Jump to content

Tangled Web Of Skills = Bad


30 replies to this topic

#1 Ruar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:38 PM

I'm not sure why you guys are fascinated with this intermixing of skills, but it is not the right answer.

I'm trying to go down the laser branch for my all laser build Enforcer and I have to pick up missile skills in order to get through all of the cooldown, range, and heat skills.

ON A MECH WITH NO MISSILE SLOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously... this has to change.

If you want me to pay 30 f'ing skill points to max out heat then put heat in it's own little area and charge me 30 f'ing skill points to get it all. I'll make the decision of whether or not I want to invest that many points to reduce my heat or not.

DO NOT bury it behind skills I can't use in order to artificially increase the price of the nodes. That's asinine.

I really like the refunds and such, you guys got that part right, but this tangle web of skill nodes has to be made linear. I'm not going to play this game if the skill nodes are all mixed like this. My OCD can't handle getting useless/unwanted nodes simply to go to the ones I do want.

In fact, I'm done trying to test this. I can't honestly play with the skill tree built in such a manner, it just makes me mad looking at what I have to go through in order to get the nodes I want.

*Edit- In an effort to be more clear about what I think needs to change, here is the best suggestion I've seen yet on how to implement the skill tree.


Edited by Ruar, 25 April 2017 - 05:34 PM.


#2 Fox the Apprentice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:46 PM

View PostRuar, on 25 April 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you guys are fascinated with this intermixing of skills, but it is not the right answer.
[...]


There was a lot of arguing about boating single weapons systems being too powerful. It seems that PGI has decided that requiring mixed nodes will make it more appealing to take mixed systems. (i.e. if you have to take missile skills, then you aren't going to have as much of a nerf if you decide to toss on an MRM or two forty.)

#3 King Chimera

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fallen
  • The Fallen
  • 107 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:48 PM

I agree, I really just wish that the skill paths were more linear instead of trying to force you into taking skills that you don't want/need. Honestly I would prefer having multiple tiers of skills per skill tree that requires x amount of skills in any previous tier within said skill tree to advance. Basically similar to the way Borderlands handled it.

#4 Ruar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:49 PM

View PostFox the Apprentice, on 25 April 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:


There was a lot of arguing about boating single weapons systems being too powerful. It seems that PGI has decided that requiring mixed nodes will make it more appealing to take mixed systems. (i.e. if you have to take missile skills, then you aren't going to have as much of a nerf if you decide to toss on an MRM or two forty.)


Which is easily remedied with the top nodes on the line providing greater return than the bottom nodes. So someone with mixed systems can get a 7-8% boost to three systems while the one who wants to boat can get 10% boost to the one. In the end splitting out across three weapons provides a greater overall return (14-16%) boost compared to the 10% on the single.

In fact, such a system would reward players who choose to use more than one type of weapon because they would get more return on their SP investment compared to the boats.

#5 King Chimera

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fallen
  • The Fallen
  • 107 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:49 PM

View PostFox the Apprentice, on 25 April 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:


There was a lot of arguing about boating single weapons systems being too powerful. It seems that PGI has decided that requiring mixed nodes will make it more appealing to take mixed systems. (i.e. if you have to take missile skills, then you aren't going to have as much of a nerf if you decide to toss on an MRM or two forty.)

That is a good point and I tend to mix my weapon systems anyways, but it probably won't hurt boaters too much anyways. :/

#6 Fox the Apprentice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:53 PM

View PostXiyumos, on 25 April 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

That is a good point and I tend to mix my weapon systems anyways, but it probably won't hurt boaters too much anyways. :/

To clarify, I'm not saying it's a good idea. That's just my suspicions for their motive.

#7 Alaric Hasek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 169 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:02 PM

Things are working as intended - you have to make choices rather than just having 100% of what you want. Not only that but now you'll have to pick and choose what 'mechs you want to buff instead of having them all buffed the same just by grinding.

The down side for PGI is that there's no reason to buy 'mech packs anymore - buy the one you want to play rather than be stuck with two variants you hate.

We're going to see a lot fewer chassis on the battlefields because there are chassis variants that are just superior because of their weapon hardpoint locations and allocations.


View PostRuar, on 25 April 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you guys are fascinated with this intermixing of skills, but it is not the right answer.

I'm trying to go down the laser branch for my all laser build Enforcer and I have to pick up missile skills in order to get through all of the cooldown, range, and heat skills.

ON A MECH WITH NO MISSILE SLOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously... this has to change.

If you want me to pay 30 f'ing skill points to max out heat then put heat in it's own little area and charge me 30 f'ing skill points to get it all. I'll make the decision of whether or not I want to invest that many points to reduce my heat or not.

DO NOT bury it behind skills I can't use in order to artificially increase the price of the nodes. That's asinine.

I really like the refunds and such, you guys got that part right, but this tangle web of skill nodes has to be made linear. I'm not going to play this game if the skill nodes are all mixed like this. My OCD can't handle getting useless/unwanted nodes simply to go to the ones I do want.

In fact, I'm done trying to test this. I can't honestly play with the skill tree built in such a manner, it just makes me mad looking at what I have to go through in order to get the nodes I want.


#8 Ruar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:08 PM

View PostAlaric Hasek, on 25 April 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Things are working as intended - you have to make choices rather than just having 100% of what you want. Not only that but now you'll have to pick and choose what 'mechs you want to buff instead of having them all buffed the same just by grinding.

The down side for PGI is that there's no reason to buy 'mech packs anymore - buy the one you want to play rather than be stuck with two variants you hate.

We're going to see a lot fewer chassis on the battlefields because there are chassis variants that are just superior because of their weapon hardpoint locations and allocations.



Your argument is fail. All that has to be done is have higher cost for the more desired skills. Lets assume most players will take heat reduction. On a linear chart it can have a total of five nodes. Each node costs six SP to purchase and has a return of 2%. So I spend 30 SP and get a 10% reduction to heat. The same 30 points I would use in the current tangled system, but I'm only spending those points on what I want and not picking up useless skills.

Range is popular as well, so make it a 25pt set of nodes. Which means if I want to max out my range and heat reduction I've just spent 55 points that I can't use anywhere else.

That's called making choices right there without forcing me down some twisting path of skills I don't want or can't even use.

Then you simply make the less desirable skills cost less. Hill climb could be a two node line and each costs one point.


Oh, and with a linear system it's really easy to make adjustments as the meta and play styles change. Track which skills are used the most and adjust costs accordingly to ensure balance. They can also sue this system to balance the clans and IS by having different lines cost different amounts based on what's needed.

#9 Q res

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 72 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:35 PM

I don't have as much of a problem with gating higher-end skills off to make it hard to super focus your Mech build. My main problem is that it's an unreadable, incomprehensible mess.

Seriously, if I somehow manage to trick a friend into playing this game. How am I supposed to describe/layout a skill tree build in a way that's easy to understand/newbie friendly? From the UX perspective this whole thing is a complete disaster and betrays how little actual design talent there is here.

Edited by Q res, 25 April 2017 - 04:35 PM.


#10 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:39 PM

View PostRuar, on 25 April 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:



Your argument is fail. All that has to be done is have higher cost for the more desired skills. Lets assume most players will take heat reduction. On a linear chart it can have a total of five nodes. Each node costs six SP to purchase and has a return of 2%. So I spend 30 SP and get a 10% reduction to heat. The same 30 points I would use in the current tangled system, but I'm only spending those points on what I want and not picking up useless skills.


And they've already explained, many times, including in the NGNG podcast...that they are not interested in doing it that way. They looked at it...it makes no difference in the end for that 10% heat...and there are a LOT of players who would like all those other nodes. They're not interested in catering the new system just to a handful (percentage wise) of the player base who want to complain over useless (to them) nodes.

So in big letters....


THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ADOPT A LINEAR PATH SYSTEM TO THE NODES TO JUST HAVE FOLKS TAKE THE CHERRY OPTIONS TO THEIR EXISTING META-BOAT BUILDS. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

Edited by Dee Eight, 25 April 2017 - 04:40 PM.


#11 Ruar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:48 PM

View PostDee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:


And they've already explained, many times, including in the NGNG podcast...that they are not interested in doing it that way. They looked at it...it makes no difference in the end for that 10% heat...and there are a LOT of players who would like all those other nodes. They're not interested in catering the new system just to a handful (percentage wise) of the player base who want to complain over useless (to them) nodes.

So in big letters....


THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ADOPT A LINEAR PATH SYSTEM TO THE NODES TO JUST HAVE FOLKS TAKE THE CHERRY OPTIONS TO THEIR EXISTING META-BOAT BUILDS. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.


Go for big letters, it's not going to change the fact they are wrong, the bulk of player responses are negative about the skill tree layout being tangled, and they are going to lose players if they push this forward.

You keep talking about meta builds and cherry picking, but that is asinine and you need to stop spreading that lie. Sure, if they built a linear system where every node costs one point and returns the same basic amount per selection then people could pick and choose at leisure. However, that is NOT what the players are saying should happen.

I haven't seen any posts where people are saying they want to be able to cherry pick top tier skills at the same cost of skills no one has any interest in using. The consistent theme is higher cost for skills that are more in demand and lower cost for other skills so that people can build how they want, still have to make tough decisions on where to spend their points, and then round out the build with a few cheap options.

It's just that easy.


And I won't stop complaining and I won't accept a non-linear system. I'll cancel my pre-orders, play the current version until the tangled skill tree goes live and then I'll move on to a new game. I'm trying hard to get the devs to recognize their mistake and correct it while they are still in the testing mode. Your fanboy attitude about this isn't helping anyone so I suggest you just be quiet if you can't contribute anything useful.

#12 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:13 PM

View PostRuar, on 25 April 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:


Go for big letters, it's not going to change the fact they are wrong, the bulk of player responses are negative about the skill tree layout being tangled, and they are going to lose players if they push this forward.


A couple hundred complainers on the forum though are actually NOT the bulk of the players...of a game with tens of thousands...the majority of whom DO NOT use the forums at all. Let alone all the ones who rarely post or participate in polls, and only ever read things.

#13 Ruar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:30 PM

View PostDee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:


A couple hundred complainers on the forum though are actually NOT the bulk of the players...of a game with tens of thousands...the majority of whom DO NOT use the forums at all. Let alone all the ones who rarely post or participate in polls, and only ever read things.


I said bulk of player responses, not the bulk of the players. Please stop being deceiving because you don't like the truth of what is said. If you have an argument against a scaled cost linear tree then make an argument against a scaled cost linear tree. So far you've only argued the devs said they prefer a tangled tree, which multiple players have shown to be problematic compared to scaled cost linear tree.

You can go to any game forum out there and you'll see a small section of the gaming population actually being active on the forums. However, that small section of gaming population is representative of your player base as a whole. Proof? Look at the ebb and flow of active players and accounts on games who ignore the forum feedback and implement unpopular changes. It's just that simple and any game company out there will be wise to take heed of the forums. Recent example is Tom Clancy's The Division who made a lot of unpopular changes and lost the vast majority of their player base. The forums were full of posts trying to get Ubi to do the right thing, but they didn't and it cost them.

Provide applicable feedback to the suggestions being made, but please stop your crusade to shut down any argument you don't like by saying player feedback doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't matter but we have to at least try when we are passionate about something. You are acting as a mouthpiece of PGI and I'm certain they can make their own statements without your help.

#14 Cato Phoenix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Phoenix
  • The Phoenix
  • 843 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:30 PM

View PostFox the Apprentice, on 25 April 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:


There was a lot of arguing about boating single weapons systems being too powerful. It seems that PGI has decided that requiring mixed nodes will make it more appealing to take mixed systems. (i.e. if you have to take missile skills, then you aren't going to have as much of a nerf if you decide to toss on an MRM or two forty.)


Doesn't actually work that way, since you have to put in 30-40 points in the weapons trees to derive benefit from a hybrid build, at which point you're shortchanging yourself in different ways. The -most- efficient way is still to boat, as it allows you to maximize skill nodes to be used in other trees.

Again, the only way this gets fixed is with something like Solahma's tree, where you just get bonuses for whatever weapons you happen to have.

#15 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:57 PM

View PostRuar, on 25 April 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:


I said bulk of player responses, not the bulk of the players. Please stop being deceiving because you don't like the truth of what is said. If you have an argument against a scaled cost linear tree then make an argument against a scaled cost linear tree. So far you've only argued the devs said they prefer a tangled tree, which multiple players have shown to be problematic compared to scaled cost linear tree.


Except it wasn't the bulk of responses either. Don't confuse the same complainers liking each others complaint posts as being the bulk of responses, let alone the results of one cherry picked question poll. The argument against a scaled cost tree is simple and has already been made and explained at length. Either accept that or don't. I do not care.


Quote

Provide applicable feedback to the suggestions being made, but please stop your crusade to shut down any argument you don't like by saying player feedback doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't matter but we have to at least try when we are passionate about something. You are acting as a mouthpiece of PGI and I'm certain they can make their own statements without your help.


I'm not the one on the crusade to ignore other players feedback. That would be the person staring back when you look in a mirror.

#16 Tevesh

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:02 PM

The problem I have with this tangled web is that you have to take some skills that will have absolutely ZERO effect on certain mechs in order to get to skills that you want. Case in point, the mobility tree. You are required to take arm pitch in order to get to speed tweak. If your mech has no arm weapons then it's a complete waste of a skill node. It's just a plain skill tax. I can understand putting less desirable skills in there to stop people from cherry picking but come on, the skill I'm required to take should at least give me an effect. It should not be a complete waste.

#17 Ruar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,378 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:03 PM

View PostDee Eight, on 25 April 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:


Except it wasn't the bulk of responses either. Don't confuse the same complainers liking each others complaint posts as being the bulk of responses, let alone the results of one cherry picked question poll. The argument against a scaled cost tree is simple and has already been made and explained at length. Either accept that or don't. I do not care.




I'm not the one on the crusade to ignore other players feedback. That would be the person staring back when you look in a mirror.


Again you are wrong, on both accounts. There is no viable argument against a scaled cost linear tree other than PGI has so far not used it. Link to the best version of it below in case you've forgotten.

Feel free to ignore and overlook all the posts that don't agree with your opinion because you obviously haven't followed what was said on the forums in the last to rounds of testing.



#18 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:19 PM

View PostRuar, on 25 April 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:


Again you are wrong, on both accounts. There is no viable argument against a scaled cost linear tree other than PGI has so far not used it. Link to the best version of it below in case you've forgotten.

Feel free to ignore and overlook all the posts that don't agree with your opinion because you obviously haven't followed what was said on the forums in the last to rounds of testing.




Except... you've already said you don't/won't listen to the podcasts... thus you are choosing to be the one who hasn't followed the reasoning PGI has given in making their decisions, and are furthermore choosing to remain ignorant to facts which contridict your opinions. That is of course your perogative to do so. Just as its also mine to not waste anymore time conversing with you. Nevermind the fact that I was actually involved in the last round of testing, provided feedback on the forums (and directly to PGI) and took part in the previous discussions.

#19 Tibbnak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 379 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:21 PM

Iunno the PTS tree seems to work pretty well.

Posted Image

#20 Greygor 727

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 102 posts
  • LocationDisney World

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:40 PM

Shaking my head in disbelief.

Yes, I read the forums.

According to you since I haven't previously posted my opinion does not count? GET A LIFE.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users