47 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Davegt27, on 06 March 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

I have to mostly agree
its PGIs game lets just get it over with

I just sit staring at my screen at all those dang nodes

after awhile I started dropping with no mods to my Mechs

You know.... I went in trying to "maximize" nodes.....and got burned out at it.
I went in the last two nights, just comparing same mechs, different nodes, and actually found it a lot easier and more interesting, not to mention insightful. Big thing is how the differences programmed into each mech and class DO impact the various nodes, and really impacts what is worth it or not... it's overall being a lot less linear "check boxes A, B and C" than expected... and certainly a lot more interesting than we have now. Not always "better" but in truth, that's real hard to judge until we see them live, 12v12, and what the net impact is.

That said... it's still fitting to be a major NPE migraine.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 March 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

You know.... I went in trying to "maximize" nodes.....and got burned out at it.
I went in the last two nights, just comparing same mechs, different nodes, and actually found it a lot easier and more interesting, not to mention insightful. Big thing is how the differences programmed into each mech and class DO impact the various nodes, and really impacts what is worth it or not... it's overall being a lot less linear "check boxes A, B and C" than expected... and certainly a lot more interesting than we have now. Not always "better" but in truth, that's real hard to judge until we see them live, 12v12, and what the net impact is.

That said... it's still fitting to be a major NPE migraine.

I found myself with pretty much all hybrid builds, different from mech to mech, because so many factors influenced which skills I wanted for any given chassis.

Mechs with more arm.mounted weaponry found Agility less valuable (as I didn't need to rely on torso targeting), how much I'd invest in weapons varied by how many weapon types I brought, as running 2-3 weapon types makes the firepower tree more effective.

The Jump Jet tree is awesome - makes a HUGE difference on my HGNHM and EXE, so it's a must have for me mech I intend to be actually jumping with ((as opposed to single JJ manueverability)...

And more so, I found myself more and more willing to just bite a little bit into a tree, rather than viewing them as all or nothing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 March 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

It's not a "swipe" at competitive crowd.

I didn't take it as such, just indicating there are some differences in roles. Though I will admit while they are played differently the weapons may not differ much between two weight classes.

[Mechteric]

I like the idea of the skill tree, my main disappointments with the implementation of it currently are:

* 91 skill nodes to master - that's just too much. Half that would be reasonable (with corresponding increase in XP cost for a node, and decrease in available nodes by making the nodes have larger jumps in bonuses).

* It shouldn't cost CBills to buy a node. Charging a reasonable CBill amount for respec only.

* It's more of a skill web than skill tree, would like to see it where you didn't have to purchase nodes that have nothing to do with what you are after just to get there.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 06 March 2017 - 12:58 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

CapperDeluxe, on 06 March 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

* It's more of a skill web than skill tree, would like to see it where you didn't have to purchase nodes that have nothing to do with what you are after just to get there.

People keep asking for this and I'm not quite sure why. It leads to the exact thing PGI is trying to avoid: Predetermined min-max skill selection and builds that further discourages variety. Bishop was correct; By needing to spend skill points on skills, that are otherwise useless for your build, to obtain the penultimate tier of a specific skill should make your build less efficient than those mixing weapon types, for example. Because specificity (Boating) in MWO is inherently powerful due to its simplicity with clear cut pros and cons - This is a powerful advantage. Mixed builds should get more efficiency from the skill tree as they are inherently less powerful than their one-trick pony counterparts.

Sacrifice and planning versus laying everything out in nice, neat rows and categories that does nothing but encourage more of the same tunnel-visioned builds... Which is precisely what the first skill tree iteration did and why it was revamped in the first place.

Sure, there are other ways to potentially accomplish this goal with neatly organized trees, such as having the bonuses be of such benefit as to require contemplation before selection... It could work that way. When it comes down to it, neat or messy, people are going to work out the "most effective" layouts for the "most effective" builds. It's not as clear cut with the spiderweb layout as it would be with neatly organized trees, though.

Edited by DrxAbstract, 06 March 2017 - 01:30 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

DrxAbstract, on 06 March 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

People keep asking for this and I'm not quite sure why. It leads to the exact thing PGI is trying to avoid: Predetermined min-max skill selection and builds that further discourages variety. Bishop was correct; By needing to spend skill points on skills, that are otherwise useless for your build, to obtain the penultimate tier of a specific skill should make your build less efficient than those mixing weapon types, for example. Because specificity (Boating) in MWO is inherently powerful due to its simplicity with clear cut pros and cons - This is a powerful advantage. Mixed builds should get more efficiency from the skill tree as they are inherently less powerful than their one-trick pony counterparts.

Sacrifice and planning versus laying everything out in nice, neat rows and categories that does nothing but encourage more of the same tunnel-visioned builds... Which is precisely what the first skill tree iteration did and why it was revamped in the first place.

Sure, there are other ways to potentially accomplish this goal with neatly organized trees, such as having the bonuses be of such benefit as to require contemplation before selection... It could work that way. When it comes down to it, neat or messy, people are going to work out the "most effective" layouts for the "most effective" builds. It's not as clear cut with the spiderweb layout as it would be with neatly organized trees, though.

This is largely what I determined the more I messed with it. Boating and Specialization is it's own bonus in a game like this. This makes stacking ADDITIONAL bonuses on top of that a lot more sticky.... but by the same token really benefited more rounded builds. At the end of the day, in most cases those focused builds are probably STILL going to be strongest.... but this potentially allows of some narrowing. Maybe not enough to matter to the 1%, top`tier guys.... but it likely will close the gap some for the rest of the community.

I get some people are unhappy they don't have the clear cut path to minmax nirvana, at least in the current sense of the term minmax (aka minimum effort/maximum benefit), but it does actually seem to point things a bit more toward the traditional meaning of the term... to MINimize one attribute so you could MAXimize another.

Again, it's not perfect, but it IS actually better thought out than the shotgun swiss cheese it first appears to be.

[Bishop Steiner]

And got moved again...... must have been getting too many responses for their comfort level. *SMH*

[The6thMessenger]

Honestly, this change is scary. Now it's a ******* headache how can i properly distribute the nodes, and trial-error part is rather expensive considering that i have to do this for every mech, and it's quite a stress to get it right with the least try as possible or it's going to be more expensive than it is. But i guess it's fine, I agree with most of your points.

[Malrock]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 March 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

This is largely what I determined the more I messed with it.  Boating and Specialization is it's own bonus in a game like this. This makes stacking ADDITIONAL bonuses on top of that a lot more sticky.... but by the same token really benefited more rounded builds. At the end of the day, in most cases those focused builds are probably STILL going to be strongest.... but this potentially allows of some narrowing.  Maybe not enough to matter to the 1%, top`tier guys.... but it likely will close the gap some for the rest of the community.

I get some people are unhappy they don't have the clear cut path to minmax nirvana, at least in the current sense of the term minmax (aka minimum effort/maximum benefit), but it does actually seem to point things a bit more toward the traditional meaning of the term... to MINimize one attribute so you could MAXimize another.

Again, it's not perfect, but it IS actually better thought out than the shotgun swiss cheese it first appears to be.

If by thought out you meant they actually have a design intent here, then yeah they do.  I would submit is is poorly thought out and not a good one but there is intent.  The design goal was to force you to basically take the whole tree if you were going to go into said tree.   But if you mean well thought out in a way that gives you actual meaningful choices then no.  The only choice is which of the 7 to move into, the shape of the tree means to get the bonuses you have to take almost the whole tree.  

If you play with the dang tree long enough you see it isn't really much of a question about individual talents. It makes little sense to dip lightly into any tree.   Currently you basically choose 4 out of the 7 trees and take 20 or so skills in each.  If you want the true benefits of the tree you have to take almost the whole thing. So your choices boil down to which 4 of the 7 trees do I want to take? Firepower, survival, mobility, jumpjets, operations, sensors, and auxilliary are you only choices.  In my opinion you should have just 4 talent points and you can put them into one of the 4 choices listed above.  Pick each tree and get the bonuses.  Should super simplify the process of speccing your mech, and the tedium of assigning all 91 points and making sure you avoid the 2-4 garbage points that you don't have to take to move through the trees.    

They nerfed survival so it is pretty easy choice now days, you take ops for heat mgmt, agility for speed and twist, weapons to pew pew better , and sensors to find enemies, and you basically take all the nodes in those trees minus just a few maybe 2-4 that you can skip with somewhat creative path finding.    (obviously not filling out the entire weapon tree, just getting your primary weapon buffs, but lets be fair the weapon tree really has 3 mini trees inside it and you choose the one mini tree you want to use)

aux = a way to give yourself negative c bill income, and jump jets while a fun tree, doesn't stack up.  Not because the bonuses to JJ are bad, they are quite good now, but because you  are just better off in the other trees. Some mechs might take JJ over sensors if they really love flying but otherwise most mechs will chose the 4 trees i outlined above.  

The only thing that does seem to reward slightly dipping into the tree is the zoom module.  If you want the zoom module you can actually dip in for just that with minimal points, but otherwise the trees are basically all or nothing.

Edited by Malrock, 06 March 2017 - 03:54 PM.

[DaZur]

Malrock, on 06 March 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

The only thing that does seem to reward slightly dipping into the tree is the zoom module. If you want the zoom module you can actually dip in for just that with minimal points, but otherwise the trees are basically all or nothing.

I dunno... I'm actually finding a certain level of "diminishing returns" with intent to fill the tree/web. I haven't quite nailed it but I think there's a sweet-spot just short of completion that is better to save a few points for elsewhere.

More putzing will bare it out for me...

[TKSax]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 March 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

The longer I tinker with it, the less concerned I am.

Yes...there are plenty of things that need adjusting, value wise, there are things I would like to see further refined or "fixed", yes. And overall, compared to the hype put into it, and what COULD have been done.....it is underwhelming.

But generally speaking, conceptually, it's not the End of Days like certain broken records like to pronounce (and oddly the same thing they generally pronounce on a weekly basis for one reason or another, anyhow)..... and honestly, taking several of the same chassis and kitting them out with different skill node combos has been pretty interesting tbh.

Bishop I wish I could share your optimism. The Problem is I fear if people do not break down every issue and explain it to PGI and even make a stink about, PGI will implement as is. Then never address or take 2 years to return to fixing it. This is one of the reason I am gun shy about change from PGI and I think other's are to. If you don't break down every thing you don't like and sometimes make a big deal out of small things PGI will forget about it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Malrock, on 06 March 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

If by thought out you meant they actually have a design intent here, then yeah they do.  I would submit is is poorly thought out and not a good one but there is intent.  The design goal was to force you to basically take the whole tree if you were going to go into said tree.   But if you mean well thought out in a way that gives you actual meaningful choices then no.  The only choice is which of the 7 to move into, the shape of the tree means to get the bonuses you have to take almost the whole tree.  

If you play with the dang tree long enough you see it isn't really much of a question about individual talents. It makes little sense to dip lightly into any tree.   Currently you basically choose 4 out of the 7 trees and take 20 or so skills in each.  If you want the true benefits of the tree you have to take almost the whole thing. So your choices boil down to which 4 of the 7 trees do I want to take? Firepower, survival, mobility, jumpjets, operations, sensors, and auxilliary are you only choices.  In my opinion you should have just 4 talent points and you can put them into one of the 4 choices listed above.  Pick each tree and get the bonuses.  Should super simplify the process of speccing your mech, and the tedium of assigning all 91 points and making sure you avoid the 2-4 garbage points that you don't have to take to move through the trees.    

They nerfed survival so it is pretty easy choice now days, you take ops for heat mgmt, agility for speed and twist, weapons to pew pew better , and sensors to find enemies, and you basically take all the nodes in those trees minus just a few maybe 2-4 that you can skip with somewhat creative path finding.    (obviously not filling out the entire weapon tree, just getting your primary weapon buffs, but lets be fair the weapon tree really has 3 mini trees inside it and you choose the one mini tree you want to use)

aux = a way to give yourself negative c bill income, and jump jets while a fun tree, doesn't stack up.  Not because the bonuses to JJ are bad, they are quite good now, but because you  are just better off in the other trees. Some mechs might take JJ over sensors if they really love flying but otherwise most mechs will chose the 4 trees i outlined above.  

The only thing that does seem to reward slightly dipping into the tree is the zoom module.  If you want the zoom module you can actually dip in for just that with minimal points, but otherwise the trees are basically all or nothing.

Initially this was my thought, too. Continued testing has shown if not to be so, I actuality.

[Queen of England]

I'd much rather see a linear skill system with escalating costs that the maze/filler nodes.

A system where I can take Range 1/Range 2/Range 3/etc. in a line paying 1 point/2 points/3 points/etc. is much more comprehensible than a system where I take Range 1/various unrelated things/Range 2/various unrelated things/Range 3/etc, even when each system gives similar bonuses at similar skill points invested.

We're going to need to go through this skill tree dozens (or hundreds) of times; it needs to have much simpler leveling than MMORPG where you might only level 2 or 3 characters a year.

[MechaBattler]

Queen of England, on 06 March 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

I'd much rather see a linear skill system with escalating costs that the maze/filler nodes.

A system where I can take Range 1/Range 2/Range 3/etc. in a line paying 1 point/2 points/3 points/etc. is much more comprehensible than a system where I take Range 1/various unrelated things/Range 2/various unrelated things/Range 3/etc, even when each system gives similar bonuses at similar skill points invested.

We're going to need to go through this skill tree dozens (or hundreds) of times; it needs to have much simpler leveling than MMORPG where you might only level 2 or 3 characters a year.

And thereby once more benefiting boating more.

[Queen of England]

MechaBattler, on 06 March 2017 - 05:39 PM, said:

And thereby once more benefiting boating more.

I guess I don't see that at all. Escalating costs favor generalists, not specialists. The specific example I used was a skill that benefits all existing weapons systems. In what way does a linear tree with escalating cost favor mono-weapon builds?

Maybe I wasn't very clear?

My proposal is:

Range 1 costs a single skill point.
Range 2 costs 2 additional skill points (for a total of 3 invested in Range).
Range 3 costs 3 additional skill points (for a total of 6 invested in Range).

Getting to Range 10 would cost a total 55 skill points (for ~60% of all your skill points on a mastered 'mech.)

Edited by Queen of England, 06 March 2017 - 05:44 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Queen of England, on 06 March 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

I guess I don't see that at all. Escalating costs favor generalists, not specialists. The specific example I used was a skill that benefits all existing weapons systems. In what way does a linear tree with escalating cost favor mono-weapon builds?

So we would just get rid of gauss charge and the rest?

[Queen of England]

MechaBattler, on 06 March 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

So we would just get rid of gauss charge and the rest?

I'd think you'd just put it off as a branch of one of the "main" trunks. You'd have your major, general skills, like "range", "cooldown", "velocity", "armor hardening", "speed tweak", etc. that apply to everything, and then branches off of various levels of node that give the more specialized stuff.

[MechaBattler]

Queen of England, on 06 March 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

I'd think you'd just put it off as a branch of one of the "main" trunks. You'd have your major, general skills, like "range", "cooldown", "velocity", "armor hardening", "speed tweak", etc. that apply to everything, and then branches off of various levels of node that give the more specialized stuff.

But then you have to spend more points to get the same efficiency as a boating build. Where as with the current skill tree each specialization leads you to a cluster of cooldown or heat reduction skills, rewarding you for using multi-weapon builds. Where as if you wanted wring every bit of cooldown with a boating build, you'd have to take some skills that don't benefit you.

[Queen of England]

MechaBattler, on 06 March 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

But then you have to spend more points to get the same efficiency as a boating build. Where as with the current skill tree each specialization leads you to a cluster of cooldown or heat reduction skills, rewarding you for using multi-weapon builds. Where as if you wanted wring every bit of cooldown with a boating build, you'd have to take some skills that don't benefit you.

Ah, OK. I see that, but I don't think it's worth the annoyance of the current PTS system. If the system went live as it is right now, I probably just won't skill my 'mechs to avoid the hassle. Even if it only takes 30 seconds a 'mech it will still take me an hour to get them all leveled up, and I'd probably give them all the same skills to avoid hunting for weird stuff.

Edited by Queen of England, 06 March 2017 - 06:04 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Queen of England, on 06 March 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Ah, OK. I see that, but I don't think it's worth the annoyance of the current PTS system. If the system went live as it is right now, I probably just won't skill my 'mechs to avoid the hassle. Even if it only takes 30 seconds a 'mech it will still take me an hour to get them all leveled up, and I'd probably give them all the same skills to avoid hunting for weird stuff.

It is daunting at first, but that actually well hamstring a lot of your mechs. This actually allows you to tune to the strength of each variant, as opposed to the glut of must haves that it would appear at first, or that a linear tree would still encourage. This setup will take more effort, but any legit customization does. The big concern for me is NPE, and I feel you should be able to access the Testing Grounds before actually "buying in".