308 replies to this topic

[SuperFunkTron]

Wolfgang Grenzstein, on 17 May 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

How to get to meh:
2) Show the ACTUAL value change instead of 11% more (when you have 20 armor total 11% for 20ish skill points is jack ****)
3) Tidy up the skill trees or incease the skill point maximum by at least 20% so you can pick about half of what is in the trees in total. There will be no customization if you force people into 60ish points of "must haves".

2) I believe that is where the idea of cost effectiveness comes in. It's like complaining about the tiny of speed increase slow mechs get from speed tweak. Seems pretty fair when you consider how mechs at the other end of the spectrum have a the same situation with other abilities.
3) 91 nodes is plenty of space to heavily invest in a few trees or spread enough for moderate benefits from more. If we have more points, then its going to get us back to Min/Maxing.

[Gazbeard]

From a pre-drop "WooHoo bring it on" to a "Hell yeah" skilling the first few mechs, I'm now down to a "Mmmm 'k" after 8 mechs skilled and tested (and only one of those to 91 points).

"It's good, but it's not quite Carling" as the current beer adverts are using as their slogan this year.


Items that need looked at -

• "This skill branch contains options that do not apply to your mech" - ok, so grey them out and let us jump over them.
  
• "Your skills selection contain options that do not apply to your mech, do you still wish to apply them?" - No, so tell me which ones they are and which branch they're in so I can remove them, or see first option above.

Complete mis-structure of the skills tree -

• Pilots have skills
  
  • e.g. Hill climb = pilot's ability to feather engine and jets to maintain speed
• Mechs have retro-fitted equipment / modifications / enhancements
  
  • e.g. Range = use of a better / newer version of the same weapon or power supply, or servicing and tuning of existing equipment

There should have been (better) separation of -

• Pilot skills - allowing better use of the mech and its equipment
  
• Mech enhancements / retrofits - giving advantages via additional / replaced / maintained equipment
  
• Mech core tech - essentially quirks, but think of it as fine tuning by the mech techs in the mech lab / hangar - the better the mech tech, the better the mech's performance.

Overall - it's not better or worse than the previous system. Both have advantages and disadvantages from a playability and performance viewpoint. It does have a feel that it's been made complex for the sake of doing so, and that the K.I.S.S. principle was thrown out of the window. However the amount of per-chassis differentiation available is good.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Yay on the trees, nay on the execution. The really need to make it so we can tweak what we want to tweak and remove this silly gating that requires us to invest in a bunch of stuff we don't see a need for or even want. I mean why the hell do I have to buy an entire skill tree just to make my mech run 7.5% faster?

Also how can we customize if we can't test our builds without huge repercussions in the form of XP being required to reactivate a node. I think I am pretty ok with having to grind out each node to unlock them but once unlocked, they need to stay unlocked. I mean it is pretty fricken ridiculous I will have to grind 36,400 XP every time I want to reset and change a full 91 point build to test out another build.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 17 May 2017 - 12:02 PM.

[Wyald Katt]

Viktor Drake, on 17 May 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

I mean why the hell do I have to buy an entire skill tree just to make my mech run 7.5% faster?

Because they didn't want us to be able to pilot THE Übermech with everything. Even if that's what we all really want.

I want 4 Voltron's in my deck.

Edited by Wyald Katt, 17 May 2017 - 12:03 PM.

[Insanity09]

Nay, overall.

For my light mechs (and mediums who think they are lights) it hasn't hurt at all, it may have helped (tough to say for certain).
As a light mech pilot at heart, that's nice. Not great, just, nice.
For most mediums, heavies, and assaults I can't say that this whole shebang feels helpful. Nope.

(long stuff)
However....

Has the skill tree, by itself, helped balance things? (this is a claim I've seen some folks make)
No. Not as far as I can see. It may have helped under/un-quirked mechs more than quirked, which is the wrong direction to go (they were more/less quirked for a reason). Other changes, engine decoupling, quirk changes, etc. that came with the new skill system may have been intended for balance, but the skill system itself is theoretically impartial across the board.

Did the new skill system remove useless skills?
Not really. They did get rid of the arm and pinpoint skills, but hill climb? Gyros? Range for missile focused mechs? Extra torso pitch? Yaw on urbies? I could go on. Most of those are either useless, or at best very marginally useful, and few people would take them voluntarily.

Is it user friendly?
No.

Is it clear and helpful for new(er) players?
I think not.

Has the skill tree promoted variety of builds?
NO.
First off, just look at many posts. Much of the community seems to feel there are certain parts of certain trees (Ops, Mobility) that are "must-haves", several others are regularly being tagged as "just not worth it" (sensors). That means, at this point at least, the skill system is still promoting unity of builds (maybe with minor differences), but not significant variety. There will be some outliers who do oddball things (I'm one), but those were already there, so no real change. Eventually, the community as a whole will settle on certain skills as standard, and there will be a little wiggle room for individuality, but in general, not much variety.
Second, does the tree discourage boating (thus prompting different weapon load outs on the same mech), or altering/adding to the regular weapon builds considered 'meta'? It does not. No change in variety there. If anything, again, it may have encouraged boating a single weapon type because then you can go for generic and weapon specific nodes only. (Note, with a single skill web like this, I don't think it would be possible to discourage boating, so this may be a wash.)
Third, are the trade-offs present and prompting serious differences in builds? Not so much. Each node is worth so little, respectively, that moving a few skill points around here or there doesn't make the mech really feel any different. I've already done just that with a couple mechs, gone to the expense of respeccing to some degree (shifted about 20 points around), and ultimately, the mech felt the same (in one case I shorted firepower, ops, and sensors to get more mobility and survival). Your mileage may vary (I hope it does).
Finally, does the new skill system seem to promote role warfare at all?
No, sadly. A, the final numbers you can dig out of any specific area just don't seem all that significant; B, since every mech has access to the exact same nodes, you can't necessarily differentiate yourself in any meaningful way without being gimped somewhere. Heck, in several cases (survival chief among them) the skills seem designed more to homogenize than differentiate.
(that sounds like a trade-off, yes? But on a light mech, is 40% radar dep worth 8% more structure and 5% more armor? (6 point shift in those areas) it seems equivocal, so maybe? and if maybe, then there is no real role difference. those 6 points, btw, represent 6-7% of your total points so shifting them should make a difference (try shifting 5% of an economy around and see what happens to the country, or for a more personal level, try shifting 5% more of your day to more exercise, that's more than an hour extra exercise per day (72 minutes), see the point?).

All this adds up to the new system not really achieving what its expressed goals were.

[Alan Hicks]

Nay. Spending time on a boring maze tree is not my idea of fun.

An attractive and interesting skill tree would have managed to make MWO more appealing, but this skill tree just makes you quit real easy. Now we all have a previous, awkward requirement, to actually play the game.

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

Nay...

It's actually another scam by PGI. Discovered by accident that if you build a mech. Do not like the config and tweak it, you lose already invested SP that you had in the tree.

[shopsmart]

I am ripping my hair out trying to figure out torso twist rates compared to the old ones. This is my only hurtle because I never really paid attention to it. Love my enforcers, but trying to get that one sweet spot with the 255XL for twist rate with the 25% old quirk rate. Can't seem to find it. That is the failing of the skill tree is that there is TOO much to think about.

[Ignatius Audene]

Big Nay.
91 Points...Way to much calculation time needed.
0,5 % from 0.6 Duraion vs. 1% from Armor (go to Loadout...)

[kuma8877]

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 17 May 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Nay...

It's actually another scam by PGI. Discovered by accident that if you build a mech. Do not like the config and tweak it, you lose already invested SP that you had in the tree.

You keep the node. It just takes xp to reactivate it rather than sp. And we were told that's how it would be.

[Raubwurst]

yay.
Looks and feels better than feared. Will need time to get used to it, but looks like an improvement.

[Gyrok]

Nay.

All my builds look identical except for firepower tree differences...oh wait...that was what they looked like before with modules.

PGI fukt this game.

EDIT: To wit, all my builds look identical 56 mechs into 160+...nothing is going to change for the next 100+ either.

Edited by Gyrok, 17 May 2017 - 12:44 PM.

[Thingy]

NAY!
I want to play with stompy robots, not fill in an Excel sheet.

ps
If you need a manual to play a "free to play" game you are designing it wrong...

Edited by Thingy, 17 May 2017 - 12:51 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Insanity09, on 17 May 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Nay, overall.

For my light mechs (and mediums who think they are lights) it hasn't hurt at all, it may have helped (tough to say for certain).
As a light mech pilot at heart, that's nice. Not great, just, nice.
For most mediums, heavies, and assaults I can't say that this whole shebang feels helpful. Nope.

(long stuff)
However....

Has the skill tree, by itself, helped balance things? (this is a claim I've seen some folks make)
No. Not as far as I can see. It may have helped under/un-quirked mechs more than quirked, which is the wrong direction to go (they were more/less quirked for a reason). Other changes, engine decoupling, quirk changes, etc. that came with the new skill system may have been intended for balance, but the skill system itself is theoretically impartial across the board.

Did the new skill system remove useless skills?
Not really. They did get rid of the arm and pinpoint skills, but hill climb? Gyros? Range for missile focused mechs? Extra torso pitch? Yaw on urbies? I could go on. Most of those are either useless, or at best very marginally useful, and few people would take them voluntarily.

Is it user friendly?
No.

Is it clear and helpful for new(er) players?
I think not.

Has the skill tree promoted variety of builds?
NO.
First off, just look at many posts. Much of the community seems to feel there are certain parts of certain trees (Ops, Mobility) that are "must-haves", several others are regularly being tagged as "just not worth it" (sensors). That means, at this point at least, the skill system is still promoting unity of builds (maybe with minor differences), but not significant variety. There will be some outliers who do oddball things (I'm one), but those were already there, so no real change. Eventually, the community as a whole will settle on certain skills as standard, and there will be a little wiggle room for individuality, but in general, not much variety.
Second, does the tree discourage boating (thus prompting different weapon load outs on the same mech), or altering/adding to the regular weapon builds considered 'meta'? It does not. No change in variety there. If anything, again, it may have encouraged boating a single weapon type because then you can go for generic and weapon specific nodes only. (Note, with a single skill web like this, I don't think it would be possible to discourage boating, so this may be a wash.)
Third, are the trade-offs present and prompting serious differences in builds? Not so much. Each node is worth so little, respectively, that moving a few skill points around here or there doesn't make the mech really feel any different. I've already done just that with a couple mechs, gone to the expense of respeccing to some degree (shifted about 20 points around), and ultimately, the mech felt the same (in one case I shorted firepower, ops, and sensors to get more mobility and survival). Your mileage may vary (I hope it does).
Finally, does the new skill system seem to promote role warfare at all?
No, sadly. A, the final numbers you can dig out of any specific area just don't seem all that significant; B, since every mech has access to the exact same nodes, you can't necessarily differentiate yourself in any meaningful way without being gimped somewhere. Heck, in several cases (survival chief among them) the skills seem designed more to homogenize than differentiate.
(that sounds like a trade-off, yes? But on a light mech, is 40% radar dep worth 8% more structure and 5% more armor? (6 point shift in those areas) it seems equivocal, so maybe? and if maybe, then there is no real role difference. those 6 points, btw, represent 6-7% of your total points so shifting them should make a difference (try shifting 5% of an economy around and see what happens to the country, or for a more personal level, try shifting 5% more of your day to more exercise, that's more than an hour extra exercise per day (72 minutes), see the point?).

All this adds up to the new system not really achieving what its expressed goals were.

This post sums up what I have been thinking almost perfectly. No real customization because certain trees are must have. Also to get any real benefit out of a tree, you have to dive really deep into that tree which makes investing anything less than 20 point in any given tree pretty much a waste and in some cases only a marginally good investment. Also you can't just tweak the things you feel need tweaking on your mechs.

For myself, I have pretty much come up with a very generic do all build I will be using on 90% of my mechs just because it seems to offer the best bang for the 91 points spent. That leads to near zero diversity or customization across the 110 mechs I own. As far as the 10% that won't use the build, they are made up mostly of ECM equiped mechs which now require you to fully spec into sensors thus requiring me to re-allocate points from somewhere. I also have a few odd ball mechs like my Dragon Slayer and Heavy Metal that are worthless now and with them I will plan to try out an odd ball mobility, Jump Jet specs to try to bring them back to their former mobile, jump capable glory but I am not expecting much.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 17 May 2017 - 12:50 PM.

[Vladokapuh]

just remove it entirely, remove exp, and let us spend money on mechs and their equipment only.

This is confusing hell that requires tons of grinding and milion clicks, and still blocks you with plenty nonsense you dont even want.

[zachyattacky]

YAY 100% YAY

[Vladokapuh]

Just to add, i got tired after filling skill trees for 3 mechs. Im literally tired. I am looking at my mechs, but i just dont feel like doing this again.
This is too large, bonuses are insignificant for a single point, and the few mechs i actually "skilled" all have almost exactly the same setup.
This is really really not good, this is full downgrade from previous system, which is an achievement considering the old system was really bad itself, way too expensive considering module cost, and that modules had to be repurchased for mechs, or you had the hassle to switch them around constantly. And skill tree is even worse. Annoying to use, annoying to look at... there should be way way way less nodes, no nonsense with nodes blocking stuff you want, some color coding besides those few nodes that are ballistic/missile/laser only..
Come on, why is this thing live..

[Vonbach]

Welcome to clan warrior online with this new skill tree. Good grief.

[Dino Might]

Yay.

I finally have a reason to keep playing old mechs, to continually tweak and refine. If you don't want to try different things in the mech lab, why play this game? This is the first real step PGI has taken to "thinking man's shooter" in a long time.

[oldradagast]

MEH

Good idea - customization vs. the old skill system of "pick everything and you're better in every way" that gets tripped up by the HUGE size of the skill system.

People who play games like MWO generally do NOT do so because they like huge, tangled skill mazes. This type of thing is more appropriate to certain types of RPG's, not a shooter like MWO.

That being said, we have it, so what can be done to make it better?
- Reduce the number of total nodes, number we can assign per mech, and make the picks proportionally more effective. I'd set a hard cap of 100 skill nodes in the game. Any more and you've lost the focus. Then, we get 40 or so total, and that's it. That cuts the size of the silly mess we're staring at down to less than half its current size, which helps.

- Some sort of roles, templates, or something to speed up the picking process in a logical way

- New user experience. This thing is a mess. It needs tutorials, guides, etc. New users should also get 91 free skill points when they buy their first mech just to at least get them interested in the skill system.

- Respec costs should go. They are nothing but a tax on new players that older players can mostly ignore, and they have no place in a game that depends upon heavy mech customization to retain player interest.