91 replies to this topic

[Hoshi Toranaga]

That is actually true devil and a good idea.

[Koshirou]

Hoshi Toranaga, on 18 May 2017 - 10:58 PM, said:

- Time-wasting.
Bogus, instead of 3 Variants, you need to master one. Takes approx. 1/3rd of the time.

That is obviously not what I meant. It is time-wasting to wade through the skill tree.

Accumulating the XP to master a 'Mech meant you spent time playing the game.
Configuring your 'Mechs equipment means you spend time creatively.
Going through the motions of navigating the skillmaze means you spend your time with tedious busywork.

Quote

- Confusing and unnecessarily complex.
Go to one of the online builders.

How about "no"? That there are other games, even whole genres, which are just as tedious does not make MWO one iota less tedious.

Quote

- Completely throws off balancing.
Balancing is actually quite good if you play it to the mechs strength.

Yeah, calling BS on that. Massive quirk changes with no replacements and a skill tree system which applies equally to all 'Mechs translates into good balancing how?

Quote

- Relegates countless mechs to the scrapyard completely (since you no longer even need 3 variants.)
Bogus. Mechs still work, bad chassis are still bad and good chassis are still good.

There are countless variants which exist only because every chassis needed 3 variants. I've explained this in-depth when actually providing feedback back in the day. The whole "variant" business is based on the old skill system, and by removing it they made it completely superfluous. Without it, it would actually make a lot more sense to just have, for example, a single chassis "Grasshopper" and then have variants like the 5N, 5J and so on be simple configurations to which players could add their own.

Quote

- Terrible UI.
I give you that it would need improvement such as color coding, it is by no means unusable.

A Trabant is a usable motorcar. Doesn't mean it's not terrible.

Quote

I only see one thing they did not address right, that is the boating issue.

You've seen more variants being played? You have seen skilled players build wildly different, but equally viable variations of the same 'Mech? You think the "drastic reduction in inherent 'Mech quirks" has happened and worked out well?

Quote

- Clutters Mech descriptions with long lists of miniscule bonuses.
/sarcasm Wow you need to scroll, how bad is that

Quite bad, in fact. It is downright terrible design. It is as if you had to write forum posts like this one by clicking on letters from a small window with your mouse instead of using a keyboard; and then, when someone quite correctly notes that this is horrible, clunky design, you respond by '/sarcasm wow you need to click, how bad is that'.

The skillmaze UI is horrid for selecting options. It is equally horrid at clearly and concisely conveying information (bad even by MWO's standards, which is saying something.)
And beyond the UI, the underyling system is several times too complex. It's complicated without adding any depth of play, which almost the definition of inelegant design.
And before you call this assertion "bogus" again, tell me: How often have you thought "I really need this 1% range increade on this 'Mech, so I am going to consciously select just this single node from that tree"? I am going to guess that the answer is "never" and this is the same for every other player. When people choose a single 1% range increase, it is because
a.) They also choose several other 1% range increases immediately afterwards, so they end up with a noticeable bonus or...
b.) ... they actually want something else on the firepower tree and the 1% range increase is in the way (or something to the effect... I don't know how the firepower tree looks exactly and I'm not going to start the game just to check) or...
c.) ... they have a node left over and nothing better to do with it.

In a good system...
a.) Every node would be scaled so as to give players a noticeable bonus.
b.) Every node would be an attractive option (under the right circumstances) in and by itself so you would not need to cram subpar abilities down people's throats by way of the skill maze.
c.) A single node would be a powerful enough resource not to throw away as an afterthought.

There is no reason whatsoever for there to be 230something nodes from which you can choose 91, instead of 23 nodes from which you can choose 9. Other than bad, lazy design which can only appeal to people who like to sort out spreadsheets in their spare time.

[Inappropriate1]

Does not look good. (Yea I know..this does not include stand alone players not using steam.) http://steamcharts.com/cmp/342200

I don't think they can reverse this even if they wanted to now. So sad.

Edited by Inappropriate1, 25 May 2017 - 04:46 AM.

[Leopardo]

after the week of playn - okay doh - the tree is fine and idea is fine - implementation is real crap - need to rework the trees atc

[Leopardo]

Inappropriate1, on 25 May 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

Does not look good. (Yea I know..this does not include stand alone players not using steam.) http://steamcharts.com/cmp/342200

I don't think they can reverse this even if they wanted to now. So sad.

yeah the population is going down it started a year before - pgi moving the game down so sad

[Kusunoki Masashige]

102_devill, on 17 May 2017 - 02:17 AM, said:

There is a choice now, simply because you have to ch


There is a choice now that you have to make: either go with the skills that are the same as the skills before, or go with the skills equivalent to your favorite modules, or make a combo of both based on your own estimate.

You cant have it all, so you are forced to choose.

So... yeah, you have a choice, whether you like it or not...

This is a joke you cannot make your mechs remotely function how they used to even not considering modules. And who wants to spend precious play time tweaking and re-tweaking their mechs on this ponderous skill tree. If you do your a sadist....

[Uncleclint]

Look at it as a challenge and master it like a boss.


and a happy towel day to you

[Dee Eight]

Leopardo, on 25 May 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

yeah the population is going down it started a year before - pgi moving the game down so sad

You cannot use a SINGLE result from the steam charts to judge player population. The steam chart updates every hour, 24 hours a day. Checking for players when most of N.A. is asleep and most of europe is at work or shool will obviously show very few players compared to peak times in the evening/night when people are home and at their computers. Look at the 48h stat and its the same curve from most to least players for the same times each day.

[Leopardo]

Dee Eight, on 25 May 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

You cannot use a SINGLE result from the steam charts to judge player population. The steam chart updates every hour, 24 hours a day. Checking for players when most of N.A. is asleep and most of europe is at work or shool will obviously show very few players compared to peak times in the evening/night when people are home and at their computers. Look at the 48h stat and its the same curve from most to least players for the same times each day.

i want to say that : form the start online was like 3800 and now is 2000 that's it.

[Hoshi Toranaga]

Quote

That is obviously not what I meant. It is time-wasting to wade through the skill tree.

Accumulating the XP to master a 'Mech meant you spent time playing the game.
Configuring your 'Mechs equipment means you spend time creatively.
Going through the motions of navigating the skillmaze means you spend your time with tedious busywork.

So configuring your mech is creative, but going through skills is not?
Point of view I guess. I find going through skills to match my build very creative.

Quote

Yeah, calling BS on that. Massive quirk changes with no replacements and a skill tree system which applies equally to all 'Mechs translates into good balancing how?

Quirk changes were not that massive. Look at the battlefields. The only balance that is off at the moment (more than before) is Clan vs IS, since Clans even with smaller numbers profit more from skills. This is not due to quirks lost by IS, but Clans getting quirks they never hard before.

Quote

There are countless variants which exist only because every chassis needed 3 variants. I've explained this in-depth when actually providing feedback back in the day. The whole "variant" business is based on the old skill system, and by removing it they made it completely superfluous. Without it, it would actually make a lot more sense to just have, for example, a single chassis "Grasshopper" and then have variants like the 5N, 5J and so on be simple configurations to which players could add their own.

Not really. Most variants are there in BT lore and that is where they come from. If you look at old dev notes the "rule of 3" was meant back then also to satisfy lore nerds to have the variants and to have to level 3 so they are actually used.
Still there are loads of variants that are valid. Of course there will always be a meta-build with one variant, but there are good options, especially your Grasshopper, there are good builds for more than just the P.

Quote

A Trabant is a usable motorcar. Doesn't mean it's not terrible.

Disagree on that analogy. While I concede a Trabant is terrible.
But the current UI is more like a 10 year old entry level Nissan, we want to have a Tesla... the Nissan is usable not that terrible and the only thing we could afford.

Quote

You've seen more variants being played? You have seen skilled players build wildly different, but equally viable variations of the same 'Mech? You think the "drastic reduction in inherent 'Mech quirks" has happened and worked out well?

Yes. I have seen excellent Tier 1 players suddenly use mechs that due to meta are "Tier 2 or 3". I have seen loads more Dragons, Quickdraws and Vindicators. Mechs that were almost extinct.


As for the rest of your post: You clearly never played really complex games. Try Eve Online, StarCiticen or even Knights of the Old Republic... might give you nightmares.

[Bellum Dominum]

Morte Nilsum, on 17 May 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

I like the idea of the skill system, but in it's present form, it doesn't really acheive what it's supposed to. I see a lot of you saying you now have to make a choice, which I think is great, and should be what the skill system is about. But after skilling a few mechs, I've seen a definite trend. All of them end up with mostly the exact same skills with only 2-4 nodes being different per tree. This rather takes away the choices I would have made, because the skill tree doesnt allow me to choose which skills I want to focus on, it forces me to focus on all skills.

As an example, I want my spider sdr 5k to be an agile close range fighter. For this I need fast rate of fire, good heat management, good agility and I want sensors to see whats going on around me.

For weapons I need cooldown, heat gen and laser duration (since Im using lasers). I'm willing to sacrifice range, because as a close range fighter, I won't need it. However, I am not able to make that choice, because the skill tree forces me to waste 15 skill points on range skills I dont need.

Moving on to mobility, I need kinetic burst, hard brake, anchor turn and speed tweak. I'm willing to sacrifice torso yaw, torso speed and torso pitch, because even though they are useful, I don't really need them for my build. However I am not able to make that choide, because the skill tree forces me to waste 8 skill points on torso pitch, yaw and speed skills I don't need.

Finally on sensors, I need sensor range and seismic sensors, with target info gathering and radar deprivation as nice to haves. I'm willing to sacrifice target decay and target retention, and also target info gathering and radar deprevation if I must. However I am not able to make that choice, because the skill tree forces me to use 7 skill points on target info gathering, target decay and target retention skills I don't need.

As you see, I am not able to make choices and sacrifices that matter for my build. I am forced to choose skills I will never have any use for. And the worst part is that I am forced to make the same choices for every mech I have, with only a few changes in skills that doesnt really make any difference. So every mech becomes basically the same, and that's not a choice I make, that's what I'm forced to do.

Pirate's Bane (ER LRG), Anasi (2xflamer, 2xmg, 1xsrm4), Spider 5D (ERPPC), Commando 2D (flamer, 3srm2), Raven 3L (NARC, 3xsm pulse), ADR-Prime (2xflamer 3xmedium pulse lulz), KFX-Prime (3xAMS of course), Ember (2xsm pulse, 2xflamer, 4xmg)

All just lights that I've already skill tree'd out and not even all my lights that I've done this with but in this sampling although some loadouts are very similar their skill tree differences are huge and very specialized for the role I play in that specific mech.

If YOU are unable to find diverse skill allocation, and I'll agree it could be expanded quite a bit and I 'championed that cause' but the console crowd (I'm talking mentality not literally consoles) apparently won out with their 'simplify it down to the least common denominator or hell just give me 1 button argument...I swear these types wouldn't complain if the only option was: OP: ON/OFF.

I think PGI did well. Even though it's over simplified in my opinion I am still able to make diverse skilltree assignments and perform different roles.

I have to ask: are you only playing as dps/tank? If so then it is your own fault for not figuring out the diversification that does exist because you are only making ONE type of mech so of course your skill tree assignments are identical. (also what some of us call the lemming effect).

[Default Settings]

Just want to chip in that I actually like the skill tree, too. It's simple enough to set up a cookie-cutter skill set within a few minutes, but also allows for fine-tuned specialist builds.

Yes, it is fiddly, but Mechwarrior has always been about fiddling around with your Mech for best performance.
Yes, you may end up buying nodes you don't want and not buying nodes you want, but consider balancing trade-offs a tactical challenge.
Yes, your favourite Mechs may underperfom now, but so do everyone elses.
Yes, you may have to learn a new Meta, but how is that a bad thing?

Of course the skill system is far from perfect. I would prefer to have a better balance of cost and worth of the nodes, more paths down the skill trees and a system that doesn't require 100 clicks to skill a Mech. And given that it is bound to alienate some old players without bringing new ones arguably time could have spent better on developing FW.

[Uncleclint]

Default Settings, on 26 May 2017 - 04:32 AM, said:

Of course the skill system is far from perfect. I would prefer to have a better balance of cost and worth of the nodes, more paths down the skill trees and a system that doesn't require 100 clicks to skill a Mech.

I´d actually prefer 100 clicks instead of just 91

[Excalibaard]

Honestly, 5.5/10 atm from me.

It has a lot of flaws in terms of balance, functionality and mostly UI and clarity, but I generally favor its implementation as a whole to it dying in a ditch like Energy Draw did. I just hope PGI continues to improve the tree with less but more impactful nodes, and a lot of other good community ideas instead of leaving it as it is 'to monitor the performance' or something.

Edited by Excalibaard, 27 May 2017 - 03:20 PM.

[Tesunie]

Scam Newton, on 17 May 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

I spent more time referring back to the patch notes and trying to get up the courage to skill one mech. Courage yes, because the changes are pretty well irreversible once you transfer skill points around. I finally got one done and am not totally dissatisfied with the end result, but I'm not doing any others in my inventory. I got my main one done so I guess I'll sell everything else off and play for free when I feel like I deserve a quick kick in the nards.

Don't know if this has been addressed yet.

The Skill Tree is very adjustable. If you are like me and had a mastered mech from before hand, you will have the HSP for the mech already open. On top of that, you also have HXP on said mech. This means that, depending upon how much HXP you have saved from before, you possibly could unlock far more than 91 skill points on the mech, and it takes only a small amount of experience to reactivate a previously unlocked skill.

My Huntsman Hero had 91 HSPs to use, as well as enough HXP (and recovered C-bills) to purchase an additional 130+ something additional SPs for the mech. This leaves me with plenty of "wiggle room" to adjust and fine tune the skills on the mech. Much of my already mastered mechs are like this. This isn't even counting any possible GSPs and GXP you may also have available, from previous play or even refunds from previous modules.

If you sell all your mechs because "you are intimidated" by the new skill system, you'd only really be hurting yourself for your own reasons. It's actually a rather forgiving system, especially if you have previously mastered mechs from before the ST patch...

[Koshirou]

Hoshi Toranaga, on 25 May 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

So configuring your mech is creative, but going through skills is not?

Correct.

Quote

Quirk changes were not that massive.

The list I got says something else. And anyhow: How again do these quirk changes, plus the skillmaze, translate into good balancing? How exactly did the skillmaze contribute to balancing at all?

Quote

Not really. Most variants are there in BT lore and that is where they come from.

So? Variants were, in the BT lore, indeed just variants. There was no need to implement, say, a DRG-1C in MWO as anything else than a configuration of the basic Dragon chassis.
And, while you can claim the opposite until you're blue in the face, there are countless subpar variants whose existence was until now somewhat justified by the 3-Mech leveling system.

Quote

Disagree on that analogy. While I concede a Trabant is terrible.

The last Trabant was produced in 1991. I've played games from 1991 that had better UIs than MWO's skill system has now. (Say, Civilization. Or Nobunaga's Ambition. Also examples to demonstrate the difference between pointless complexity and depth of play.)

Quote

Yes. I have seen excellent Tier 1 players suddenly use mechs that due to meta are "Tier 2 or 3". I have seen loads more Dragons, Quickdraws and Vindicators. Mechs that were almost extinct.

Why did you say "yes" when you answered none of the questions I asked? Refer to the actual question and let's just do it by way of an example: Several completely different, but equally viable variations of a popular 'Mech of your choice.

Quote

Try Eve Online, StarCiticen or even Knights of the Old Republic... might give you nightmares.

I am obviously not going to "play" something like Eve Online, probably not going to bother with Star Citizen (both clearly fall into the "second job... which I have to pay for" category, even though the latter at least looks pretty) but I have played KOTOR and thus need to ask: How on Earth is that more complex than the MWO skilltree system? It is deeper in that skill choices actually matter quite a bit more, but more complex?

I can also only laugh at the idea that I don't know complex games. I've played KOEI strategy games, I've played many RPG classics (including the TDE/RoA series with its dozens of stats for each character), I've played BattleTech with its myriad options both online and offline for an unhealthy amount of time. For the most part I liked these games - not because they were complex, but because the depth of gameplay and story they made possible with this complexity.

Simply forcing the player to retain lots of data and to perform lots of repetitive tasks is not depth of play. MWO's skillmaze system does not offer me anything to justify its considerable complexity. It is no more elegant design than having to manually reload and repair your 'Mechs would be.

[102_devill]

@Koshirou,

Man, if you think everything is so bad just stop playing this game. Surely you can find another game that you enjoy?
Why do you waste your time talking about it?

@All,

I was just in a quick play match with a pilot from a big unit who already posted in this thread... He said (I am paraphrasing): "population going down; all the big players are leaving...".

I said to him: good riddance. If the "big" players can't handle a slight change in meta, if they can't handle a UI (which is by the way much better than the first iteration of the current game UI), then really good effing riddance. If that means that I can go into FW without getting stomped by a unit, then I am all for it; please EXPEDITE your departure "big" guys!

What a bunch of effing snowflakes in this community...

[102_devill]

Kusunoki Masashige, on 25 May 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

This is a joke you cannot make your mechs remotely function how they used to even not considering modules. And who wants to spend precious play time tweaking and re-tweaking their mechs on this ponderous skill tree. If you do your a sadist....

So what if they are not as they used to be? Who the f... ever said it MUST be as it was?

Does my mech have modules? Does my mech perform as before? No, it doesn't. So you are not better or worse off than anyone else. What's the problem?

You know what I would do in this game? Here is what I would do:

1. Stock configs only in FW, timeline slowly progressing, dissimilar player numbers in IS vs CLAN matches.
2. Solaris deathmatches: custom configs allowed, several tiers of matches based on several tech levels.

Done.

Edited by 102_devill, 28 May 2017 - 09:16 AM.

[Derician]

Nope. I'm done. Good luck everyone.

[jmsr7]

I love it too. I get to take the equivalent of 3-4 modules or more now!

But the biggest benefit is ...(drumroll)... not having to edit my mech before switching to another one or logging off TO REMOVE THE MODULES.

I tell ya how many times i've forgotten to do that and then had to hunt around amongst my mechs to find my radar dep module or accidentally bought an extra zoom module.

jmsr7