40 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

If there's one thing I've always been disappointing with about the 'Skill Tree' is it's silly name. There's nothing in there that is to do with pilot skill and everything to do with customising or tuning your mech.

Now that the Cauldron are working on this could we please rename it to something more sensible, more lore-ish, and less 'game-y'. My suggestions include:

Mech Tuning
Mech Customisation
Mech Engineering

(for Mech also read Battlemech)

While we're at it is there anything else in the skill tree that needs renaming or making more immersive?

Edited by Dogstar, 30 September 2021 - 04:23 AM.

[Bud Crue]

As nonsensical as the “skill” element of the name is, it never bothered me as much as the “tree” part. There is nothing remotely tree like in that presentation. It’s really a bunch of unrelated shrubs. Heck and with that downward branching presentation, it really ought to have been skill roots maybe.

At this point though, I just think of it as 91 one points of monotony. If they actually revise it and it has less dross and is more streamlined, then I’ll be content with whatever they want to call it.

[Storming Angel]

I like mech tuning the most for myself. Maybe change the nodes the names i guess if you want it too be more immersive, but atm the names are fine.

Would like it if it went to 100 points not sure why it stops at 91 and it does my head-in lol, also maybe increase the percentages of said nodes and change the order of some so you are not forced to take those nodes for the sake of it. (also highlights which nodes are worthless so they can be changed and/or swapped out for something else entirely).

But yeah, ill go with mech tuning.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Its always been both skills and equipment, though. It's all semantics. Things like anchor turn and speed tweak are the pilot being so familiar with the chassis that they get a bit extra out of it. Heat Gen and Seismic Sensors are equipment upgrades. To separate the two, you'd need to restructure the whole thing. Again.

[Der Geisterbaer]

~slightly off topic~

Bud Crue said:

As nonsensical as the “skill” element of the name is, it never bothered me as much as the “tree” part. There is nothing remotely tree like in that presentation.

Unless of course the various "tree" terminologies - particularly "polytree" and multitree" - from graph theory enter the "picture".

Bud Crue said:

It’s really a bunch of unrelated shrubs. Heck and with that downward branching presentation, it really ought to have been skill roots maybe.

Another problem that directly stems from how in math in general and graph theory in particular where such directed structures tend to be presented in a top down manner but the starting node at the top get's labeled as "root" from where things "branch" out.

[Moldur]

tbh I would have been fine with the mech mastery system just being reworked for individual mechs. combined with the existing module system we used to have.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Moldur, on 30 September 2021 - 10:25 AM, said:

tbh I would have been fine with the mech mastery system just being reworked for individual mechs. combined with the existing module system we used to have.

It had its issue too. Modules. They're essentially bolt-on supertech.

I like how PGI did improvements in MW5... unlock modules you can install for cBills. Add to that a system of just purely skill and you'd have the most flavorful lore-friendly and common sense combination.

[Curccu]

If this things name, what it is called... is biggest problem with it then there is absolutely zero reason to rework it.

[Rain Dark Sky]

Please don't mess with it. It's fine as is.

[Glaive-]

I wouldn't mind renaming it to "Upgrade Tree" maybe. I think as long as it's functionally a "tree" system, it should have the term "tree" in the name.

[Vellron2005]

Dogstar, on 30 September 2021 - 04:19 AM, said:

If there's one thing I've always been disappointing with about the 'Skill Tree' is it's silly name. There's nothing in there that is to do with pilot skill and everything to do with customising or tuning your mech.

Now that the Cauldron are working on this could we please rename it to something more sensible, more lore-ish, and less 'game-y'. My suggestions include:

Mech Tuning
Mech Customisation
Mech Engineering

(for Mech also read Battlemech)

While we're at it is there anything else in the skill tree that needs renaming or making more immersive?

I second this. The skill tree has nothing to do with skill.. so.. yeah.

[JediPanther]

A revamp tree with no gated nodes would be nice. Skip the range and velocity I just want cool down. At least it isn't the total mess of path of exile.

[Wildstreak]

If this rumor is true, doesn't bode well.

[LordNothing]

replacing words with newspeak is not the answer.

[LordNothing]

CherokeeRose, on 30 September 2021 - 11:22 AM, said:

Please don't mess with it. It's fine as is.

while i disagree with "fine as is", i sure as hell dont want to redux the skills on all 372 of my mechs. so i agree with the dont mess with it part.

even if they cull the tree down 50% it would still be a pita to redo 372 mechs.

Edited by LordNothing, 30 September 2021 - 08:49 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

LordNothing, on 30 September 2021 - 08:43 PM, said:

while i disagree with "fine as is", i sure as hell dont want to redux the skills on all 372 of my mechs. so i agree with the dont mess with it part.

even if they cull the tree down 50% it would still be a pita to redo 372 mechs.

The6thMessenger, on 29 September 2021 - 08:08 PM, said:

I would love to have a different and simpler skill tree TBH, and I don't see reskilling my mechs an issue. Why not just skill it as you use it? It's not like you're going to use hundreds of mechs AT THE SAME TIME, and it's all to common to change builds of mechs: Such as when you're building a mech from Dakka to Laser-Boat, you will eventually have to also change how it is skilled to emphasize heat-efficiency. Why not just involve the skills with the creative process?

It's a non-issue for those that already have hundreds of mechs if we approach it that way, but at the same time once Skill-Tree has been simplified, it's even more of a boon for new players. This change, IMHO, is nothing but good.

[katoult]

Just to add a contrarian void: Add a second skill tree on top (or additional trees beside the seven current ones).

Reduce effects of current tree (significantly - there's no reason a "skill tree" should give you straightforward 30% advantages over base stats) but keep it as a "baseline skill configuration" - and possibly increase activatable points from the current 91 limit.

Use new trees to affect elements not adressed in the current layout for more interesting variation, possibly requiring "empty walkthrough nodes". Derived from what's possible with quirks say as an example investing 20 skill points into activating a HSL+1 for a single specific weapon system.


And if that needs programming anyway give us an option to actually do something different with the 1m+ mech XP many of us have on some of their chassis other than spending a couple thousand MC on converting it.

[Dauntless Blint]

I would like to see targeting computers unlock one node per ton of computer invested in a separate tech tree.
8 ton computer = 8 nodes,1 ton computer = 1 node.

Jump jets likewise, creating interesting node economy with assault jump jets weight offering more nodes(2 tons 2 nodes). Whilst lights & mediums unlocking full nodes for half ton thrusters.

BAP and Command Consoles could offer 2 and 5 nodes as a starting point.

AMS 1 free node.

ECM 1 free node

Free nodes can be identified by a different colour and only unlocked by the appropriate physical assets.(Tech tree and a Skill Tree)

OR remove dead nodes and simplify the Tech Tree.

It would help newer players with the tech disparity too. One of the whole reasons they addressed the original "skill tree" modules sighting them as too much of an advantage when in reality matchmaker was borked & group que especially broken because it can pull higher tier players down where they can single handedly break a match in QP.

Edited by Dauntless Blint, 01 October 2021 - 02:22 AM.

[pbiggz]

a big problem with the tree is presentation.

Lots of little nodes, visually mostly identical. There are lessons to be learnt from fantasy here.



Ignoring the exact contents of the tree, this is a much more readable progression tree. Each node has a unique tooltip, making them visually distinct. Some nodes eat up multiple progression points, so you have a single node with increasing value rather than 5 or so small identical nodes, cluttering up the tree. Each descending row requires a set amount of investment above it (Row 2 passives only become available with 5 points of investment in that tree, row 3 with 10, row 4 with 15, so on). Arrows denote passives requiring a prerequisite (mortal strike in the arms tree can't be taken without putting a point in sweeping strikes). The bottom nodes (requiring the most investment) require you to lean into one tree over the other, and the heaviest or most significant nodes are placed at the bottom to reflect that, not unlike MWO. Indeed in many many ways this is very similar to MWO's skill tree, only significantly cleaner, more readable, and more polished.

Edited by pbiggz, 01 October 2021 - 05:14 AM.

[Curccu]

pbiggz, on 01 October 2021 - 05:11 AM, said:

Lots of little nodes, visually mostly identical. There are lessons to be learnt from fantasy here.

But but weird build?

edit: on topic, sure wow talent tree is nice but didn't that became way smaller also later? an not really comparable to MWO kind of game IMO. WoW talent tree is well thought that you cannot get everything good you'd want but have to make heavy choices that define totally how you play your character.

Out of curiosity what would you imagine those last talents of the trees would be in MWO? What would those give?

Edited by Curccu, 01 October 2021 - 11:52 AM.