78 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

I'd rather spend one point on cool down, one on laser duration, and then spend the third on whatever I choose instead of being forced to take a skill the devs are forcing me, and everyone else, to take. They've simply built a new cookie cutter instead of actually allowing us to customize the way we want.

I have no problems with higher cost skills, but there must be no filler nodes. Let us pick only what we want. Its easy enough to do if the just admit they've messed up on the tree.

More expensive in what manner?

I'll admit, I've only skimmed this thread so far... So if you said this already, forgive me.

Now, are you asking for "better skills" to be more expensive to purchase, or to "equip"? Basically, are you suggesting more expensive Exp and C-bills to unlock and use, or more expensive in the number of Skill Points it utilizes?

I think PGI is trying to have all skills be 1 skill point each (makes for easy balancing and easier for players to understand. It's just more intuitive). In a "all skills cost the same" systems, you block off "more powerful" skills by having players dance through "lesser valued skills" as a balance. The skill can still be opened, but it will cost you more (or so it seems) and also provides additional benefits, even if you didn't want them.

I personally am not opposed to "filler nodes", as long as they make sense along the path. I don't want to see missile skills intermixed with laser/ballistic specific skills, as I may not have those weapons on my mech. But, if I have to go through general weapon cooldown skills (still benefits everything you may take) to get "decrease missile spread" (as a random example), than it's still benefiting me, even if I didn't necessarily want it.

I think this depends upon what the "filler skills" actually are. And I wish to make sure it's mentioned, I'm not opposed to opposition to the skill trees and it's pathing. I just want to make sure if something is being mentioned that it's got a good reason behind it.

[Ruar]

Tesunie, on 26 April 2017 - 10:07 PM, said:

More expensive in what manner?

I'll admit, I've only skimmed this thread so far... So if you said this already, forgive me.

Now, are you asking for "better skills" to be more expensive to purchase, or to "equip"? Basically, are you suggesting more expensive Exp and C-bills to unlock and use, or more expensive in the number of Skill Points it utilizes?

I think PGI is trying to have all skills be 1 skill point each (makes for easy balancing and easier for players to understand. It's just more intuitive). In a "all skills cost the same" systems, you block off "more powerful" skills by having players dance through "lesser valued skills" as a balance. The skill can still be opened, but it will cost you more (or so it seems) and also provides additional benefits, even if you didn't want them.

I personally am not opposed to "filler nodes", as long as they make sense along the path. I don't want to see missile skills intermixed with laser/ballistic specific skills, as I may not have those weapons on my mech. But, if I have to go through general weapon cooldown skills (still benefits everything you may take) to get "decrease missile spread" (as a random example), than it's still benefiting me, even if I didn't necessarily want it.

I think this depends upon what the "filler skills" actually are. And I wish to make sure it's mentioned, I'm not opposed to opposition to the skill trees and it's pathing. I just want to make sure if something is being mentioned that it's got a good reason behind it.

Expensive as in higher skill cost
Not sure if I covered it in this thread but I did in a thread I made earlier.

https://mwomercs.com...ed-tree-is-bad/

[Tesunie]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 26 April 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

I remember that one PGI dev said he liked the tangle tree over a linear tree with varying costs because it allowed players to get extra miscilainious stat bonuses in addition to what they're intentionally looking for. He said something along the lines of "Why would you not want the free bonuses? I don't get that?"

What he fails to understand is this: he is not selling us a real piece of military equipment, no we don't just want everything we can get for the same price. This is a video game, we want the opportunity costs, we want to feel specialized, that's part of the fun! No we don't want free hill climb! We want to feel like our choices are impactful!

Give us linear trees, and let us pick what we want with varied prices based on the nodes!

Problem with this thinking, making Min/Maxing too easy and too impactful within the skill system. You don't want someone to just take all PPC/Gauss skills only with a mech with high weapon mounts (good for sniping) and only has PPC/Gauss equipped on their mech.

The problem with linear skills is very much the same issue we had with the Hex PPC Stalker build, anyone else remember that? The issue becomes over specialization to the point of actually possibly killing diversity and making some specific skill/weapon/mech combos possibly too effective.

Then again, the problem with a non-linear skill tree is that you sometimes are forced to take skills you, well, really don't want and are useless to you. But, it's suppose to be a balancing mechanic. The question more so is if it's balanced correctly to make more options viable without killing any specific option on it's own.

[Mike Barnes]

So we all go out and get a new 'mech on live, we begin playing and the first thing anybody spends experience (Shut up jerkoff that bought a jeager and threw two gauss rifles on it, nobody likes you, and your parents moved away without telling you), on is cool run and then heat containment, every guide forum or salty vet will tell you that. if those skills cost twice what they do now, or even three times they would still be the first, Just because something isn't expensive doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Also it's not like you're not getting something out of it, how many of you ***** about trying to climb around canyon network in assault 'mechs, doing little dances and wiggling around. How many of you scream when your arctic cheetah loses a leg, and now the dire whale is outrunning you even after the fall lag wears off. or how nice is it to still be able to aim and return fire even as the Kodiak is lighting you up? Now we are getting the ability to have modules of varying levels of effectiveness rather than everybody having seismic and radar derp. If you don't want hill climb improved gyros or speed retention, learn to manage your heat.

As far as the PPFLD VS. DPS VS Brawling stuff, survivability is giving 'mechs a stronger ability to close, brawlers will have a better ability to get in your face, while your gauss rifles are cycling down, and your heat is too high from your ERPPCs.

Duncan1dah0, on 26 April 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

You should not have to waste points in hill climb and gyros. If it is a concern on power creep and needing to make high investment in certain powerful skills cost you more, well then just make them cost more. Make level 1 Heat containment worth 1 skill point, but level 3 or 4 takes 2, then level 5 takes 3. You then are directly putting your money where you value it and at the same time sacrificing in other areas. Why is this such a hard thing?

ARE YOU DAFT?!? Touched in the head? Do you currently smell toast? Okay now that I have that out of my system, let's be a bit more rational, you would rather pay 25 points and just get cool run and heat containment than pay the same 25 points and get some other stuff which is helpful and useful? You are suggesting a system in which you pay the same to get less, why does this make sense to you?

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Tesunie, on 26 April 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

Problem with this thinking, making Min/Maxing too easy and too impactful within the skill system. You don't want someone to just take all PPC/Gauss skills only with a mech with high weapon mounts (good for sniping) and only has PPC/Gauss equipped on their mech.

The problem with linear skills is very much the same issue we had with the Hex PPC Stalker build, anyone else remember that? The issue becomes over specialization to the point of actually possibly killing diversity and making some specific skill/weapon/mech combos possibly too effective.

Then again, the problem with a non-linear skill tree is that you sometimes are forced to take skills you, well, really don't want and are useless to you. But, it's suppose to be a balancing mechanic. The question more so is if it's balanced correctly to make more options viable without killing any specific option on it's own.

Right, but no problem you've mentioned cannot be solved by having varying SP costs on nodes. The only difference would be that the tangle tree entails you playing a ****** puzzle game first snd then getting a bunch of useless bonuses. There's nothing difficult about using varied costs and tweaking the bonus values to equalize the worth of different nodes.

It would be the same give and take. If you want your Gyr to have all the CD and Velocity nodes, you're going to continue to turn like a glaciar. Only difference is you aren't carrying around 40 useless nodes.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mike Barnes, on 26 April 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

ARE YOU DAFT?!? Touched in the head? Do you currently smell toast? Okay now that I have that out of my system, let's be a bit more rational, you would rather pay 25 points and just get cool run and heat containment than pay the same 25 points and get some other stuff which is helpful and useful? You are suggesting a system in which you pay the same to get less, why does this make sense to you?

YES EXACTLY I WOULD RATHER PAY 25 AND ONLY GET COOL RUN AND HEAT CONTAINMENT. That way it means something when I go back at pick other nodes for other mechs. Oppurtunity costs are fun, it means your choices matter more. There are actually mechs i want hill climb on (and i want a lot more than three nodes worth at 15% let me tell you).

[Tesunie]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 26 April 2017 - 10:24 PM, said:

Right, but no problem you've mentioned cannot be solved by having varying SP costs on nodes. The only difference would be that the tangle tree entails you playing a ****** puzzle game first snd then getting a bunch of useless bonuses. There's nothing difficult about using varied costs and tweaking the bonus values to equalize the worth of different nodes.

It would be the same give and take. If you want your Gyr to have all the CD and Velocity nodes, you're going to continue to turn like a glaciar. Only difference is you aren't carrying around 40 useless nodes.

Thing is, it is just easier for a user to understand a 1 to 1 point skill system, compared to a skill system where each skill may cost a different amount to have. It's more intuitive for design as well as understanding (without a tutorial I might mention).

The current system also lets people place some points into some needed skill, instead of an all or nothing. So, having four similar skills spread out lets you choose if just two of those may be all you need, compared to all four.

More than likely, those 40 other skills would still be useful, just not as useful as other skills would be seen as. Like currently, we have modules. Each mech can typically take (after mastery) at least two modules. Right now, those choices are Radar Dep and then either Adv Target Decay (missiles/LRMs) or Seismic. No one takes Hill Climb currently because there are other modules to choose from that are just plain better. But, in a spread skill system, now people can have a little of each, or aim for full power of one, racing through "unwanted" skills in the process.

PGI isn't the first (or only) game to try and use a "maze" skill tree system. I recall FFX having a maze system as well, and sometimes there you also ended up unlocking skills you just didn't see much value in having, or never intended to use.

It's a form of balance. I'm not "putting your idea down", I'm just trying to make sure it's refined and well thought out.


Ruar has a reasonably well thought out proposal, even though I see it as being too easy to min/max for ultimate benefit. His system also would lead, once again, towards everyone trying to unlock only the skills they want, with no dross. How well it may work? No idea.

These suggestions are falling into the "I'd love to test them to see if they work before I say anything else about them" category. Sometimes, something may look good in your head, or even on paper, but when placed into practical use... It just doesn't hold up. As a Graphic Designer, I can say I've had full designs in my head that looked great! And then... Well... When actually attempted it just looked horrible. So, I don't want to discredit your concept. If anything, I want to see at least some details of what you actually are wishing to have done, and why you feel it would be better.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Tesunie, on 26 April 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

Thing is, it is just easier for a user to understand a 1 to 1 point skill system, compared to a skill system where each skill may cost a different amount to have. It's more intuitive for design as well as understanding (without a tutorial I might mention).

The current system also lets people place some points into some needed skill, instead of an all or nothing. So, having four similar skills spread out lets you choose if just two of those may be all you need, compared to all four.

More than likely, those 40 other skills would still be useful, just not as useful as other skills would be seen as. Like currently, we have modules. Each mech can typically take (after mastery) at least two modules. Right now, those choices are Radar Dep and then either Adv Target Decay (missiles/LRMs) or Seismic. No one takes Hill Climb currently because there are other modules to choose from that are just plain better. But, in a spread skill system, now people can have a little of each, or aim for full power of one, racing through "unwanted" skills in the process.

PGI isn't the first (or only) game to try and use a "maze" skill tree system. I recall FFX having a maze system as well, and sometimes there you also ended up unlocking skills you just didn't see much value in having, or never intended to use.

It's a form of balance. I'm not "putting your idea down", I'm just trying to make sure it's refined and well thought out.


Ruar has a reasonably well thought out proposal, even though I see it as being too easy to min/max for ultimate benefit. His system also would lead, once again, towards everyone trying to unlock only the skills they want, with no dross. How well it may work? No idea.

These suggestions are falling into the "I'd love to test them to see if they work before I say anything else about them" category. Sometimes, something may look good in your head, or even on paper, but when placed into practical use... It just doesn't hold up. As a Graphic Designer, I can say I've had full designs in my head that looked great! And then... Well... When actually attempted it just looked horrible. So, I don't want to discredit your concept. If anything, I want to see at least some details of what you actually are wishing to have done, and why you feel it would be better.

We passed intuitive several miles ago. The skill tree system is cluttered as all hell. Further, no, clearly denotated differing node costs is much more intuitive to a new player than a giant spiderweb. It also encourages customization and diversity. If the meta isn't diverse, then power creep the non-meta nodes! Let's see Hill Climb cap out at 50% instead of 15%!

[Reno Blade]

I think the result would be the same if the tree had tiers and you maybe had to spend the "useless" skills to progress to next tier.

Why would it need tiers? because otherwise you would have all skills at the first level and you don't want to have the linear tree to look like the below example.

Tiered tree:
e.g.
X = wanted skill
Y = unwanted skill

X
/ | \
Y X X
/ / / | \ \ \
X Y XXY X Y
------------------ Unlock 5 skills to unlock Tier2
Y X Y
/ / / | \ \ \
X X XXY X Y
------------------ Unlock 5 skills to unlock Tier3
Y X X
/ / / | \ \ \
X Y XXY X Y


Linear Tree:

A B C D E
| | | | |
A B C D E
| | | |
A B C D
| | | |
A B C D
| | |
5 A B C
| | |
A B C
| |
A B
| |
A B
| |
A B
| |
10 A B
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
15 A

[naterist]

Heres a thought. By bring down mechs closer to baseline stats, they can maybe get rid ghost heat and some of the funkier balancing solutions.

[Y E O N N E]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

I'd rather spend one point on cool down, one on laser duration, and then spend the third on whatever I choose instead of being forced to take a skill the devs are forcing me, and everyone else, to take. They've simply built a new cookie cutter instead of actually allowing us to customize the way we want.

I have no problems with higher cost skills, but there must be no filler nodes. Let us pick only what we want. Its easy enough to do if the just admit they've messed up on the tree.

Sure, but if you can still get what you want even now then what is the tangible issue? I am only seeing a problem if your goal is to get more than you are able to get now, but clearly PGI doesn't want you to. If they go to a system with less filler, they are going to give you correspondingly fewer resources to work with to the point where you are just as limited, but you don't get any extra benefits with your intended allocation.

I have no real opinion on the skill tree, it simply is. I would have preferred a perk-drawback system, but we didn't get that. What we did get is a mess, but it really doesn't change the game much from what we have now. That is my only real problem with it. The loss of double basics and quirks are having a much heftier impact than the architecture of the trees.

[Tesunie]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 26 April 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

We passed intuitive several miles ago. The skill tree system is cluttered as all hell. Further, no, clearly denotated differing node costs is much more intuitive to a new player than a giant spiderweb. It also encourages customization and diversity. If the meta isn't diverse, then power creep the non-meta nodes! Let's see Hill Climb cap out at 50% instead of 15%!

Believe it or not, a spiderweb may look more intimidating, but (seen as you can move back and forth almost at will now) it's actually more intuitive to understand. You purchase the skills lower on the path to unlock skills higher up on the path, till you reach the desired skill nodes, each for a single skill point.

Where as, if some nodes are more heavily weighted and most nodes are just a single skill point, you may have some people wondering why they can't unlock and equip a skill. I see it all the time currently with the skill system we have now, as instead of needing only a single mech, you need three of the same chassis (different variants) to get past basics, and then (which confuses most people) you need three of the same weight class (different variants, but can be different chassis as well) to get past Elite level... As well as a lot of questions on if mastery doubles elite skills, as eliting doubles basic skills (for the record it doesn't).

Now, depending upon how it is done, I could still see a weighted node system work, but I am worried that it would provide too much ability to min/max a build. The goal isn't to let someone min/max skills and mech design to create "the perfect mech", but is instead to let one tweak things a little bit to let them customize their build more to their suiting, and force them to make decisions compared to "unlock all of these".


If anything, I believe the survival skills are the most unbalancing skills. They are almost a mandatory skill sink, for basically every mech, very much how the heat cooling skills now currently are as well as current Speed Tweak. All other skills currently are not nearly as needed, as you unlock those three as soon as you can.


Anyway, a weighted node system could work. It has potential. The question is would it be too direct and too easy to manipulate? It could be, or it may not be...

Edit: Fixed some typos

Edited by Tesunie, 27 April 2017 - 07:03 AM.

[Ruar]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 April 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Sure, but if you can still get what you want even now then what is the tangible issue? I am only seeing a problem if your goal is to get more than you are able to get now, but clearly PGI doesn't want you to. If they go to a system with less filler, they are going to give you correspondingly fewer resources to work with to the point where you are just as limited, but you don't get any extra benefits with your intended allocation.

I have no real opinion on the skill tree, it simply is. I would have preferred a perk-drawback system, but we didn't get that. What we did get is a mess, but it really doesn't change the game much from what we have now. That is my only real problem with it. The loss of double basics and quirks are having a much heftier impact than the architecture of the trees.

My goal is not to get more than we can get now. My goal is to get close to the same amount of skills as current, but the skills are all chosen by me instead of a dev. If they are going to give us a skill tree and tell us it's so we can customize our mechs then they need to let us customize our way, not theirs. Otherwise there's not much point in having a tree because we're all pretty much going to be getting the exact same skills similar to what is on live. Yes, there will be some differences as people don't get armor or firepower, but if you do go the armor route then you'll have pretty much the same armor skills as everyone else because the devs are forcing you to hit certain gates.

Those gates aren't "free" skills. They are a tax on the skills you really want and in the end that tax prevents you from truly customizing.

Take a look at this picture I made of the sensor tree. This is the ideal of what I think the tree should end up being if we have to use a 1 point cost for 1 node. Not the best solution IMO but if that is how it has to be then so be it.



In the current test version it takes a minimum of 17 skill points to get all of radar deprivation. Those 17 skill points get you pieces of four other skills. Which means everyone who takes radar dep is going to have the exact same set of skills for those 17 points and then you might pick and choose to round out retention or range depending on if you are LRMs or a scout. There's not much different between the skills taken for your light mech and the skills taken for your assault mech because the devs have predetermined what you have to click in order to get radar dep.

In a linear tree however you pay the cost for radar dep and then you have a few points left for the items you like. In my picture I went with 11 points for radar dep leaving six points for the other skills. I could still get pieces of four other skills if I choose, or I could go down one of them completely to fit my build. I would be in charge of customizing my skills instead of the devs and I can spend my point on whatever I prefer. Maybe I don't want any other sensor options and would rather those six points go somewhere else.

What if 11 points isn't enough for radar dep? What if it needs to be 15? Then it's so easy to add a few more nodes to the one that needs an increase in price. It's also really easy to reduce the number of nodes on the less used skills so they only take one point to max out. There is a lot of room for adjustments in a linear tree that are much harder to make happen in a tangled web.

Imagine going into the tree on PTS and making an adjustment to sensor range so that it costs more. Move one node farther down the list and you have to worry about all of the nodes above it. You also have to constantly adjust the shape and layout of the tangled web to accommodate any changes instead of simply adding or removing a hex in a linear system.

What happens when civil war comes out and they realize they need to adjust the skills for PPCs because the stub nose are too stronk? In the tangle web you have to make massive adjustments to add in a new series of nodes to make sure you aren't accidentally screwing over something else. Alternately adding in a new line now makes the AC nodes cheaper and a lot of people move to ACs because it frees up five points and ACs are used too much. With a linear system you just figure up how much you think PPC boosts should cost, drop in that line of nodes, and ACs remain the exact same as before with only PPCs being affected.

I see so many reasons for using a linear tree. One of which is the fact that I literally resent being forced to take skills I don't want in order to get to the skills I do want. I'm fairly certain I won't play a game where I actually get pissed off every time I have to click on something I have no interest in picking up.

I've seen people talk about other games that do this and I can use Rift as an example. When I go through the tree in Rift and hit a line of skills I don't really want I can at least see each of them are of relative equal value and it's just a matter of which one suits my play style best. I'm not losing out on anything when I select one of those skills because they are all pretty much the same value but fill different roles. The tree on PTS doesn't give me equal value skills to fit my play style though. It gives me lesser skills I have to wade through in order to get to the skills I value. That is why so many are upset at the PTS tree and why the comparisons to other game trees don't hold water. It's apple juice and apple pie being compared. Just because they both have apple in them doesn't mean they work the same.

Edited by Ruar, 27 April 2017 - 08:15 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Tesunie, on 27 April 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

Believe it or not, a spiderweb may look more intimidating, but (seen as you can move back and forth almost at will now) it's actually more intuitive to understand. You purchase the skills lower on the path to unlock skills higher up on the path, till you reach the desired skill nodes, each for a single skill point.

Where as, if some nodes are more heavily weighted and most nodes are just a single skill point, you may have some people wondering why they can't unlock and equip a skill. I see it all the time currently with the skill system we have now, as instead of needing only a single mech, you need three of the same chassis (different variants) to get past basics, and then (which confuses most people) you need three of the same weight class (different variants, but can be different chassis as well) to get past Elite level... As well as a lot of questions on if mastery doubles elite skills, as eliting doubles basic skills (for the record it doesn't).

Now, depending upon how it is done, I could still see a weighted node system work, but I am worried that it would provide too much ability to min/max a build. The goal isn't to let someone min/max skills and mech design to create "the perfect mech", but is instead to let one tweak things a little bit to let them customize their build more to their suiting, and force them to make decisions compared to "unlock all of these".


If anything, I believe the survival skills are the most unbalancing skills. They are almost a mandatory skill sink, for basically every mech, very much how the heat cooling skills now currently are as well as current Speed Tweak. All other skills currently are not nearly as needed, as you unlock those three as soon as you can.


Anyway, a weighted node system could work. It has potential. The question is would it be too direct and too easy to manipulate? It could be, or it may not be...

Edit: Fixed some typos

Yeonne Greene, on 27 April 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Sure, but if you can still get what you want even now then what is the tangible issue? I am only seeing a problem if your goal is to get more than you are able to get now, but clearly PGI doesn't want you to. If they go to a system with less filler, they are going to give you correspondingly fewer resources to work with to the point where you are just as limited, but you don't get any extra benefits with your intended allocation.

I have no real opinion on the skill tree, it simply is. I would have preferred a perk-drawback system, but we didn't get that. What we did get is a mess, but it really doesn't change the game much from what we have now. That is my only real problem with it. The loss of double basics and quirks are having a much heftier impact than the architecture of the trees.

I think ultimately if you clearly label the varying node costs with numbers in big font, a linear tree with varied costs would work just fine. I think it's actually more rewarding to not get all of the free extra stuff on the side, and just to get what you were after, Yeonne.

If those extra bonuses provide some kind of a quality of life boost that we all want, but wouldn't realistically spend the points on if we had the choice - because ofcourse while the skills are nice, they don't have enough impact on combat effectiveness to be worth it in a pick and choose system - then PGI should give us all those small varied bonuses as a baseline on every mech (afterall, they're pretty much free under this system, so what's the difference?)

Then after that's done, the nodes that aren't particularly meaningful, like duration, hill climb, targeting range, hardened casing, should all have their max potential values tripled. Maybe 15% hill climb isn't worth it for three nodes, how about 50% for two? It being your choice of course, not a stepping stone along the way. That not enough? how about 100% for three? Just adjust the bonus to just below the point that it begins to feel absurd, and then spread to over as many nodes as is necessary and adjust the node cost as is necessary.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 27 April 2017 - 08:18 AM.

[Ruar]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 27 April 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

I think ultimately if you clearly label node costs with numbers in big font on the nodes, a linear tree with varied costs would work just fine. I think it's actually more rewarding to not get all of the free extra stuff on the side, and just to get what you were after.

If that extra bonuses provide some kind of a quality of life boost that we all want, but wouldn't spend the points on if we had a choice (for the sake of being effective),then PGI should give those small varied bonuses to us as a baseline (afterall, they're pretty much free under this system, so what's the difference?)

Then the nodes that aren't particularly meaningful, like duration, hill climb, targeting range, hardened casing, should all have their max potential values tripled. Maybe 15% hill climb isn't worth it for three nodes, how about 50% for two? It being your choice of course, not a stepping stone along the way. That not enough? how about 100% for three? Just adjust the bonus to just below the point that it begins to feel absurd, and then spread t over as many nodes as is necessary and adjust the node cost as is necessary.

100% hill climb would be amazing. You could climb up buildings.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Ruar, on 27 April 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

100% hill climb would be amazing. You could climb up buildings.

Sadly it only decreases the rate at which you lose speed going up a surface : p, not the angle that you start slowing down at. In PGI language I'm pretty sure +100% translates to it taking twice as long to slow down once you hit a sufficiently steep hill x3

But I agree that it would be much more meaningful, and if it's meaningful you might consider taking it. I'm pretty sure a Kodiak pilot would take a 100% bonus for one point, so then the question is, would he take it for 2 points? how about 3?

Once you hit the arena of around 50%, you know where your values should be set. Outside of weapon cooldowns and armor, PGI really shouldn't be afraid to play with bigger potential bonus values.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 27 April 2017 - 08:28 AM.

[Scynonymz]

I know this comment will probably get overlooked, but a small tweak to the game could be beneficial in this circumstance. You can still get most everything we currently have by distributing your points correctly, save for perhaps, miscellaneous things like multiple consumable slots, which a small addition to the number of SP we're given can change that. But still, this is my biggest issue:

As I see it, I get very tired of playing with my mechs in the Mechlab. Already, if you don't own multiple of the same variation of mech, you have to refit every time you want to run it another way. This will happen the same way except having to refund all of your SP and carefully navigating the skill trees(which takes too long). This is what we need if this goes through despite the public outcry already being had. (And frankly it should already be in the game)

We need to be able to save multiple loadouts for a single variation of our mechs and switch seemlessly between them. To include mech builds and skill point perks associated with the builds.

[Cy Mitchell]

GabrielSun, on 26 April 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

We've been saying it all along. The problem we have with the trees is clearly outlined with the attached image.



Look at how far these are spread out. Heat containment and Cool Run were the first thing you picked up before... and cheaply. Why do I have to spend 21 pts minimum to get them now? It's ridiculous.

Take all the trees and group similar functions. As is now the skill tree absolutely removes any kind of creative building and makes you shotgun the entire tree to obtain one function you may be looking for.

PGI is trying to control min/maxing where every single Mech takes the same "best" skills and every meta Mech is a carbon copy of each other.

There are two ways to do that. The first is to drastically limit the amount of Skill Points that you can use so that there is no way that you can take all the "best" skills and must make choices of which one you will take at the expense of something else that you really want.

The second way, and the way PGI has chosen, is to give you lots of skill points but raise the cost of using those points by spreading the "best" skills out and separating them with skills of lesser value that you must work through to get the maximum benefit of wanted "best" skill. There is actual benefit to the system that PGI chose because the majority of those "useless" skills do provide performance benefits when they are activated in the process of getting to the "best" skills. The only time this is not the case is when you really, really want to max out something like weapon cooldown and have to choose a node for a weapon that you do not have equipped to get to additional cooldown nodes. You are not "forced" to do that. You choose to do that to pursue the min/maxing and therefore pay additional SPs to get that extra benefit.

Min/maxing has led to power creep over the years. I understand and support PGI's efforts to control it. I do wish there were less SP awarded and less nodes to choose from. However, I also enjoy the added performance that those "useless" nodes give to my Mechs. I may not have specifically wanted increased sensor range and target info gathering when I was trying to get my Seismic Sensor or Radar Deprivation but it is nice in game to be able to see the enemy and his load-out from further away. It is also nice not to come to a almost complete stop when climbing a grade on Canyon when I have a couple of "useless" Hill Climb nodes that got in the way of me getting Cool Run.

I have currently leveled up and used 7 Mechs in the PTS. Each and every one of them is slightly different. Even in the case of using two Mechs that are the same chassis and variant, the skill tree nodes that I selected to optimize for the performance that I wanted are different in more than just the Weapon Tree. In the old system, they would be carbon copies of each other with the exception of of the Weapon Modules that were equipped. I find that this new system adds some diversity to the builds.

Is it perfect? No, but I can see what they are doing here and I find this to be a workable if not refined way of achieving their goals of limiting min/maxing and providing an improved level of optimization for the Mechs.

[Ruar]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 27 April 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Sadly it only decreases the rate at which you lose speed going up a surface : p, not the angle that you start slowing down at. In PGI language I'm pretty sure +100% translates to it taking twice as long to slow down once you hit a sufficiently steep hill x3

But I agree that it would be much more meaningful, and if it's meaningful you might consider taking it. I'm pretty sure a Kodiak pilot would take a 100% bonus for one point, so then the question is, would he take it for 2 points? how about 3?

Once you hit the arena of around 50%, you know where your values should be set. Outside of weapon cooldowns and armor, PGI really shouldn't be afraid to play with bigger potential bonus values.

I tried hill climb on my ENF because I'm flanking with it all the time. In the end I dropped it to try out seismic which has some value as well. I'm not really sure which is better for me overall because they both seemed to be equal for my style. I put radar dep on every mech though because it has value to me all the time.

How do they make hill climb or seismic more valuable to me? They could increase the return, but at some point that has to stop. If seismic showed me the mech movement at 800m I would take it but that's a bit out of control. If hill climb let me go up an angle I couldn't previously go up then I would take it, but just keeping up my speed isn't enough really.

However, if those were both one point skills then I would consider taking them. The problem though is if they are one point skills they can't really be used as gates because everyone would have them. Which leads back to the problems with the web system instead of a linear route. In linear we can have a bunch of one point skills sitting on the side to round out a build and still have a high cost on thing like radar dep. In a web there is a limit to how many gates you can create before everyone ends up looking exactly the same.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Rampage, on 27 April 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

PGI is trying to control min/maxing where every single Mech takes the same "best" skills and every meta Mech is a carbon copy of each other.

There are two ways to do that. The first is to drastically limit the amount of Skill Points that you can use so that there is no way that you can take all the "best" skills and must make choices of which one you will take at the expense of something else that you really want.

The second way, and the way PGI has chosen, is to give you lots of skill points but raise the cost of using those points by spreading the "best" skills out and separating them with skills of lesser value that you must work through to get the maximum benefit of wanted "best" skill. There is actual benefit to the system that PGI chose because the majority of those "useless" skills do provide performance benefits when they are activated in the process of getting to the "best" skills. The only time this is not the case is when you really, really want to max out something like weapon cooldown and have to choose a node for a weapon that you do not have equipped to get to additional cooldown nodes. You are not "forced" to do that. You choose to do that to pursue the min/maxing and therefore pay additional SPs to get that extra benefit.

Min/maxing has led to power creep over the years. I understand and support PGI's efforts to control it. I do wish there were less SP awarded and less nodes to choose from. However, I also enjoy the added performance that those "useless" nodes give to my Mechs. I may not have specifically wanted increased sensor range and target info gathering when I was trying to get my Seismic Sensor or Radar Deprivation but it is nice in game to be able to see the enemy and his load-out from further away. It is also nice not to come to a almost complete stop when climbing a grade on Canyon when I have a couple of "useless" Hill Climb nodes that got in the way of me getting Cool Run.

I have currently leveled up and used 7 Mechs in the PTS. Each and every one of them is slightly different. Even in the case of using two Mechs that are the same chassis and variant, the skill tree nodes that I selected to optimize for the performance that I wanted are different in more than just the Weapon Tree. In the old system, they would be carbon copies of each other with the exception of of the Weapon Modules that were equipped. I find that this new system adds some diversity to the builds.

Is it perfect? No, but I can see what they are doing here and I find this to be a workable if not refined way of achieving their goals of limiting min/maxing and providing an improved level of optimization for the Mechs.

This isn't going to stop min maxing. Players are going to end up with the same cookie cutter meta arrangements in a couple months. The only exceptions are going to be stubborn idiots like myself who just want to be different.

Further those free improvements you get by reaching the good nodes, we are ALL aware that they aren't literally useless. That's not the point though. Those stats could just be added to a mechs baseline if they really improve the quality of life.

But what if I wanted to focus into hill climb or absorbance? I can't because everyone is going to already have those for free on their cookie cutter builds! Man I want like 80% hill climb on my maddog :/ , but because PGI has just treated the hill climb stat as a filler for cool run and heat containment, I can't :c

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 27 April 2017 - 08:49 AM.