Skill Tree Status Update
#1
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:21 PM
#2
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:25 PM
Apologies for the length of the above post, but we wanted to express some of our thoughts on the missteps regarding the original proposal for transitioning from the old system to the new, leading into a brief insight into the direction going forward.
As mentioned in the post we're going to continue work on the Skill Tree in preparation for another phase of PTS testing in the future. We'll keep everyone updated once we complete some key work and further solidify some changes.
#3
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:25 PM
Also, please, please go linear instead of intertwined. Just think how much easier it is going to be to balance nodes if they are in a straight line and not tied to anything else. Just adjust the cost of nodes to balance out the relative power of the skills. More powerful skills, higher cost nodes.
#4
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:29 PM
WIll now go back to read...
#5
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:32 PM
Edited by CK16, 13 March 2017 - 06:54 PM.
#6
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:33 PM
#7
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:34 PM
#8
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:35 PM
#9
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:38 PM
While So1ahma's tree isn't perfect, I agree it's probably the absolute best suggestion I've seen out there. I sincerely hope that it's taken into sincere consideration for future iteration on the skill tree. It really is one of the best compromise solutions out there, even if it could use tweaking.
A perfect dream-world plan (personal perspective) would be to implement a tree like So1ahma's plan and just have the number of spendable nodes per tree specific to each mech. A few XML lines per chassis/variant stating exactly how many points a mech can spend per tree doesn't seem impossible . . . it's little more than another "quirk" or property of the mech. I understand that Russ stated that we can't have a unique tree for every variant out there, but this would be the next best thing.
Not only would that help control balance and be easier to tweak and tune in the long run, but it'd also help reinforce the roles of certain mechs (Example: Wolfhound gets 15 points for Survival but only 5 for Sensors, while a Raven gets only 5 for Survival but 15 for Sensors). Oh, and for the love of all that's holy every node should be worth considering taking, if something is considered "useless" then obviously it needs to be buffed to be made usable! Fewer nodes with greater impact would also be greatly appreciated in this manner.
EDIT: As another note of feedback building on other ideas and the desire that "NO PROGRESS WILL BE LOST" maybe consider setting the limit of the skill tree in XP spent, instead of number of nodes, and have nodes have distinct costs. Do you want a lot of passive stuff like armor, structure, and turn rate for lower costs, or do you want fewer bigger nodes like Radar Dep. and Seismic for a bigger cost? Just saying that the thought has some merit for consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, thank you for postponing this and deciding to refine it. I'm sure it wasn't easy to look at something that was obviously a "baby" for Russ and/or Chris and go "we screwed up, and more work needs to be done" but it's really for the best. This makes me actually look forward to future PTS runs on the skill tree system.
Edited by Sereglach, 13 March 2017 - 06:41 PM.
#10
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:39 PM
#11
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:39 PM
#12
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:39 PM
#13
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:40 PM
That method seems best to inspire diverse loadouts, while not punishing boating either.
#14
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:40 PM
Looking forward to your new proposal in the future and in the meantime I am enjoying all the new modules I have bought in the last few weeks :-)
Cheers!
#15
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:42 PM
Please remember, that the most devoted feedback providers dont want "things their way". They want to make this game better for every player. They are here to help you.
#16
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:46 PM
#17
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:46 PM
Here's hoping it doesn't get squashed into a quiet never-shows-up-ness like the previous attempts at bringing something new to the game.
#18
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:46 PM
#19
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:49 PM
Edited by process, 13 March 2017 - 06:49 PM.
#20
Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:51 PM
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users