Jump to content

Skill Tree Implementation Poll


70 replies to this topic

Poll: Poll regarding this Skill Tree nonsense (189 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you happy with current state of MWO with the Skill Tree modification?

  1. Yes, very happy (14 votes [7.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

  2. Yes, happy (43 votes [22.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.75%

  3. Indifferent (15 votes [7.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.94%

  4. No, unhappy. (30 votes [15.87%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.87%

  5. Voted No, very unhappy. (87 votes [46.03%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 46.03%

What do you think of the current implementation?

  1. It was what MWO needed, however minor changes may be required. (23 votes [12.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.17%

  2. It's a step in the right direction, but quite a few more changes need to be made. (46 votes [24.34%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 24.34%

  3. It's a step in the right direction but a major overhaul is required. (52 votes [27.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.51%

  4. Bring back the old mastery system and tweak it (23 votes [12.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.17%

  5. Voted This is not salvageable, I will / may stop playing MWO as a result of this. (45 votes [23.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.81%

  6. No Changes Needed (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

If changes are to be made, do you feel that any of the below possibilities should be implemented?

  1. Voted Simplification of tree by reduction of in number of nodes (80 votes [20.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.62%

  2. Voted Verticalisation of Tree e.g. Do not need Torso twist to level up Speed (102 votes [26.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.29%

  3. Voted Restoration of stats to their original levels e.g. Bring back ECM range and not required skills to improve it. (76 votes [19.59%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.59%

  4. Voted Turn the original quirks into specialised skills for the mech (59 votes [15.21%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.21%

  5. Voted Other material changes that would render it significantly different from the current implementation. (70 votes [18.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.04%

  6. No Changes needed (1 votes [0.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.26%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 RaidSoft

    Member

  • Pip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 18 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 02:47 AM

My primary problem (and it's such a bad problem that I don't even want to log in) is that you can't freely move around points in the skill tree. It's not a consistent mechanic with equipment that can be moved around and equip and skill tree goes hand in hand in creating a build.

With the current implementation it greatly promotes looking up a meta build and getting that and never changing it again thus discouraging experimentation. This hurts new players the most (veterans are probably swimming in xp/cbills anyway so they don't care) by making it hard to tune their builds as they learn more about the game.

edit: I honestly have a hard time seeing myself play at all unless this is changed in some way, I'd be ok with something like you have to pay for each individual node once but once you have bought it once it's free to move the point in or out of it.

Edited by RaidSoft, 21 May 2017 - 02:48 AM.


#62 Bellum Dominum

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hitman
  • The Hitman
  • 592 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 04:41 AM

Horrid voting options.
Poll is set up so everyone has to say the skill tree needs changes or can't vote.

PGI DISREGARD THIS POLL

#63 Bellum Dominum

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hitman
  • The Hitman
  • 592 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 04:49 AM

View PostGimpy117, on 20 May 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

PGI needs to post a SOLID time frame to fix IS/clan balance. breaking the quirk system is a HUGE blow to IS mechs and there seems to be only the "soon the new tech will fix it" story here on the forums.

they broke a lot of IS mechs and did it just because they could, and claim to fix it later. this in unacceptable


Interesting.. I've found the vast majority of IS mechs have come out ahead with the new skill system. Some are playable now where as they weren't due to the quirkening before this implementation. Now I have found a couple (and I do mean like 1 or 2) that my preferred build does not work on them anymore Vindicator 1x for example and sure that annoys me but it just means I need to find another build for it. Kind of the point of the skill system is to increase build diversity so it by far is not surprising to encounter this on at least a few mechs.

#64 Malifax

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 12:52 PM

As it stands this sucks.

#65 Top Leliel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 133 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:08 PM

View PostBellum Dominum, on 21 May 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

Interesting.. I've found the vast majority of IS mechs have come out ahead with the new skill system. Some are playable now where as they weren't due to the quirkening before this implementation. Now I have found a couple (and I do mean like 1 or 2) that my preferred build does not work on them anymore Vindicator 1x for example and sure that annoys me but it just means I need to find another build for it. Kind of the point of the skill system is to increase build diversity so it by far is not surprising to encounter this on at least a few mechs.


Right now, mechs with armor and structure quirks(primarily IS), can get ludicrous amounts of hitpoints: the armor and structure multipliers from the survival tree multiply bonuses acquired from quirks.

Certain mechs, Orions and Bushwackers come to mind, can easily get durability equivalent to most mechs of the next weight class up, while retaining their smaller size(being of a smaller weight). The result of this is that smaller mechs with nodes can become as tough as larger mechs, while having all the advantages of being smaller.

This creep in mech durability is going beyond mere strengths and weaknesses for individual chassis, it may be affecting the core balance of battletech in ways PGI needs to look into. The Bushwacker for instance is supposed to have its advantage in its front profile being slimmer and shorter than other mechs of its size, and that is represented somewhat in-game: giving it 20 free armor to the center torso just seems overkill.

#66 Bellum Dominum

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hitman
  • The Hitman
  • 592 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 07:36 PM

View PostTop Leliel, on 21 May 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:


Right now, mechs with armor and structure quirks(primarily IS), can get ludicrous amounts of hitpoints: the armor and structure multipliers from the survival tree multiply bonuses acquired from quirks.

Certain mechs, Orions and Bushwackers come to mind, can easily get durability equivalent to most mechs of the next weight class up, while retaining their smaller size(being of a smaller weight). The result of this is that smaller mechs with nodes can become as tough as larger mechs, while having all the advantages of being smaller.

This creep in mech durability is going beyond mere strengths and weaknesses for individual chassis, it may be affecting the core balance of battletech in ways PGI needs to look into. The Bushwacker for instance is supposed to have its advantage in its front profile being slimmer and shorter than other mechs of its size, and that is represented somewhat in-game: giving it 20 free armor to the center torso just seems overkill.



Actually I'm talking about mechs that had little to no quirks before or simply horrible quirks. Those are the ones I went to first to see if they were brought up to playable again and so far the majority of them are. Wasn't a big part of the point of this diversity?

Oh and being a light player... no you can't get a bump up in durability and still have all the advantages of being a small mech. Something has to give if you go full survivability and especially in light mechs with ecm. You either give up 1/2 of what you'd normally put into the weapons tree or more, give up on all but one of the miscellaneous tree, don't go deep enough into the sensor systems to get the bonses that you'd really want in it if you are going into it at all, etc.

Give it a bit of time. I think a lot of people are forming conclusions based on way too little data. 1 week and too many that are complaining are coming across as if they were the skiltree-fu master and well it goes without saying that is not at all possible.

Again yeah I've seen some problems but the majority of problems I've been reading from people on the forums... aren't nearly what they are being made out to be.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 21 May 2017 - 07:43 PM.


#67 David Sumner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 470 posts
  • LocationAuckland, New Zealand

Posted 21 May 2017 - 10:15 PM

View PostNightmare1, on 20 May 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:



Actually, it is just as fast to reskill. I know because I've done it.



No.

It's just as fast to SKILL, maybe.

You can't have "reskilled" before because it wasn't possible.
Personally, I've never skilled the way you describe under the old system anyway, since I spent all my GXP on module unlocks
(3 days before the skill tree, I completed my goal of unlocking every IS relevant weapon module the hard way)

#68 Nightmare1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,636 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeeking over your shoulder while eating your cookies.

Posted 22 May 2017 - 12:31 PM

View PostDavid Sumner, on 21 May 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

No.

It's just as fast to SKILL, maybe.

You can't have "reskilled" before because it wasn't possible.
Personally, I've never skilled the way you describe under the old system anyway, since I spent all my GXP on module unlocks
(3 days before the skill tree, I completed my goal of unlocking every IS relevant weapon module the hard way)


Are you really going to be "that guy?"

Fine, I'll amend what I said since the semantics bother you so.

"It takes the same amount of time to skill out a mech in the new tree that it did in the old tree."

There, I removed the offensive "re-" from in front of "skill." Happy now?

#69 Kijimuna

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 01:52 PM

JJ tree needs to be condensed and amplified.

as it stands it doesn't have any perceptible effect for a huge investment.

#70 Dracol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Steadfast
  • The Steadfast
  • 2,539 posts
  • LocationSW Florida

Posted 22 May 2017 - 08:12 PM

Poll skewed to prompt votes only by those who veiw skilltree negatively. Question 3 is strickly biased against the skilltree with no option for those who are happy with the tree. Sorry. Please try again.

#71 Excalibaard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 169 posts

Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:38 AM

The biggest source of unfun is the lack of incentive to play un-mastered mechs. There are no milestones to get, the drive to play non-standard mechs is gone. They need bigger nodes that feel worthy investing into.

Original ECM and Radar Derp levels were a bit much, but I'd like to see specced and un-specced ECM closer together. Like ECM standard = 50%, specced = 70% which makes it a bonus, but not mandatory to get ECM upgrades.

Full Radar Derp shouldn't even exist, if a mech passes full speed behind a miniscule hill LRM boats immediately have to restart locking from the beginning, while at every % below that, a mech deliberately has to take cover behind something for at least a fraction of a second. Max Radar Derp at 75% or something, so it's worthwhile to get, but it's not as strong as it was before (it was way too popular as a module back in the day).

Overall, the skill tree is a step in the right direction, but implemented wrongly.

Edited by Excalibaard, 23 May 2017 - 03:22 AM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users