193 replies to this topic

[Davegt27]

these days I only have 2 Mechs with adv zoom

I used to have half a dozen adv zoom Mechs

speed tweak was a given once done I no longer had to worry about it and I then focused on combat performance modules

if I wanted to build a long range Huntsman 3 modules was all it took
then some people would say your crazy for wanting a long range huntsman
but the fun was in the testing, the build might only last 2 drops
then changed to something else

I spent over 100 mil c-bills since the new system and I had to cut way way back on my fun/experimentation

are there better ideas sure there is
but adding 2 modules for my weapon that I picked was pretty easy

[Insanity09]

As implemented, the old skill tree was tied to the rule of three. Or rather, it was exactly the other way around.
That is ultimately the foundation of the argument/belief that the new skill tree allowed PGI to get rid of the rule of three.

And that belief is flawed at the root. Wrong, if you will.

Why?

Would it have been possible to have the old skills, but without the rule of three?

YES!

For proof, I offer the new skill web. All you need is a pile of xp (or gxp, or gsp, or some mix of the above, not to mention historic), and poof, "mastered" mech.
Spending xp, of any flavor, to get skills, in any form, does not ultimately depend on the rule of three.

The application of the rule of three was an arbitrary one, it could have been removed at any time.
Heck, they could have kept the rule of three and built it into the new skill web (e.g. only 30 nodes unlockable with one mech of a chassis, 60 with three variants, the full 91 if you had 3 @ 60 in a weight class). Some might be thankful that we weren't burdened this way (though mech packs would be making more sense), but I think it unwise to thank people just for not being nasty (you'd be very busy, for one thing).

Now, personally, I did not care for the old skills, though they were marginally better than nothing.
The new skill web is marginally better than the old. It does allow for some variety, though much of the expected build differences are illusory (as previously mentioned above).

But, I will also reiterate. The rule of three had nothing to do with the change to the new skill system, they were just two changes that happened at the same time.

[KeeningBanshee]

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

im sorry but saying thing repeatedly doesnt make them true,
the (Rule of 3) only existed in MWO because of the (Old Skill Tree) this is a fact,
no where else in all of MWO did the (Rule of 3) matter at all,

whether of not (Rule of 3) could have been removed from the (Old Skill Tree) is irrelevant,
the fact is that the (Rule of 3) was a part of the (Old Skill Tree) regardless of ether of Our Opinions,
as such when the (New Skill Tree) cast out the (Old Skill Tree), it also got rid of the (Rule of 3)

this is how MWO was, and id rather not have (Old Skill Tree) & (Rule of 3) back, thanks

Using a False Equivalency also does not mean you actually have a valid point. Considering this was by far the most egregious argument in favor for the Skill Maze, it is offensive that it is STILL the only thing people have to cling too in defense of it besides the illusion of customization people imagine they get by picking less things then they got before from static bonuses.

The Module System just needed to be reworked but instead PGI threw everything out and made a bigger mess then was already there... SSDD

[Ace Selin]

Don't care about the cost or the level of differentiation/ specialization the skiltree allows, the interface is horrible, the preferred options nor the system itself is explained at all, it's just a mess of gibberish. The fact there are no templates to reuse for people with hundreds of mechs. It's a half thought pile of steaming crap!

[Andi Nagasia]

KeeningBanshee, on 23 September 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

Using a False Equivalency also does not mean you actually have a valid point. Considering this was by far the most egregious argument in favor for the Skill Maze, it is offensive that it is STILL the only thing people have to cling too in defense of it besides the illusion of customization people imagine they get by picking less things then they got before from static bonuses.

The Module System just needed to be reworked but instead PGI threw everything out and made a bigger mess then was already there... SSDD

im not making a False Equivalency,
the fact is that the (Rule of 3) was a part of the (Old Skill Tree)
the (New Skill Tree) replaced the (Old Skill Tree) and so got rid of the (Rule of 3)
this is just how things ended up, we cant change them,

personally i like the New Skill Tree more than the Old one,
the Rule of 3 is a reason i like the new Skill Tree better, but its not the only reason,
but to say the Rule of 3 has no relation to the Old Skill Tree is disingenuous,

some may not think the New Skill Tree is an Improvement but many Do,
i and many others Like the New Skill Tree, just as some people dont like the New over the Old,
but if the Majority likes it then perhaps it should stay, & Feed back on it seems to be mostly Positive,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 23 September 2017 - 10:48 PM.

[Mystere]

Bombast, on 23 September 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

The Skill System may not be the greatest (Respeccing is ridiculous), but going back to modules is not the answer.

Why not just dump the whole "skill" tree concept? None of those nodes are really related to skills anyway.

[Mystere]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 23 September 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Look at what you're saying here, carefully.

You're essentially, asking for a change to the web because "I don't want to be forced to take things I don't want."

Which translates into: "I want to min-max my mech easier without having to compromise."

This, is what's lead to inherent balancing issues to begin with.

What is the point of additional torso yaw for a mech that already has 360-degree rotation?

Why do fast and agile lights need to take more hill climbing to be more heat-efficient?

Why does LBX spread need to depend on heating/cooling?

[ocular tb]

Skill tree and rule of 3 arguments are tied together because the rule of 3 left with the introduction of the new skill tree. That's why the rule of 3 gets brought up. Yes, they could have removed the requirement for 3 mechs with the old system but they didn't. They did however remove that requirement with the new system so when players think back to old system, of course they're going to think back to the rule of 3. But I know that's not exactly what's being argued here: this is about modules vs skill nodes only.

From a pure module vs skill node standpoint I like the new system more. It gives me more choices in areas that I think are more important for a particular mech. For instance the Jenner needs a lot of help regarding survival and mobility. Previously whatever armor, structure, and mobility quirks the Jenner (all mechs, really) got came from PGI and often times missed the mark. I didn't have much of a say in it's mobility or survival because that was already determined by PGI. I did get to take weapons modules, sensors, consumables, etc. but the things it needed the most weren't something I could just add.

With the new system I can take survival and mobility nodes at the sacrifice of weapons and sensor nodes. It's trade-off I'm willing to make because I think that particular mech needs those more than extra ML range, seismic sensor, etc... and it has indeed helped the Jenner become serviceable again. This new system does require some sacrifice in some areas but I think it's worth it overall.

[Baba_Yaga]

I cannot agree more, I'd gladly take the old system back in a second!

[Jay Leon Hart]

I'm one of Russ' "cheapskates" and even I don't miss the old Skill Tree.

Why people want to go back to a "one size fits all" Skill Tree Template with less customisation is beyond me.

Absolute % values aside, what could you do to customise a 'mech before that you can't do now?

[Shifty McSwift]

El Bandito, on 23 September 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

I'd rather do the skill tree than to juggle modules again. Good riddance to the old system. With only a few Heavies/Assaults even bothering with Seismic nodes, Lights are more potent than before, which is also a plus for the current system.

Me and 30 others like this.

Speaks volumes.

[Davegt27]

Quote

Absolute % values aside, what could you do to customise a 'mech before that you can't do now?

1) because of owned modules I could buy a Mech and have adv zoom on that Mech instantly
I just toss on a adv zoom module (similar to adding an engine or a AC2)

the new sys its a grind of respec's
but most likely you wont respec because of the cost/grind so the only thing to do is buy another Mech

so I just realized that's what I been doing that is buying Mechs
since the respec I have bought 5 Mechs
I would normally be still experimenting with the first new mech but now I just buy another Mech since I don't
want to play around with a bunch of different load-outs

I could go on but its getting to depressing to think about

[Jay Leon Hart]

Davegt27, on 24 September 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:

1) because of owned modules I could buy a Mech and have adv zoom on that Mech instantly
I just toss on a adv zoom module (similar to adding an engine or a AC2)

1) With the module refund, you can still have Adv. Zoom on a 'mech instantly.
2) Adv. Zoom still exists, so it's not something you could do before and can't do now.

[Appogee]

The Rule of Three sold a heck of a lot of Mech Packs.

I'm still astonished PGI got rid of it.

Note: I'm not saying I liked the Rule of Three, or that it was better than the current system.

[D VA]

Actually Skill Tree is working, you just doing it wrong way.

Edited by D VA, 24 September 2017 - 01:45 AM.

[Burke IV]

The rule of 3 might have been a bit odd and pointless but at least once it was done it was done and you need not ever look at it again. Skills belong in the hands and the head of the player not in % form that can be added on. Every time i see reg complaint i wonder if the server is suffering trying to calculate all those little percentages every time anybody does anything.

[D VA]

Burke IV, on 24 September 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

wonder if the server is suffering trying to calculate all those little percentages every time anybody does anything.

Try League of Legends... and the answer'll be: - Easy.

[Chados]

I like the ability to focus on a specific attribute, like the survival tree. That really helps weaker mechs like Catapults. I just wish it wasn't so grindy. Even the rule of 3 seemed to go faster to mastery than taking one mech to full mastery in the skill tree. Though it goes faster once you hit about 45 points. That used to happen after basics in the old system too-elites always came faster once you got speed tweak done.

[SeventhSL]

I love the new skill tree. It is working really well in my opinion.

1. A lot more customisation with skills that didn't even exist under the old system. I mean lol... before we had a choice of range or cool down for weapons. Look at the fire power tree now, heat gen, ammo, spread, duration, velocity, the list goes on.

2. Generic skills that apply to every weapon on the mech. Under the old system, if you had a Medium and Large laser on the same mech you couldn't even given them both range and cool down.

3. No more having to play mechs I simply didn't enjoy to level those I did. Where to start with this... The cost and painful grind I went through buying, building and playing those mechs. It was like heaven when clan mechs came out and you could take a build you liked to grind the other variants.

[Mystere]

D VA, on 24 September 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

Actually Skill Tree is working, you just doing it wrong way.

You are providing an answer to the wrong question.

The correct question is: Why do we have a "skill" tree that does not contain any skills nodes?