19 replies to this topic

[Ced Riggs]

Heya,

Please someone explain to me why this mech:



... has to use these four absolutely dead firepower nodes to max out on cooldown/range/heat generation?



In essence, un-personalised skill trees make for dumb decisions.

And why the hell do I get UAC jam chance and Missile nodes on my Locust-PB? I can't even equip any of those weapons, even if I have two ballistic slots. In the CT. No UAC in the world is gonna fit there.

This system is thoroughly atrocious if you want to replicate equipping X-weapon cooldown module, or Y weapon range module.

[ForceUser]

Dont pick up the two missile nodes to get to one lone .9 cooldown node. It's not a good deal. Possibly one of the worst deals ever.

[KekistanWillRiseAgain]

ForceUser, on 26 April 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

Dont pick up the two missile nodes to get to one lone .9 cooldown node. It's not a good deal. Possibly one of the worst deals ever.

Exactly... really PGI is telling you even harder to only play KDK-3/MAD-IIC/TBW/NTG/HBK-IIC/SHC/ACH, stop trying to have fun in the mechs you want to believing that they should all be pretty good. PGI has made it crystal clear that we are only supposed to be playing in the best clam mechs they just released... since apparently we would not listen then they created this dumpster fire of a Skill Maze to nerf everything else into unusablity to really drive home the point.

[Ced Riggs]

ForceUser, on 26 April 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

Dont pick up the two missile nodes to get to one lone .9 cooldown node. It's not a good deal. Possibly one of the worst deals ever.

That's my point entirely. If I want that 0.9% cooldown, I need those two missile nodes that are dead on my Hunchie.
If I want those TWO cooldown and one range nodes, I need either LBX spread or Mag Size increase. Also dead.
Same goes for another range and cooldown node, which is also gated behind magazine size.

If I don't take those four 100% dead nodes, I am missing out on 2.8% cooldown and 3% range.

I am aware it's not a smart idea to take those four dead nodes. That is not the point. The point is, on mechs that cannot, ever, benefit from such nodes, I am forced to take those dead nodes if I intend to max out on the quirk I am interested in. That is not even "commitment", that is inflating the investment beyond reason. You can make a weak case for "hill climb" or "shock absorbance" having the potential to come into effect once in a blue moon, but never, ever, under any circumstances, will a laser Hunchie benefit from +mag size or any missile quirks.

[Hellvinator]

I was really hoping for mech specific skill trees. So you can quirk your own mech. Right now it's no fun to max the skilltree. Need to pick up nodes where I dont have weapons for is NO FUN. Annoying as f.

[ForceUser]

question; how is having skill nodes cost more skill point the more of them you pick up (to discourage boating) different to this? There isnt one. There is and shoul be an additional cost involved in min/maxing to encourage choice. is that last .7 cooldown node worth 3 node points? How about those two cooldown and range nodes, are they worth the magazine node? are those nodes worth more in the agility tree? survivability tree?

[Blackhound]

ForceUser, on 26 April 2017 - 02:33 AM, said:

question; how is having skill nodes cost more skill point the more of them you pick up (to discourage boating) different to this? There isnt one. There is and shoul be an additional cost involved in min/maxing to encourage choice. is that last .7 cooldown node worth 3 node points? How about those two cooldown and range nodes, are they worth the magazine node? are those nodes worth more in the agility tree? survivability tree?

What you're saying is correct, but I think in general people are dissatisfied that the current limit of 91 active nodes still requires your 'Mech to come out with less power than a fully Mastered Mech has in systems that have been live for years already.

And to top it off they're nerfing quirks on lots of 'Mechs (particularly the Lights) which counts as a double hit. Not only do you not reach the same existing power levels via Skill Nodes, but then you're taking 5%-10% permanent hits on top of those.

That's what, 14%-24% loss? I mean, what if I need to focus on scouting more than weapons as a Light Pilot? I just took -10% quirk hit, now I'm losing 12% from masteries as well just to be able to keep relevant in InfoWar.

It's an overall large reduction of power across the board for a great many of players, and new players will be coming in weaker than before as well, unable to get critical bonuses in combat until they've crapped out 80+ skill nodes per mech (which also eats into their budgets for buying new gear).

[Wibbledtodeath]

This is a rhetorical question isn't it OP- cause its been explained lots- and lots (including in he latest PTS post in announcements). But hey- I missed details in that so maybe its not, maybe?

Anyway, Its about balancing - to complete and "max" power in one area, you have to invest more- thus reducing investment in other areas- PGI's version of give and take. This investment includes modules that may not be relevant to your mech. Its by design/not a mistake. You don't have to get irrelevant skills- if you invest those points in other trees.

Actually- this PTS has reduced having to get irrelevant skills compared to prev builds, but its not perfect for every mech- I agree some personalisation down the track would be welcome, and until that happens- underperforming mechs with offensive quirks should not be getting nerfed.

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 26 April 2017 - 02:55 AM.

[Blackhound]

Wibbledtodeath, on 26 April 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

but its not perfect for every mech- I agree some personalisation down the track would be welcome, and until that happens- underperforming mechs with offensive quirks should not be getting nerfed.

And that's why a lot of people are getting triggered. I wouldn't care about the Mastery nerfs if they didn't tack huge compounding hits directly on the chassis as well.

[Ced Riggs]

Wibbledtodeath, on 26 April 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

This is a rhetorical question isn't it OP?

Anyway, Its about balancing. This investment includes modules that may not be relevant to your mech. Its by design/not a mistake.

This is a rhetorical question, too, right?

If the design produces an undesirable effect, such as, introducing a slew of downright dead nodes, then the design is flawed. The mistake is not in use of the skill tree, but in the design of the skill tree. This is feedback on the PTS. Feedback on the design of the skill tree. The design is flawed. I read the preamble, I read the posts by the devs. I can and do disagree with their intentions and wording and execution of those intentions.

The current design of the skill tree causes people to overpay (as this is funded by currency) for something they don't want to purchase.

[50 50]

Ced Riggs, on 26 April 2017 - 01:24 AM, said:

Heya,

Please someone explain to me why this mech:

... has to use these four absolutely dead firepower nodes to max out on cooldown/range/heat generation?

In essence, un-personalised skill trees make for dumb decisions.

Meh. It's only 4 nodes.
More if you want to count the wasted velocity ones.
But that is the point.
If you want to really push certain aspects, it's going to cost you. The setup is similar to saying I'd like to buy level 10 range but have the cost increase incrementally.
You have to make the choice.
If you just focused on lasers and didn't want to waste points, then you go the left hand side of the tree is it's around 23 points.
The more you want to pimp that out, the more you will end up sacrificing to get there.

[Ced Riggs]

50 50, on 26 April 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

The more you want to pimp that out, the more you will end up sacrificing to get there.

I'm aware of that. I'm already investing heavily into the tree to get the aspects I want, that's my commitment right there. Under the current system I'm not only taxed once in the price of putting skill points into this tree, but twice for taking things I'd willingly forego to focus another aspect, and thrice for taking things that do (and can do) absolutely nothing for my build, and that much in general.

I understand the intention. The intention is flawed, and the execution even more so. Before, I was able to use a mech with energy-centric quirks and use weapon specific modules to attain a meaningful impact on the systems I used the most. Now, I'm getting minuscule changes to the systems I use, with crisp on the way I don't use, combined with literally dead nodes if I want to get back to where I was, compounded by the issue that the meta forces me to invest in the survival and mobility tree on every mech to stay competitive.

The design is poor, the execution is poor. I understand how the system works. I'm pointing out guide the system i's bad. This is not a comprehension issue on my part, I understand fully how to prioritize and optimize a skill selection. Yet, the current puts PTS system in it's working goes against the mission statement of "meaningful progress" and "tangible improvements at a steady pace". Getting +mag size on an energy mech sites nothing for that.

TL;DR: this is feedback on the skill tree as a whole, in juxtaposition to the declared goals. It falls short and is flawed and causes nonsensical options and punished forbids deliberate omissions of undesired mech properties.

Edited by Ced Riggs, 26 April 2017 - 03:48 AM.

[50 50]

Don't think my comment came out the right way sorry. The condensing of the weapons tree was an effort to make mixed builds less expensive and allow them to a decent little bonus before dabbling or investing heavily into specific areas.

From the looks of it, without picking up any weapon specific nodes, you can pick up 15 generic nodes that work for most weapons (Velocity is the odd one).
Strictly sticking to lasers there's 25 nodes.
Missiles is a big tree and you can get 33 nodes without crossing weapon types.
Ballistics offers the choices, 22 nodes including the increased magazine 1 and 2 before investing in a particular class of ballistic where there are and additional 5 nodes for each (Gauss, UAC, LBx)

In so far as matching these different weapon groups that's a pretty good allocation of points and give or take a few, 25 nodes is about the base line for a weapon type.
20 if you want to be a bit more frugal.

It seems that the separation of some of those nodes is done to give those weapons a bonus in those aspects while not restricting our selection.

For just the laser nodes only you get:
Laser Duration 10
Range 5
Heat 5
Cooldown 5

Missiles
Crit 5
Range 6
Velocity 5
Spread 5
Heat 5
Cooldown 5
plus 2 levels in the increased ammo

Ballistics:
Cooldown 5
Heat 3
Range 7
Velocity 5
plus 2 levels in the increased ammo
Then the specific nodes.

I can see why it was done this way and it does make the web layout a bit more interesting in my mind.

Some of the other trees, yep, you can pick up a few additional enhancements along the way to get that level 5 radar deprivation or what not. It's interesting to go through the web layout and pick the nodes. Seeing the additional bonuses at the end seems like just that, a bonus.

Edited by 50 50, 26 April 2017 - 05:10 AM.

[Ced Riggs]

50 50, on 26 April 2017 - 05:08 AM, said:

It's interesting to go through the web layout and pick the nodes. Seeing the additional bonuses at the end seems like just that, a bonus.

I am not interested in picking up Sensor Range on my SRM Hunchback. I am very interested in getting Radar Deprivation so I can poke, blast and get back into cover without Streaks and Lurms following me, or the enemy having me on sensors, seeing where I am going/poking out next. It is no bonus to me that I cannot get my full radar deprivation but get 0.25 seconds faster intel gathering on an enemy which I already have memorised where I hit him and where his armor is weak/components are exposed.

[Cato Phoenix]

50 50, on 26 April 2017 - 05:08 AM, said:

Don't think my comment came out the right way sorry. The condensing of the weapons tree was an effort to make mixed builds less expensive and allow them to a decent little bonus before dabbling or investing heavily into specific areas.

But it doesn't.

Your SRM/MLAS build still has to invest -more- points to derive any benefit, which is points that can't be used elsewhere.

Boating still more effective. Even more so, maybe, because of all the dequirks.

[Ruar]

I think the answer for why people don't want those four nodes is because we want to customize to our own desires and not be forced to take items the devs choose.

I would rather spend 18 points on two skills to get the effect I want than spend those 20 points on four skills to kind of get the results I want while being forced to take nodes I don't want.

The firepower tree is easy to see this problem, but a better example is radar dep. It takes a minimum of 17 points to get full radar dep and in the process you get pieces of four other skills. It would make so much more sense to simply charge 12 points for just radar dep and then let people choose where they want the other five points to go.

Pretty much everyone will agree that more valuable skills need higher costs, but pretty much everyone hates having to take unwanted nodes in order to get the more valuable skills.

Linear tree, adjust the costs as needed, skill tree would be accepted easily.

[Devils Advocate]

It's by design. It won't change. The point is if you want to min-max it'll be more expensive than generalizing. That's literally the entire design. It's like asking why we have to roll dice in board games. Why? Because that's how the game was designed.

[Cy Mitchell]

I have Mastered 7 Mechs fully on the PTS. On those 7 Mechs, I have a total of 2 100% totally worthless Skill Nodes selected. That is because I wanted more Cooldown on a dual erPPC Mech and chose to select two missile nodes to get to a couple more additional cooldown nodes. I was not forced to do this. It was my choice. All the other forced "useless" skills have given me benefits that have increased the performance of my Mechs somewhat.

[Ruar]

Rampage, on 27 April 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I have Mastered 7 Mechs fully on the PTS. On those 7 Mechs, I have a total of 2 100% totally worthless Skill Nodes selected. That is because I wanted more Cooldown on a dual erPPC Mech and chose to select two missile nodes to get to a couple more additional cooldown nodes. I was not forced to do this. It was my choice. All the other forced "useless" skills have given me benefits that have increased the performance of my Mechs somewhat.

Are those "benefits" you recieved the same items you would choose if you had an extra 8-10 SP to work with after picking up the items you did want?

Or maybe, just maybe, you would have spent those extra SP on a different set of skills that would better work with whatever build you were going for.