549 replies to this topic

[DangerousOne]

The whole idea about new skill tree is broken and vicious from the very beging. Current skill tree system is way better than that that is in the development. And that new skill tree can't become better becaus of it's fundamental flaws.

[Hayek Lahiri]

Krucilatoz, on 25 April 2017 - 07:52 PM, said:

My Suggestion :

JUST PUT IT ON LIVE SERVER IMMEDIATELY.

Example #9001 of "How to kill your game."

[Sevronis]

Hmm.. I'm pretty sure I'd rather get a cbill refund on all my non-consumable modules... not just the ones after december. Sure I can use those GSP on skill points, but was looking forward to having a lot of cbills to spend on changing up loadouts...

[DangerousOne]

Katastrophe Kid, on 25 April 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

I've played on the test server and I have found my Assault Mechs greatly diminished in performance due to the engine decoupling. I find this unacceptable. The engine provides power to the mech's drive chain, so it doesn't make sense that it wouldn't enhance performance. One of the main reasons listed for changing it is because Clan omni-mechs are locked with their engine size. So what? That's the trade off for having a mech that can swap hardpoints. I call BS. If my favorite mech is diminished then I doubt I'll feel like playing as much, if at all. One of the defining characteristics of the KGC is its agility and mobility. Take that away from me and everyone else who likes playing assaults, and you'll have matches that are almost exclusively lights and mediums.

I do like the skill trees though, my one gripe is: why fall damage reduction in survival tree? Wouldn't that make more sense in the jump jet tree?

1. Yeah why don't you (PGI) instead of desyncing engine just give to omnimechs ability to change engines.
2. The whole idea of useless skills interloping with useful skills is totally vicious.

[process]

DangerousOne, on 25 April 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

1. Yeah why don't you (PGI) instead of desyncing engine just give to omnimechs ability to change engines.

Desync has the potential to not only boost mechs (not just omnis) with low engine caps, but to reign in certain mechs, i.e. Kodiaks, that can carry oversized engines without much risk. If anything the desync only punishes omnis that have large engines by reducing the benefits of said engines.

And if certain mechs are underperforming with the desync system, PGI can always adjust the base agility stats on a per-chassis basis, which I think is preferable than conflating quirk values with engine attributes.

[SFC174]

process, on 25 April 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

Desync has the potential to not only boost mechs (not just omnis) with low engine caps, but to reign in certain mechs, i.e. Kodiaks, that can carry oversized engines without much risk. If anything the desync only punishes omnis that have large engines by reducing the benefits of said engines.

And if certain mechs are underperforming with the desync system, PGI can always adjust the base agility stats on a per-chassis basis, which I think is preferable than conflating quirk values with engine attributes.

But with the introduction of the LFE, IS mechs can now carry bigger engines without the associated ST instakill of current IS XL setups. So that issue really goes away.

Decoupling seems to permanently nerf the mobility of some of the bigger mechs. As I've progressed in my skills I've come to really value mobility, so I really enjoy playing upengined Assaults like the MAD-IIC, trading a little firepower for increased speed and agility. If they're going to feel numb and unresponsive, I don't care to play them - but the real point is, why can't I choose to favor mobility over increased firepower? This whole skill tree and associated changes just seem to crush the creative nature of this game.

[Iron Buccaneer]

Major nerf to IS mechs. A kind of across the board nerf to people who own modules and know how to use them. Discourages me from buying mechs including spending real money on new mechs.

The only end game this game has is buying new mechs and messing around with them. This just makes me want to reduce my current stable even more.

Mechs that were not that great to begin with will now be useless. We will stop seeing most IS mechs which is already a problem.

It's a shame they spent so much time and effort on this that could have been spent on more content. Making factions and faction play worth playing. Creating more maps and modes. Adding more mechs. Just about anything other than this waste of time.

[process]

SFC174, on 25 April 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

But with the introduction of the LFE, IS mechs can now carry bigger engines without the associated ST instakill of current IS XL setups. So that issue really goes away.

Decoupling seems to permanently nerf the mobility of some of the bigger mechs. As I've progressed in my skills I've come to really value mobility, so I really enjoy playing upengined Assaults like the MAD-IIC, trading a little firepower for increased speed and agility. If they're going to feel numb and unresponsive, I don't care to play them - but the real point is, why can't I choose to favor mobility over increased firepower? This whole skill tree and associated changes just seem to crush the creative nature of this game.

LFEs, as far as we can guess, will offer across-the-board benefits for IS chassis. However, they won't help chassis with low engine caps or omnis with small locked engines.

PGI's initial implementation of the decoupling may be heavy-handed, but I believe the intent is good, namely, ensuring some consistency in agility based on weight class. I think the skill tree could offer the trade-off you mention, but that won't help individual chassis that are currently underperforming or overperforming.

My position is the concept is sound, even if it takes a few iterations to get it right.

[El Bandito]

process, on 25 April 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

Unless I'm figuring this wrong, that's up to 142 future mechs I can master without even dropping once. Neat, I suppose, but I wonder if PGI really thought through whether that's desirable for their game.

I'd rather have those GSPs to be C-Bills so I can actually buy 142 mechs in the first place. Especially due to consumable slot inflation, I need all them C-Bills for my consumables! Not GSP.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 April 2017 - 09:49 PM.

[Arkhangel]

Katastrophe Kid, on 25 April 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

I've played on the test server and I have found my Assault Mechs greatly diminished in performance due to the engine decoupling. I find this unacceptable. The engine provides power to the mech's drive chain, so it doesn't make sense that it wouldn't enhance performance. One of the main reasons listed for changing it is because Clan omni-mechs are locked with their engine size. So what? That's the trade off for having a mech that can swap hardpoints. I call BS. If my favorite mech is diminished then I doubt I'll feel like playing as much, if at all. One of the defining characteristics of the KGC is its agility and mobility. Take that away from me and everyone else who likes playing assaults, and you'll have matches that are almost exclusively lights and mediums.

I do like the skill trees though, my one gripe is: why fall damage reduction in survival tree? Wouldn't that make more sense in the jump jet tree?

uh.... dude? the King Crab is actually NOT known for its mobility. it's mostly known as a mech that has realllllly @#$%ing big guns in its arms.

and the fact is.. Heavier assaults aren't unplayable, it just means you have to learn to deal with NOT being agile. start using cover, play smart, don't rush in headlong like a moron. Fact is.... well.. to put it bluntly, maybe you just suck as an Assault pilot. or at least as a heavier Assault pilot. the engine Decouple will help the hell out of Mechs like Zeuses, Victors, Awesomes, Gargoyles, Warhawks, etc, because they're the lighter end of the class, instead of every tom, **** and harry going for the biggest most massive Assault they can use.

SFC174, on 25 April 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

But with the introduction of the LFE, IS mechs can now carry bigger engines without the associated ST instakill of current IS XL setups. So that issue really goes away.

Decoupling seems to permanently nerf the mobility of some of the bigger mechs. As I've progressed in my skills I've come to really value mobility, so I really enjoy playing upengined Assaults like the MAD-IIC, trading a little firepower for increased speed and agility. If they're going to feel numb and unresponsive, I don't care to play them - but the real point is, why can't I choose to favor mobility over increased firepower? This whole skill tree and associated changes just seem to crush the creative nature of this game.

you do realize there's a mobility tree in the Skill tree right? if you want it, just invest in that... also... again.. be aware, the engine decouple just means you can't TURN as quickly. doesn't mean you can't still go a decent clip. just means you might have to learn to PRE-align before you run a firing pass on a guy.

[Sereglach]

Overall, I think the refund process is exponentially better than it was before. I understand the concerns over getting massive amounts of GSP for people with lots of modules before the date listed in the OP, but at least the progression of mechs aren't lost; and that was a huge issue. Giving people a choice on how they receive the module side of their refund via the ledger system might be a solid course of action to consider.

On the other hand, the skill trees themselves have all of the exact same problems as the previous iteration.

- The current "skill maze" with obvious "filler skills" is a terrible path to go; and this was one of the biggest issues with much of the community even through the first set of PTS runs.

- People should be allowed to pick and choose exactly what generic improvements they want to make to their mechs. These should be set up either in straight lines down a section of their tree (where you can start at any line you want) or via nodes that have multiple tiers of unlocking, like the old weapon modules.

- Any skill that is currently considered "filler" should be buffed to make it valuable and a potentially desirable choice for anyone wishing to play a certain build. While this may require multiple iterations to get it right, we know full well some of those nodes can easily be buffed a reasonable margin right off the bat to make them more palatable and viable.

- Specialized improvements to mechs that could/should require a certain level of investment should be placed at the bottom of corresponding lines of advancement through the skill tree. For example, placing ammo nodes at the bottom of the cooldown line, or ECM nodes after sensor range, or Seismic Sensor after Target Info Gathering.

Because these glaring issues from the first run haven't been addressed, there's really ZERO reasons to install/update the PTS and actually log in for this. The economy doesn't take testing to see there've been massive improvements on that front . . . but everything that does require serious testing hasn't even been touched.

Edited by Sereglach, 25 April 2017 - 10:29 PM.

[BarmazelselRS]

Why all the weapons were placed in one category?
With such a tree, all light and medium bellows will be universals.

Why not make each type of weapon in its own category?
Ballistics separately, lasers separately, Rockets separately.
Do you want to be an expert in this or that weapon - invest 30-40 points there.

In fact - put 50 points and you have pumped all the skills associated with the weapon. O_o what kind of nonsense? What kind of casualness?
-------------------------------------------------- -----
Take for example fur with only two types of weapons (say laser and balistika). What would I pump them completely - I still need to learn rockets ..... Asking - why? O_o
-----------------------------------------
The big request - make the pumping of weapons separately. What would every player have a choice: what to download, and how much to rock.
Let it be would be 400-500 nodes (skills), and you could pump only 100 (skill points).
Give the players a choice! Give players a flexible pumping furs where you need to think and then take responsibility for your choice.
Give players a complex, flexible and heaped pumping.
Do not make out of your unique game casual cesspool.

Edited by BarmazelselRS, 25 April 2017 - 10:44 PM.

[Arkhangel]

Actually... the biggest Glaring Issue about the Skill Tree ever since they did the first PTS is the fact PGI's folding to .0001% of their player base who's whining about stuff because it nerfs how their mechs perform NOW. Fact is, EVERYONE'S MECHS ARE CHANGING WHEN THIS HITS, SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY NOT GETTING NERFED. the gameplay is just shifting. the Skill tree is coming, regardless of what the whiny tools who hate it, or parts of it say.

and as for why it's out BEFORE Civil War tech? do you guys really wanna be re-learning how to pilot and skill at the same time as getting used to completely new weapons that'll be behaving a hell of a lot different than we're used to? I sure as hell don't.

Also.. it should probably be noted... there is a fairly good likelihood Gauss is no longer going to need that charge time anymore.... so... yeah.

BarmazelselRS, on 25 April 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

Why all the weapons were placed in one category?
With such a tree, all light and medium bellows will be universals.

Why not make each type of weapon in its own category?
Ballistics separately, lasers separately, Rockets separately.
Do you want to be an expert in this or that weapon - invest 30-40 points there.

In fact - put 50 points and you have pumped all the skills associated with the weapon. O_o what kind of nonsense? What kind of casualness?
-------------------------------------------------- -----
Take for example fur with only two types of weapons (say laser and balistika). What would I pump them completely - I still need to learn rockets ..... Asking - why? O_o
-----------------------------------------
The big request - make the pumping of weapons separately. What would every player have a choice: what to download, and how much to rock.
Sdlayte that would be 400-500 nodes (skills), and you could pump only 100 (skill points).
Give the players a choice! Give players a flexible pumping furs where you need to think and then take responsibility for your choice.
Give players a complex, flexible and heaped pumping.
Do not make out of your unique game casual cesspool.

the entire reason why your way ISN'T being done is because the Skill Tree's meant to incentivize mixed loadouts. people already boat a crapton, you don't need to give them even more reasons to.

[I cant want to]

engine de-coupling
making it so that an IS heavy with an XL can no longer twist/turn fast enough to spread damage

gsp module refund
making it so that when the tech update hits, you dont have that massive stack of cbills available to buy all the new toys
....that will change your loadouts, so you need to re-spec your skills (that will cost you xp to do)

de-quirking
widening the gap between the top performing mechs that do well without quirks, and all the mechs that needed quirks to remain at least relevant if not competitive

the more pgi changes, the more it shows how little they play their own game

[Duke Nedo]

Refund stuff seems more than fine to me, but the dequirkening madness remains. Nerf IS mechs at the same time as you buff IS tech. Nothing else makes any sense what so ever. This is not only a weapons thing either, it's also an engine thing and IS XL remains inferior == IS builds remain inferior unless quirked with durability and/or offense quirks. Here's the thing: not only durability quirks are used to compensate, some mechs only got strong offense quirks and no durability quirks (or very weak ones).

The winners here are the "newer" generation of quirked mechs that are based around strong durability quirks and little or no offense quirks. Why do you hate Cicadas?

[Ertur]

Arkhangel, on 25 April 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

the entire reason why your way ISN'T being done is because the Skill Tree's meant to incentivize mixed loadouts. people already boat a crapton, you don't need to give them even more reasons to.

So making me get Ballistic perks to get to range perks will let me put Ballistic weapons on my Jenner? Getting Energy perks to get to cooldown perks will let me put Energy weapons on my Huginn?

[justcallme A S H]

Navid A1, on 25 April 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

A simple change from a LPL to a PPC or vice versa can cost upwards of 7K XP.

You want to switch back?... 7K

oh... you want to switch back for this week... 7K

the comp match needs to with this build?.... 10K...


yeah sure.

This is one of my biggest concerns and something not one person form PGI have commented on right there. I refit / tinker mechs constantly for:

Comp / Faction Play / Quick Play Group / Quick Play Solo

Right now it takes me 90 seconds tops and no cost (I have lots of inventory, modules spare etc) to refit mechs for whatever is going on, module up and off I go.
This new system I have to totally reskill each bloody time as well as refit it? Or my team in Comp wants to use slightly different attributes, again 10mins reskilling just to see if something works? You have got to be kidding me. What the hell?

I'm gonna need to purchase, potentially, 3-4 of each decent farken variant if I want to save myself HOURS in the Mechlab reskilling each time I want to do something different.

If you, PGI, are going to make my life a mechbay misery - I WANT MY FARKEN CBILLS BACK

Edited by justcallme A S H, 25 April 2017 - 11:15 PM.

[Adran]

So, I'm hardly an expert in this game. Right now, my comp can't even run the game right, so I can't really check out the PTS. Can I get some feedback on a theoretical Skill build though? This is for the Catapult C-4. The intent is to focus on Missile bombardment, with some Lasers as backup weapons for anything that actually gets in close.

50 Firepower Missiles/Lasers Velocity/Range/Cooldown in Ballistics that don't require getting Ballistics
20 Jumpjets
21 Sensors Info Gathering, Target Decay, Seismic Sensor, Radar Derp (4 of 5, but I may sacrifice a Jump Jet node to get the last one)

Range +12%
Velocity +10%
Heat Gen -8%
Cooldown -7.2%
Missile Spread -5%
High Explosive +15%
Missile Rack +2
Laser Duration -15%
Heat Shielding -30%
Vectoring +125%
Lift Speed +15%
Vent Calibration +15%
Target Info Gathering +15%
Sensor Range +15%
Seismic Sensor +200
Target Decay -3.5
Radar Deprivation -80%

[mad kat]

Seeing as i couldn't make heads or tails of the PGI post i only want to know one thing.

Are we getting a cbill refund to bring our already mastered mechs back to their current level with the new system Or do we still have to front the Cbill cost from somewhere.

If we are not getting a Cbill refund to keep our mechs as they are for some of us have been like that for three plus years Then an email will be sent to pgi demanding a full refund and uninstall as they qoute "No lost progress". Well if they are not going to give back the Cbill value of all those nodes the progress will most certainly be lost.

This doesn't really clarify things:
[color=#00FFFF]
The HSP value is determined according to the XP investment required to unlock the Skill under the previous system; for every 630 XP you spent to acquire a Skill under the previous system you'll receive 1 SP (rounded up).[/color]
[color=#00FFFF]
Full Basic status equates to 23 HSP.[/color]
[color=#00FFFF]
Full Elite status equates to an additional 34 HSP.[/color]
[color=#00FFFF]
Full Master status equates to an additional 34 HSP. A fully Mastered 'Mech therefore receives a base amount of 91 HSP in return. Those 91 points can then be used to acquire full 'Master' status under the new Skill system without needing to spend any C-Bills or XP to unlock the Skill Nodes.[/color]

Edited by mad kat, 26 April 2017 - 12:21 AM.

[I cant want to]

if your mech is mastered now, you will get 91 skill point unlocks for it so that it will be "mastered" in the new system