44 replies to this topic

[Queen of England]

My guess, after spending some time running through these trees to come up with these numbers, is that the gap between an optimized build and a less optimal will be wider than it is under the current system. Adding choice adds the ability to make incorrect choices, and the skill tree puts a lot of work into obfuscating the cost of things. If you're not willing to spend some time working out the actual cost of each node and making decisions accordingly, you're going to be at a significant disadvantage.

Fortunately, this community isn't big on competitive secrecy, so it probably won't be two long before we have some high-quality guides produced that can explain to people how they should be spending their 91 points if they want to be competitive.

[Bishop Steiner]

Queen of England, on 12 March 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

My guess, after spending some time running through these trees to come up with these numbers, is that the gap between an optimized build and a less optimal will be wider than it is under the current system. Adding choice adds the ability to make incorrect choices, and the skill tree puts a lot of work into obfuscating the cost of things. If you're not willing to spend some time working out the actual cost of each node and making decisions accordingly, you're going to be at a significant disadvantage.

Fortunately, this community isn't big on competitive secrecy, so it probably won't be two long before we have some high-quality guides produced that can explain to people how they should be spending their 91 points if they want to be competitive.

I'd say that the opportunity to make bad choices is greater, but so is the oppurtunity to make better choices, and "sidegrade" outside of the meta box.

People making bad choices is going to happen regardless. The boundaries between that, especially with the "meta" getting detuned slightly, are rather gray, even if most powergamers view everything in a very binary manner.

Again, the gap between "optimal" and "viable" should narrow. That doesn't mean that bad will be good. Those are two totally different things.

[BustedHipGaming]

Queen of England, on 12 March 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

My guess, after spending some time running through these trees to come up with these numbers, is that the gap between an optimized build and a less optimal will be wider than it is under the current system. Adding choice adds the ability to make incorrect choices, and the skill tree puts a lot of work into obfuscating the cost of things. If you're not willing to spend some time working out the actual cost of each node and making decisions accordingly, you're going to be at a significant disadvantage.

Fortunately, this community isn't big on competitive secrecy, so it probably won't be two long before we have some high-quality guides produced that can explain to people how they should be spending their 91 points if they want to be competitive.

So basically this boils down to:

Devs: OMG the players have figured out optimal builds, change everything!

Players: Hold my beer.

Devs, 1 week later: Well, crap. They have all the optimal builds figured out again. There goes 6 months of work.

[oldradagast]

Drewbicus, on 12 March 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

So basically this boils down to:

Devs: OMG the players have figured out optimal builds, change everything!

Players: Hold my beer.

Devs, 1 week later: Well, crap. They have all the optimal builds figured out again. There goes 6 months of work.

Ah, but then they can "Change everything!" again and again! New tech with new balance issues! A "rebalanced" skill tree every few months, and so on. Think of the fun! Think of the grind! Now, go buy some premium time and get cracking on regrinding that collection of yours.

Edited by oldradagast, 12 March 2017 - 02:15 PM.

[Dr Mlem]

For me when I tested it, I was first REALLY daunted with how much their was. After a bit of time I got use to it. But I just wish it wasn't so... Big. Just feels bloated to me, and that some choices aren't really choices and more of "damn I have to take this".

Overall it was alright, not the biggest issue in the skill tree for me. I understand why they have all the branches, but not sure if the execution was the best really. Ideally everything should be compelling, so hopefully they take a look at it.

[oldradagast]

Lazy Badger, on 12 March 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

For me when I tested it, I was first REALLY daunted with how much their was. After a bit of time I got use to it. But I just wish it wasn't so... Big. Just feels bloated to me, and that some choices aren't really choices and more of "damn I have to take this".

Overall it was alright, not the biggest issue in the skill tree for me. I understand why they have all the branches, but not sure if the execution was the best really. Ideally everything should be compelling, so hopefully they take a look at it.

You are seeing them attempt to substitute GRIND for CONTENT. "Look at all the pretty skills in such a beautiful web! Isn't it pretty? So many choices!" *players then work out the handful of viable skill maze builds and start regrinding all their mechs slowly back to the same builds.*

The skill tree should have been a simple setup: choose a Role for each mech (Fire support, Scout, Brawler, Skirmisher) and then there are about 20 skill per Role, with you being able to have 1 Role and 12 skills of that Role active per mech. That's it. No need for trash skills, tangled mazes, 91 (seriously, why that number?) skill choices, etc. Oh, and of course - NO RESPEC COST.

It could have been simple, numerous players on the PTS forum, myself included, suggested such an idea, and it would have been far easier to work with than the mess we're getting.

Like Community Warfare, the skill maze is just going to be another long-festering disappointment and yet another crumbling "pillar of the game."

Edited by oldradagast, 12 March 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

Why the maze lay out? Because PGI wants you to pay for going after what you want. By pay I mean they want you to pay for that item like radar derp a few more nodes than to just give it to you. That way if you want it you most likely will have to give up something else you want because of the extra nodes you have to burn to get it.

While I do not like wasting nodes I do see the merit in why PGI is doing this, because it will help drive diversity through what is more important to you and your mech might be different to others. Although there will be some who just follow what others will deem the meta and just copy paste to their mech.

[Trev Firestorm]

Kin3ticX, on 12 March 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

It prevents min maxing. There are many skills you can shave in a linear tree and then go in and get tanky and all the weapon quirks you desire(assuming you still had 91 points). Thats the crux of it. You cant cherry pick just the select skills, you have to invest more points to stack.

... You know there is no such thing as preventing min-maxing right? It just means different things depending on the system its working within.

[Johnny Z]

Kin3ticX, on 12 March 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

They are doing it so that you have to invest more points to get all of something. For example if you want ALL speed tweak you have to get ALL mobility instead of just 4 or 5 pts into speedtweak.

They dont want you to min max it without a tradeoff

A linear tree is not going to happen

Makes sense.

A larger engine in a car means a heavier car with worse handling and lower fuel economy, it isn't all up side.

If the mech is customized for speed without adding weight using after market equipment, it would also have other benefits as well. So this mech tree sounds like it makes sense.

Edited by Johnny Z, 12 March 2017 - 03:54 PM.

[oldradagast]

Trev Firestorm, on 12 March 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

... You know there is no such thing as preventing min-maxing right? It just means different things depending on the system its working within.

Agreed, people are very confused between actually preventing min-maxing via real choices and just hiding the optimal skills behind false choices and grind taxes.

The skill maze doesn't "prevent min-maxing." It just slaps a grind tax on getting the same "required skills" that will be needed by all players on nearly all their mechs. Amid that tangled sea of trash, there are probably only a handful of competitive viable skill maze layouts, some weapon choices excluded. In short, it's no better, really, than claiming the module system "prevents min-maxing because you can't have all the modules on your mech." Yeah, and competitive players still always ran the same handful of modules.

The main problem, aside from the respec costs, is that the skill maze now makes the selection process far more confusing. The current system, as simplistic as it was, could easily be understood by any new player. Level up all your skills and then buy a module for that "big gun" you have on your mech. The new one... eh, not so much. Just another obstacle to new players, which is something MWO does not need.

Edited by oldradagast, 12 March 2017 - 03:55 PM.

[Trev Firestorm]

Johnny Z, on 12 March 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

Makes sense.

A larger engine in a car means a heavier car with worse handling and lower fuel economy, it isn't all up side.

If the mech is customized for speed it would also have other benefits as well. So this mech tree sounds like it makes sense.

The difference is your heavy car has a negative side where the mech tree doesn't really have a negative side, just an unwanted upside.

[Johnny Z]

Trev Firestorm, on 12 March 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

The difference is your heavy car has a negative side where the mech tree doesn't really have a negative side, just an unwanted upside.

True. I added the part about after market car/mech customization. Which give/would give higher performance at no weight cost.

I think this is what the tree is doing. I don't know anything until it goes live though at this point. I did try the test server a little, but I will earn some creds on live server instead of being to much on test server.

Even the best performance cars lose something like 5% power because of the exhaust. Just to keep the sound down, for example of after market customization. Mechs would have the same sort of things that could be replaced, seats or what ever, all the weight adds up, for cars and I guess mechs would have the same sort of customization options that are nearly unlimited in after market car or fictional mech customization.

Edited by Johnny Z, 12 March 2017 - 04:05 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

They are doing it so that you have to invest more points to get all of something. For example if you want ALL speed tweak you have to get ALL mobility instead of just 4 or 5 pts into speedtweak.

They dont want you to min max it without a tradeoff

Except that is exactly what will lead to min/maxing

Because people will figure out exactly what skills are and arnt worth investing more points to get.

The problem with the skill tree is that it doesnt actually force meaningful or tough choices on the player. Its just going to become cookie cutter min/max the way it is now.

[BustedHipGaming]

Khobai, on 12 March 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Except that is exactly what will lead to min/maxing

Because people will figure out exactly what skills are and arnt worth investing more points to get.

The problem with the skill tree is that it doesnt actually force meaningful or tough choices on the player. Its just going to become cookie cutter min/max the way it is now.

Right. So, we're back to what I said earlier: the solution is to actually make all the available skills worthwhile. If a skill can't be made worthwhile, take it out of the game. If it can be, make it useful. If needed, add new worthwhile skills. But the net result needs to be "make all the skills worthwhile."

[oldradagast]

Drewbicus, on 12 March 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

Right. So, we're back to what I said earlier: the solution is to actually make all the available skills worthwhile. If a skill can't be made worthwhile, take it out of the game. If it can be, make it useful. If needed, add new worthwhile skills. But the net result needs to be "make all the skills worthwhile."

Exactly. Forcing me to take Hill Climb to get, say, Seismic (just a made up example) is not "choice" anymore than offering both the Hill Climb and Seismic modules were "choice." Everyone took one of a handful of builds that were competitive. The skill mazes changes nothing, save for adding more grind and a tax on respecing.

[VanillaG]

Drewbicus, on 12 March 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

Right. So, we're back to what I said earlier: the solution is to actually make all the available skills worthwhile. If a skill can't be made worthwhile, take it out of the game. If it can be, make it useful. If needed, add new worthwhile skills. But the net result needs to be "make all the skills worthwhile."

There are no skills that are worthless in the trees. All skills give some kind of positive benefit with no downsides. Whether they make enough of a difference to fully invest in them is up to the player to decide.

People are still stuck on what is good based on the limited module slots in the current system. Under this system with there are clear winners and losers but with the new skill trees every node provides some benefit. Outside of some specialized builds, modules like Hill Climb, AMS Overload, or Shock Absorbance never made sense to take. With the new skill tree you can get some benefits of these modules while going after the ones you really care about.

As for wasting nodes to get to the "good ones" you need to remember that those skills and modules were behind some pretty steep grinds. Quick Fire, Speed Tweak, Doubled Basics, and Extra Module slots were behind the "Rule of 3" grind. All modules required a significant amount of GXP and CBills to acquire. Since those skills were already pretty grindy to acquire it makes no sense to make them cheap in the skill trees. Instead of looking at as wasting skill nodes to get the good stuff look at it as getting some free stuff along with your good stuff. Because if they went with linear trees the good nodes would cost more than the average stuff and you would not be getting average stuff for free.

[JC Daxion]

RestosIII, on 12 March 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

Maybe there's a reason we don't care about that other stuff. Maybe because it's,.. worthless? For instance, arm skills on a Jagermech. There's no point, but if you want speed tweak, you need to grab them. It's things like that which could get changed and make the system so much better.

So every mech that does not need arm nodes, gets bonus points? Every mech that boats, gets bonus points.. EXT

So unless there is a major map change, where torso only mechs have a down side outside of very rarely because of steep mountains. The already get pluses already due to convergence this is the best option.

It's pretty much the same as hill humpers, Till they make UNDER Shooting a thing, hill humping and high mounts are a better way to go often. People complain about low slung arms all the time. BUT if they make maps that take advantage of that, like shooting under and over pass, or maybe in a giant factory facility ect.

I just find it so interesting how often people complain about the arm nodes, You only need a couple points in them in the first place.

[BustedHipGaming]

VanillaG, on 12 March 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

There are no skills that are worthless in the trees. All skills give some kind of positive benefit with no downsides. Whether they make enough of a difference to fully invest in them is up to the player to decide.

People are still stuck on what is good based on the limited module slots in the current system. Under this system with there are clear winners and losers but with the new skill trees every node provides some benefit. Outside of some specialized builds, modules like Hill Climb, AMS Overload, or Shock Absorbance never made sense to take. With the new skill tree you can get some benefits of these modules while going after the ones you really care about.

As for wasting nodes to get to the "good ones" you need to remember that those skills and modules were behind some pretty steep grinds. Quick Fire, Speed Tweak, Doubled Basics, and Extra Module slots were behind the "Rule of 3" grind. All modules required a significant amount of GXP and CBills to acquire. Since those skills were already pretty grindy to acquire it makes no sense to make them cheap in the skill trees. Instead of looking at as wasting skill nodes to get the good stuff look at it as getting some free stuff along with your good stuff. Because if they went with linear trees the good nodes would cost more than the average stuff and you would not be getting average stuff for free.

Yes, there are some that are worthless. Examples would include weapon upgrades for weapons your mech is not carrying or doesn't even have hardpoints for; ECM upgrades onmechs that can't carry them, Jump Jet upgrades on mechs that can't use them, etc. And there are plenty that are worth so little (like hill climb) that it's ridiculous to imagine anyone would ever take it intentionally if they had any other option.

Repeat: the solution to the problem is to make ALL the skills actually worth taking, SIGNIFICANTLY worthwhile, so that even if you allowed people to pick skills without a tree, just pick and choose, ALL skills would be in use in a meaningful way. If a skill cannot be made useful to that level it should not be in the game, or should not cost as much to buy as a more useful skill.

This whole skill tree layout is just a mask for a poorly-balanced set of available skills, period.

[VanillaG]

Drewbicus, on 12 March 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

Yes, there are some that are worthless. Examples would include weapon upgrades for weapons your mech is not carrying or doesn't even have hardpoints for; ECM upgrades onmechs that can't carry them, Jump Jet upgrades on mechs that can't use them, etc.

And none of those nodes are in a space where they are required to be taken. They all exist in either dead end nodes or in separate trees. As for the firepower nodes, you have access to the generics from both the laser and ballistic sides of the trees. The only way that you would be taking weapon nodes for which you have no hardpoints is if you cross into the branch to pick up more of the generic nodes or if you are boating just missiles.

Drewbicus, on 12 March 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

And there are plenty that are worth so little (like hill climb) that it's ridiculous to imagine anyone would ever take it intentionally if they had any other option.

That is totally subjective. Even if the trees were more linear you would most likely end up with points that you would not use due to the depth of the trees. In that case you can either do nothing with them or start picking up the less worth while nodes which puts you back to what they have designed.

[R Valentine]

PGI just wants to wreck the new player experience further. The maze isn't just wasted points. It's also super confusing for newer players, who have no idea what they should be getting with what points, and it's also going to ruin their loadouts as they try to load sup-par weapons on their mechs just to use those points that PGI makes you waste.