91 replies to this topic

[S p a n i a r d]

...gonna make this short

"Time sink" , "New skil tree is a woe.." > basically just whining. A new system takes time to learn. Deal with it. You're not a kid right? Do not expect to be spoon-fed all the time. Even with video games.

"Adds nothing new", "No New Reward" > there is something new. Specialization. Ballistics user can choose not to bother with the Ops Tree. Assault mechs can choose to gain more armor/internal structure. I even see some "veteran" posts saying that the Sensor Tree is not essential. Reward? Your ballistic mech may have more firepower/armor compared to the guy who maxed the Ops Tree. Assault mechs have increased staying power. "Veterans" who forego the Sensor tree have more points to spend on whatever they want.

"Your worth should be proven on the battlefield, not the mech bay" > ok, go equip one medium laser on your mech, and a STD 270, see where your worth gets you.

PGI, I know you already know this, but don't mind the whiners. Like this guy.

There are a lot of people who, even while being aware of the shortcomings of the new system, prefer it compared to the old one

[Ruar]

Astrocanis, on 18 May 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

Straw men are fun.

There is nothing obvious about Paul and company. And a technical implementation restriction still has no effect on this discussion, which is "is the new skill tree better than the old"? Has nothing at all to do with extraneous things, which are not directly tied to the tree itself, like 3 variant mastery or engine decoupling.

If your argument is completely based (or mostly based) on "now we don't have to deal with three variants", you are answering "what's your favorite color?" with "I like pie."

Only true if they were not linked, and I even covered that. I assume the old tree was linked to three mechs so having a new tree not linked is better.

If you assume they are not linked then my point has little value.

We don't know either way so whether or not it is pro or con depends on whichever assumption you prefer to make.

[Dee Eight]

MadBadger, on 17 May 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

Time Sink - anyone who takes an hour to do up a mech in the Skill Tree is doing it wrong (except perhaps the first time through if they are reading every node). It takes me about 4 minutes, roughly the time it takes to change a couple weapons in the loadout. Plus, I've read a lot of threads, I haven't seen any where someone said that. Made-up facts are best facts, I guess.

i COULD do it in under 2 minutes if the UI didn't require a pause between each node click.I just did my 5SPL LCT-1E(C) that's max armor, endo/ff, 190XL, 11DHS at 19.9 tons... all 91 nodes with max speed tweak and full heat capacity and cool run, sensors, consumables and firepower nodes in 2 mins and 34 seconds.

Edited by Dee Eight, 18 May 2017 - 08:34 PM.

[Tarogato]

Ruar, on 17 May 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

You are not including all of the data though. You've cherry picked the items you like.

New tree = one mech to max out; old tree = three mechs to max

Just want to point out that the three mech rule is completely irrelevant to the skill tree. It 100% does not matter.


They could have easily kept the old skill tree and removed the three mech rule. The reason the three mech rule existed was to add a grind and drive monetisation. When they introduced the new skill tree, they increased the XP cost per mech from to 57,250* to 72,800. That's literally the only change that is relevant to the three mech rule - they increased the per-mech cost by 27%*.

So no, that's not a valid "pro" for the new skill tree. That change could have existed without a new skill tree.



Edit, actually the Elite status was all you needed under the old system. Getting Mastery didn't matter, because it was just the optional module slot (which I didn't even use on a lot of my mechs). So actually the grind went from 35,750xp to 72,800xp, an increase of 104%. More than doubled.

Edited by Tarogato, 18 May 2017 - 09:59 PM.

[Manei Domini Krigg]

I do not understand people who write miles of tearful posts, but they can not master one page of the skill tree.

[Vellron2005]

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Valid points except...they are not..

This is a clear-cut case of "your argument is invalid because I say so".. dude.. make a point with an actual argument.

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Anything > than zero is more effort. So even 1 minute spent in the mechlab instead of in-game or doing something IRL is one more minute than what I want to spend to end up at the same place, playing the same game, with the same rewards.

If you don't value the fun of the Mechlab, then you really ARE playing the wrong game.. seriously.. Mario Kart.. check it out.

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

I am glad all of you have nothing better to do or no value for your time. But in the purest sense you cannot disagree that one second spent doing something for no gain is one second wasted. And any time spent above zero equates to extra burden.

Time in the mech bay = better / optimised / well prepared / modified to suit one's needs mech. And it IS fun playing around with builds and tech and stats.

Also, seconds spent doing something for no gain are why meditation and YouTube cat videos are so fun and amazing. And why must there be something to "gain" from everything? If "gain" is the only thing that drives you in life.. you really need to start meditating and "stopping to smell the roses"

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

If you continue to disagree with math and logic, what does it really say?.

What we're disagreeing with is not math nor logic. It's your statements. There is no logic in what you're saying.

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

In any event, woe to the new player. Based on all I am reading from supporters and detractors...not a good place for them right now.

This game has always been hard on new players. It always will. It's not for everyone.. Seriously.. Mario Kart.. check it out ;-)

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Last piece of math. Earlier this week over 300 mechs skilled. Now? Zero.

Your point being? What you're really saying here is "you are too lazy to accept the change and skill up your mechs".. All those "skilled mechs" are still skilled.. because they have 91 Historical Skill points associated with them.. They are simply un-allocated.

Sorry if it's too much stress and work for you, so you feel the need to come to the forums and whine about the best change this game has seen in years..

[Nightmare1]

Ted Wayz, on 18 May 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

It is all dependent on how you play and support this game.

If I just wanted to max out my one binky, or maybe even a half dozen per weight class. Yippee! Wouldn't be that much of a burden. Heck you could do that without paying a penny to PGI.

But if you invested in over 300 mechs that you could just grab whichever you wanted to take for a spin on a whim and ardently supported PGI financially....this system sucks big time.

Do I skill up the new mech I bought or do I want to spend time in the mech lab so that when the anniversary of Sarah's mech being released I can pilot it...

I have money but not much time. Hate to break it to you, but PGI runs on money, not people putting time into MWO.

And why? To get back to zero? Or as people are reporting less than zero?

But time is on my side. The true horror of the skill tree is yet to be revealed when the bloom is off the rose and people realize they have made a mistake on their tree and try to undo it. Or PGI decides to "tweak" the tree forcing people into changes.

Have fun chicklets!

Such a drama queen.

Manei Domini Krigg, on 18 May 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

I do not understand people who write miles of tearful posts, but they can not master one page of the skill tree.

ROFL, IKR?

In all the time they invested to grief pages and pages on the forums, they could have re-Mastered half their Mechs already.

[Nightmare1]

Tarogato, on 18 May 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

Just want to point out that the three mech rule is completely irrelevant to the skill tree. It 100% does not matter.


They could have easily kept the old skill tree and removed the three mech rule. The reason the three mech rule existed was to add a grind and drive monetisation. When they introduced the new skill tree, they increased the XP cost per mech from to 57,250* to 72,800. That's literally the only change that is relevant to the three mech rule - they increased the per-mech cost by 27%*.

So no, that's not a valid "pro" for the new skill tree. That change could have existed without a new skill tree.



Edit, actually the Elite status was all you needed under the old system. Getting Mastery didn't matter, because it was just the optional module slot (which I didn't even use on a lot of my mechs). So actually the grind went from 35,750xp to 72,800xp, an increase of 104%. More than doubled.

Blatantly ignoring the rule of three and disregarding it is a fallacious way to build your case. It doesn't matter what you think PGI could have done. What matters is the difference between the two.

Look at it this way:

New system:
C-Bills required to Master 91 nodes = 4,095,000
XP required to Master 91 nodes = 72,800

Old system:
XP required to Master 13 nodes = 57,250
XP required to Basic two other Mechs so that you could Master one Mech = 28,500
Total XP required to Master one Mech = 85,750
MC required if using all GXP = 3,430 (if not done on a GXP Conversion sale)

Now for the numbers: https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Under the old system, at a cost of 25 GXP per 1 MC (not during GXP conversion sale) it would cost you $22 or about 9 hours to Master one Mech, depending on whether you did a straight MC/GXP conversion or if you ground it all out. Under the new system, it will require about 4 hours to grind it all out, or $15 to do it with an MC/GXP conversion (not during GXP conversion sale).

In terms of economics, this new tree is substantially better than the old one. You can cherry pick and pretend that the rule of 3 doesn't matter, but, in the end, it does because it is a part of the differences between the two trees.

Athom83, on 18 May 2017 - 06:52 PM, said:

You could probably cut that down to a minute when they introduce that quick-pathing they are talking about. Click a node father down the tree and it would path the shortest distance. Should cut down time to a minute or two when doing it in a hurry.

Agreed!

Edited by Nightmare1, 20 May 2017 - 06:24 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Miyamoto Suzuki, on 19 May 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

What the skill tree needs now, at a minimum, are profile-skill-sets for quickly selecting skill configurations in the tree. The first built in profile-skill-set should select all the skills to provide you the equivalent experience as if you had maxed out the skills in the previous/old tree.
This would immediately make players like me more comfortable as I can simply select the profile, apply it, and get back to gaming.

While I and many others agree skill templates need introducing, and PGI are working on something, it must be noted that you cannot replicate the skills gained from the old skill tree. You can come close with 56-61 SP, apparently, but you can't get back 100% of what you had before the patch.

[InvictusLee]

Ted Wayz, on 17 May 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

New skill tree, creating medium assaults since 2017- Lastly, the old skill tree you could tell the difference between a medium and an assault. The new skill tree it can be impossible. A fully skilled Vindicator should not have 9 less front CT armor than a non-skilled Boar's Head. Period. That is just plain broken.

Looking forward to your responses!

LOL My Splatcrow is amazing now. but you dont wanna hear that.
I'm actually in agreement. That is NOT a good thing lol.
If anything the mechtree shouldnt be IS or Clan specific as it is now but instead be class/chassis specific as the current set up is kind of halfased

[Tarogato]

Nightmare1, on 19 May 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

Blatantly ignoring the rule of three and disregarding it is a fallacious way to build your case. It doesn't matter what you think PGI could have done. What matters is the difference between the two.

Look at it this way:

New system:
C-Bills required to Master 91 nodes = 4,095,000
XP required to Master 91 nodes = 72,800

Old system:
XP required to Master 13 nodes = 64,500
XP required to Basic two other Mechs so that you could Master one Mech = 43,000
Total XP required to Master one Mech = 107,500
MC required if using all GXP = 4,300 (if not done on a GXP Conversion sale)

Now for the numbers: https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Under the old system, at a cost of 25 GXP per 1 MC (not during GXP conversion sale) it would cost you $30 or about 12 hours to Master one Mech, depending on whether you did a straight MC/GXP conversion or if you ground it all out. Under the new system, it will require about 4 hours to grind it all out, or $15 to do it with an MC/GXP conversion (not during GXP conversion sale).

In terms of economics, this new tree is substantially better than the old one. You can cherry pick and pretend that the rule of 3 doesn't matter, but, in the end, it does because it is a part of the differences between the two trees.

I don't think you quite get what I'm saying.


The old skill tree incorporated a rule of three to make you have to grind more to level the mechs you wanted. The cost of leveling one mech was low, which was offset by them forcing you to level variants in order to level the one you wanted. Thus driving up the grind.

In order to ditch the rule of three, you have to preserve the cost of leveling a single mech as how it was compared to the old system (the old system required your 35,750 XP plus your 43,000 for the taxed variants), so that the grind for leveling a single mech doesn't change much. This means you ditch the rule of three, and make each individual mech cost more to level, which in this case they decided 72,800 XP.

Notice how absolutely no part of that transition involved anything to do with the layout or mechanics of the skill tree, and it only concerns the costs associated with it. So yes, they could have kept the old skill tree and just upped the per mech XP cost, and ditched the rule of three.

Edited by Tarogato, 20 May 2017 - 04:32 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

You know what you never hear anymore while in a group dropping together?

"Wait I need to move modules."

And while you may hear:

"I am dropping group to skill out a mech."

After awhile that will end as well because the majority of your mechs and everyone's will have been already skilled out.

[Nightmare1]

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

I don't think you quite get what I'm saying.

No, I get it, I'm just saying that you're cherry picking too much. You're intentionally choosing only the data, features, or beliefs that support your viewpoint rather than comparing the overall systems.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

The old skill tree incorporated a rule of three to make you have to grind more to level the mechs you wanted. The cost of leveling one mech was low, which was offset by them forcing you to level variants in order to level the one you wanted. Thus driving up the grind.

In order to ditch the rule of three, you have to preserve the cost of leveling a single mech as how it was compared to the old system (the old system required your 35,750 XP plus your 43,000 for the taxed variants), so that the grind for leveling a single mech doesn't change much. This means you ditch the rule of three, and make each individual mech cost more to level, which in this case they decided 72,800 XP.

Notice how absolutely no part of that transition involved anything to do with the layout or mechanics of the skill tree, and it only concerns the costs associated with it. So yes, they could have kept the old skill tree and just upped the per mech XP cost, and ditched the rule of three.

A few things:

1) Your numbers are wrong. It cost 57,250 to Master one Mech, not 35,750. Yes, Eliting gave you most of the rewards, however, full Mastery required that number that I just gave you, plus the 28,500 from the taxed Mechs (Basic'ing at 14,250 XP each). This together makes it 85,750 XP.

That's not all though! New players need to Elite three variants of one weight class in order to fully Master that one Mech. This creates and additional tax of 21,500 XP for the extra two variants. It's a one-time deal for each weight class, but it's costly for new pilots. That brings the total, for a new player, up to 128,750 XP for their first four Mastered Mechs (one for each weight class). That's nearly four times your estimate and prohibitively expensive for new pilots.

2) You say that PGI could have done away with the Rule of 3 at any point. I would certainly like to assume that, but neither of us can say it definitively since neither of us actually are privy to the game's core code or company practices. As such, it's impossible to claim this with any certainty since you have zero evidence.

3) Even if PGI did remove the Rule of 3, it only addresses the economic issue at hand, and does nothing to actually address the overall failings of the old skill tree. The new tree, with its diverse customization, does much to help this game where the old tree could not.

4) Selecting your data so that you can make an apples to oranges comparison to make your own premise look good, does nothing to actually forward your argument or to give PGI constructive feedback. It just makes you looks clueless and partisan.

[MischiefSC]

I see the skill tree as a 2.0 mech lab. It makes good players better and bad players worse. It's a second level of customization and it pushes more space in between bad, mediocre, good and great mechs. It strongly rewards knowing how to play the mech you've built. It's changing some strategies too.

A bad player in a bad mech with a bunch of survival quirks isn't more dangerous - the scrubby loot pinata just drops more cbills when you hit them. Their threat level hasn't changed with their maxed sensors and survival LRM Atlas. They are just worth more damage to farm.

However a skilled player who's optimized heat dissipation and cap on his Warhawk C can shoot his erppcs 12 times back to back, with serious velocity quirks and some structure buffs on an already beefy frame and still keep coming. If he's got 2 Coolshot he's got almost 40 ERPPC shots he can take without having to slow his rate of fire and he's going to **** you up. The guy in the tweaked MAD IIC was tough before and is a stone cold killer now. That Dragon 1C pilot has less than a .5 second burn on his 3 lpls and can trade with your 2ppc HBK IIC just fine now.

Bads are still bad, good pilots are more dangerous. I like that a lot.

[Tarogato]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2017 - 06:18 AM, said:

No, I get it, I'm just saying that you're cherry picking too much. You're intentionally choosing only the data, features, or beliefs that support your viewpoint rather than comparing the overall systems.

Yes, I'm cherry picking only the parts that matters and ignoring the parts that don't matter. You caught me. =P

And now for your London weather: Koala population in Australia is on the drop.

Quote

A few things:

1) Your numbers are wrong. It cost 57,250 to Master one Mech, not 35,750. Yes, Eliting gave you most of the rewards, however, full Mastery required that number that I just gave you, plus the 28,500 from the taxed Mechs (Basic'ing at 14,250 XP each). This together makes it 85,750 XP.

That's not all though! New players need to Elite three variants of one weight class in order to fully Master that one Mech. This creates and additional tax of 21,500 XP for the extra two variants. It's a one-time deal for each weight class, but it's costly for new pilots. That brings the total, for a new player, up to 128,750 XP for their first four Mastered Mechs (one for each weight class). That's nearly four times your estimate and prohibitively expensive for new pilots.

The numbers aren't wrong, they're debatable.


Under the old system, Basics (14250xp) was required. Elites (21500xp) was required. Mastery (21500xp) was option and did not necessarily impact the performance of a mech.

Eliting one mech costs Basics + Elites (14250 + 21500 = 35750xp). That is a cost of Eliting one mech, it is undeniable.

Now, the system required you to Basic two extra mechs. But that is not included in the cost of Eliting one mech - it is an extra tax. So now the total cost of Eliting one mech can be expressed as the cost of Eliting that mech (35750xp) plus the cost of Basc'ing two other mechs (28500xp). The total cost was 64250. Unless it was the first mech of that weight class (which only applies to new players), then add the cost of Eliting two other mechs (43000xp) for a total of 107250xp. But the weight class rule ceases to matter very quickly.

BUT, this is also debatable, because you very well might want to keep those other mechs. Maybe even all three. In my case, there's very few mechs I've bought because of the rule of three and sold. I usually bought three variants of a mech and kept them all because I liked them or I wanted them in the first place. So now the total cost of Eliting each mech can be taken more at face value, because it doesn't include the cost of leveling other variants - you would have leveled those variants anyways.

And again, I have to stress that Mastery costs is irrelevant. When I took a mech into comp play, I made sure it was Elited. Having Mastery for the extra module slot is nice, but more often than not I sit there wondering what module to put in it and just slapping a Target Info because I couldn't think of anything else. I generally didn't care about the module slot - it didn't matter, it didn't noticeably affect performance. The only reason I Master'd mechs that I don't play in public much is because I'm a bit of a completionist, and I can't ignore that Elite status was only 99% complete, and that I could get that extra 1% even if I never need it.

Quote

2) You say that PGI could have done away with the Rule of 3 at any point. I would certainly like to assume that, but neither of us can say it definitively since neither of us actually are privy to the game's core code or company practices. As such, it's impossible to claim this with any certainty since you have zero evidence.

Please explain to me how building this was a requisite coding endeavour before being able to remove the rule of three by increasing the individual mech XP costs:






I'll give you a hint: it's irrelevant.

Quote

3) Even if PGI did remove the Rule of 3, it only addresses the economic issue at hand, and does nothing to actually address the overall failings of the old skill tree. The new tree, with its diverse customization, does much to help this game where the old tree could not.

My argument is that we didn't need the diverse customisation. I've even said this before elsewhere, we don't need a customisable skill tree. The mechlab is already plenty of customisation for this game. And when you consider that the skill tree will always be filled out according to the build you choose in the mechlab, then is the skill tree really providing new customisation? Or is it just forcing you to waste your time trying to figure the most optimal path?

We could have ditched the rule of three without also getting this egregiously over-engineered timesink of a skill-cobweb.

[Nightmare1]

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Yes, I'm cherry picking only the parts that matters and ignoring the parts that don't matter. You caught me. =P

No, you're ignoring parts that actually do matter, and then trying to cover it up. If you wanted to compare the New Skill Tree to Eliting, then you could not use all 91 nodes. You would have to compare the costs of 57 nodes instead, since that would equate to Eliting a Mech.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

The numbers aren't wrong, they're debatable.

Not really. I'm using a direct apples-to-apples comparison while you're warping yours into an apples-to-oranges comparison. Yours just doesn't hold water.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Under the old system, Basics (14250xp) was required. Elites (21500xp) was required. Mastery (21500xp) was option and did not necessarily impact the performance of a mech.

Eliting one mech costs Basics + Elites (14250 + 21500 = 35750xp). That is a cost of Eliting one mech, it is undeniable.

And? I don't recall denying it.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Now, the system required you to Basic two extra mechs. But that is not included in the cost of Eliting one mech - it is an extra tax. So now the total cost of Eliting one mech can be expressed as the cost of Eliting that mech (35750xp) plus the cost of Basc'ing two other mechs (28500xp). The total cost was 64250. Unless it was the first mech of that weight class (which only applies to new players), then add the cost of Eliting two other mechs (43000xp) for a total of 107250xp. But the weight class rule ceases to matter very quickly.

Yes, yes, I already covered this in detail for you.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

BUT, this is also debatable, because you very well might want to keep those other mechs. Maybe even all three. In my case, there's very few mechs I've bought because of the rule of three and sold. I usually bought three variants of a mech and kept them all because I liked them or I wanted them in the first place. So now the total cost of Eliting each mech can be taken more at face value, because it doesn't include the cost of leveling other variants - you would have leveled those variants anyways.

Aha! Now we get to the crux of it. Even if you keep those extra two though (most pilots don't, but we'll pretend they do for argument's sake), it is still more costly in the new system. Here are the numbers (quoted from another post):

"My calculations are based on the assumption of the minimum. In other words, these are the minimum costs that shall be incurred.

Let's face it, most players don't keep all three variants. A few, such a myself, do keep every variant, but most get the one they want Mastered and then sell off the extras. My estimation takes this into account, while yours intentionally over-inflates the actual numbers.

You are also ignoring the cost of modules, which would average between 21 million and 24 million C-bills for each Mastered Mech. Your true cost under the old system, if a player were to fully skill out a Mech with modules included, would be 171,750 XP and 63 million C-bills (assuming the 21 million figure). This does not include GXP needed to unlock the modules, by the way.

The cost to unlock two Mech Modules is about 30,000 GXP, while the cost to unlock three weapon modules is about 10,500 GXP, for a grand total of 40,500 GXP (assuming the 21 million C-bill figure for 2x Mech Modules and 3x Weapon Modules). I haven't calculated the time necessary to grind that much GXP, but I know it would cost 1,620 MC, or about $14.

To compare the two, you would get:

New System:
C-bills required to Master 3 Mechs = 12,285,000
XP required to Master 3 Mechs = 218,400

Old System:
C-bills required to Master 3 Mechs = 63,000,000 (2x Mech Modules and 3x Weapon modules)
XP required to Master 3 Mechs = 171,750
GXP required = 40,500
XP and GXP combined = 212,250 (just for the sake of comparison)


No matter how you look at it, the new tree is simply better. It has better skills, more choice, and is much cheaper overall. It also allows you to level your Mechs much more quickly since you no longer really need to grind GXP or convert it for modules.

Edit: This is all written while ignoring part of the Rule of Three. Remember, for your very first Mech that you Master for EACH weight class, you need to Elite two extra variants. It's a one-time deal for each weight class, but it was required for new players under the old tree. This means that they would have to Elite three Mechs in order to Master their very first one at an additional cost of 43,000 XP that isn't even included in my calculations above. That makes the old tree extra difficult for new players who are resource-challenged."

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

And again, I have to stress that Mastery costs is irrelevant. When I took a mech into comp play, I made sure it was Elited. Having Mastery for the extra module slot is nice, but more often than not I sit there wondering what module to put in it and just slapping a Target Info because I couldn't think of anything else. I generally didn't care about the module slot - it didn't matter, it didn't noticeably affect performance. The only reason I Master'd mechs that I don't play in public much is because I'm a bit of a completionist, and I can't ignore that Elite status was only 99% complete, and that I could get that extra 1% even if I never need it.

Incorrect. Mastery cost is highly relevant since that is what determines whether you get the full 91 nodes in the new system or not. It also provides the final performance boost for your Mech. While it is not necessary to obtain it under the old tree in order to unlock most of your Mech skills, it can't simply be discarded out of hand since it does directly impact the new tree and since it can have a substantial impact on your Mech's performance.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Please explain to me how building this was a requisite coding endeavour before being able to remove the rule of three by increasing the individual mech XP costs:



I'll give you a hint: it's irrelevant.

Like I said, that's your opinon. Neither one of us can prove or disprove it, which makes your take on it irrelevant.

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

My argument is that we didn't need the diverse customisation. I've even said this before elsewhere, we don't need a customisable skill tree. The mechlab is already plenty of customisation for this game. And when you consider that the skill tree will always be filled out according to the build you choose in the mechlab, then is the skill tree really providing new customisation? Or is it just forcing you to waste your time trying to figure the most optimal path?

We could have ditched the rule of three without also getting this egregiously over-engineered timesink of a skill-cobweb.

Who doesn't want more customization? That's nuts.

[Cy Mitchell]

Tarogato, on 20 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

We could have ditched the rule of three without also getting this egregiously over-engineered timesink of a skill-cobweb.

I agree with this. I would be just as happy if there was no skill tree in the game at all. I would be OK with no MechLab in the game at all. And this comes from a guy who has always loved building characters in games almost as much and sometimes more than actually playing the character in the game. But in MWO the MechLab contributes so much to the perpetual imbalance in the game that I wonder if the game would not be better without it.

All that said, the Skill Tree is as much a part of the game as the MechLab is. Many players want it because they feel it adds to their enjoyment of the game and some players wanted the old "placeholder" Skill Tree redone as promised. PGI obviously wants a Skill Tree in the game. If we are going to have a Skill Tree then I much prefer the choices that I can make in this Skill Tree over the "same for every build" old Skill Tree.

Edited by Rampage, 20 May 2017 - 07:29 AM.

[Tarogato]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

No, you're ignoring parts that actually do matter, and then trying to cover it up. If you wanted to compare the New Skill Tree to Eliting, then you could not use all 91 nodes. You would have to compare the costs of 57 nodes instead, since that would equate to Eliting a Mech.

Quote

Incorrect. Mastery cost is highly relevant since that is what determines whether you get the full 91 nodes in the new system or not. It also provides the final performance boost for your Mech. While it is not necessary to obtain it under the old tree in order to unlock most of your Mech skills, it can't simply be discarded out of hand since it does directly impact the new tree and since it can have a substantial impact on your Mech's performance.

You don't get it. You didn't need Mastery under the old system. Getting the module slot didn't really matter. Once you got Elite, your mech's handling and cooling was at it's maximum. That's all you needed, Mastering it didn't make it any better. It just gave you a module slot that you may or may not even use at all.

Under the new system, you have 91 points to spend on cooling, handling, weapons, HP, plus consumables. So unlike the old system, your mech is not at its peak performance until you Master it, because you can actually spend all 91 points on cooling, mobility, weapons, and HP - stuff that actually matters. You can't get by just putting in 57 nodes and calling it a day. You could do that in the old system, your mech was done when it was Elited. You didn't need Mastery. Now you do. So the comparison I make is based off of old Elite status, not old Mastery.

Quote

Aha! Now we get to the crux of it. Even if you keep those extra two though (most pilots don't, but we'll pretend they do for argument's sake), it is still more costly in the new system. Here are the numbers (quoted from another post):

"My calculations are based on the assumption of the minimum. In other words, these are the minimum costs that shall be incurred.

Let's face it, most players don't keep all three variants. A few, such a myself, do keep every variant, but most get the one they want Mastered and then sell off the extras. My estimation takes this into account, while yours intentionally over-inflates the actual numbers.

You are also ignoring the cost of modules, which would average between 21 million and 24 million C-bills for each Mastered Mech. Your true cost under the old system, if a player were to fully skill out a Mech with modules included, would be 171,750 XP and 63 million C-bills (assuming the 21 million figure). This does not include GXP needed to unlock the modules, by the way.

The cost to unlock two Mech Modules is about 30,000 GXP, while the cost to unlock three weapon modules is about 10,500 GXP, for a grand total of 40,500 GXP (assuming the 21 million C-bill figure for 2x Mech Modules and 3x Weapon Modules). I haven't calculated the time necessary to grind that much GXP, but I know it would cost 1,620 MC, or about $14.

To compare the two, you would get:

New System:
C-bills required to Master 3 Mechs = 12,285,000
XP required to Master 3 Mechs = 218,400

Old System:
C-bills required to Master 3 Mechs = 63,000,000 (2x Mech Modules and 3x Weapon modules)
XP required to Master 3 Mechs = 171,750
GXP required = 40,500
XP and GXP combined = 212,250 (just for the sake of comparison)


No matter how you look at it, the new tree is simply better. It has better skills, more choice, and is much cheaper overall. It also allows you to level your Mechs much more quickly since you no longer really need to grind GXP or convert it for modules.

Edit: This is all written while ignoring part of the Rule of Three. Remember, for your very first Mech that you Master for EACH weight class, you need to Elite two extra variants. It's a one-time deal for each weight class, but it was required for new players under the old tree. This means that they would have to Elite three Mechs in order to Master their very first one at an additional cost of 43,000 XP that isn't even included in my calculations above. That makes the old tree extra difficult for new players who are resource-challenged."

Yeah, basically confirmed that you don't know what I'm trying to say, and you're misinterpreting me. I guess I'm doing a bad job of explaining it... let me try it a different way.

Let's say we go back to where we started. With the old skill tree, the old rule of three.

So Basics cost 14250, Elites cost 21500, module slot costs 21500.

Now let's remove the rule of three and change nothing else. Basics still cost 14250, Elites still cost 21500, module slot still costs 21500.

You've now removed the need to level extra variants. It used to be Basics(14250) + Elites(21500) + BasicsOnTwoOtherVariants(28500) to just needing Basics and Elites. The cost of fully Eliting a mech goes down from a total of 64250 to only needing Basics and Elites on the mech you want, which is only 35750. That's almost half (55%) of the cost! Half of the grind! The problem is, it's too cheap and too fast to grind mechs, so why buy Premium Time? PGI loses money.

So PGI has to increase the grind for leveling up one mech. Under the old system, you could get Elite on one mech for 35750 plus basics for two others (+28500). So under the new system, you need to incorporate the same "two other variants tax" - you add the 28500 onto the 35750 and now the cost of fully Eliting a mech without rule of three should be around 64250. I say "around"... because it would be wise to make it slightly cheaper, since so many people do like leveling more than one variant per chassis.

Problem solved, no more rule of three, and no need to change the skill tree. See how in removing the rule of three, we didn't need to change the skill tree?

Now let's look at what PGI *actually* did. They chose 72800 as their XP per mech. That's a bit higher than the 64250 that I suggested. They probably decided the 64250 is probably a little bit too cheap, considering that all players at some point did need to pay the XP tax to Elite three variants of a weight class if they wanted to ever get a Mastery module slot. So let's look at the old cost for getting that...

Basics(14250) + Elites (21500) + BasicsOnTwoOtherVariants(28500) + ElitesOnTwoOtherVariants(43000) = 107250.

They probably looked at that and decided "that's a bit too steep, considering you only pay that tax once per weight class, and from then on you only have to pay 64250. So let's make it closer to 64250." And they decided... 72800. Which is reasonable. I'm okay with that.

Notice how in this entire time... we haven't talked once about the actual layout or implementation of the skill tree itself? Notice how... it was untouched? It was completely irrelevant. In order to remove the rule of three, we only had to address the costs associated with leveling mechs - we didn't have to address the *mechanics*.

So tell me... why did we need to add this thing in order to ditch the rule of three?





Hint: we didn't. Which is why I can criticise their decision to bring in an overly complicated skill cobweb without ever having to bring into question the rule of three. Because the rule of three is irrelevant to the discussion of the skill cobweb - we could have ditched the rule of three without introducing a new skill tree. Don't get hung up on the fact that these two independent but related changes were made at the same time - that doesn't make them interdependent. It just makes them related.

Quote

Who doesn't want more customization? That's nuts.

There's good customisation which rewards you with multiple viable options to explore. And then there's bad customisation that is slave to another system and is always filled out to properly augment the other customisation.

The way I build my mech in the mechlab 100% dictates how I will skill it out. I don't have options in the skill tree, there is one best path to take - but now I have to waste my time figuring out which one it is. That's makes the "customisation" offered by the skill tree rather pointless.

But bad players will think they have options, yes. But it's an illusion of freedom - they will choose the wrong options. Just like how they put together bad builds in the mechlab. Except now they can screw themselves over in two separate areas.

Edited by Tarogato, 20 May 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[Fox the Apprentice]

Ted Wayz, on 17 May 2017 - 05:52 PM, said:

[...]
How about scouting rewards so that people focus on the infotech tree instead of firepower? I am talking incentives to use all skills, not how you feel customizing.
[...]

Usually shouldn't focus firepower, there are much better trees than that one.

[Nightmare1]

Fox the Apprentice, on 20 May 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

Usually shouldn't focus firepower, there are much better trees than that one.

I agree.