42 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Noticed this while Skilling up my Urbanmech, and it happens to make for a great example.

I have 360 degree Torso Yaw, already. Yet, to progress the Mobility Tree, there are instances where I MUST take Torso Yaw Nodes. (And I get the nice flashing warning: You have Nodes you cannot use!)

This is different from "I have to take nodes I don't want", because even if you don't WANT a Node, you do still derive some benefit from it, whether you feel it worth it or not. In this example, I get absolutely ZERO benefit, because I literally cannot increase my Twist Range.

Not sure if this is the only instance, in which case, I reckon it will simpyl have to eat a Node or Three for the greater good (that sounded kind of dirty) or if there are other instances.

But I do think that Nodes that CANNOT be used by a Mech (like say... Ballistic specific Nodes on a mech with no Ballistic HArdpoints), that they Should be Greyed/Locked Out, and you should be able to advance beyond them.

[Felicitatem Parco]

They did remove the arm skill nodes because of this...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 May 2017 - 05:52 PM.

[Roughneck45]

Maybe turn them into more twist speed for the urbie only?

Greyed out works too.

Edited by Roughneck45, 16 May 2017 - 05:54 PM.

[Scout Derek]

I believe the skill trees should be adjusted for every mech to prevent this kind of issue from happening in the future.

[Dirus Nigh]

The skill tree should have been created with defined paths, not a meandering bonus chain.

[Alan Davion]

Prosperity Park, on 16 May 2017 - 05:52 PM, said:

They did remove the arm skill nodes because of this...

But that's not enough.

There are mechs out there were up to 2/3s of the firepower tree are meaningless. Commando Death's Knell for example.

If every mech had a firepower tree that catered to the hardpoints it has, for example CMD-DK being only laser related skills, that mech could max out the firepower tree with relatively little investment, and then invest in skill webs that would benefit it more.

Agility, durability, sensors. These are super important for mechs like the Commando that aren't meant for a stand-up fight like an Atlas.

[Gattsus]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Noticed this while Skilling up my Urbanmech, and it happens to make for a great example.

I have 360 degree Torso Yaw, already. Yet, to progress the Mobility Tree, there are instances where I MUST take Torso Yaw Nodes. (And I get the nice flashing warning: You have Nodes you cannot use!)

This is different from "I have to take nodes I don't want", because even if you don't WANT a Node, you do still derive some benefit from it, whether you feel it worth it or not. In this example, I get absolutely ZERO benefit, because I literally cannot increase my Twist Range.

Not sure if this is the only instance, in which case, I reckon it will simpyl have to eat a Node or Three for the greater good (that sounded kind of dirty) or if there are other instances.

But I do think that Nodes that CANNOT be used by a Mech (like say... Ballistic specific Nodes on a mech with no Ballistic HArdpoints), that they Should be Greyed/Locked Out, and you should be able to advance beyond them.

Pls

[Bishop Steiner]

Alan Davion, on 16 May 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

But that's not enough.

There are mechs out there were up to 2/3s of the firepower tree are meaningless. Commando Death's Knell for example.

If every mech had a firepower tree that catered to the hardpoints it has, for example CMD-DK being only laser related skills, that mech could max out the firepower tree with relatively little investment, and then invest in skill webs that would benefit it more.

Agility, durability, sensors. These are super important for mechs like the Commando that aren't meant for a stand-up fight like an Atlas.

I don't know if they could fully "cater" per se, but "Block out and skip" what a mech can't use does accomplish the same general idea.

Scout Derek, on 16 May 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

I believe the skill trees should be adjusted for every mech to prevent this kind of issue from happening in the future.

Paul (or was it Chris, IDK tbh)already stated that there were just too many issues (I do not claim to recall what they were) Back when Chris did the Town Hall thing over a month ago. It would be nice, but for whatever reason not feasible.

Dirus Nigh, on 16 May 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

The skill tree should have been created with defined paths, not a meandering bonus chain.

Those chains mostly do serve a purpose, but I don't feel like derailing this thread by going over it again, when it's already been touched on heavily by Chris... and the fact is, in the large, we have what we have. At this point it will be iterative changes to it at best. And that is all it actually needs.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Dirus Nigh, on 16 May 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

The skill tree should have been created with defined paths, not a meandering bonus chain.

No the skill tree should have been designed so that you could chose exactly the nodes you wanted without having to hop and skip across a spider web of nodes you aren't particularly interested in.

[MauttyKoray]

Roughneck45, on 16 May 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

Maybe turn them into more twist speed for the urbie only?

Greyed out works too.

Preferred method. Change them into something beneficial on the Urbie's trees. Maybe not all twist speed, but something.

[FupDup]

Many folks kept trying to say that people shouldn't be forced to take skills they don't want/need. You're one of the ones who rallied against them the hardest. Reap what you sow.

Edited by FupDup, 16 May 2017 - 06:17 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

Viktor Drake, on 16 May 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

No the skill tree should have been designed so that you could chose exactly the nodes you wanted without having to hop and skip across a spider web of nodes you aren't particularly interested in.

No thanks, current skill tree (does need some work still) creates choice/sacrifice builds instead of problematic min/max builds. There is no 'one right way' to build a mech right now because its entirely based on personal choice on what you do/don't want and which secondary nodes you want to pass through in order to get the primary nodes you want.

i.e. I made an example earlier in TS where I could either pass through 2 range nodes that I didn't really care to take, or I could pass through a single node for a weapon type i didn't want in order to fully invest in another point of firepower. So my choice was to use 2 nodes but get range i didn't really need, or only use 1 node with no benefit and thus saving me a node choice.

Its honestly mind boggling how many people can't wrap their head around a system that isn't 'all or nothing' like the old skill system.

FupDup, on 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

We kept trying to saw that people shouldn't be forced to take certain skills. You're one of the ones who rallied against us. Reap what you sow.

Its the difference between 'gating' a node path to create a cost/benefit choice, and requiring a node for you to pass through that is mechanically invalid with your mech. i.e. forcing you to take jump jets on a mech that can't mount JJs.

[AncientRaig]

Yes. This please. I hate having to unlock UAV duration bonuses just to get down to an extra cool shot. I don't use UAVs. I'm never in mechs fast enough to get them into the right spots. I don't want to have to waste a skill point on something so pointless.

[FupDup]

MauttyKoray, on 16 May 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

Its the difference between 'gating' a node path to create a cost/benefit choice, and requiring a node for you to pass through that is mechanically invalid with your mech. i.e. forcing you to take jump jets on a mech that can't mount JJs.

Assuming the skill tree structure is global across all mechs, the solution to avoiding mechanically invalid skills is 100% identical to the solution to avoiding "unwanted" skills like Hill Climb (which I would argue is still basically mechanically invalid because of how tiny its impact is).

It's kind of hard to avoid this problem with skill gating unless the trees are personalized on a per-mech level. That probably isn't an option though, because Normalization™.

Edited by FupDup, 16 May 2017 - 06:22 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 16 May 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Many folks kept trying to say that people shouldn't be forced to take skills they don't want/need. You're one of the ones who rallied against them the hardest. Reap what you sow.

As I noted in the OP Fup, there is a significant difference between taking a skill node you don't want (as in, it does still provide a benefit, whether it's the one you really want or not) versus one you literally CANNOT USE.

I know intentional obtuseness is one of your favored "debate tactics" but, uh, even for you, that's a stretch.

[Bishop Steiner]

MauttyKoray, on 16 May 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Preferred method. Change them into something beneficial on the Urbie's trees. Maybe not all twist speed, but something.

Be fine with that....especially if it is a fringe case.

But there is some of this in the firepower tree to, though I admit to not having been able to spend enough time in to "calculate" the pros and cons of alternate mapping, as it stands.

I was a little irked by the Fall Damage gates, to, initially. thinking maybe they should be part of the JJ tree, but then brain kicked in and realized that yes, I can and do run my non jumping robots off buildings and ledges, too.

Anyhow, there will be hassles and headaches and things needing tweaked, or even changed. As most of us acknowledged from the get go. I'll continue to look and test for LEGIT issues, not complaints that the road to MinMaxLand has too many tollbooths for mah MetaMech.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

As I noted in the OP Fup, there is a significant difference between taking a skill node you don't want (as in, it does still provide a benefit, whether it's the one you really want or not) versus one you literally CANNOT USE.

I know intentional obtuseness is one of your favored "debate tactics" but, uh, even for you, that's a stretch.

It's not as different as you think.

The reason that you don't like having to take torso yaw on your Urbanmech is because it doesn't help you on that mech at all.

The reason that I don't like having to take Hill Climb, Speed Retention, etc. is because they don't help me...on any mech or build. Sure, they give "on paper" benefit, but in practice they are essentially placebos.

[Scout Derek]

FupDup, on 16 May 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

It's not as different as you think.

The reason that you don't like having to take torso yaw on your Urbanmech is because it doesn't help you on that mech at all.

The reason that I don't like having to take Hill Climb, Speed Retention, etc. is because they don't help me...on any mech or build. Sure, they give "on paper" benefit, but in practice they are essentially placebos.

Yep. I feel like those are more for specialty builds, which make use of the terrain and their speed to overcome or avoid other mechs. Per say, the locust. I feel like it would benefit from hill climb, or heavier mechs like the dire wolf, etc.

[Gerwig]

People already complained about this during the PTS sessions and as per usual PGI has to F up a potentially good thing with some BS vision Russ will not cave on.

[FupDup]

Scout Derek, on 16 May 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

Yep. I feel like those are more for specialty builds, which make use of the terrain and their speed to overcome or avoid other mechs. Per say, the locust. I feel like it would benefit from hill climb, or heavier mechs like the dire wolf, etc.

Hill Climb isn't really useful on any build because of its mechanical design flaw. It just makes you decelerate slightly slower when you climb things. You do still however decelerate, so you're gonna hit 0 kph fairly quickly regardless.

If Hill Climb actually increased the minimum slowdown angle you could climb before getting the deceleration, then suddenly it would make a difference. For reference, the minimum slowdown angle is the main difference between the mech movement archetypes like "small," "huge," etc.