33 replies to this topic

[Alteran]

Took a step back today after my last post and re-read many of the posts over the last couple of months. I looked at the Dev posts, our posts and the arguments for and against, in that I had to ask myself, what does this system fix?

From the initial announcement till now, I keep reading both sides and yes I have my POV, but today I asked myself, if the current skill tree and module system is only being mashed into a multiple skill tree system, what does it actually fix?

Thoughts?

[Bulletsponge0]

Thats the question that must be answered before any of the criticism/praise people have been heaping on the skill tree system can become fully valid.

What is PGI's ultimate goal for switching from a quirks/modules system to a skill tree/quirks system?

I don't have an answer for that

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Alteran, on 30 April 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Took a step back today after my last post and re-read many of the posts over the last couple of months. I looked at the Dev posts, our posts and the arguments for and against, in that I had to ask myself, what does this system fix?

From the initial announcement till now, I keep reading both sides and yes I have my POV, but today I asked myself, if the current skill tree and module system is only being mashed into a multiple skill tree system, what does it actually fix?

Thoughts?

It "fixes" nothing but further expounds the existing problems... it is so bad I wish that Energy Draw had been implemented instead, that way this dumpster fire would not be being forced on us out of spite that we realize they are terrible game designers. If all they did was make Mech Models and fuc king MAPS (anyone else remember when we used to get those?) then the game would be way better off!!!!!!!!!!

[Scyther]

Well, I've posted a few thoughts on things that should be addressed to make the Skill Tree better before it goes live. This is primarily because PGI has a tendency to not iteratively improve things after they go in game. Not saying they won't just saying it's not something we can depend on.

I don't feel Skill Tree 2 is even intended to fix things or address balance issues. It seems more to be designed to shift the game in a somewhat different direction that may well offer more options to more players.

That said, I think Skill Tree 2 does several things that are at least useful or interesting.

1) It really does allow you to customize a mech more closely to a specific play style.
2) It allows you to have more functions on a mech, though usually at lower values, than current.
3) It tones down some heat buffs, range, cooldown levels and other things that I think will generally make mechs do less damage over time... leading to higher TTK. Unfortunately I am not sure the same can be said about PPFLD alphas.
4) It allows for more armor/structure, and also higher agility characteristics.
5) It reduces the per-mech cost of placing some expensive modules on each mech, or the time cost of switching modules.
6) In the long run, it somewhat increases the time/XP/cost needed to fully skill up a mech, although depending on how many modules you tend to purchase it might actually reduce the overall C-Bill cost. This is a downside if you don't like grind, it's an upside (sorta) if you think this might help drive MC/premium sales and/or give players a reason to play mechs longer.

These are all things specific to the Skill Tree, as opposed to changes stemming from Rule of 3 elimination, Mech de-quirking, Engine/Mobility decoupling, or new tech introduction. Even though PGI has decided to bundle all those things pretty close together, the others are separate issues.

Edited by MadBadger, 30 April 2017 - 03:27 PM.

[Deathlike]

Alteran, on 30 April 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Took a step back today after my last post and re-read many of the posts over the last couple of months. I looked at the Dev posts, our posts and the arguments for and against, in that I had to ask myself, what does this system fix?

From the initial announcement till now, I keep reading both sides and yes I have my POV, but today I asked myself, if the current skill tree and module system is only being mashed into a multiple skill tree system, what does it actually fix?

Thoughts?

It's kind of complex, so I guess I could break it down.

The thing is the old skill tree was more or less a placeholder... with kinda broken behavior. Pinpoint for one "does nothing", and arm reflex is only useful for mechs that primarily use their arms (mind you, the meta favors high mounted weapons, usually found on side torsos) and even then isn't really necessary (your arm speed is more than sufficient w/o the quirk).

The new tree is to replace the placeholder... in "theory" allowing to specialize (but there will still be bad nodes and bad decisions)... also replacing the 3-variant requirement (which technically could be removed from the current system, but isn't because PGI) for unlocking "a mech's potential".

What this actually fixes? I think the major complaint really is between "change for the sake of change" vs "is this really necessary". IMO, the skill tree doesn't really solve what it aims to solve (especially if you go by PGI's description of what the skill tree replacement is "supposed" to entail), and the arbitrary decision to make it 91 point suggests that PGI wants to keep the endless C-bill grind (if that wasn't already an issue with just getting new mechs) like buying Endo Steel or DHS for IS mechs.

Does it fix anything though? I dunno ultimately. It's just a lateral move that doesn't fix what it says it would, and it will certainly affect PGI's bottom line IMO due to how the 3-variant system works into their business model (it won't be as effective for the new skill tree, because people will be buying variants they need, and the mechbays to house them - there's not so much of an accelerated need to do that).

[Alteran]

I'm at a loss then. Skillz 2.0 doesn't fix anything?

I guess then all I see is a new system that reduces overall performance, either mobility and/or firepower, of Mechs from Skillz 1.0. You can make your Mech either almost as good as it is now for either firepower or mobility, but not both?

Is that what this system tries to fix... a global reduction of current performance for everyone? Does Skillz 2.0 allow you to have performance that exceeds the current system?

[Coolant]

not sure it's supposed to fix anything...it's more that it is brought in to line with other MMO's in that they have skill trees to build a character the way you want. As of right now everyone has the exact same potential character.

[Alteran]

Coolant, on 30 April 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

not sure it's supposed to fix anything...it's more that it is brought in to line with other MMO's in that they have skill trees to build a character the way you want. As of right now everyone has the exact same potential character.

This isn't an MMO though, it is a FPS. If we only had one Mech and there were quest logs, different zones to explore and NPC MOBs everywhere then I'd call it a MMO, but it's not.

So, the 'fix' is in fact an overall nerf to the total performance of Mechs in live servers right now? That's the real point of Skill Tree 2.0?

[El Bandito]

Alteran, on 30 April 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Took a step back today after my last post and re-read many of the posts over the last couple of months. I looked at the Dev posts, our posts and the arguments for and against, in that I had to ask myself, what does this system fix?

From the initial announcement till now, I keep reading both sides and yes I have my POV, but today I asked myself, if the current skill tree and module system is only being mashed into a multiple skill tree system, what does it actually fix?

Thoughts?

It allows for variety between mechs, and it gets rid of OP Raderp, unless one spends SP on it.

[Alteran]

El Bandito, on 30 April 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

It allows for variety between mechs, and it gets rid of OP Raderp, unless one spends SP on it.

I would disagree with your first statement only in the fact that currently your 'variety' comes from your weapon loadout and module choice.

As for Radar Derp, that is a module they could get rid of with a few clicks, tomorrow.

So, what is it that PGI really wants?

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Derp was never OP- locks should never have persisted after LOS loss to begin with. Radar Derp is a band-aid on top of a band-aid ("target decay") that wouldn't even be necessary if LRMs were just, y'know, not terrible to the point that they need several extra seconds of magic psychic target lock gimme time to actually hurt something.

The solution is not to nerf Derp. The solution is to fix LRMs- and it always has been. When LRMs are no longer crap, then target loss can occur at LOS loss every single time and it won't be a problem. While they're at it, PGI could look at having objects which are not large enough to completely conceal a 'Mech... y'know, not cause loss of contact.

Oh, why bother... we can just keep the psychic targeting, that makes perfect sense.

[Shifty McSwift]

Alteran, on 30 April 2017 - 06:52 PM, said:

I would disagree with your first statement only in the fact that currently your 'variety' comes from your weapon loadout and module choice.

As for Radar Derp, that is a module they could get rid of with a few clicks, tomorrow.

So, what is it that PGI really wants?

They could get rid of redar dep tomorrow but it wouldn't solve how useless most of the modules are compared to the popular ones, at the very least the skill tree forces the usage of some of these lesser/never used buffs to get to better buffs.

See I would consider that successfully making the systems relevant, but others not so much.

But mostly it is a system change that they have wanted to do for a while, not some spur of the moment choice, their reasons are their own at the end of the day.

[El Bandito]

Alteran, on 30 April 2017 - 06:52 PM, said:

I would disagree with your first statement only in the fact that currently your 'variety' comes from your weapon loadout and module choice.

As for Radar Derp, that is a module they could get rid of with a few clicks, tomorrow.

So, what is it that PGI really wants?

1. New skill tree will enhance those variety far more than the current skill tree.

2. PGI will not get rid of Raderp tomorrow, as it is their brainchild and a C-Bill sink. So don't even bother.

WrathOfDeadguy, on 30 April 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

Derp was never OP- locks should never have persisted after LOS loss to begin with. Radar Derp is a band-aid on top of a band-aid ("target decay") that wouldn't even be necessary if LRMs were just, y'know, not terrible to the point that they need several extra seconds of magic psychic target lock gimme time to actually hurt something.

The solution is not to nerf Derp. The solution is to fix LRMs- and it always has been. When LRMs are no longer crap, then target loss can occur at LOS loss every single time and it won't be a problem. While they're at it, PGI could look at having objects which are not large enough to completely conceal a 'Mech... y'know, not cause loss of contact.

Oh, why bother... we can just keep the psychic targeting, that makes perfect sense.

While I agree with the "improve LRMs instead" part, Raderp is far more useful than simple LRM counter. Information of the enemy is vital in game, because knowing the enemy's loadout and health condition goes a long way to help you beat him. And Raderp usually negates that in the poking phase, until you get close and personal.
Same reason why ECM is powerful--not just because it counters LRMs, but critical info, as well.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 April 2017 - 07:27 PM.

[Alteran]

El Bandito, on 30 April 2017 - 07:14 PM, said:

1. New skill tree will enhance variety far more than current skill tree.

2. PGI will not get rid of Raderp tomorrow. So don't even mention it.

Ok, I can't agree with the enhance variety comment.

What has PGI done time and time again over the last 3 years? Tried to reduce/eliminate the meta-builds. They've nerfed chassis, weapons, components and the skill tree and they can't kill it.

Someone somewhere will build the next line of meta's in Skillz 2.0. A good majority of players will then flock to the 'optimized build' for a certain weapon set and this all begins again. Nerf's to balance and/or shift the meta via the skill tree, chassis, weapon system....

IF this is the case, where does this end?

[El Bandito]

Alteran, on 30 April 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

Ok, I can't agree with the enhance variety comment.

What has PGI done time and time again over the last 3 years? Tried to reduce/eliminate the meta-builds. They've nerfed chassis, weapons, components and the skill tree and they can't kill it.

Someone somewhere will build the next line of meta's in Skillz 2.0. A good majority of players will then flock to the 'optimized build' for a certain weapon set and this all begins again. Nerf's to balance and/or shift the meta via the skill tree, chassis, weapon system....

IF this is the case, where does this end?

Optimized builds will always exist, yes, BUT, with the new skill tree, a lot of mechs will choose different skill nodes than the others (compare RVN-3L's skill choice, vs. NGyr's skill choice). Right now the skill tree offers the exact same thing to all mechs, and that's bland as hell. That's why I said the new skill tree will "enhance" the variety between mechs.

[Cabusha]

It's basically a generic nerf, since you can't quite get back to the old 2x basic rates easily.

[Moldur]

Same question you could ask for pretty much everything in MWO's development. The game has largely just been a bunch of side-grade changes that some people like while others don't. There are people who wish for old metas, and miss the game as it was during some other point of its life.

[Scyther]

@Alteran, you are repeating the same fact-free information that you see other people repeat, apparently without actually bothering to check the facts yourself. Please acquaint yourself with the actual quirk changes at:
https://static.mwome...Final%20PTS.pdf

Then wander over to the Skill Tree lab at: https://kitlaan.gitlab.io/mwoskill/

Select an IS mech you use, look up its quirk changes, add in the knowledge that most mobility/accel/decel type changes are getting rolled into the mech base stats, and mark down the actual quirk changes that will affect your mech.

Now pop up the Skill Tree lab link, and select 91 nodes for that mech. There is a nice text summary off to the right totalling your Skill Tree bonuses. Take those bonuses, subtract the values you currently get from your BasicX2/Elite/modules for that mech. Add in the final quirks. THAT is your overall change to that mech. If you feel it is 'an overall nerf', please post the numbers to back up your opinion.

If you feel that skill tree will not allow you to choose a variety of loadouts across all your mechs, post an example and say why.

Other than that all you are doing is getting worked up about things other people say about issues which may not even exist.

Personally I would rather get ready for the actual system that will drop in a month or so, than worry about a system that only exists in other people's heads.

Edited by MadBadger, 01 May 2017 - 09:11 AM.

[R Valentine]

The only thing it really fixes is the rule of 3. It either worsens or creates more problems for anything else.

[Scyther]

You can get 300% more Torso speed boost, 200% more Twist X, 400% more Anchor Turn than before; 66% more Kinetic Burst/Hard Brake, 15% Laser Duration reduction on any mech, more armor, more structure, critical hit defense, 10% Torso Pitch (which wasn't even a thing before AFAIK), double the Target Retention range, JumpJet bonuses, and more than double the consumable slots.

Please explain how this 'worsens or creates more problems for anything else than Rule of 3'. Because otherwise it looks like you are uttering the same uninformed BS that half the other posters on this issue bleat, and I'm sure you're more intelligent than that.

Edited by MadBadger, 01 May 2017 - 09:12 AM.