45 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

the compensation model was only part of it

the fact the actual skill tree sucked, was just an overly complex min/max progression tree, and didnt force any hard choices on the player was the other part.

[MechaBattler]

Khobai, on 02 April 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

the compensation model was only part of it

the fact the actual skill tree sucked, was just an overly complex min/max progression tree, and didnt force any hard choices on the player was the other part.

It was fine to me. Everyone wanted freakin WoW talent trees. People need to be more realistic with their expectations.

[Y E O N N E]

justcallme A S H, on 02 April 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

That said the whole "you need these dozen useless skills to get to the one you want" was one of the larger gripes, if that isn't addressed, there will still be fire as that goes against what PGI said it was attempting with the ST in the first damn instance. Letting the player "choose" what they want.

Eh, some skills are outright better than others. Would you rather they increase the cost of that skill directly or would you rather at least pick up some other incidental buffs to go along with obtaining that skill you want for the same cost?

Do agree that things like arm pitch and such on 'Mechs without lowers is quite obtuse.

[Khobai]

Quote

It was fine to me. Everyone wanted freakin WoW talent trees. People need to be more realistic with their expectations.

WoW talent trees failed though, thats why blizzard got rid of them. because they turned into min/max cookie cutter progression trees where everyone allocated points in the same exact way.

thats exactly how PGIs skill tree wouldve turned out... once people figured out how to min/max it, everyone would just allocate skill points the same exact way.

PGI should be learning from the mistakes of past games like WoW. For a skill tree to work, a skill tree needs to force players to make tough choices and gaining something should mean giving something up of equal or greater value. The way their skill tree is now its just going to get min/maxed and everyone will take the same exact skills because its the "best way" to allocate skill points.

What PGI needs to do is subdivide the skill tree into at least three different roles (like recon/skirmisher, striker/assault, command/support). And force each player to choose one role per mech. Choosing a role would mean cutting yourself off from the skills of the other two roles. It would be an actual choice then. And it would be impossible to min/max something like that. That would also add better teamwork/tactical gameplay to the game since youd have to rely on other players for skills you dont have. PGI promised us role warfare and thats what they need to do to give us role warfare: add roles to the game.

Edited by Khobai, 03 April 2017 - 08:51 AM.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 02 April 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

the compensation model was only part of it

the fact the actual skill tree sucked, was just an overly complex min/max progression tree, and didnt force any hard choices on the player was the other part.

MechaBattler, on 02 April 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

It was fine to me. Everyone wanted freakin WoW talent trees. People need to be more realistic with their expectations.

Meh! I would not have given even a tiny whimper if the concept of a "skill tree" was abandoned altogether. I say let the player's actual skills shine (or not).

Do we really need one? If not, I'd rather PGI spent their very limited resources doing something else.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 April 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

Do agree that things like arm pitch and such on 'Mechs without lowers is quite obtuse.

You're being very polite with your choice of word.

[Khobai]

Quote

Meh! I would not have given even a tiny whimper if the concept of a "skill tree" was abandoned altogether. I say let the player's actual skills shine (or not).

Do we really need one? If not, I'd rather PGI spent their very limited resources doing something else.

I hear what youre saying.

And I feel the answer is we dont need a skill tree if it doesnt add anything tactical to the game or promote teamwork.

But if a skill tree does make the game more tactical and promotes teamwork, then its worth adding.

Which is why I think the skill tree should be subdivided into different roles and each player can only choose one role per mech. That allows you to specialize in one particular area but it also forces you to depend on other players for the things you arnt specialized in. That would promote teamwork more than the game does now.

Edited by Khobai, 03 April 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[MechaBattler]

I agree with you Mystere. They should rename it to Module Trees. It makes more sense. It makes no sense that your skill would allow you to get more range out of lasers. It's not like you have ninja senses that let's you find the path of least air resistance. The name is to misleading. It should be called something that applies to the mech, not the pilot.

But I personally would like to see the "skill' trees come in.

Khobai I don't think we're going to be able to make roles more important without adding mechanics that require them. But frankly I hated that sort thing in other games. "Plz change 2 support! We need a tank!"

I've heard others say that roles are what your team makes of them.

[JediPanther]

SWTOR still does skill tree and progression better. That game can be a challenge when you turn off the companion and use trash gear. In mwo I just run lrm only builds with no tag,bap,uav or back up weapons.

[Athom83]

Khobai, on 03 April 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

WoW talent trees failed though, thats why blizzard got rid of them. because they turned into min/max cookie cutter progression trees where everyone allocated points in the same exact way.

thats exactly how PGIs skill tree wouldve turned out... once people figured out how to min/max it, everyone would just allocate skill points the same exact way.

Not like the current system has everyone have the exact same skills and design the exact same build for every mech pre-approved for meta from websites by "professional" players... oh wait a second.

[Lozruet Gravemind]

Khobai, on 03 April 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

WoW talent trees failed though, thats why blizzard got rid of them. because they turned into min/max cookie cutter progression trees where everyone allocated points in the same exact way.

thats exactly how PGIs skill tree wouldve turned out... once people figured out how to min/max it, everyone would just allocate skill points the same exact way.

PGI should be learning from the mistakes of past games like WoW. For a skill tree to work, a skill tree needs to force players to make tough choices and gaining something should mean giving something up of equal or greater value. The way their skill tree is now its just going to get min/maxed and everyone will take the same exact skills because its the "best way" to allocate skill points.

What PGI needs to do is subdivide the skill tree into at least three different roles (like recon/skirmisher, striker/assault, command/support). And force each player to choose one role per mech. Choosing a role would mean cutting yourself off from the skills of the other two roles. It would be an actual choice then. And it would be impossible to min/max something like that. That would also add better teamwork/tactical gameplay to the game since youd have to rely on other players for skills you dont have. PGI promised us role warfare and thats what they need to do to give us role warfare: add roles to the game.

Think what you are suggesting is a split skill tree. Example here would be that Mobility and Durability should start as one tree. If you want Full Speed Tweek well sorry your not going to be able to go all the way, or even half way, down the Durability side of the tree. Ill agree here that the tree needs to have a trade off for some tress, weapons it would just force boating.

[Lozruet Gravemind]

Athom83, on 03 April 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

Not like the current system has everyone have the exact same skills and design the exact same build for every mech pre-approved for meta from websites by "professional" players... oh wait a second.

Yeah. It doesnt matter what "System" PGI puts in there will be a optimum way to use it and people will game the system. There is a reason that the term "Min/Maxer" and "Munchkin" started with the original hobby game, Dungeons and Dragons. When you let your players control ANYTHING in your game they will find a way to break it and they will use that method of breaking it.

[Athom83]

Lozruet Gravemind, on 03 April 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yeah. It doesnt matter what "System" PGI puts in there will be a optimum way to use it and people will game the system. There is a reason that the term "Min/Maxer" and "Munchkin" started with the original hobby game, Dungeons and Dragons. When you let your players control ANYTHING in your game they will find a way to break it and they will use that method of breaking it.

And this is precisely my problem with the arguments against the skill tree saying "min/maxers will break the system and everyone will just copy". It assumes that 1) No one is doing it currently, 2) That there will be an "optimum" that applies for every mech as every mech is the exact same, 3) That the skill tree system was designed so you had to pick between whole trees instead of picking a majority and only having to chose between the ends of the trees.

[Khobai]

Quote

Think what you are suggesting is a split skill tree. Example here would be that Mobility and Durability should start as one tree. If you want Full Speed Tweek well sorry your not going to be able to go all the way, or even half way, down the Durability side of the tree. Ill agree here that the tree needs to have a trade off for some tress, weapons it would just force boating.

no im not suggesting a split skill tree. what im suggesting is that you have to choose one of three roles like recon/skirmisher or striker/assault or command/support

depending on the role you choose that determines what skills you have access to.

you would basically have to choose whether you want mobility (recon/skirmisher) or durability (striker/assault)

you could never have both. you could never partially split skill points between both. it would be a one or the other choice. but its a choice thats meaningful and profound and affects how each mech plays.

Quote

And this is precisely my problem with the arguments against the skill tree saying "min/maxers will break the system and everyone will just copy". It assumes that 1) No one is doing it currently, 2) That there will be an "optimum" that applies for every mech as every mech is the exact same, 3) That the skill tree system was designed so you had to pick between whole trees instead of picking a majority and only having to chose between the ends of the trees.

The skill tree isnt a secret though. weve seen it. I can say with certainty that if it goes live the way it was, it will absolutely be min/maxed and will degrade into everyone using the same exact cookie cutter builds. Like I said PGI needs to learn from the mistakes of other games, and understand why they changed their skill trees away from a min/max system to a system that actually affects choice for players.

Again the current skill tree should be subdivided into roles. If people are forced to pick roles its impossible to min/max the sklil tree because youll only have access to your chosen role's skills. Your role will force you to specialize in certain areas and depend on teammates for the areas you arnt specialized in. That dependency on other players makes the game more teambased and tactical.

Edited by Khobai, 03 April 2017 - 02:58 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 03 April 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

Meh! I would not have given even a tiny whimper if the concept of a "skill tree" was abandoned altogether. I say let the player's actual skills shine (or not).

Do we really need one? If not, I'd rather PGI spent their very limited resources doing something else.

Agreed. If people want progression, allow them to unlock random goodies for their mech they are devoting time to playing, NOT something that impacts gameplay.

Khobai, on 03 April 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

But if a skill tree does make the game more tactical and promotes teamwork, then its worth adding.

Skill trees are the wrong thing to be looking at for that, since that should be a core feature, not something that is unlocked after playing some.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 02:58 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Skill trees are the wrong thing to be looking at for that, since that should be a core feature, not something that is unlocked after playing some.

Most games with skill trees dont let you start with all your skill points. So I dont think thats true.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 03 April 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Most games with skill trees dont let you start with all your skill points. So I dont think thats true.

Those are different, those are all single player games or co-op PvE games. PvP games that don't give you all the skill points to begin with generally don't fair so well with the NPE and MWO is no different (granted it is a minor concern compared to other NPE issues).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 03:03 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Those are different, those are all single player games or co-op PvE games. PvP games that don't give you all the skill points to begin with generally don't fair so well with the NPE and MWO is no different (granted it is a minor concern compared to other NPE issues).

league of legends didnt start you off with all your skill points right away and its the most popular online game of all time. so I dont think what youre saying is even remotely true.

having to grind out skill points isnt a big deal. most people dont care if they have to grind out skill points.

the grind isnt the problem with most skill trees in games. the lack of choices is the problem with most skill trees. a lot of game's skill trees end up just getting min/maxed and cookie cuttered and everyone picks the same exact skills because its the most optimal way to distribute skill points. and ultimately the grind doesnt feel worth it because youre ending up in the same place as everyone else.

Thats why a skill system that forces you to choose a role and actually delivers on PGI's role warfare promise is way better.

Edited by Khobai, 03 April 2017 - 05:22 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 03 April 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

league of legends didnt start you off with all your skill points right away and its the most popular online game of all time

It can also get away with it because the genre is one of the most popular.

Khobai, on 03 April 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

the grind isnt the problem with most skill trees in games. the lack of choices is the problem with most skill trees. a lot of game's skill trees end up just getting min/maxed and cookie cuttered so everyone picks the same exact skills because its the most optimal skill setup there is.

EVERY skill tree is susceptible to min/maxing....

[justcallme A S H]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 April 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

Eh, some skills are outright better than others. Would you rather they increase the cost of that skill directly or would you rather at least pick up some other incidental buffs to go along with obtaining that skill you want for the same cost?

Do agree that things like arm pitch and such on 'Mechs without lowers is quite obtuse.

The million dollar question in some cases.

See PGI touted Skill Tree as a way to "customise your mech, how you want it".


Now this is taken from the last iteration of the PTS. A meta build SB, with all the stuff it needs to make it awesome




Now there is a BIG bunch of quirks added into it. Quite a few of them absolutely useless for the build that is on the mech.

So the questions are

1. Is that really "customising a mech how you want it"? If you have a dozen quirks you don't want/need?
2. Is this making things more or less confusing? That is a dumb amount of quirks IMO, crazy even. And that isn't the only mech that is like that, lots of them are.

I don't think what was set out to be achieved was even close to being delivered and that screenshot sums up why.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 03 April 2017 - 05:25 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

EVERY skill tree is susceptible to min/maxing....

except skill trees that are completely open ended are far more prone to min/maxing than skill trees which force you to choose a role/class and limit you to picking skills limited to that role.

because when you have to choose a role/class it automatically locks you out of the skills for the roles/classes you didnt choose.

For example instead of being able to max out both mobility and durability you would have to choose between mobility (recon/skirmisher role) or durability (striker/assault role). You could no longer take both and would have to make a meaningful choice about which to take, because it would mean giving up the other.

And a system that divides players into different skill specializations means they have to rely on their teammates more for the skills they arnt specialized in. That improves gameplay. Its just a much better way of doing things that learns from the failures of other games like WoW.

Edited by Khobai, 03 April 2017 - 05:34 PM.