42 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Having seen the previous versions of the skill tree and a new version pending, I'm curious if there is a minimum set of expectations that the community agrees needs to be included.

The current skill tree message being put out is providing fair and full compensation for exp and modules. It also talks about reducing the number of clicks required to navigate through the skill tree.

However, is there anything else you think needs to be incorporated in the foundation of the skill tree?

While there are minor points that I would like to see, there are only about four requirements I have to keep me playing the game.

1.I shouldn't lose any progress I've already made

2. I shouldn't feel daunted looking at the amount of nodes I have to click through

3. No cost to go back to a node I've used previously

4. Node design has to be such I am not forced to pick unneeded/unwanted skills


One big item on my list is not having to select skills that I don't need or don't want for my current mech build. I don't think I will like, or use, any skill tree that forces me to pick up nodes because a dev thinks it's some kind of balancing feature when the skill tree itself could be designed from the ground up to avoid wasted points.

Another big design concept is no penalty for experimenting with builds. I should never have to rebuy anything that I already unlocked once. No issues with a first time purchase of a node, but once it's unlocked I should be able to go back to it anytime free of charge.



So what are your requirements for the skill tree?

[Appogee]

Based on PGI's prior approach in these kinds of situations, we will likely see a tweaked version of the previous plan ... not a major rework of the underlying system.

I suggest everyone should calibrate their expectations accordingly. It's unlikely PGI will walk away from most of what they already coded. Much more likely they will keep the trees, shuffle a few nodes around, and tweak refund values.

FWIW, my main concern with the Skill Tree model that they withdrew was that, by removing quirks, it would accidentally widen the advantage of Clan Tech and chassis over IS. The rest I could live with, despite the many downsides that we all pointed out.

Edited by Appogee, 11 April 2017 - 05:20 AM.

[Kangarad]

A wider spread of the clan > is and total Balance. Since many IS mechs WILL lose most of they'r quirks with no compensation while the skill tree is the same for both sides and offers far more upgrades than our current one making strong mechs even stronger.


TBH id never have enough Cbills to max all the mechs I had before unless they start showering us with it.

[R Valentine]

I have zero expectation, given how much they ruin every good idea they try.

[El Bandito]

I do not care if I have to invest more XP than before. The annoying 3 for 1 system is going away, which is what I wanted. C-Bill cost of leveling is something I will keep close watch on, instead.

I do not care about having to click through 90 nodes, cause while I have about a hundred mechs, I main only about 20 of them, or less. I'll worry about leveling the extras when they actually become useful, in future balance passes.

While having no cost to respec is ideal, I do not mind small penalty, as PGI is running a F2P game, and they need C-Bill/XP sink.

I do not care if I have to pick several less useful skill to max out my desired skill. Min maxing should come with increasing cost.

[Acehilator]

Can we just wait for the next skill tree PTS please?

[ScrapIron Prime]

Acehilator, on 11 April 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

Can we just wait for the next skill tree PTS please?

Nope. Forum boards gotta forum. =P

[Athom83]

I expect certain mech variants to get a larger boost from select nodes than other variants of the same chassis. Although, the bare minimum expectation is where the last PTS was with some slight changes to refunds, placement, etc.

[AphexTwin11]

"Upcoming"

Edited by AphexTwin11, 11 April 2017 - 06:35 AM.

[Roughneck45]

Less nodes to click and maybe a more linear path for upgrades.

I'm most curious how module conversions will be handled.

Edited by Roughneck45, 11 April 2017 - 06:42 AM.

[Mystere]

I have no problem if they just entirely dumped the idea of a "skill" tree. Do we really need one in MWO? I'd rather just let individual player skill shine (or not).

Edited by Mystere, 11 April 2017 - 07:15 AM.

[Coolant]

I just hope it gets released and not pushed back again. If you read the road map the wording does allow for pushing it back depending on the next public test.

If you have something to say about it this time, wrap your constructive criticism in grace and not bitterness and consider others rather than yourself.

[Ruar]

Coolant, on 11 April 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

I just hope it gets released and not pushed back again. If you read the road map the wording does allow for pushing it back depending on the next public test.

If you have something to say about it this time, wrap your constructive criticism in grace and not bitterness and consider others rather than yourself.

People are going to disagree. Saying someone is bitter because they disagree doesn't help. Saying to think of the other person when you disagree is basically saying do it my way instead of yours.

There will never be 100% agreement, but we can do better than what we last saw. A lot of people want the skill tree and want it pretty much anyway it is because they desire a change. A lot of people want the skill tree but want it implemented in a logical, though out, and effective way and are willing to wait to get a good skill tree instead of any skill tree.

Personally I'm in the group that would rather have an effective change instead of any change. I also think all of the material needed to make an effective skill tree has been posted and it's just a matter of whether or not the devs swallow their pride and implement the player suggestions.

Which is kind of the point to this thread... to see if there is some kind of consensus on what the players feel the skill tree needs to look like instead of simply waiting for whatever we are handed.

[Mcgral18]

Tree Traversal


#PGIPLZ

[dario03]

Balance.
Module refund in cbills as stated.
Cost same or lower than the last version we saw.

[ANOM O MECH]

Not holding my breath but would really love to see the skill tree or maze as some have called be simplified. By a lot.

[JediPanther]

I just want to pick the skills I have an interest in without skills I don't need or want. Why take skills for arms when the mech I use has no arms etc? Ideally we'd all be able to focus on a play style or weapon system focused build such as putting lrm velocity,lrm range,lrm cool down, lrm target decay, and faster lock on to make one hell of a lrm support mech. For a "pure scout" maybe things like target range increased,uav duration increases, faster target info data, faster counter ecm and the like.

One thing we all hated were skills that didn't work for a mech or were universal to them all like pinpoint convergence speed. I don't mind the rule of three going away. I still have two or three variants of a mech chassis just because I like mixed builds. Raven 4x was the only raven able to ac 20 until huggin came out. I have both including the 3l.

[cazidin]

My expectations are as follows;

Minor changes to the skill tree, with a bias towards IS because quirks are heavily nerfed.

More nodes. PGI keeps ADDING nodes, even though that's part of the problem!

No fewer than 5 different threads complaining about the latest iteration of the skill tree.

No fewer than 1 different thread complaining about the cost, which I'll probably make.

A small dumpster fire on the island of people who really should shut up, buy a mechpack and be darn grateful for it!

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScrapIron Prime, on 11 April 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

Nope. Forum boards gotta forum. =P

Becuase, Drama post are soooooo much fun

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 11 April 2017 - 01:54 PM.

[oldradagast]

Kiran Yagami, on 11 April 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

I have zero expectation, given how much they ruin every good idea they try.

Agreed. My minimum expectations, which I'm reasonably sure will NOT be met:

- Minimal grinding of mechs I've already mastered and module refund as promised in money, not worthless points you can spend on the 91-point (and ever growing) skill maze.

- No respec penalty: such a thing has no place in game where experimenting with new builds is a key part of its interest and fun

- A logical user interface and skill placement. No lunacy of endless clicking, hiding good skills behind trash ones or forcing me to take skills that are basically worthless (hill climb... exciting) or literally worthless (missile buffs for my mech with only energy hardpoints.)

- ROLES. I know it will never happen, but I want ROLES in the skill tree, not just the same tangled maze of stupid skills that we all grind through to get to the same handful of skills nearly every mech will have every time

- Nothing else stupid being introduced at the same time: this include nerfing all the IS mechs, decoupling engine size from mobility to punish brawlers and mechs with big engines, etc. I have almost no faith in PGI being able to produce a decent skill system, so having them combine its release with that of some other ill-conceived and poorly tested junk idea is a recipe for disaster.

Edited by oldradagast, 11 April 2017 - 02:36 PM.