65 replies to this topic

[Alexander Garden]

Greetings all,

This is a duplicate of a recent post in the main Announcements area covering some of what you'll see in the next Skill Tree Post.

As outlined in our last update post from February 10th we've received a lot of great feedback regarding every aspect of the Skill Tree during its time on the Public Test server. While the reception to the overall framework of the Skill Tree has been positive, it's abundantly clear there are ways to improve the implementation.
If you want to catch up you can also check out the original Skill Tree PTS announcement here, though as we'll outline below there are some important changes on the way.

The biggest topic of discussion has undoubtedly been the economy of the Skill Tree system. Much of the feedback we received also centered on the relative balance of the Skill Tree and the structure and content of certain Skill Branches and Skill Nodes.

This post will provide you with some of the broad-stroke changes you’ll see in the next PTS update as a result of your feedback. Complete details, particularly in regards to balance changes, will be provided in a more thorough post coinciding with the release of the PTS update.
The next update to the PTS Skill Tree build – the contents of which are outlined below – is currently slated for Friday, February 24th. However, the update may arrive next week if more time is required. We’ll keep you posted if anything changes.

Changes to Skill Tree Economy

Unlocking 1 Skill Node for the first time (for the individual ‘Mech whose Skill Tree you are working with) will now only require 60,000 C-Bills and 800 XP. This is a reduction from the 100,000 C-Bills and 1,500 XP required in the previous PTS build.

There is no longer any C-Bill, MC, or Experience cost for removing a Skill Node once you’ve unlocked it.
Removing a Skill Node you’ve already unlocked (for the individual ‘Mech whose Skill Tree you are working with) has no cost associated with it whatsoever.
In light of the above change, removing a Skill Node you've already unlocked will no longer return the XP spent to acquire it. However, that brings us to next change.

If you wish to re-acquire a Skill Node you previously removed (from the individual ‘Mech whose Skill Tree you are working with) you will not be required to repurchase that Skill Node at the initial purchase cost.
Re-acquiring Nodes you previously purchased at full cost will only require 400 XP.

Changes to Skill Tree Structure and Nodes

Firepower

While the various Firepower Skill Branches were intended to provide players with a similar analogue to the Module system, the distinct Branches overwhelmingly favored single-weapon Loadouts and provided ‘Mechs suited to that configuration with a significant number of Skill Points to invest elsewhere. ‘Mechs with an array of Hardpoints of different types did not share that freedom.

In the upcoming PTS update you’ll see a significant rework of the distinct Firepower Skill Branch into a single, all-encompassing Firepower Branch. All individual Weapon Branches have been removed, such as the LBX Skill Branch or the Autocannon Skill Branch. The new Firepower Branch will contain Skill Nodes which provide universal bonuses to all weapons. There are no longer distinct Cooldown Nodes specifically for Autocannon weaponry, for example. In their place are all-encompassing Weapon Cooldown Nodes affecting all Ballistic, Energy, and Missile weaponry.

Some weapon-specific Nodes such as UAC Jam Chance and Gauss Extended Charge do still remain, and will be located in a Ballistic ‘hemisphere’ of the Firepower Tree. Laser Duration Nodes also still remain, located in an Energy hemisphere of the Firepower Tree, while Missile Spread Nodes are located in a Missile hemisphere.

The goal here is to provide players with more options for skilling ‘Mechs with multiple Hardpoint types, ensuring that investing into Firepower Skills will provide the same benefits to a much larger variety of builds.

More detailed information regarding the consolidated Firepower Tree will be provided when the PTS update arrives.

Survival

While we’re happy to see enthusiasm for the Survival Skill Tree, we feel the average investment seen in these Nodes did not represent a compelling give-and-take scenario. In the vast majority of cases investing all the way into the Survival Tree was almost seen as mandatory. As a result we have altered the overall layout of the Survival Tree, spreading the bonuses across a greater number of Nodes within the Tree. We have also introduced a new defense-oriented Skill Node which will allow for a reduction in your chances of receiving a Critical Hit.
With the changes you’ll see to the Survival Tree, unlocking the full potential of Structure and Armor Skills will need greater investment, requiring you to evaluate the potential commitment more deeply.

Mobility

Similar to Firepower, we did not feel that the division of distinct Mobility-based Skill Branches facilitated the give-and-take nature we intended with Skill Tree choices. For this update we have consolidated the Upper and Lower Torso Skills into a single Mobility Tree, with many of their values receiving adjustments.

Jump Jets

We’ve significantly boosted the benefits provided from investing into the Jump Jet Branch, making them more compelling choices for ‘Mechs capable of equipping Jump Jets. The Jump Jet Branch is also receiving a new type of Skill Node aimed at reducing the amount of heat generated by Jump Jets.

Operations

As with Survival, bonuses provided from the Operations Skill Nodes have been spread across a greater number of Nodes within the Operations Skill Branch. Unlocking the full potential of this Branch will need greater investment, requiring you to evaluate the potential commitment more deeply.

Sensor

For now, the Sensor Branch remains unchanged. We’ll continue to monitor its role in light of the other changes seen in the upcoming update.

Auxiliary

Second only to the changes seen with the Firepower Skills, the Auxiliary Branch is shaping up to receive the most significant changes to its structure and content. Our current goal is to allow players to field additional Consumable items, with greater benefits to each, by investing into the Auxiliary Skill Branch. Skill Node boosts for Cool Shot and Strike Consumables will also be introduced into the Auxiliary Branch.

We’d also like to take a moment to reiterate that C-Bill and MC Consumables of the same type will be evenly matched in their fundamental capabilities. A C-Bill UAV and an MC UAV will both possess identical Range and identical Duration, for example. Both will of course benefit from unlocking UAV Skill Nodes, as will all other Consumables benefit from their own associated Skill Nodes.

Balance Changes

Critical Hits

The changes to Critical Hit systems seen in the first PTS brought with them an unanticipated bug in the way Critical Hit chances were being determined. This bug significantly increased the chances of a Critical Hit. We’ve corrected this behavior in the latest PTS update. As a result, we are not making any adjustments to Component Health or any aspects of the Critical Hit until we can see how the previous changes play out when a bug isn’t impacting the results.

Disassociating ‘Mech Mobility Attributes from Engine Ratings

Engine selection has long been a balance sore-spot in MWO. Too much was gained by upgrading Engines to higher ratings, with little opportunity for providing a compelling give-and-take between the lighter, slower Engines against the heavier, faster Engines. The system also created a dynamic where baseline ‘Mech viability could be dramatically impacted by the inherent Engine restrictions of a 'Mech. These issues only compounded Inner Sphere and Clan imbalances, with Clan 'Mechs fielding much heavier Engines than their Inner Sphere counterparts - with no sacrifice to Loadout due - to fundamentally lighter equipment.

With the above issues in mind, we intend to break baseline Mobility characteristics away from Engines. Mobility will instead be determined by the overall tonnage of the chassis. It’s important to note that this will not affect the speed of a ‘Mech, which will remain tied with Engine size.
This change was specifically designed in the context of the Skill Tree, but was omitted from the first PTS as we continued to finalize some work required for implementing it. With that work complete, this system will be on full display in the upcoming PTS update.

At a top-down level, you can expect Mobility to now be roughly equal across tonnage lines. While their speeds will differ, an UrbanMech will now have the same Mobility attributes as an Arctic Cheetah, while a Kodiak will share the same Mobility attributes as an Atlas.

This change is not only intended to improve baseline balance between ‘Mechs, techbases, and Engines, but also to accomplish one of the stated design goals of the Skill Tree system. That is, to facilitate a drastic reduction in inherent ‘Mech Quirks.

As a result of this change we will be removing all of the current Mobility Quirks from Inner Sphere BattleMechs and Clan Center Torso OmniPods. Non-CT OmniPod and Set of 8 Mobility Quirks will remain.

Many ‘Mechs previously balanced around superior Mobility Quirks will instead see those Quirks integrated into the inherent Mobility attributes of the 'Mech. Those inherent Mobility attributes will then be evaluated and adjusted against similar 'Mechs within their tonnage bracket. For example, the Phoenix Hawk will be provided with higher baseline Mobility stats compared to the Blackjack.

This change allows for the following changes to the Skill Tree:

• With Mobility Quirks now rolled into the base Mobility attributes of a ‘Mech, Skill Nodes will have greater influence over the final Mobility attributes of a ‘Mech when compared to their impact previously seen under the Quirk system.
• Creates greater value for Mobility-based Skill bonuses for ‘Mechs which possess naturally high Mobility attributes.
• Streamlines the influence of the Skill Tree on ‘Mech Mobility, providing more transparency within the MechLab in terms of how Skill Nodes influence the Mobility of a ‘Mech.

These changes will bring some necessary UI improvements to provide players with more feedback regarding the Mobility attributes of their ‘Mechs within the ‘Mech Stats window.

More detailed information covering the Engine and Mobility changes will be provided regarding with the complete PTS notes.


Finally, we’d very much like to reiterate that we are continuing to evaluate baseline systems in an attempt to better balance not only the Inner Sphere and Clan dynamic, but any other aspect of the game and its systems where we determine baseline systems may favor one specific approach over its alternatives.

We look forward to your feedback on all of the above items when the PTS update arrives. That update is currently slated for Friday, February 24th. However, the update may arrive next week if more time is required. We’ll keep you posted if anything changes.
Thank you for reading MechWarriors, and thank you for playing. Keep the feedback coming.

[Strelok7]

If what you create is not good enough and "unbalanced" in a year, then you can pretty much scrap it right now.

Send this baby the "energy draw" route.

Scrap the Skill Tree.

P.S. This thing is designed to suck people's life into waste.

[Torezu]

I disagree. This creates a greater possibility for actual diversification, and a balance between toughness, firepower, mobility, etc. And the dramatically reduced cost (I'd rather see it go even lower, to 25-50k, but I know why it's not) and no c-bill cost for re-spec to previously paid for nodes makes playing with different layouts an option.

[Skribs]

Lots of stuff in here. Got a lot of thoughts.

Skill Tree Economy

The costs for the skill tree are now what I would call "bearable", but not yet "reasonable." Ideally, they would be free for C-Bills. I mean, I still have Mechs that don't have their own engine. Reasonably, they'd be about 20k-25k C-Bills each. The same can be said for the XP costs. Reasonably they could be similar to current costs, but 800 XP per point is far better than 1500 XP per point.

The respec cost is also much, much better. One thing that is a layer back is that combining weapon skills means respeccing is going to occur less often, so that will help out even more.

The important thing here is the original costs had me saying "if they go live, I'd quit." Now, I still think they're a bit high, but they're low enough to keep me playing.

Tree Changes

The change to combine weapon skills is definitely a good one. You could even go a step further and combine multiple one-weapon skills (i.e. jam chance, gauss hold, laser duration) into a single skill that just has a few different things that go along with it. Either way, having a few unique skills and mostly combined skills is far better than what we had before. As I said above, combining all the weapons makes respeccing less needed when swapping weapons, or far less in scope.

The consolidated weapon tree will also be a lot easier to adapt to the 3060 timeline jump, assuming we get new weapons then.

I'll have to see the changes to the other trees to know how I feel about them. If the basic tree design stays the same, just expanded, where you have to pick up a lot of incidental skills to get the skills you want, then you may still end up getting too many skills by default. This would be especially true in the sensory tree.

Mobility Attribute Dissociation

This is something that makes me very happy, because on a lot of Assaults I worry about engine first, even if I want to brawl. Brawlers don't need high speed, so being able to slow down a bit and maintain torso twist will be really helpful. Is this a buff to slow engines or a nerf to fast engines?

Final Thoughts

• One thing I don't see addressed is the loss of quirks on a lot of Mechs. I still see individual Mech balance as a problem in the new system.
  
• The consolidation of the weapon trees should help with the size of the trees, but these are very large trees. Small screens had a hard time with them before and probably still will.
  
• As I said above, and others have said, 20k-25k (or better, 0) C-Bills would be much more reasonable, although this is pretty good. 650-700 XP per node would keep it in line with how much XP it takes to level a Mech now, but 800 is still way better than 1500 XP. The costs listed now are bearable, but not reasonable. I won't quit over them, but I will complain about them.
  
• As it stands now, I would have less Mechs mastered in the sense of leveled up to Mastery level (about 1/4 to 1/3 of my currently mastered Mechs I would have the C-Bills to master). However, right now only about 1/10th or less have modules equipped, so I'd have more Mechs fully combat ready. The difference is I can swap modules, but not skill points. Oh, and I still need a bunch of engines.
  
• Related to the above, but not to the Skill Tree PTS, PGI should have an engine sale.

[Gill]

Only 3 replies so far? I admit I haven't tried the PTS yet, so I'll hold my tongue on judgements, but my primary concern would be c-bill costs.. previously our task was to acquire 3 variants and unlock up the chain to have a decent mech, got used to that, is that all gone now? With nearly 100 mechs and only a handful of modules between them(depending on what style of the day, swapping modules is easy enough unless you forget where you put one), will I really need to pay 100,000 c-bills x ? skill slots per mech to even come back to the standard I have achieved so far? Say 10 skills per mech, x 100 = 100,000,000 c-bills need to be earned???

And according to the original feb 10th tree @91pts per mech= LITERALLY ONE BILLION c-bills... welol 910,000,000 to be precise...

I will never be able to purchase another chassis at that rate, and all credits will go toward getting decent baselines... I guess it's GREAT for brand new players, sorta levels the field, instead of saving 5-35 million to get all three chassis unlocks, have fun grinding up 9 million c-bills just to have pro specs... but after playing since alpha/beta it feels a lil like getting pooped on... plus newbs will just plain burn out...

Maybe I'm wrong... hopefully I'm wrong... seems like we should be rewarded for earning XP, maybe the HXP thing could come with some kind of (H)C-BILLS??? Put in too much work to be set back 100,000,000>>>??? just to get back up to where I sit now... Thanks for reading!


EDIT: After reading more thoroughly the above post, gotta say yeah: Historical C-Bills baby!!! aka Credits for use ONLY on skill tree points so that us vets can feel less like we're gettin it in the rear.

I suggest this because new skills def SHOULD cost c-bills, but most of us "historically" have already put in MUCHO work/time/effort on the whole 3 variant unlock process which is now obselete!

(H{istoric})c-bills to go with our HXP please! Thanks and great game!! HCB HCB HCB!

Edited by Gill, 20 February 2017 - 11:36 PM.

[Pjwned]

Pretty cool stuff overall.

I still don't like everything, namely because I'd rather have no skill tree honestly, and I was hoping to see less total skill points per mech.

But I do like the economy changes which are much more reasonable now, the skill tree layout changes sound pretty good, and de-coupling agility from engine rating is particularly awesome and has been sorely needed for a while.

Glad to see that feedback is being taken pretty seriously.

[Aplomado]

I like these changes. In particular, I like the XP only cost for respecing. This means that I can use XP gained on my favorite mechs after maxing out the skill tree to experiment with alternate builds, instead of the XP going to waste (unless you want to spend MC on XP conversion).

[Nesutizale]

First of all I like that PGI seams to listen to the people and push the skilltree into the right direction.
As for if these changes are good or not I will wait till I played it.

Only thing that can be said allready is that I still don't quite get is why the economic needs a respec cost.
I would be willing to pay the higher initial price per node to unlock but why does respecing, reaquiering costs anything?
I mean couldn't it be like you buy general unlocks. These might have a higher initial prize but after you have done that feel free to use these unlocks freely within the tree, changing things around without any extra cost. You just can't go over the maximum of aquired unlocks.

Question here, will the test account be reset?

[Omi_]

Gill, on 20 February 2017 - 10:56 PM, said:

Stuff

The notes above straight up mention that costs are down to 60% of the old value with free respec.

This update has hit so many nails right on the head; I'm actually very impressed that PGI has taken so many points of discussion and implemented changes 1:1 with what people have been saying. I don't remember the last time that has happened.

I'm a little leery about keeping some of the powerful stuff on the sensor tree as accessible as it is, but PGI is right to wait and see how the changes so far affect the viability of taking those. My hypothesis is that expanding/diluting the other trees (while being the right move) is going to make sensor skills even more appealing for SR cost and you'll have the same situation as with the last update Survival tree being a must-have, although probably not quite as bad.

I think the following skills could use a revision:
- Gauss charge hold time generally hurts more than it helps since it becomes harder to reset the weapon if you lose your target. A reduction to charge-up time would be more effective as a skill.
- UAV duration usually doesn't come into play since players will usually find and destroy the UAV before it expires. UAV health might be more appealing.

LRM range was a pretty useless skill in the last PTS update because LRMs are generally ineffective at their maximum range anyway (with their greatest effective range being around 400-500m). With the restructuring of the firepower tree, this has arguably become a non-factor. It might be worth considering, though, that the game might be better if LRM max range could stay locked at 1km since players can reliably play around locks at that distance. I feel that this should at least be researched.

Edited by Hornsby, 21 February 2017 - 01:39 AM.

[ForceUser]

Nesutizale, on 21 February 2017 - 12:36 AM, said:

Only thing that can be said allready is that I still don't quite get is why the economic needs a respec cost.

Some form of XP and/or game currency sink is the norm for F2P games. Common ones are repairs, ammo, consumables, captain/crew, new vehicles, vehicle upgrades, etc. This helps justify Premium time and Premium vehicles.

MWO has been pretty light on XP sinks in particular (WoT, AW, WT has crew, AW and WoWs has Commanders and Captains)

[Widowmaker1981]

All good chamges, apart from decoupling engine size from mobility. That just made every engine rated above 350 completely useless at a single stroke. The small straight line speed boost is in no way worth the exponential increase in tonnage at those ratings without the agility boosts going with it.

[Nesutizale]

ForceUser, on 21 February 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

Some form of XP and/or game currency sink is the norm for F2P games. Common ones are repairs, ammo, consumables, captain/crew, new vehicles, vehicle upgrades, etc. This helps justify Premium time and Premium vehicles.

MWO has been pretty light on XP sinks in particular (WoT, AW, WT has crew, AW and WoWs has Commanders and Captains)

Good point.

[Excalibaard]

This looks much more promising, I'm looking forward to the weekend.

The general firepower tree, XP economy and discoupling of mobility from the engine rating are great ideas, though maybe removing mobility from the engine ENTIRELY is a bit drastic.

I'd still like to see a system where buying mech packs or more than 'the best variant' of a mech is made more appealing. For example, you should be able to unlock skills for an entire chassis instead of just for a certain mech, and other variants just have to pay the 400 XP (current iteration) to get that skill because the node is already unlocked for the first time.

I would like to see the Centurion's shield arm and the Hunchback additional hunch armor and similar flavoured quirks to stay though. Maybe implement them as chassis/variant-specific skills?

Edited by Excalibaard, 22 February 2017 - 06:34 AM.

[Nightbird]

Looks like the 12-13% nerf to dps (tree covers fast fire but not modules) and around 20% increase to hp is here to stay, I dub this the TTK patch, since it will be going up a good 20-30%.

Also, did anyone else read that more junk nodes between good nodes are coming?

[ArmageddonKnight]

Quote

Survival


While we’re happy to see enthusiasm for the Survival Skill Tree, we feel the average investment seen in these Nodes did not represent a compelling give-and-take scenario. In the vast majority of cases investing all the way into the Survival Tree was almost seen as mandatory. As a result we have altered the overall layout of the Survival Tree, spreading the bonuses across a greater number of Nodes within the Tree. We have also introduced a new defense-oriented Skill Node which will allow for a reduction in your chances of receiving a Critical Hit.

With the changes you’ll see to the Survival Tree, unlocking the full potential of Structure and Armor Skills will need greater investment, requiring you to evaluate the potential commitment more deeply.

This got me worried that all your going to do is spread the 'good' skills across the tree intermingled even more so with 'crap' skills.


Remember PGI, one of the key issues a lot of people have is the way a player is forced to spend to many skill points in nodes that they just don't want.

Quote

Firepower


While the various Firepower Skill Branches were intended to provide players with a similar analogue to the Module system, the distinct Branches overwhelmingly favored single-weapon Loadouts and provided ‘Mechs suited to that configuration with a significant number of Skill Points to invest elsewhere. ‘Mechs with an array of Hardpoints of different types did not share that freedom.


In the upcoming PTS update you’ll see a significant rework of the distinct Firepower Skill Branch into a single, all-encompassing Firepower Branch. All individual Weapon Branches have been removed, such as the LBX Skill Branch or the Autocannon Skill Branch. The new Firepower Branch will contain Skill Nodes which provide universal bonuses to all weapons. There are no longer distinct Cooldown Nodes specifically for Autocannon weaponry, for example. In their place are all-encompassing Weapon Cooldown Nodes affecting all Ballistic, Energy, and Missile weaponry.


Some weapon-specific Nodes such as UAC Jam Chance and Gauss Extended Charge do still remain, and will be located in a Ballistic ‘hemisphere’ of the Firepower Tree. Laser Duration Nodes also still remain, located in an Energy hemisphere of the Firepower Tree, while Missile Spread Nodes are located in a Missile hemisphere.


The goal here is to provide players with more options for skilling ‘Mechs with multiple Hardpoint types, ensuring that investing into Firepower Skills will provide the same benefits to a much larger variety of builds.


More detailed information regarding the consolidated Firepower Tree will be provided when the PTS update arrives.

My only concern here is that it will be much harder to balance the skills for individual weapons.


For example. CoolDown.

Lets say a Bonus of 5% is chosen for all weapons.

That is 'ok' for say a AC20 with its 4 second CD. The result would be 3.8 seconds. A reduction of 0.2 seconds.

Where as a AC2 with its 0.72 CD would result in a CD of 0.684 seconds. A reduction of only 0.036 seconds, which is next to nothing.

If quirks go the way of the dodo then 5% wont be enough to make the use of, what looks to be a ever diminishing amount of 'free' skill points after defensive, mobility, operations, and sensor/auxiliary, essential skill points are taken.

Even if it was 10%, while that may be good enough for a AC20, 10% of 0.72 on a AC2 however is still next to nothing at only 0.072 second reduction.


My advice would be to have the skill bonuses effect a weapon differently based on size. Much like how the armor bonus effects mechs differently based on class. This would require you to , if you have not already done so, add a hidden classification to weapons such as 'small' (ac2), 'medium' (ac5), 'large' (ac10), and possibly even 'extra large'(ac20). Each classification would essentially be a modifier that the skill tree uses.


So for example. Skill tree bonus of 28% CD reduction across 7 nodes (4% per)

Small - 1x multiplier (E.G ac2 CD 0.72 down to 0.52) 0.20 reduction

Medium - 0.5x (E.G ac5 CD 1.66 down to 1.43) 0.23 reduction

Large - 0.38x (E.G ac10 CD 2.5 down to 2.23) 0.27 reduction

Extra Large - 0.25x (E.G ac20 CD 4.0 down to 3.72) 0.28 reduction


Anyway this is just an example to show my point. Too many skill trees for weapons made boating the only real viable option going by the skill tree, whilst putting them all into one creates a problem with balancing bonuses for different weapons, even those within the same category.

Also still no mention of 'weapon convergence'. The current live Pilot Skills has weapon convergence. But the PTS skill tree didn't have a replacement for it. What is happening with weapon convergence ? (NOT weapon spread for things like SRM,LRM, or LBX)






Finally, will you be doing anything additional to increase TTK and decrease alpha damage ?

Many players reported an increase in TTK but the PTS didn't have full 12 v 12 groups, that's a lot more dmg on the field to deal with than a small 4 v 4 skirmish. Thus I doubt TTK will have actually increased much when in a proper 12 v 12 drop.

My thoughts on reducing alpha damage was a simple reduction in heat capacity.

OR

Just the removal of 'Heat Containment' as a skill, and the introduction of a buffed Cool run skill or an replacement for heat containment that increases cooling efficiency further at the cost of heat capacity.

Thus giving the player the OPTION to CHOOSE between standard heat capacity of 40 + normal cool run, OR lower capacity (35?) + normal cool run + additional faster cooling, allowing for more DPS and stager fire builds over the ever meta Alpha strike builds.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 21 February 2017 - 08:22 AM.

[Greyhart]

ArmageddonKnight, on 21 February 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Also still no mention of 'weapon convergence'. The current live Pilot Skills has weapon convergence. But the PTS skill tree didn't have a replacement for it. What is happening with weapon convergence ? (NOT weapon spread for things like SRM,LRM, or LBX)

I hate to break this to you. But the Weapon convergence skill in the current system does nothing. Weapon convergence (from my understanding) was taken out of the game but the skill remains as a useless XP sink. This is why a new skill system is needed.

[Reno Blade]

Reno Blade, on 21 February 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

Wow. There are greate and unexpectedly good changes.
Thanks for listening to all the feedback!

Economy
-> Biggest improvement, I'd say.
No more CBills for respec and cheap XP -sink
Good to keep the "convert XP" useful, but prevent total grind required - AND uncoupled from buying stuff (mechs and mechlab)

Firepower tree
-> Sounds great.
No more boating prefered.
Looking forward to actually see how many nodes you can/need to spend here now.

Survival/Mobility/Operations trees
-> Sounds great on paper.
More nodes to gain same benefit, hopefully without requiring unwanted nodes, just more.
If the commitment/requirement to one/multiple trees is now higher to max the best stats, it might be finally a "choice".
Let's see how many nodes are required and if we are still able to get "mandatory" stuff with 75 points (with rest in weapons/infotech).

Jumpjets/Aux trees
-> Great to hear the additions!
Maybe then I will have some flying Phoenix Hawk soon...


Engine mobility moved to base stats of each mech weight
-> Finally!
Long time advantage of big XL engines boosting all kinds of mobility.
Now we can out-turn someone with a smaller engine (e.g. zombie Centurion vs Timberwolf) with base stats + skill points rather than to have to equip the highest possible engine.


overall very happy with the announced changes!
Looking forward to the next PTS and the finally patch more than anything.

ironnightbird, on 21 February 2017 - 07:32 AM, said:

Looks like the 12-13% nerf to dps (tree covers fast fire but not modules) and around 20% increase to hp is here to stay, I dub this the TTK patch, since it will be going up a good 20-30%.

Also, did anyone else read that more junk nodes between good nodes are coming?

I'm not sure about the "junk" part in the "more nodes"... it might just be that they will split the % into more nodes.
e.g. Seismic has 2 Nodes for 100m each, if they split it into 5, it would require more investment for the same result.

[MuonNeutrino]

This is getting a lot, lot closer. I think the biggest remaining pain point from my perspective is how far in the hole I'll be, c-bill wise, in order to get my stable back to its current state since I was one of the ones who swapped around modules rather than buying a full set for every mech. It's a lot better than it would have been under the previous cost structure, but I still won't be getting nearly enough from the module refund to re-skill everything.

I think the best idea I've heard of to address this is to give a discount on the cbill and XP cost of skill points for owning more than one variant of a mech. 60k/800/400 per point is still a lot, but if it went down to 50k/700/350 if you owned a second and 40k/600/300 if you owned three it would be a heck of a lot more palatable (cap the reduction at 3). It preserves the removal of the 'rule of three' that the old system has, but gives a nice nod to all of us vets who bought so many extra copies of mechs under that system.

[Nightmare1]

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Unlocking 1 Skill Node for the first time (for the individual ‘Mech whose Skill Tree you are working with) will now only require 60,000 C-Bills and 800 XP. This is a reduction from the 100,000 C-Bills and 1,500 XP required in the previous PTS build.

There is no longer any C-Bill, MC, or Experience cost for removing a Skill Node once you’ve unlocked it.
Removing a Skill Node you’ve already unlocked (for the individual ‘Mech whose Skill Tree you are working with) has no cost associated with it whatsoever.
In light of the above change, removing a Skill Node you've already unlocked will no longer return the XP spent to acquire it. However, that brings us to next change.

If you wish to re-acquire a Skill Node you previously removed (from the individual ‘Mech whose Skill Tree you are working with) you will not be required to repurchase that Skill Node at the initial purchase cost.
Re-acquiring Nodes you previously purchased at full cost will only require 400 XP.

This is an exciting change that I look forward to testing!

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Firepower

While the various Firepower Skill Branches were intended to provide players with a similar analogue to the Module system, the distinct Branches overwhelmingly favored single-weapon Loadouts and provided ‘Mechs suited to that configuration with a significant number of Skill Points to invest elsewhere. ‘Mechs with an array of Hardpoints of different types did not share that freedom.

In the upcoming PTS update you’ll see a significant rework of the distinct Firepower Skill Branch into a single, all-encompassing Firepower Branch. All individual Weapon Branches have been removed, such as the LBX Skill Branch or the Autocannon Skill Branch. The new Firepower Branch will contain Skill Nodes which provide universal bonuses to all weapons. There are no longer distinct Cooldown Nodes specifically for Autocannon weaponry, for example. In their place are all-encompassing Weapon Cooldown Nodes affecting all Ballistic, Energy, and Missile weaponry.

Some weapon-specific Nodes such as UAC Jam Chance and Gauss Extended Charge do still remain, and will be located in a Ballistic ‘hemisphere’ of the Firepower Tree. Laser Duration Nodes also still remain, located in an Energy hemisphere of the Firepower Tree, while Missile Spread Nodes are located in a Missile hemisphere.

The goal here is to provide players with more options for skilling ‘Mechs with multiple Hardpoint types, ensuring that investing into Firepower Skills will provide the same benefits to a much larger variety of builds.

More detailed information regarding the consolidated Firepower Tree will be provided when the PTS update arrives.

This also sounds pretty good. Looking forward to testing this!

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Survival

While we’re happy to see enthusiasm for the Survival Skill Tree, we feel the average investment seen in these Nodes did not represent a compelling give-and-take scenario. In the vast majority of cases investing all the way into the Survival Tree was almost seen as mandatory. As a result we have altered the overall layout of the Survival Tree, spreading the bonuses across a greater number of Nodes within the Tree. We have also introduced a new defense-oriented Skill Node which will allow for a reduction in your chances of receiving a Critical Hit.
With the changes you’ll see to the Survival Tree, unlocking the full potential of Structure and Armor Skills will need greater investment, requiring you to evaluate the potential commitment more deeply.

PGI...what? You recognize that investing into the Survival Skill Tree is mandatory, so you inflate the number of nodes necessary to fully invest? You acknowledge the criticality of owning all these nodes, but then turn around and inflate the number of nodes anyways?

I'm curious to see what it looks like, but this action fills me with misgiving. I have a bad feeling about this.

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Mobility

Similar to Firepower, we did not feel that the division of distinct Mobility-based Skill Branches facilitated the give-and-take nature we intended with Skill Tree choices. For this update we have consolidated the Upper and Lower Torso Skills into a single Mobility Tree, with many of their values receiving adjustments.

This also worries me. The lower torso skills were mostly necessary while the upper torso skills were mostly junk. Why on earth force us to unlock arm speed on an Atlas in order to get to the important torso twist speed? Hearing that the two have been merged worries me more; will I be forced to unlock five ranks of useless arm speed buffs in order to buy a half-dozen ranks of speed and agility buffs for my LCTs?

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Jump Jets

We’ve significantly boosted the benefits provided from investing into the Jump Jet Branch, making them more compelling choices for ‘Mechs capable of equipping Jump Jets. The Jump Jet Branch is also receiving a new type of Skill Node aimed at reducing the amount of heat generated by Jump Jets.

This is a nice change! Previously, there was precious little reason to invest in this skill tree since it was greatly overshadowed by Survival, Lower Torso, and Firepower.

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Operations

As with Survival, bonuses provided from the Operations Skill Nodes have been spread across a greater number of Nodes within the Operations Skill Branch. Unlocking the full potential of this Branch will need greater investment, requiring you to evaluate the potential commitment more deeply.

Once again, taking a skill tree full of critical items and inflating the node numbers to make it harder to acquire necessary skills. I've got a bad feeling about this one too.

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Sensor

For now, the Sensor Branch remains unchanged. We’ll continue to monitor its role in light of the other changes seen in the upcoming update.

Sensor could be tweaked to reduce the amount of node taxing, especially considering the new node taxing taking place in Survival and Operations.

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Auxiliary

Second only to the changes seen with the Firepower Skills, the Auxiliary Branch is shaping up to receive the most significant changes to its structure and content. Our current goal is to allow players to field additional Consumable items, with greater benefits to each, by investing into the Auxiliary Skill Branch. Skill Node boosts for Cool Shot and Strike Consumables will also be introduced into the Auxiliary Branch.

We’d also like to take a moment to reiterate that C-Bill and MC Consumables of the same type will be evenly matched in their fundamental capabilities. A C-Bill UAV and an MC UAV will both possess identical Range and identical Duration, for example. Both will of course benefit from unlocking UAV Skill Nodes, as will all other Consumables benefit from their own associated Skill Nodes.

Meh, I'm skeptical about this. I can't see investing in a UAV being more critical than investing in armor, speed, agility, firepower, and operations. By the time you invest in all those, given the amount of new node taxing, I doubt anyone will have leftover points to invest in Consumables.

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Balance Changes

Critical Hits

The changes to Critical Hit systems seen in the first PTS brought with them an unanticipated bug in the way Critical Hit chances were being determined. This bug significantly increased the chances of a Critical Hit. We’ve corrected this behavior in the latest PTS update. As a result, we are not making any adjustments to Component Health or any aspects of the Critical Hit until we can see how the previous changes play out when a bug isn’t impacting the results.

Good.

Alexander Garden, on 20 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Disassociating ‘Mech Mobility Attributes from Engine Ratings

Engine selection has long been a balance sore-spot in MWO. Too much was gained by upgrading Engines to higher ratings, with little opportunity for providing a compelling give-and-take between the lighter, slower Engines against the heavier, faster Engines. The system also created a dynamic where baseline ‘Mech viability could be dramatically impacted by the inherent Engine restrictions of a 'Mech. These issues only compounded Inner Sphere and Clan imbalances, with Clan 'Mechs fielding much heavier Engines than their Inner Sphere counterparts - with no sacrifice to Loadout due - to fundamentally lighter equipment.

With the above issues in mind, we intend to break baseline Mobility characteristics away from Engines. Mobility will instead be determined by the overall tonnage of the chassis. It’s important to note that this will not affect the speed of a ‘Mech, which will remain tied with Engine size.
This change was specifically designed in the context of the Skill Tree, but was omitted from the first PTS as we continued to finalize some work required for implementing it. With that work complete, this system will be on full display in the upcoming PTS update.

At a top-down level, you can expect Mobility to now be roughly equal across tonnage lines. While their speeds will differ, an UrbanMech will now have the same Mobility attributes as an Arctic Cheetah, while a Kodiak will share the same Mobility attributes as an Atlas.

This change is not only intended to improve baseline balance between ‘Mechs, techbases, and Engines, but also to accomplish one of the stated design goals of the Skill Tree system. That is, to facilitate a drastic reduction in inherent ‘Mech Quirks.

As a result of this change we will be removing all of the current Mobility Quirks from Inner Sphere BattleMechs and Clan Center Torso OmniPods. Non-CT OmniPod and Set of 8 Mobility Quirks will remain.

Many ‘Mechs previously balanced around superior Mobility Quirks will instead see those Quirks integrated into the inherent Mobility attributes of the 'Mech. Those inherent Mobility attributes will then be evaluated and adjusted against similar 'Mechs within their tonnage bracket. For example, the Phoenix Hawk will be provided with higher baseline Mobility stats compared to the Blackjack.

This change allows for the following changes to the Skill Tree:

• With Mobility Quirks now rolled into the base Mobility attributes of a ‘Mech, Skill Nodes will have greater influence over the final Mobility attributes of a ‘Mech when compared to their impact previously seen under the Quirk system.
• Creates greater value for Mobility-based Skill bonuses for ‘Mechs which possess naturally high Mobility attributes.
• Streamlines the influence of the Skill Tree on ‘Mech Mobility, providing more transparency within the MechLab in terms of how Skill Nodes influence the Mobility of a ‘Mech.

These changes will bring some necessary UI improvements to provide players with more feedback regarding the Mobility attributes of their ‘Mechs within the ‘Mech Stats window.

More detailed information covering the Engine and Mobility changes will be provided regarding with the complete PTS notes.


Finally, we’d very much like to reiterate that we are continuing to evaluate baseline systems in an attempt to better balance not only the Inner Sphere and Clan dynamic, but any other aspect of the game and its systems where we determine baseline systems may favor one specific approach over its alternatives.

We look forward to your feedback on all of the above items when the PTS update arrives. That update is currently slated for Friday, February 24th. However, the update may arrive next week if more time is required. We’ll keep you posted if anything changes.
Thank you for reading MechWarriors, and thank you for playing. Keep the feedback coming.

Mobility changes...not sure how I feel about this one. It sounds like we're killing off the Kodiak. I'm also worried about Mechs like the BattleMaster, Quickdraw, Dragon, and Awesome which rely heavily on their agility. I've a feeling that this is going to break a lot of the Heavy and Assault Mechs and push people towards the lighter end of the weight spectrum.

In MechWarrior, your three key elements of survival are speed, firepower, and armor, in that order. While speed may be untouched, removing the agility from agility-dependent Mechs effectively negates any benefits that their sped may give them.

I know that PGI is trying to push Assaults and Heavies more into the realm of relying on firepower and armor, but let's be realistic. The faster you are, the better your combat advantage.

[Cpt Zaepp]

I guess I could live with that. Still, I would rather see no costs for respecc at all and pay higher initial costs to unlock the nodes.