63 replies to this topic

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Christophe Ivanov, on 30 April 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

The Way I see it, The skill tree is gonna happen....good or bad. We will try our best to make this work as best as possible. The end result will show if it's actually working or not. Only then can we REALLY show the true use of the skill tree. If it's bad, I can guarantee you PGI will see that when folks stop playing and the money starts to slow down. If it works as intended and becomes a positive change, then yay for all. If not....well we all know what happens when things go south.

that is a depressingly terrible way of accepting it... it IS a dumpster fire that quite literally fails at everything about its stated intent to accomplish. PGI still is the only BT/MW license holder currently, I do want them to kill the game because of their rank incompetence & utter stupidity.

[SuomiWarder]

Funny thing is they could essentially "save" a lot of the invested person hours with only a few changes. Instead of a hex based branching tree they skills could be slipped into four or maybe five bars or several skills across. Like what we sorta have now. But instead of unlocking all of them for the next bar you only need one or two. And you can stay in the same bar if you want for all of them although you still have limited total skill points. Makes it easy to have mech specific specialized weapon modes with one or two skills per a few bars that represent specific weapons (missiles, gauss, LBX, rotary AC, etc.) that are different while the rest of the bar structure is the same. Maybe the heavy and assault mechs pick upa few extra armor or structure buff chances not available to lights and medium that get some extra mobility ones.

[Christophe Ivanov]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 30 April 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

that is a depressingly terrible way of accepting it... it IS a dumpster fire that quite literally fails at everything about its stated intent to accomplish. PGI still is the only BT/MW license holder currently, I do want them to kill the game because of their rank incompetence & utter stupidity.

.
Actually not really, it's facing the reality of this and letting the actual online use by the masses to truly show how good or bad this skill tree will turn out to be. Until then, I highly doubted PGI will do anything as I bet they too want to see how this works out.

Edited by Christophe Ivanov, 01 May 2017 - 04:29 AM.

[Bud Crue]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 30 April 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

that is a depressingly terrible way of accepting it... it IS a dumpster fire that quite literally fails at everything about its stated intent to accomplish. PGI still is the only BT/MW license holder currently, I do want them to kill the game because of their rank incompetence & utter stupidity.

Nonsense.

The 4 goals of the skills tree as PGI originally put forth were:
1- To increase mech and build diversity.
2- To increase player choice.
3- To provide a means to transition players from a 3 mech system to a 1 mech system
4- To drastically reduce offensive quirks.
(See original Skills Tree PTS announcement)

Goal number 4 is most assuredly going to be achieved, though not entirely because of the skills tree per se, but still,
1 out of 4 ain't bad!

[cazidin]

Bud Crue, on 01 May 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

Nonsense.

The 4 goals of the skills tree as PGI originally put forth were:
1- To increase mech and build diversity.
2- To increase player choice.
3- To provide a means to transition players from a 3 mech system to a 1 mech system
4- To drastically reduce offensive quirks.
(See original Skills Tree PTS announcement)

Goal number 4 is most assuredly going to be achieved, though not entirely because of the skills tree per se, but still,
1 out of 4 ain't bad!

I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument about how the new skill tree will improve the new player experience.

[Mole]

I like how every time we ask PGI for something (Skill Tree, in this case) and they try to give it to us they fail miserably at it. It's like asking someone at the dinner table who is sitting next to the rolls to please pass the rolls and instead of handing you a roll from the table they stand up, walk into the kitchen, fish through the garbage and find an old, juice-soaked, moldy roll from the bottom of the trash bin and bring it to you, and then don't understand what they did wrong.

[Oberost]

cazidin, on 01 May 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument about how the new skill tree will improve the new player experience.

Take a chair and sit down: you'll be waiting for too long...

[cazidin]

Mole, on 01 May 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

I like how every time we ask PGI for something (Skill Tree, in this case) and they try to give it to us they fail miserably at it. It's like asking someone at the dinner table who is sitting next to the rolls to please pass the rolls and instead of handing you a roll from the table they pass you the salt and then don't understand what they did wrong, but when you try and reach for the roll yourself you're smacked down and told to sit in your sit, cheapskates don't get rolls!

FTFY

[Alan Davion]

cazidin, on 01 May 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument about how the new skill tree will improve the new player experience.

Probably because such an argument doesn't exist in this world or any of the possible millions of parallel worlds.

This skill web is going to confuse the ever loving s*** out of anyone coming into this game without playing some game like... Final Fantasy 15.

[BigBenn]

Variety is the spice of life. To have more dynamics available for different mechs and the specific variants is a good thing.

Having cookie cutter mechs gets boring. Why shouldn't I be able to develop on a speedy Warhammer? Why shouldnt I be able to build up a brawling Bushwacker? Etc etc. As it now... all mechs have cookie cutter bonuses, and minute ones at that. I'd like the chance to keep the default armor, or speed, or offensive punch, and focus on a specific attribute and make it stellar.

I say keep going PGI, kudos to you.

Edited by BigBenn, 01 May 2017 - 07:30 AM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Improve new player experience? Eh, best I can see that argument as is "I can incrementally increase a stat on this mech that I think it fails at via this tree now" which is true. Mech dying too fast? Pilot might pump it into survival, need agility and speed, no need to get the rule of 3 just pump into the mobility tree. All the trees and nodes are pretty damn simple. The only confusing one is the mess that is the firepower tree.

And there is a lot of ways PGI could have done the firepower branch of skills, or just not done it at all and done it via mech quirks and made it so good mechs can't get stronger and move the magazine nodes over to auxiliary or operations.

[Bud Crue]

cazidin, on 01 May 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument about how the new skill tree will improve the new player experience.

Well, when I was arguing about that on the first PTS, folks asserted that by going to a single mech model was a boon to the NPE. While I agree that the 1 mech model does in theory provide the theoretical new player with more choice, I believe that the skills tree web itself will be utterly bewildering to them and will demand frequent and significant respec (once again with associated costs) as they iteratively apply nodes to a mech as they level. As the NP is forced to respec out of their own ignorance of their own play style and of how a given mech may be optimized, don't forget that one of the assumptions of the skills tree proponents is that PGI is now going to be monitoring game play more closely than ever and blessing us with constant and significant tweaks to improve balance, etc. How's the assumed NP going to feel if everytime PGI dinks with his/her mech or other feature of the game they feel obligated to respec at least to some extent?

Honestly, for all our sake it is probably for the best that this game has a fairly stagnant population because if we actually had significant NP numbers I fear the skills tree and its promise of constant review and change would drive them all away.

[Shifty McSwift]

Bud Crue, on 01 May 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

Nonsense.

The 4 goals of the skills tree as PGI originally put forth were:
1- To increase mech and build diversity.
2- To increase player choice.
3- To provide a means to transition players from a 3 mech system to a 1 mech system
4- To drastically reduce offensive quirks.
(See original Skills Tree PTS announcement)

Goal number 4 is most assuredly going to be achieved, though not entirely because of the skills tree per se, but still,
1 out of 4 ain't bad!

I know it makes me unpopular but I think they hit 4 out of 4 really. And as far as the NPE and the skilltree goes, all it takes is asking questions in the clan chat or forum to get reasonable responses about what are considered meta paths for given roles and/or overall, and in all it is not THAT complex really, there is just the risk of a player making bad choices for their build/mech.

Number 4 though I think is supposed to be; "To drastically reduce the need for offensive quirks." Which it has not done, many of the reasons why some mechs had so many quirks has not (yet) been made up for by the skill tree.

But 3/4 ain't bad.

[Koniving]

cazidin, on 28 April 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors. Today I have a simple question. Why is PGI so adamant against a simple skill tree, rather than this maze-like circuit of low level hexes? They've fixed the refund process, mostly. Engine-agility decoupling seems fine now. They even buffed the blast door damage reduction but THIS? Why is THIS still a problem?

We had a simple skill tree.
Nobody liked it because all mechs were identical within it.

Of course, if they went with the ORIGINAL SKILL TREE OF OLD... that they completely didn't ******* bother with by using a static tree... maybe we'd never have the fiasco.



However, the simple skill tree has a simple problem, every mech is identical.
Bam. There's your problem.

Rather than hardpoint sizes or locking aspects of the mech, PGI chose a "Choose your own quirks" system.

Link to original Prototype skill tree source.

The idea is that you'll buy several copies of identical variants (and have reason to do so) for your different configurations.

Or pay to respec it.

[Bud Crue]

Shifty McSwift, on 01 May 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

I know it makes me unpopular but I think they hit 4 out of 4 really. And as far as the NPE and the skilltree goes, all it takes is asking questions in the clan chat or forum to get reasonable responses about what are considered meta paths for given roles and/or overall, and in all it is not THAT complex really, there is just the risk of a player making bad choices for their build/mech.

Number 4 though I think is supposed to be; "To drastically reduce the need for offensive quirks." Which it has not done, many of the reasons why some mechs had so many quirks has not (yet) been made up for by the skill tree.

But 3/4 ain't bad.

How is mech and build diversity being increased by the skills tree?

My take is exactly in keeping with your post above. There are meta builds for every mech, and meta mechs. The nerfs associated with the skills tree will make those mechs that are less than meta to be played with less frequency. The skills tree -as you suggest- will lead to the meta node paths for the remaining meta mechs. Thus, less diversity and more meta exclusivity.

This applies equally to goal number 2 of improved player choice. While certainly some idiots (like me) will refuse objective reality and continue to play crap mechs, most people will not. Most people will accept reality and choose to do exactly what you are suggesting: figure out the meta node path, of the meta mechs/builds and play them. Thus, so too is (rational) choice reduced.

Edited by Bud Crue, 01 May 2017 - 07:45 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Bud Crue, on 01 May 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:

How is mech and build diversity being increased by the skills tree?

My take is exactly in keeping with your post above. There are meta builds for every mech, and meta mechs. The nerfs associated with the skills tree will make those mechs that are less than meta to be played with less frequency. The skills tree -as you suggest- will lead to the meta node paths for the remaining meta mechs. Thus, less diversity and more meta exclusivity.

This applies equally to goal number 2 of improved player choice. While certainly some idiots (like me) will refuse objective reality and continue to play crap mechs, most people will not. Most people will accept reality and choose to do exactly what you are suggesting: figure out the meta node path, of the meta mechs/builds and play them. Thus, so too is (rational) choice reduced.

Ah well I guess there was a semantic misunderstanding there, build diversity; as in differences and different potentials within any given mech granted by the skill tree, it does.

Build diversity; as in seeing more different builds being fielded competitively, not so much, maybe a tiny bit, but yeah, not so much.

In that case 2/4 ain't too bad either i guess haha.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 01 May 2017 - 07:51 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Bud Crue, on 01 May 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:

How is mech and build diversity being increased by the skills tree?

PGI is making you increase your own mech and build diversity by forcing you to buy multiple copies of the same mech in order to try out different builds and skills.

[VanillaG]

Bud Crue, on 01 May 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:

How is mech and build diversity being increased by the skills tree?

My take is exactly in keeping with your post above. There are meta builds for every mech, and meta mechs. The nerfs associated with the skills tree will make those mechs that are less than meta to be played with less frequency. The skills tree -as you suggest- will lead to the meta node paths for the remaining meta mechs. Thus, less diversity and more meta exclusivity.

This applies equally to goal number 2 of improved player choice. While certainly some idiots (like me) will refuse objective reality and continue to play crap mechs, most people will not. Most people will accept reality and choose to do exactly what you are suggesting: figure out the meta node path, of the meta mechs/builds and play them. Thus, so too is (rational) choice reduced.

There will always be a meta for mechs, builds, and skill trees but the one thing that the skill tree does is making straying from the meta a lot less painful. Having 2% less cooldown to gain 2% more agility or sensors is not as big of a handicap as the current module system. Hard point type and location as well as hitboxes are more of a deciding factor what is considered a meta mech. The new Civil War tech is going to have a greater affect on the meta than this new skill tree.

[Bud Crue]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

PGI is making you increase your own mech and build diversity by forcing you to buy multiple copies of the same mech in order to try out different builds and skills.

Nope. Only if you want to spend more money is that true. In all but light IS mechs the cost of a new mech is more than the cost of a reasonable respec fees (or in most cases complete respec). But I get your point.

Alas, it doesn't matter to me. I played the way you suggested the entire time. As an extreme example: I have 13 Quickdraws because I liked the diversity of the mech. Alas, they have been neutered over the last year to such an extent that now only the 3LPL or 4ERLL build is even remotely useful. I had hope for the others but now that srms have been nerfed they are near useless (with a mere 1-3 hardpoints depending on variant). The skills tree makes this sort of narrow build specialization even more pronounced. Add in the nerfs and some mechs become entirely pointless to play let alone "experiment" with relative to the meta.

Even if you ignore the "nerf" aspect of the quirk changes, and look just at what they are doing within chassis...equalizing and minimizing offensive quirks makes build variety between variants even less so. Look at the quirks to the various energy heavy resistance mechs as currently proposed. Why have more than one, or two Black Knight? Well, I have 5. Great. Is the skills tree going to justify -let alone encourage- my building out all 5 of them is special snowflake ways? Or is it going to simply encourage me to find those one or two potentially "good builds" and dump the rest?

Edited by Bud Crue, 01 May 2017 - 08:30 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Bud Crue, on 01 May 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

Nope.

No? What do you mean no?

Russ himself said so on his flipping twitter feed that he wants people to buy multiple copies of the same mech in order to experiment.