how you color code it or organize it, the current tree is designed and laid out to force irrelevancy on the chooser for zero reason other than to make you waste your nodes. That's stupid, and I don't think PGI is going to change it.

Inteesting but I would use 5 nodes adn maybe 20-30% as the rate of change. Putting the poll before the text without any clarification is confusing. Linear tree model.

[Chound]

Reno Blade, on 04 March 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Would you take 10 red nodes to gain 15% heat and nothing else?

ifference is that we will still GAIN the benefit of the filler nodes.
I think that it shows the benefit if you invest heavily in a tree without trying to focus on a single attribute, but the overall % of the gained fillers are very low if you only try to reach that single attribute.

That's not the point the skills we end up having to take AREN'T the ones we want. You're only giving us 91 nodes. so to get radar derp for instance to get that one node we also have to take 6 other nodes meaning 7 nodes have been used. those other 6 nodes could have been for other items we want. Is PGI trying to balance the game by penalizing us for wanting ceertain attributes on our mechs. They should not say we can choose individual skills. We can choose traits but to get one you may have to use other nodes to get to them. Spell it out explictly. If I was paying for this game I would be howling to consumer protection about dfeceptive practices used in describing elements of this game and see what THEY have to say about it.

[Reno Blade]

Adding Option 4
radial starting point with skill types grouped next to each other (eg. heat between missiles and energy)

[R Valentine]

Fewer is always better. 91 points is too many. That's way more complicated than it needs to be, especially for new players.

[Cato Phoenix]

I like the radial one.

[Reno Blade]

Ok, now I've went ahead and created my own radial attribute based role-tree.

Nodes in tier 2, 3 and 4 (outer region) cost more, but also provide more bonus.
Unlocking a tier will provide certain extra bonus values.

Skirmisher preset uses
5 red (operation) nodes unlocking tier3 operation bonus
3 white (sensor) nodes unlocking tier2 sensor bonus
10 purple (firepower) nodes unlocking tier4 weapon bonus
12 blue (mobility) nodes unlocking tier4 mobility bonus




Command preset uses
12 red (operation) nodes unlocking tier4 operation bonus
1 white (sensor) nodes
4 purple (firepower) nodes unlocking tier3 weapon bonus
13 yellow (defense) nodes unlocking tier4 defense/survival bonus
10 green (command) nodes unlocking tier4 command bonus (incl. aux and other module improvements)

[Bud Crue]

Reno Blade, on 06 March 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

Ok, now I've went ahead and created my own radial attribute based role-tree.

Nodes in tier 2, 3 and 4 (outer region) cost more, but also provide more bonus.
Unlocking a tier will provide certain extra bonus values.

I like the layout and the mechanics, but with exception: I think the "outer region nodes" should certainly cost more but you need diminishing returns when you get to that level. In other words you want more bang for the buck early on, lest veteran players utterly dominate those new to the system. Other than that quibble, I would love the system you have illustrated.

[Reno Blade]

In general the radial all-in-one tree is not much different than the current split into different branches...
I added the tier-rings, but that can also be done by lines in the current branches.

theoretically similar to current full Elite = 2x basic skills


I would actually take no diminishing return, but 2x basic bonus for previous tier once unlocking next tier.
Let’s take the example here.


Skirmisher preset uses
5 red (operation) nodes unlocking tier3 operation bonus
3 white (sensor) nodes unlocking tier2 sensor bonus
10 purple (firepower) nodes unlocking tier4 weapon bonus
12 blue (mobility) nodes unlocking tier4 mobility bonus

you could have such levels:

Unlock first skill point (tier1) cost 1 SP
1% (node1) x 1 node = 1%

Unlock second skill points (tier2) cost 2 SP
1.5% x 1 (node2)
+ 1% x 1 (node1) x 2 (tier2 bonus)
= 3.5% for 3 SP

Unlock third skill point (also tier2) cost 2 SP and then the forth (first node in tier3) for 3 SP
2% (node4) x 1 node
+ 1.5% x 2 (node2 and node3) x 1.5 (tier3 bonus)
+ 1% x1 (node1) x2 (tier2 bonus)
= 8.5% for 11 SP

Now unlocking two more nodes (#6 in tier3 and #7 in tier4) for 3+ 4 SP would unlock the Tier4 bonus.
2.5% x1 (node7)
+ 2% x 3 (node4, 5 and 6) x1.2 (tier4 bonus)
+ 1.5% x 2 (node2 and node3) x 1.5 (tier3 bonus)
+ 1% x1 (node1) x2 (tier2 bonus)
= 16.2% for 18 SP

This is already some kind of diminishing return even with the bonus for tier unlocks.
Any further and you would spend a lot of SP to gain only 2% for 4SP (tier4).

Ofc there are more than one skill attribute to skill in each section which would make the larger % per node actually look fairly good, as it’s split between multiple attributes (e.g. operations using heat capacity and heat dissipation).

using current weapon tree, it could have tier levels, so it could lok like this:

Spoiler

Edited by Reno Blade, 06 March 2017 - 03:18 PM.