193 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

Appogee, on 23 September 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

I've clicked (conservative estimate) more than 18,000 of those bloody Skill Nodes by now.

How ridiculous that we still can't cut/paste existing trees onto new Mechs.

If anyone at PGI played their game and had to grind their own Mechs, they'd realise by now what a PITA it is.

One tool that may make this a bit easier: AutoHotKey. You can record actions, such as the filling-out of a skill tree, and replay it later.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know what PGI's stance on AutoHotKey is, whether they would be OK with it.

[Appogee]

YueFei, on 07 October 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

One tool that may make this a bit easier: AutoHotKey. You can record actions, such as the filling-out of a skill tree, and replay it later.

Great idea, I should try that, thanks.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

I feel the new systems all seem to work fine asides the click by death system which needs to be addressed.

I am less lethal overall but I am happy with that.

[Dollar Bill]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 September 2017 - 08:34 PM, said:

im sorry but saying thing repeatedly doesnt make them true,

Oh, so if someone says "the Earth is round" 1000 times it doesn't make it true and it would still be flat? Thanks for the enlightenment.

If it's the truth, it doesn't matter how many time you say it.

And I'm still waiting for the proof (from PGI and not just what you want to believe) that the "Rule of 3" and old skill tree were linked. All I'm getting still is more subjective opinion and speculation that's trying to be passed of as facts.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Dollar Bill, on 07 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

And I'm still waiting for the proof (from PGI and not just what you want to believe) that the "Rule of 3" and old skill tree were linked. All I'm getting still is more subjective opinion and speculation that's trying to be passed of as facts.

F2P games need currency sinks, to encourage purchase of in game currency and/or core item sales (in this case, Mech Packs).

Rule of 3 = C-Bill sink

New Skill Tree = C-Bill sink

What more needs explaining?

[Gaden Phoenix]

Other then cheaper node respecs once you unlock, I do not see how the new skill nodes is bad.

Seriously they made the respec more expensive really as a money sink and to force users to in the long run purchase multiple versions or different variations of the same mech.

As mentioned before, no more elite 2 and master 1 mech. So now this is the new way to get people to buy more then 1 variation of a mech.

On the other hand, before the skill nodes I had 90 mil. Thanks to light engines and also alot of respecing, my millions is down to 40 mil...

Edited by Gaden Phoenix, 07 October 2017 - 04:50 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Davegt27, on 07 October 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

hey if you don't like what I say on my thread feel free to move on

start your own thread

Hey guys, I started a thread, on a public forum, and don't want people to tell me that I'm wrong! They should go start their OWN thread!"

Get real.

[Khobai]

Quote

I mean, name a single thing you could do before that you can't do now.

theres plenty you could do before that you cant do now. like get seismic and radar derp for free without having to heavily invest in a bunch of mostly worthless prerequisite skills.

also assaults got their mobility bonuses for free before. now they have to heavily invest in the mobility tree to get similar bonuses and its just not worth it.

Edited by Khobai, 08 October 2017 - 12:30 AM.

[Dogstar]

Dollar Bill, on 23 September 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

And, people keep going on and on about how much they can 'customize' their mech...it's just an illusion, sheeple! It just looks good on paper. So please stop fooling yourselves, or using it to make your dis-honest arguments in favor of the Skill Maze. A little 1% bump here, and .75% tweak there mean nothing where it really counts...on the battlefield.

Actually this is very true, I've been playing on my clan account recently where none of the supposedly incredibly clumsy clan mechs are skilled up at all and I've found them to be perfectly playable. A lot of the skill tree is only marginally effective in actual play.

[Andi Nagasia]

Dollar Bill, on 07 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Oh, so if someone says "the Earth is round" 1000 times it doesn't make it true and it would still be flat? Thanks for the enlightenment.

its called evidence,
thats what makes it true,

Dollar Bill, on 07 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

If it's the truth, it doesn't matter how many time you say it.

yup, which is why the Proof is that Rule of 3 was part of the old Skill System,
the only System in MWO that refrenced the Rule of 3 was the old Skill System,

Dollar Bill, on 07 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

And I'm still waiting for the proof (from PGI and not just what you want to believe) that the "Rule of 3" and old skill tree were linked. All I'm getting still is more subjective opinion and speculation that's trying to be passed of as facts.

if i find such proof will you finally be convinced of it?

[Burke IV]

Jay Leon Hart, on 07 October 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

F2P games need currency sinks, to encourage purchase of in game currency and/or core item sales (in this case, Mech Packs).

Rule of 3 = C-Bill sink

New Skill Tree = C-Bill sink

What more needs explaining?

Why does this game need a cbill sink? I dont think it does. So what if there are billionairs around? be happy for them. They are so rich they probably dont even care about the tree. The people it really hurts are the poors and the newbies.

People like myself will never have to grind anything for the tree, its not a sink its player repellant. If they wanted cash money they should have made people buy extra engines with MC or something, hell just make money off the mech packs. Instead they chose to split and lower their customer base. It fails on all counts.

[Bombast]

Dollar Bill, on 07 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Oh, so if someone says "the Earth is round" 1000 times it doesn't make it true and it would still be flat? Thanks for the enlightenment.

I... wait, what? Are you a Flat Earther? What is this?

Quote

And I'm still waiting for the proof (from PGI and not just what you want to believe) that the "Rule of 3" and old skill tree were linked.

It... what? Rule of 3 was the old skill tree - the second and third tier of skills was locked behind you getting the previous tier completed on two other mechs. If you wanted to Master a UM-R63, you had to Elite the UM-R60 and UM-R60L.

Edited by Bombast, 08 October 2017 - 06:50 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bombast, on 08 October 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

It... what? Rule of 3 was the old skill tree - the second and third tier of skills was locked behind you getting the previous tier completed on two other mechs. If you wanted to Master a UM-R63, you had to Elite the UM-R60 and UM-R60L.

That coupling was purely on the side of PGI, there is nothing ABOUT the old skill tree system that required the rule of 3 concept. JUST like how supposedly the new skill tree and engine desync were coupled when they are two very independent concepts.

Sorry, but this argument is still as much BS as it ever was, PGI could've easily removed the rule of 3 from the old skill tree. They weren't intertwined so much as tacked on.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 October 2017 - 08:15 AM.

[Bombast]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 October 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

That coupling was purely on the side of PGI, there is nothing ABOUT the old skill tree system that required the rule of 3 concept. JUST like how supposedly the new skill tree and engine desync were coupled when they are two very independent concepts.

Sorry, but this argument is still as much BS as it ever was, PGI could've easily removed the rule of 3 from the old skill tree. They weren't intertwined so much as tacked on.

And they could decouple heat from weapons. I mean, it's just tacked on.

Rule of 3 was the old skill tree. The fact it could have been removed doesn't make it less so. Hell, you could say that the XP portion was tacked on, and just make the requirement for all the skills be just owning three variants.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 October 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

That coupling was purely on the side of PGI, there is nothing ABOUT the old skill tree system that required the rule of 3 concept. JUST like how supposedly the new skill tree and engine desync were coupled when they are two very independent concepts.

Sorry, but this argument is still as much BS as it ever was, PGI could've easily removed the rule of 3 from the old skill tree. They weren't intertwined so much as tacked on.

Except cbill sink. The rule of 3 existed as a cbill sink, if it's removed it needs a new one. That's the current skill tree.

[Phoolan Devi]

First off, I yet have to see prove that the new system doesn't work. It works perfectly fine!

Second......no way I would like to go back to the module system! Apart from having to play the mini-game "search for the module", we can now get more enhancements than were possible under the module system/old skill tree.

Third: The new systsm is way better for new players and far less grindy than the old, so new player experience hugely improved!

[Curccu]

Phoolan Devi, on 09 October 2017 - 03:01 AM, said:

Third: The new systsm is way better for new players and far less grindy than the old, so new player experience hugely improved!

4th: The new system is better for old players like me also, almost infinite amount of CB/GXP/GSP from module refund (well CB is from selling 2/3 of my modules before that thing happened). So basically I do not have to play to XP a mech EVER again.

[Bigbacon]

Curccu, on 09 October 2017 - 03:18 AM, said:

4th: The new system is better for old players like me also, almost infinite amount of CB/GXP/GSP from module refund (well CB is from selling 2/3 of my modules before that thing happened). So basically I do not have to play to XP a mech EVER again.

this is me...I have tried a few times to grind a new chassis without using SP from my refund pool.. it is PAINFUL....so painful. I get about 10-12 nodes in and say screw it and grab the rest from the refunded stuff.


the problem with the new system is that still is just has limited as the old. Anyone that says other wise is just wrong. Look at peoples' ST. go look at videos of people who show their builds and you'll see that the tree has about 6 or so 'builds' in it and that it is.

either missile side or ballistic side
either armor or structure
some derp
maybe some movement
maybe some cool run

there isn't a whole lot of different things you can do with it. I best almost all your builds follow the same thing. Its limited just in a different way now with the illusion of not being limited.

Edited by Bigbacon, 09 October 2017 - 05:34 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 08 October 2017 - 08:29 AM, said:

Except cbill sink. The rule of 3 existed as a cbill sink, if it's removed it needs a new one. That's the current skill tree.

And honestly, given that they still haven't changed their release model, I would prefer the old skill tree because once you did master something, changing things due to a meta shift or change because of drop types was much easier.

Bombast, on 08 October 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

Rule of 3 was the old skill tree. The fact it could have been removed doesn't make it less so.

It was a part of the old skill tree, not the old skill tree. That's still a pretty important distinction and not tied to either of the skill trees so you really can't use that as a "benefit" of the new one given it had nothing to do with the skill tree concept.

[Sjorpha]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 October 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

You know what else sucks, changing light skill trees or having duplicates for comp (one with cap skills the other with firepower). I'd still take the module system because at least with duplicates a majority of the skills carried over (you just needed modules).

Agree to disagree then, I hated modules.

The primary reason I hated modules was actually that I found it to cheap and impactful to slap on the best ones, it's a much bigger and more costly desicion to take full seismic in the skill tree, so almost no one does. That makes seismic something only a few mechs have which has improved the stealth game. Same thing with radar deprivation, almost every mech in solo queue used to have that module which made homing missile system even more useless than they already are, now there is a much more healthy mix of ecm, ams and radar dep (usually partial) which I think is an improvement, at least in solo queue.

Now that doesn't mean I love the skill tree, as I said I choose it over modules if I have to, but I would much rather prefer if there was neither skills or modules in this game. It's basically there to provide the necessary grind that the f2p business model requires, not because it improves the game.

Modules could have been an ok system if they took up tonnage and crits relative to their power, just like targeting computers and ecm etc. When the only "cost" for an improvement is outside of gameplay, like cbills or XP etc which isn't a gameplay tradeoff only a grind tax, that IMO is inherently bad design. Everything you add to your mech should have a gameplay cost, be it tonnage, crits or something else. For example in the case of the skill tree it couls be that each node gave a corresponding disadvantage so that it was about specializing rather than improving, so for example a duration node could increase heat and vice versa, do you want this mech to run cool or have low facetime, pick one.

Anyways I think skill tree is here to stay, it's not bad enough to be scrapped and modules weren't good enough to bring back. What we might be able to push for is improvements to the skill tree itself, my suggestion would be far fewer nodes (only 1 or 2 per skill type), you can pick them in any order and each node has a equally big downside balancing it's upside. (yeah this could have been the fix for modules too of course, seismic could cut your normal sensor range in half or whatever etc)

Edited by Sjorpha, 09 October 2017 - 07:16 AM.