31 replies to this topic

[Black Fish]

I'd like to say first that I like the new skill tree and that's it's a massive improvement over the previous... thing.. we had.
But ask yourself this - when was the last time your significantly change a specific mech's loadout?
For starters it costs a fortune and sometimes you can't even change the tree because you don't have enough xp\gxp... as if you didn't spend all these hours 'mastering' your mech (it sure looks like it's mastered with that orange shield and star thingy).
If the skill tree was meant to bring more diversity to the game it sure did the opposite...

I know the skill tree was also meant to be a c-bill sink, and that's fine, but PGI also need to look at how the system feels, and right know it just feels cumbersome.
At first it was fun trying to figure the most efficient way to maximize it, but very quickly you get to know it and it loses i's charm.

So here is what I propose:

• Ditch the whole refund\re-buy\unlock nodes... make it so you just need to acquire 91 points then you're done. You have mastered this chassis and you can now play with the tree as you like - you've earned it(!!!)
  
• Now reduce the amount of nodes in the tree - there's just too much and they all do the same... less options doesn't mean less diversity. As an example - a skill tree that splits into 2 options each time with 8 levels has 256 ways to set up... you can increase the value of each SP to compensate. (less nodes also mean easier task to balance them).
  
• And finally - make decision making for each node more important - with less nodes you can make each one more critical to how your mech will behave. it allows you to actually specialize in something.

I really think the Skill Tree is an improvement and I'm happy it's implemented, but it still have a long way to go until it becomes a prominent parameter in the game.


Let me know what you think!

Edited by Black Fish, 16 August 2017 - 01:39 PM.

[Jackal Noble]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 16 August 2017 - 07:31 PM.
unconstructive

[Khobai]

they shouldve had a unique skill tree for each mech

and incorporated each mechs quirks into its skill tree

[Admiral-Dan]

Black Fish, on 16 August 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

• Ditch the whole refund\re-buy\unlock nodes... make it so you just need to acquire 91 points then you're done. You have mastered this chassis and you can now play with the tree as you like - you've earned it(!!!)

This!

[process]

Kinda sorta makes you wanna buy a new mech hmmmm?

But seriously, respec costs directly contradict the whole mechwarrior/mechlab experience. I would be willing to compromise with a system in which all mechs of the same chassis share skill tree unlocks -- since y'no, you're gaining experience with that chassis by piloting one of its variants -- even if it came at the expense of high upfront costs to unlock the skills.

[Bud Crue]

Is it May again?

[Admiral-Dan]

Bud Crue, on 16 August 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

Is it May again?

It’s never too late to fix errors.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

process, on 16 August 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

But seriously, respec costs directly contradict the whole mechwarrior/mechlab experience.

I mean anything you have to buy once you have bought the mech sort of goes against the experience, whether it be buying a specific engine for a specific build, new equipment, upgrades, etc.

Not saying it shouldn't be done, just saying that there is more impeding the experience than just the skill tree. The skill tree just happens to be one of the most annoying because of all the clicks.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 August 2017 - 03:03 PM.

[Bud Crue]

AlphaEtOmega, on 16 August 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

It’s never too late to fix errors.

Agreed. But if they didn't see this stuff as errors despite all the complaints before, I don't think they are going to change anything after the fact either. Dare to dream and all that, I suppose.

[Bud Crue]

process, on 16 August 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

Kinda sorta makes you wanna buy a new mech hmmmm?

But seriously, respec costs directly contradict the whole mechwarrior/mechlab experience. I would be willing to compromise with a system in which all mechs of the same chassis share skill tree unlocks -- since y'no, you're gaining experience with that chassis by piloting one of its variants -- even if it came at the expense of high upfront costs to unlock the skills.

Yes, but they don't contradict Russ's stated need to encourage players to buy new mechs in lieu of respecing. The respec costs are designed to make the player think twice about experimenting and instead of respecing to buy a new chassis to try the new build on. It is part of the cbill sink that he said point blank is essential to the mwo economy and it is a mechanism to help replace potential losses due to the removal of the three mech model. Is it bunk? Yes! But it is what he thinks is essential.

[FireDog]

I look at the skill tree this way.... If I like a mech and play it well past the first 91 SPs, hey I will have plenty of mech XP and CBs to dink with it a bit. Maybe I will go with more mobility for a bit, then I will see if I do better with sensors or extra armor/structure, maybe even toss more SPs into expendables. That is the nature and a great benefit of the Mechwarrior game franchises.

[Ruar]

OP,

All of these items were brought up during the PTS for the skill tree. PGI (Russ) seem intent on ignoring player suggestions that make the ST better. The way they implemented the ST has cost them revenue and players.

[Andi Nagasia]

Khobai, on 16 August 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

they shouldve had a unique skill tree for each mech

and incorporated each mechs quirks into its skill tree

cant really support a Unique Still Tree for each mech,

but having a single Special Tree at the end that has 12 unique Skills for that Chass could be interesting,

[MischiefSC]

Except skill tree is like choose your own quirks. For example I've got 5 Novas in my garage and 3 of them have different skill tree setups than the others.

I have no issues with the skill tree aside from the inability to save templates or faster ways to fill stuff.

The end of rule of 3 requires some kind of cbill sink to make up for it. I consider this a cheap replacement. Also it's let me make a much, much wider variety of builds than I could before and have them viable.

Nobody likes having to pay for stuff. However the customization is better than it was before and it's reasonably good without leaning too far in any one direction. Sure, firepower and survival will always be primaries, JJs are not worth it 90% of the time and sensor tree is a tax for bad situational awareness but those are more about the relative value of those facets of the game than the skill tree.

I wouldn't mind to see the trees condensed but having the flexibility to tweak relative vales by a % or two is nice and granular.

[Burke IV]

The reason i dont play any more is the skill tree. The fact that i have to deal with it if i want to change my mech is just boring. I would prefer a game where everybodys weapons and armour were all the same anyway.

[Athom83]

Ruar, on 16 August 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

OP,
All of these items were brought up during the PTS for the skill tree. PGI (Russ) seem intent on ignoring player suggestions that make the ST better. The way they implemented the ST has cost them revenue and players.

You say they "ignore" the playerbase, when just as many (if not more) were happy with how it worked. Stop assuming whatever you think represents the playerbase as a whole.

[Ruar]

Athom83, on 16 August 2017 - 05:49 PM, said:

You say they "ignore" the playerbase, when just as many (if not more) were happy with how it worked. Stop assuming whatever you think represents the playerbase as a whole.

Because there is just no way I was reading the forums and seeing what was being said and by how many were saying it. Nah, that couldn't possibly be a reason for saying what I said.

[MischiefSC]

Many of us where critical during PTS but happy with what for released because it addressed the bulk of our concerns.

[Athom83]

Ruar, on 16 August 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

Because there is just no way I was reading the forums and seeing what was being said and by how many were saying it. Nah, that couldn't possibly be a reason for saying what I said.

100 people take part in something.

50 of the people are okay with that something, and stay mostly silent.

20 of those people create 90% of the topics on that thing and all say its bad.

30 of those people are saying to those 20 that they don't agree with them.

By your logic the 20 are the majority.

[Ruar]

Athom83, on 16 August 2017 - 05:55 PM, said:

100 people take part in something.

50 of the people are okay with that something, and stay mostly silent.

20 of those people create 90% of the topics on that thing and all say its bad.

30 of those people are saying to those 20 that they don't agree with them.

By your logic the 20 are the majority.

Actually, you are the one trying to quantify how many liked or disliked the ST. I said PGI ignored player suggestions that were better than what PGI put out and that PGI's decisions on the ST cost them revenue and players.

Not once did I say anything about a majority of players.