4 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

"While containing different Node counts, and wide distribution throughout the Tree, the Cooldown and Heat Gen Skill types require around 28 Nodes of investment to maximize any one of those two Skills. To achieve this you need to sacrifice 30% of your total Active Skill Point allotment for a 'Mech.
Due to the non-linear arrangement of the Tree, subsequent investments in other Nodes becomes much more cost efficient. While maxing either Cooldown or Heat Gen requires an investment of around 28 Nodes, proceeding to max both of those Skill types only requires 11 additional Nodes. This works toward our goal of a greater degree of give and take within the Skill system through specialization."

This is the problem. The idea that if you get X you get Y cheaper.

this idea means placing things you might want behind things that might be useless (ballistic skills on a laser mech).

Yes it is nice idea but it is not practical or desirable.

It also reduces the give and take because why would you take X or Y alone when X& Y is the most efficient option.

If you drop this idea then you can ave linear trees. Which is what everyone wants.

Edited by Greyhart, 27 April 2017 - 01:59 AM.

[Wibbledtodeath]

It IS practical- desirable is debatable. Frankly, think this is better than some of the much touted fan alternatives, and far better than current skill system (although refund economy is wrong as PTS stands). This enables a more granular system than just linear trees (at least without a total rejig of skills- what they do/are, which would be too big a pill to swallow on top of introducing a new tee). Try it- it does provide "give and take". On most mechs I have had to decide if I want to max in one area- or remove desirable nodes (due to location behind less desirable nodes) and spend these recovered SP in another tree. It isn't as immediately satisfying as just getting everything you want- but this is by design and for a good reason. Hopefully, some mech specific trees/nodes will be introduced later which will ? help with tree satisfaction levels.

and no, not everyone wants linear. I don't hate linear trees- but see why PGI has chosen not to use them- both have advantages and disadvantages, but non linear is easier to implement with the current MWO skill sets (which are not equally balanced or equally desirable).

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 27 April 2017 - 02:27 AM.

[R Valentine]

Wibbledtodeath, on 27 April 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

It IS practical- desirable is debatable. Frankly, think this is better than some of the much touted fan alternatives, and far better than current skill system (although refund economy is wrong as PTS stands). This enables a more granular system than just linear trees (at least without a total rejig of skills- what they do/are, which would be too big a pill to swallow on top of introducing a new tee). Try it- it does provide "give and take". On most mechs I have had to decide if I want to max in one area- or remove desirable nodes (due to location behind less desirable nodes) and spend these recovered SP in another tree. It isn't as immediately satisfying as just getting everything you want- but this is by design and for a good reason. Hopefully, some mech specific trees/nodes will be introduced later which will ? help with tree satisfaction levels.

and no, not everyone wants linear. I don't hate linear trees- but see why PGI has chosen not to use them- both have advantages and disadvantages, but non linear is easier to implement with the current MWO skill sets (which are not equally balanced or equally desirable).

No it doesn't. The illusion of choice only lasts as long as it takes for people to map the optimal paths through the trees. After that, everyone's tree will look the same again. This system has been tried before in many games, and every one of those games has discarded it for a linear system. Anyone who thinks this is a "give and take" system is lying to themselves. There's a reason the most successful online games dumped this system ages ago. It's been tried and proven to do the opposite of what it claims.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Correction for accuracy: MOST of us want a linear tree.

[Breadmachine]

While I thought the same as the first post in the Test #1, I think that Test #2 has learned from that mistake.

If you look at how the points are distributed, your choices to make mechs based on skill combinations are limited but offer variety.

For examples:
-You could be a high armored brawler with great weapon quirks, but then have to choose between the other trees what's more important to your play style; speed or support or etc, and still have a maxed build in those primary trees.
-You could be a low armored ranger with excellent weapon and mobility quirks.
-Or a small/quick light with all the recon trees maxed. (while being able to avoid all of the useless quirks)

If the inherent mech quirks are left in the game, then you could customize a build type around a mechs strength more easily with out the problems of the Test #1 trees allowing ridiculous overpowered and broken stats.

I have not had time or a partner to test the weapons systems with that I feel is the same skill level as I am, so the play hasn't been tested, but the "on paper" of the tree looks like a substantial upgrade over the previous Test #1.

Edited by Breadmachine, 27 April 2017 - 08:45 AM.