140 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Shifty McSwift, on 28 April 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

let me stop you here, as you seem to be presuming a lot already and you addressed the point I made in the first sentence. I still would argue it is not an UTTER waste as you still get the resulting nodes behind the ones you don't want, it is somewhat wasteful yes... But an utter waste is hyperbole man.

It is an utter waste. If I have no energy hardpoints or am not going to use energy hardpoints on a mech then 4 SP on laser duration is a total waste. If I have only torso mounts on a mech then arm flex nodes are a total waste.

An utter waste. 100% pointless. 0% return for the value spent.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 28 April 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

I just looked at this as a global nerf to certain capabilities....sure some things are buffed, but in what I have tried to work on on the PTS, I definitely can't get back to the offensive capabilities I had without crushing loses in other areas. So, my Gargoyle (for example) is overall worse than before. Yes, better in some areas (like climbing hills and less fall damage) but probably worse overall.

However...lest I completely lose my mind I have to remember....EVERYONE is also struggling with the same problem. So, if I am worse in some areas....so is everyone.

Therefore, I am willing to go with it still.. reserving the right to change my mind.

P.s...there are advantages to nearly everyone taking less fall damage. When you strip and leg-leave your opponent they have a harder time killing themselves. Got to find the silver lining here...

I get the concept. However the current skill tree does nothing but provide some blanket nerfs and put us exactly where we are now. There's no tradeoff, no point in a 'skill tree' at all really. Just remove Derp and Seismic and Zoom and all weapon Cooldown modules, cut the value of range modules in half and nerf mobility a little. Boom. Done.

If the specific skills in the skill tree were linear then I would have real tradeoffs.

So like this:

Heat Generation Hill Climb Extra Ammo Consumable Perk Arm Elevation
0.5%......................7.5%.................+10.............................10% ...........................5%
1.0%.......................15%.................+20..............................20%..........................10%
1.5%.......................22.5%..............+30..............................30%...........................15%
2.0%.......................40%.................+40..............................40%............................30%


So the advantage of progressive quirks in the same tree is usually linear for useful quirks but could be graduated for less useful ones. However if I wanted to give up 0.5% of heat gen to get 7.5% hill climb or bonus consumable or ammo quirks, I can.

That would be a real set of tradeoffs. It makes the less useful (generally) quirks suddenly worth considering a somewhat larger investment because at the upper tiers they give a steeper benefit.

Make sense? That would be real customization and a real skill tree. Mechs with arm mounted weapons you could logically decide to invest in arm quirks because those quirks would be useful to that mech, making it play different than their torso weapon mechs. Ballistic mechs could drill down on velocity and ammo at the expense of heat gen.

Do you get what I mean? That would be real tradeoffs. That would make for meaningful customization. It means that on my PHX I could turn an otherwise bad mech into a good one by drilling down on what it does best to make it exceptional instead of having to give it the same general stuff everything else has just to keep it from being drastically inferior.

Edited by MischiefSC, 28 April 2017 - 12:26 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

FupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

Directly increasing the SP cost of good nodes in exchange for removing objectively bad nodes like Hill Climb would make the system a lot cleaner and less of a hassle to use.

Which is pretty much what everyone has been saying about it.

There are those that will say bring any old crap live because they're scared they won't get the new shiny in june/july, without it.

There are those that hate it and don't want it no matter what changes P.G.I make.

The more reasoned are saying it's o.k, but why are we forced to pay for crap we don't want, in the nodes.

Streamlining makes it look neater, professional, and will make it more palatable.

leave the quirks alone and then nerf the over performers with a stream lined node system would get most people supporting it.

[Bud Crue]

Mischief,

I'd just like to say that, that OP is one of the best diatribes I have ever read.
Brutal, funny and straight to the heart.

Just really well done. Apropos, PGI, damn your word censor to hell.

[chucklesMuch]

New skill tree is a fun tax.

Please simplify and remove need for unlocking useless nodes (grey them out let us skip them or better yet fix the design), and remove the unwanted filler modes.

Edit:

Ps if you wanted some ideas about how to modify the unwanted fillers or new replacement ones... then your player base would happily suggest some.

Edited by chucklesMuch, 28 April 2017 - 12:32 PM.

[Cato Phoenix]

WarHippy, on 28 April 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

I hate to say it, but I agree. On a similar note the cool down nodes bother me as well because they apply to all weapons. Under the module system if I was running a mix of lasers and ACs I would likely have a range module for both and a cool down module for the ACs. I preferred it that way because it made heat management a little easier. Under the new skill tree if I want faster cool down on my ACs my lasers end up with it as well.

Which is the problem Solahma's tree fixes. Allows you to individually customize your weapons to your liking.

[MischiefSC]

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

My mastered mech on live:

• Heat dissipation 15% and Heat Max 20%
  
• Accel/Decel 15%
  
• Torso Twist 5% range, 5% speed
  
• Arm Speed for movement 5%
  
• Turn 5%
  
• Global Weapon CD 5%
  
• Weapon Convergence 15% (which I'm pretty sure impacts nothing)
  
• 2 consumable slots
  
• Radar Derp at 100%
  
• Seismic at 250m (the current max range)
  
• Ballistic Weapon CD 12%
  
• Ballistic Weapon range 10%
  
• Quick power up
  
• Speed Tweak 7.5%

It has energy weapons as well but I'm limited on module spaces like most mechs.

My same Mech on PTS using 90 of the 91 SP:

• Heat dissipation 8% and Heat Max 15% but an additional global heat generation of 5% for weapons
  
• Accel/Decel 25 and 20%
  
• Torso Twist 2% range, 4% speed and Pitch 10%
  
• Arm Pitch 12%
  
• Turn 5%
  
• Global Weapon CD 5.4%
  
• nothing about weapon convergence (as I suspect, it means nothing anyway)
  
• 2 consumable slots
  
• Radar Derp at 100%
  
• Seismic at 200m (the max range on PTS)
  
• no specific weapon CD bonuses
  
• Global Weapon range 10%
  
• Quick Power up
  
• Speed Tweak 7.5%

On top of those scores, which are different but franky, somewhat similar (and even better in certain cases) to my live bonuses, I gain:

• Hill climb 10% (don't care about this really)
  
• Gyro 70% (I mean, I guess it's ok)
  
• Laser Duration 7.5% (now this I DO like)
  
• Sensor range 12% (doesn't hurt)
  
• Target decay 2.1 (doesn't hurt)
  
• Target Info gathering 12% (another I actually like)
  
• Target retention 200m
  
• Velocity 8% (I love velocity buffs to ballistics/PPC)

So....none of these last 8 were things I was trying to get to on the flow chart. They were in my way as I wandered around trying to get to what I did what.


Overall, I'm coming out ahead imo. Heat management stuff was largely nerfed across the board, as was consumable access, seismic overall etc. So we're all largely baselined there.

THAT BEING SAID -- to truly specialize "deep" into anything like ECM, Consumables, specific weapon you do have to sacrifice something. I hate to say it but I think PGI is meeting it's own intentions on that one. I'm literally just as lethal in this mech as before and have some tangential bonuses that I don't mind, but if I really wanted to build a pigeonholed specialist I'd have to absolutely give up something that up to this point, I take for granted.

What I'm more concerned with is the lack of quirks for certain mechs (mainly IS) under this new system, because I don't think I can effectively rebuild an IS mech to look so identical if it was heavily quirked and for the life of me I cannot see why they will suddenly stop needing them due to the ST patch?

I get wanting to get ready for the new-tech evolution, but in the mean time, leave them their quirks. I could be wrong though. I've heard of a few outliers that can still be made nasty (but their hitboxes/low arms will still render them "for fun" vice "for top tier competition" use mainly).

So create a 'specialized' build? Go ahead. You can trade ballistic for energy or you can get a tiny bit of ballistc, energy and missile at a cost of global cooldown, range and velocity quirks.

The current system, because it requires you to spend all your points to get the universally general stuff, leaves no room to specialize.

I can not trade off a bit of 1 thing to get another. I can to trade off everything in the whole skill tree after that 1 thing to get another and that's never going to be worth it.

The new system functionally forces you to abandon all that other stuff just to get the basics required to be viable. Without the whole agility tree you're not much better than a live mech with no basics - which is to say, easy prey. Same with the operations tree. If you had a mech that came with a 10% heat generation and heat cap penalty (which is what not taking the Operations tree is like compared to everyone else) would you take it compared to one that did, even if it came with some NARC or sensor quirks?

Of course not, because you're better off being viable with the agility/operations tree in full and just using regular NARC and calling out targets on VOIP than you are with sensor perks and NARC bonuses but slower, clumsier, hotter and overall less viable than everyone else.

That's what I'm saying. The new skill tree eliminates tradeoffs. WIth your modules you can decide what weapons get the cooldown perks and you can do more than 1 weapon type with useful perks. You choose from which useful sensor modules to take and you've still got the advantages of operations and agility to keep you viable to deploy them.

The new skill tree is less flexible. Not more.

[MischiefSC]

VanillaG, on 28 April 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

It actually gives you more flexibility because you can take less than 100% of a current module. You have the option of either spending tonnage and crits or SP to get similar performance. A good example of this are the Magazine skill nodes. For Ballistics you basically get a free ton of ammo for every 3 tons that you equip. You can either drop a ton of ammo and get different equipment or get more shots. Same with range and cooldown nodes and Targeting Computers, Heat nodes and heatsinks, and Speed Tweak and engine size.

Smaller incremental values makes it easier to make the tradeoffs and has an effect of flattening the curve between good and bad builds. With certain builds I am happy 60% of Speed Tweak and Radar Derp and spending those nodes in other trees. Other builds I will sacrifice Firepower and Sensors for full Speed Tweak and Heat nodes. Granted the skill tree is not a clean as modules but it allows for much greater customization than you can get now.

So trade off some arm flex to get sensor but keep speed in the current skill tree.

If you want to give up some Speed Tweak you're also giving up the heat quirks. That cost is way not worth the handful of points you get to put into sensor. You can do it; sure. The other day I saw a guy with a Dire Wolf with just 6 MPLs in it. That's it. In a Dire.

Can you make bad builds? Always. That's not 'flexibility'. That's just making bad choices. Giving up heat, mobility and speed for some sensor quirks just means you'll have an easier time identifying who's going to kill you.

WIth a better designed tree though, all that changes. You can say 'I'll give up 2% speed tweak, 1% heat gen, some torso yaw and this delicious Gala apple for some more ammo, a bit of Radar Derp, a little Hill Climb and some Gyro.'

That is tradeoffs and customization in a meaningful, useful way.

It would promote better customization and would go much, much further in closing the gap between bad and good builds because your bad mechs can better drill down on what they do best or making up for flaws instead of being more or less required to get the same set of nodes as good mechs just to avoid getting left further behind.

[Lukoi Banacek]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

The new system functionally forces you to abandon all that other stuff just to get the basics required to be viable. Without the whole agility tree you're not much better than a live mech with no basics - which is to say, easy prey. Same with the operations tree. If you had a mech that came with a 10% heat generation and heat cap penalty (which is what not taking the Operations tree is like compared to everyone else) would you take it compared to one that did, even if it came with some NARC or sensor quirks?

I guess I'm not understanding what you're getting at regarding "getting the basics to be viable." The example mechs I've been building and trying on PTS are very much like the above.

Look at how similar they are to each other. I cannot specialize any deeper on live, but I could with deliberate trade-offs on PTS if I chose to.

I'm not a fan of the confused format, I'm not a fan of the system overall as I'd I prefer a progressive cost system that was cleaner, easier to understand and intuitive to a new user. I'm least of all a fan of the damage done via the dequirkening.

But I'm not seeing how the builds have to lack the same viability they have now. Those stats are almost identical (plus the PTS version comes with some ancillary benefits). In fact, in several areas I consider important, the PTS stats are better (global weapon range vice specifc weapon class range bump, accel/decel on that particular mech).

The Weapon CD bonuses are global, so you could chase those for all weapons but not to the 12% we have on live....they are nerfed across all weapons platforms, so you're not personally worse off than before. The entire game is slowing down. So rather than a module for one weapon system or another, I'm getting largely global effects. The latter is better.

I have the EXACT same sensor modules and arguably better mobility than on live (as well as similar heat management etc). Where between my two builds listed above, am I losing out?

I've done it with lights, mediums, IS, Clan etc....as far as the Tree goes, I can replicate pretty closely (with ancillary benefits) every single time so far.

What I cannot do, is make up for the quirks certain mechs lost which is one of my complaints against the current iteration.

edit: if you're saying you cannot hyper-specialize without giving up something like basic operations, sensors or mobility quirks then you might be right. But that's called a TRADE OFF. You can play your mech just like live now (with some additional minor benefits) or you can sacrifice something you are used to to get 5 x consumables, or hyper-specialize into a weapon that's different than live currently is.

That's a playstyle decision, not a flaw in the tree. The goal was never to give us the opportunity to have a mech as good as we're all used to AND let it hyper-specialize to become kind of super-mech in a specific way. They've always said you're going to have to make trade-offs for that and I for one agree with that. I just wished they used an easier format and one that didn't have you bumping into "waste" nodes that don't even provide an ancillary benefit (like forcing me to take a missile node on a mech with no missiles).

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 28 April 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Cato Phoenix]

I like Lukoi's work to establish how much the baseline is.

However, for the majority of skills you are just roughly getting back to baseline, however losing in heat/cooldown/probably mobility.

You do get some added range and hill climb and gyros and what not, which sure, that's nice. But it's not a choice. You've accidentally accumulated those whilst trying to bring your mech back to its baseline. What choice does that leave?

You lose out on 2, nearly 3 trees entirely - Armor, jump jets, and auxiliary. The latter two you can do without, but I have a suspicion that Armor/structure is going to be totally required - meaning your baseline of other skills will be cut since you're already at 90/91.


----

I would prefer things just be linear (if not Solahma's tree, which is 20 times better.) and just buy the speed tweak nodes. If they decide speed tweak is worth more than that, whereas currently its say 5 speed tweak + 3 filler nodes, for example, I would rather have 8 speed tweak nodes (so each node is worth less), and I could thus choose to use all the speed tweak nodes and spend 8 sp, or use 5 of them and use the three extra in a manner I chose, rather than being forced to pick hill climb or gyros or whatever.

[Novakaine]

Well it's still a tab bit overly complicated but I like it.
I also play DDO and they to use a skill tree approach.
I like the nuances of making a mech just right for your play-style.
For that particular mech.
Yeah I have buy useless nodes to get to a certain node but I can live with that.
Yeah it's gonna be a pain for those with 600 mechs.
But ask yourselves how many do you regularly pilot?
The only thing I truly dislike my beloved Orion VA compared to it's IIc version.
Which I own both and tested both.
The IS mechs will be even more of a red haired stepchild compared to it's cousins.
Unfortunately the gap will only widened.
On that PGi you have truly failed.

[MischiefSC]

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

I guess I'm not understanding what you're getting at regarding "getting the basics to be viable." The example mechs I've been building and trying on PTS are very much like the above.

Look at how similar they are to each other. I cannot specialize any deeper on live, but I could with deliberate trade-offs on PTS if I chose to.

I'm not a fan of the confused format, I'm not a fan of the system overall as I'd I prefer a progressive cost system that was cleaner, easier to understand and intuitive to a new user. I'm least of all a fan of the damage done via the dequirkening.

But I'm not seeing how the builds have to lack the same viability they have now. Those stats are almost identical (plus the PTS version comes with some ancillary benefits). In fact, in several areas I consider important, the PTS stats are better (global weapon range vice specifc weapon class range bump, accel/decel on that particular mech).

The Weapon CD bonuses are global, so you could chase those for all weapons but not to the 12% we have on live....they are nerfed across all weapons platforms, so you're not personally worse off than before. The entire game is slowing down. So rather than a module for one weapon system or another, I'm getting largely global effects. The latter is better.

I have the EXACT same sensor modules and arguably better mobility than on live (as well as similar heat management etc). Where between my two builds listed above, am I losing out?

I've done it with lights, mediums, IS, Clan etc....as far as the Tree goes, I can replicate pretty closely (with ancillary benefits) every single time so far.

What I cannot do, is make up for the quirks certain mechs lost which is one of my complaints against the current iteration.

edit: if you're saying you cannot hyper-specialize without giving up something like basic operations, sensors or mobility quirks then you might be right. But that's called a TRADE OFF. You can play your mech just like live now (with some additional minor benefits) or you can sacrifice something you are used to to get 5 x consumables, or hyper-specialize into a weapon that's different than live currently is.

That's a playstyle decision, not a flaw in the tree. The goal was never to give us the opportunity to have a mech as good as we're all used to AND let it hyper-specialize to become kind of super-mech in a specific way. They've always said you're going to have to make trade-offs for that and I for one agree with that. I just wished they used an easier format and one that didn't have you bumping into "waste" nodes that don't even provide an ancillary benefit (like forcing me to take a missile node on a mech with no missiles).

I'm saying, try and specialize in anything. See what you give up and what you have left.

There is no specialization in the new tree; just the illusion of it and a trap for bads.

Yes, on the PTS I can make a mech that plays almost exaclty the same as live. If I go with a laser boat it's actually a bit better. If I go with a mix of weapons, it's inferior or if I go with ballistics and missiles but no energy it's inferior. A laser boat though? My Roughneck 3A? Flat out superior. Everything I have in live, just with burn duration decrease on the lasers on top of it but no derp or seismic or the like.

So specialize a mech. Build something that's not like live, then look at it.

Because you can't actually just trade off a bit of X for Y. You have to trade off X and everything that comes after X to get Y, meaning it's a massive sacrifice for a small benefit. As such the tradeoff isn't worth it.

There is no customization with the new skill tree. Honestly?

It's rolling gameplay back to before modules. That's it. Because before modules we didn't have hill climbing speed nerfs. Remember? We all went right up hills. There was no radar derp, no seismic. No cooldown and range modules.

Which is what this skill tree creates. It adds nothing, it just removes a lot. Show me a viable tradeoff that's as good or better than the 'build it like live' version. I'd love to see it.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Cato Phoenix, on 28 April 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

I like Lukoi's work to establish how much the baseline is.

However, for the majority of skills you are just roughly getting back to baseline, however losing in heat/cooldown/probably mobility.

You do get some added range and hill climb and gyros and what not, which sure, that's nice. But it's not a choice. You've accidentally accumulated those whilst trying to bring your mech back to its baseline. What choice does that leave?

You lose out on 2, nearly 3 trees entirely - Armor, jump jets, and auxiliary. The latter two you can do without, but I have a suspicion that Armor/structure is going to be totally required - meaning your baseline of other skills will be cut since you're already at 90/91.


----

I would prefer things just be linear (if not Solahma's tree, which is 20 times better.) and just buy the speed tweak nodes. If they decide speed tweak is worth more than that, whereas currently its say 5 speed tweak + 3 filler nodes, for example, I would rather have 8 speed tweak nodes (so each node is worth less), and I could thus choose to use all the speed tweak nodes and spend 8 sp, or use 5 of them and use the three extra in a manner I chose, rather than being forced to pick hill climb or gyros or whatever.

I don't have quirks to my mechs in armor, JJ or extra consumables at this point on live either. So again, I'm right back where I am on live. If I WISH to go a different route, I will have to make a trade off.

And your assessment is off imo. I'm the same in firepower if not a bit better due to global weapon effects, I'm similar in het management and am absolutely better in mobility than live (not by alot but it's there). The math says it, the ingame playing experience says it.

If I want to go heavier on armor than my mech can currently do on live, I would now have the option to do so but I'll have to give something up to get there.

On live I have 2 consumable slots. If I want more, the PTS allows me to get there by giving something up.

Trade offs.

Some of you guys are looking at this like you're supposed to be at an equivalent performance level AND capable of going even deeper/stronger. That's never been the broadcast intent and frankly it doesn't make alot of sense.

What the ST does, it does sloppily but effectively (and the "utterly wasted" nodes Mischief mentions I agree with btw). What this PTS build doesn't really give me confidence is the dequirkening because now I feel previously weak mechs augmented with quirks are doubly gapped vs stronger mechs.

[Shifty McSwift]

One of my first reactions to the skill tree was concern that some trees in particular (as well as paths within those trees) heavily outweigh others, beyond the idea that certain classes will benefit from the same basic meta. But that is arguable in ways too.

I really don't mind the idea of needing to unlock random things to get at the more important stuff, you can manage to get access to most of what you want/need with very little stuff that you will literally never benefit from, the stuff you don't want but will benefit from still has value too.

When it comes to being "forced" to take stuff you cannot use it is usually for very specific and maxed bonuses, rather than just half benefits etc. So I just don't see why it upsets people so much. **shrug**

[MischiefSC]

Shifty McSwift, on 28 April 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

One of my first reactions to the skill tree was concern that some trees in particular (as well as paths within those trees) heavily outweigh others, beyond the idea that certain classes will benefit from the same basic meta. But that is arguable in ways too.

I really don't mind the idea of needing to unlock random things to get at the more important stuff, you can manage to get access to most of what you want/need with very little stuff that you will literally never benefit from, the stuff you don't want but will benefit from still has value too.

When it comes to being "forced" to take stuff you cannot use it is usually for very specific and maxed bonuses, rather than just half benefits etc. So I just don't see why it upsets people so much. **shrug**

Go build something other than a new version of what's on live.

Go ahead.

Then compare it to just buying the new version of what's on live.

Then you'll see.

There are no 'tradeoffs' any more than putting 6 MPLs in a Dire and filling the rest with a TC and DHS is a tradeoff vs taking any loadout that doesn't suck on a Dire. That's not 'tradeoffs'. It's not 'customization'. It's being presented with good choices, that get you exactly what we have minus modules and some very slight changes, or you make a mech that plays like a live mech without basics unlocked but gets a few sensor quirks and some extra armor.

In which case the new skill tree is pointless.

Remove Derp/Seismic, weapon modules, refund everyone.

Decouple engines, etc. changes.

Remove the hill climb mobility stuff added years ago.

Boom. We've now got the game the new Skill Tree will create, minus a bunch of traps for new/bad players to make terrible, terrible choices on skilling up a mech.

[Lukoi Banacek]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

Which is what this skill tree creates. It adds nothing, it just removes a lot. Show me a viable tradeoff that's as good or better than the 'build it like live' version. I'd love to see it.

What does it remove?

I'm not going to defend specialized builds, because 1) I've never said they were a good idea, good thing or healthy for the game (Direstars are specialized crap too) and 2) because the Tree isn't designed to make that easy. It's designed to make you PAY for the hyper-specialization.

What this adds is granularity to things however, that can be useful. The faster a mech I'm running, the less I'm going to ramp up Radar Derp for example....don't need it as much imo. Before you were either all RD or no RD. This offers more customization in that regard.

So, I'm not seeing what it "removes." You can literally play something that's almost identical to what you have now (with the caveat that there are some universal nerfs in this that impact everyone the same so it's a wash), with some probably unintended ancillary benefits. Or you can tweak the fine tuning of %'s as your mech/playstyle role differ based on the situation.

That's not removing anything. It might be really anticlimactic to re-click 91 times to achieve largely the same thing BUT you have the option to do things much differently. But if you want to get away from what we're all used to, you have to pay a trade off for it. Don't see the problem with that part of the ST really.

[Gas Guzzler]

I'm still in the "Make Pinpoint do something and call it good" camp.

[Shifty McSwift]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

Go build something other than a new version of what's on live.

I did, I decked out a kodiak of mine with mobility, defensive, operational and consumable trees, which made him entirely unable to access the weapon tree, which obviously changed the weapon capacities he has in the current live version.

That is actual choice and difference, so yeah, already did that, and I am basing my comments on experience here already, so presumption isn't really helpful.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Actually, creating a "pure tank" assault is an option that doesn't completely fail on PTS right now. Most players wanting to play that role aren't concerned with range buffs, are less concerned about certain other things and focus on twist perks vice speed/accel/decel in the mobility tree. Not my cup of tea, but totally doable and it creates a markedly different KDK3 from the typical shooter on live.

[Monkey Lover]

"WHAP! Right across the face with a wet rag. " ROFL so much right here

[MischiefSC]

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

What does it remove?

I'm not going to defend specialized builds, because 1) I've never said they were a good idea, good thing or healthy for the game (Direstars are specialized crap too) and 2) because the Tree isn't designed to make that easy. It's designed to make you PAY for the hyper-specialization.

What this adds is granularity to things however, that can be useful. The faster a mech I'm running, the less I'm going to ramp up Radar Derp for example....don't need it as much imo. Before you were either all RD or no RD. This offers more customization in that regard.

So, I'm not seeing what it "removes." You can literally play something that's almost identical to what you have now (with the caveat that there are some universal nerfs in this that impact everyone the same so it's a wash), with some probably unintended ancillary benefits. Or you can tweak the fine tuning of %'s as your mech/playstyle role differ based on the situation.

That's not removing anything. It might be really anticlimactic to re-click 91 times to achieve largely the same thing BUT you have the option to do things much differently. But if you want to get away from what we're all used to, you have to pay a trade off for it. Don't see the problem with that part of the ST really.

Currently it removes the ability to have derp and sensor stuff as modules to get the weapon module performance (or close to), which as I said I'm okay with. We're rolling back power creep.

The point, as I said, is that it doesn't add any real customization. You can make a 'specialized build' on the new PTS like you can in live; by putting other gear on it. The skill tree is useless for that as the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Save as a way to get bads and new players to waste time and cbills there's nothing it adds to the game of any real use or value.

Shifty McSwift, on 28 April 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

I did, I decked out a kodiak of mine with mobility, defensive, operational and consumable trees, which made him entirely unable to access the weapon tree, which obviously changed the weapon capacities he has in the current live version.

That is actual choice and difference, so yeah, already did that, and I am basing my comments on experience here already, so presumption isn't really helpful.

Okay. So I'll make a KDK with the 'just like live' setup and you do your consumables and defensive stuff and we'll go see who wins.

Because 'choices' being 'the ability to make a mech perform worse' isn't choices. You can already do that with bad loadouts. That's not adding anything.

Lukoi Banacek, on 28 April 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

Actually, creating a "pure tank" assault is an option that doesn't completely fail on PTS right now. Most players wanting to play that role aren't concerned with range buffs, are less concerned about certain other things and focus on twist perks vice speed/accel/decel in the mobility tree. Not my cup of tea, but totally doable and it creates a markedly different KDK3 from the typical shooter on live.

The skill tree won't get you anything like an Atlas. You'll just get a bad Kodiak that takes 2 more ML hits to kill.

As I said. Making bad mechs isn't anything useful in the skill tree.

I want the skill tree, I just want it to be useful. Something like Solahamas skill tree would do that. The current one is just what we have in live with some nerfs (rolling back power creep, I'm good with that) and traps for newbies and bads to make worse versions of existing mechs.

That's not worth it. In any way.