Jump to content

Ask The Devs 48 - Answered!


142 replies to this topic

#1 Destined

    Former CSR

  • Staff
  • 760 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • YouTube: Link
  • LocationMontreal, QC

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:23 PM

Hello MechWarriors! Here are the answers from the dev team:



Question from FactorlanP: Clearly the Ask The Devs feature has been falling short in many people's eyes lately, and you seem to have nearly abandoned the Command Chair. Answers to questions are mostly vague non-answers, and aside from a single history lesson about UI2, you haven't posted anything in the Command Chair in September.
Would you consider simply scrapping the feature and replacing it with a regular (every other week) blog where you can give us information about something that is being worked on that you are ready to talk about instead?
It is incredibly frustrating to jump through all the hoops that make up Ask the Devs, only to be fed a series of unsatisfying non-answers.

Answer from Bryan: The goal of the ATD is to allow players to ask questions and interact with the developers. What I consistently see is a series of good questions that get solid answers mixed in with leading questions that don’t or get short answers. Questions can be opinion driven, and we usually avoid those as they are not objective.
An example could be – “I don’t like SSRMs, what are you doing to fix them!”
Often the leading questions end up with the most votes, which makes it difficult for us to answer with any depth. This is part of the reason we opted for this format. Even if something gets top vote, we can chose to not answer if the question serves to not further any reasonable discussion. Take this question as another example. The number one voted question was a complaint (and a good suggestion) about the ATD answers.
So that being said - I personally would have no issue with removing ATD altogether. I will discuss it with the devs and see what we can come up with. Question 3 is similar to this one, so I will lump the response in here. Yes, we can look to merge these ideas together.





Question from Least Action Jackson: While reading the answers to ATD 47, I found myself troubled by some of the answers. One in particular that bugged me regarding the double XP First Win of the Day bonus was from Bryan: "It’s also designed to encourage exploring the Pilot Lab and developing the each `Mech to a Master state."


That struck me as a bit nonsensical, as the pilot tree is currently a perfunctory break-in period for a 'Mech, and is exactly the same for every 'Mech. There is no exploration involved whatsoever. I recall reading during closed beta, although I can't find the thread, so this is hearsay, that the pilot tree as it is now was a placeholder for something deeper and more interesting. The message I'm getting now is that the devs have abandoned this idea (if that was indeed the plan).

My question is: Are there any plans to change the pilot tree? Perhaps to something with a maximum number of skill points and more skill nodes than points (cf. Masteries in League of Legends), thus forcing the player to make a choice? The idea that the current system allows no freedom of customization, and is therefore redundant crops up on the forums periodically, but I feel I've never gotten a straight answer. Thanks!

Answer from Paul: As stated in AtD 47, we will be adding more items to the Pilot Tree as time allows. With the huge upcoming features (CW and UI2.0 for example) these new items are low priority as both design and engineering are focussed on the big fish at the moment. That being said, we will try to get a few more nuggets in the Pilot Tree soon™. The notion of having a limit to the number of unlocks is still on the drawing board. I think I know where you’re coming from, something similar to World of Warcraft’s talents where you have a finite amount of points to distribute across a series of talents but you will never have all of them. This leads to unique “builds” which is something we’ve been talking about since day one. Again, it’s something we’re still planning on doing and expanding on, just don’t have a concrete delivery timeframe for you at the moment.





Question from MizarPanzer: Dear Devs, it's barely more than 2 weeks where the Phoenix mechs will be released. An they come with a 10% bonus to loyalty points.
  • Will you be able to finish the associated features with loyalty point before October 15th?
  • Do you understand the potential negative reactions if you reach October15th without being able to release the associated features?
  • Do you have any contingency plan in place in case you cannot meet the date?
Thank you.



Answer from Bryan: The good news is we already have the ability to track and earn loyalty points. It’s been in the game since we went Open Beta and could be turned on for October 15th. Our main concern is pretty straight forward. We’d prefer waiting to turn them on when players can actually pick their faction AND be matched against their enemies. Until this functionality happens we’re going to hold back adding and removing LP from player accounts.
From a contingency POV - we currently track the game rules that award and remove LP, we can easily replay our telemetry for several months and retroactively set a player’s standing with each of the factions. However, this may not be ideal, as players will have very little control over the accumulation of LP for the different factions and may start them off on a bad footing.
In the end, I feel most players will be understanding and know that the LP boost will come online in the near future when players can associate themselves officially with a faction and meet matched correctly. Players will have access to all the content they paid for and the added bonuses will automatically take effect when the remaining features are turned on.


Question from HammerSwarm: The word on the forums is that the Flea was delayed because MASC was playing heck with the game engine. Mechs moving at too high a speed with too small a hitbox were too hard to hit and kill.


With the Flea turning 1 year old today (it was announced September 26th, 2012) I’d like to ask this question:

“What is the status of the Flea regarding its addition to the game, and what progress has been made regarding any hurdles that have prevented this Mech from being added for 365 calendar days?”

Please add this mech.

Answer from David: The good news is that the game is at a point where we can start to look at finally putting MASC into the game. And, once I finish up on the Phoenix Mechs, I’d like to try and devote some time to trying to make it happen. Now keep in mind that, just because the game can handle it, doesn’t mean that all we have to do is flick a switch to implement it. At the very least, there’s going to be engineering time to implement it, and then some time to balance out its benefits and drawbacks. I’d like to be able to give you an ETA but, at this point, it’s a little too early to call it. However, once it is working, we’ll be able to release the Flea as soon as we can fit it into the Mech schedule.


Question from Alistair Winter: A lot of recent reviews, by fans and by big gaming websites, have pointed to MWO's lack of variety, particularly because it only has 2 game modes, which are quite similar to each other.


Game trailers said:
Quote
Despite the variety in mechs, repetition starts to sink in quickly. This is partly because there are only two game modes. (...) With only two modes and no larger framework linking any of the battles together, you'll soon see most of what Mechwarrior Online has to offer, and the pull of obtaining new things won't be enough to keep you playing."


Ten Ton Hammer gave MWO a 50/100 score in "Lasting Appeal" and wrote:
Quote
"As it stands right now though, the game is little more than a decent mech combat match grind. The game gets far too repetitive in terms of what you can actually do to give it any real lasting appeal."



We have some information about some ideas that you have regarding future game modes, but very little specific information and no clear estimated time for when new game modes will be tested, let alone implemented in the game.
Q: When can we expect a third game mode?

Answer from Paul: As mentioned in AtD 47, Attack/Defend is our next target. This is a more robust game mode that is asymmetrical and needs some engineering/art time outside of normal gameplay coding time. We do have engineering resources working on this at the moment and I will let you know more once I have further details on how big of a development impact this will have on our schedule.



Question from Nikoliii: New User Experience - I've tried to get people into this game, but the tech curve/economic curve is too large. New Users are expected to drop into trial mechs and compete against flavor of the month setups or mechs that have every skill maxed out, critical upgrades (DHS), etc. You can explain the concepts as much as you can, but you aren't going to retain users if their first experiences with the game are walking out in a trial, firing three shots, overheating, and getting destroyed in less than 3 minutes. Most people I tell to try the game give it up before the cadet bonuses kick in. The few that do get to that point stop playing because it would take them too long to upgrade to the point where they can actually compete. Nobody wants to get stomped for the first 100 matches or so until they can upgrade their mech.


Have the developers considered a STOCK ONLY queue? This would not only improve the new user experience by allowing them to play without being drastically penalized for being new, but also allow the veteran pilots sick of "flavor of the month" builds a safe haven. This seems like an easy fix to a fairly large problem, plus it would increase the allure of champion/hero mechs (since they would offer a different loadout than the stock chassis).

Answer from Bryan: We have discussed allowing players this option, but not as part of the new user flow. We are currently working on a completely new onboarding process for the new user. This will come online after UI 2.0 and will ease players into the different aspects of MWO ranging from basic piloting, weapon, and heat management all the way up to advanced MechLab configurations. Part of this new system is the ability for us to reward players with items, XP and currency for completing specific tasks. There will be a mandatory tutorial and series of optional ones. By the end of the mandatory tutorial players will have a starter `Mech which eliminates the need to rely on Trial `Mechs. That being said Trial `Mechs will always be around to allow players the ability to test out new content for free.




Question from Nick Drezary: In one of the previous ATD you've mentioned that you already have a concept art for Timberwolf, so... can we see it(pwety pwease)?

Answer form Paul: No. Absolutely not.





Question from Homeless Bill: Just how low-priority is the reintroduction of collision at this point? Like, based on the current state of development, if you had to throw out a ballpark estimate of what month or quarter it would come back. Disclaimer: Neither I nor any other reader will pretend this is a promise or firm date; it's just what I asked for: a ballpark estimate based on the way things look internally right now.


Alternatively, if you feel like a time estimate isn't a good way to go, where is it in relative to other things on the priority list (e.g., after Community Warfare, but before Clans)?
Answer from Paul: Collisions are unfortunately very low priority at the moment. There are much bigger fish to fry before we get there. UI2.0 and CW are consuming most of our engineering resources and the netcode behind knockdowns would need a fairly significant rewrite to get it working properly. Remember, it wasn’t just an issue of knocking a Mech down, there were huge problems with the camera smashing through geometry and the knocked down Mech would be teleporting positions all over the place making it impossible to shoot. All of this would have to be readdressed to get knockdowns back into the game and as I said, this is low priority at the moment. However, your statement of after CW and before Clans would not be far off the intended target at which we look into it.





Question from StalaggtIKE: Now that streaks and LRM have been fixed, can we expect to see ECM and BAP revisited? To make them less like hard counters and more as information warfare tools.

Answer from Paul: There are no plans at the moment to revisit the core mechanics of ECM/BAP. The numbers associated with them may or may not be tuned but the core is currently okay where they are at the moment.





Question from Sable Dove: Can we get an ETA of when you're going to make a balance pass on the current mechs to bring some of the underachievers up to snuff?


For example, the RVN-2X and 4X are obsoleted almost completely by the 3L.
SDR-5V doesn't have anything that makes it worth taking over the 5D.
The AS7-D-DC is hands-down the best Atlas, though the D and RS are at least different enough to have a reason to use, even if they are slightly worse overall. The K is not so lucky, and there is no good reason to ever use it over any other variant.

Not to mention certain chassis are in need of buffs. The Awesome is probably one of the most-cited, but Commandos are easily one of the least common mechs around, because there is little reason to take them over any other light.

So when can we expect some sort of balancing effort both between variants, and between chassis? And are you willing to change hitboxes in order to improve certain mechs (Awesome, Catapult, Dragon, etc.)?

Answer from David: At the moment, I’m going over the Light Mechs, looking to improve those underachieving variants. One thing that I can say for sure is going to happen is that the max allowable engine is going to be increased for certain variants. This will allow them to travel faster than the current ~138 kph speed cap (~152 with Speed Tweak). The new potential max speed for these variants will be ~154 kph (~170 with Speed Tweak). I’ll also be looking at their maneuverability, torso twist angles and speed, etc in order to shore up their effectiveness.
When the Lights are done, the next group of Mechs will be either the Heavies or Assaults (as the Mediums have received a tuning pass relatively recently). In addition to tuning the usual aspects on those Mechs, I’ll be taking a look at their hitboxes, to try and ensure that their relative sizes are all in line with each other.




Question from James Montana: What is the game content you are currently working on right now? Not content on a wish list, but right now.
Answer from Bryan:
UI 2.0 is the big one.
Community Warfare
User Drops – we’re tracking down an elusive backend communication problem.

Edited by Destined, 04 October 2013 - 06:50 PM.
I'm very sorry, I missed that last question.


#2 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 1,889 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:32 PM

TL;DR ATD



Q: Will you scrap AtD and roll with some other form of communication?
A: We'll look into it and see what alternative we can come up with.

Q: Are there any plans to change the pilot tree?
A: It's low priority, but we plan to add more. We're also looking into forcing the player to choose between unlocks as has been suggested. No decisions or ETA yet.

Q: What's the plan with Loyalty Points, since CW is still a way out but Phoenix is here?
A: Players won't accumulate LP until CW's first phase rolls out. We could do things retroactively, but we prefer not to.

Q: Flea / MASC?
A: MASC will be possible soon. No ETA on it or the Flea.

Q: When can we expect a third game mode?
A: Attack/Defend is our next target, but there is no ETA.

Q: Stock only queue, particularly for new people?
A: We've thought about it, but not for new people. We're doing serious work on the new user experience that will be a full tutorial.

Q: Timberwolf concept art?
A: No.

Q: Collisions?
A: Very low priority. No promises, but estimate of "after CW but before Clans" is close to our intended target.

Q: ECM / BAP with more nuance instead of hard counters?
A: No. We like how they work now.

Q: When will ****** 'mechs (like the Raven 2X/4X) get some love?
A: We're looking at lights right now. Larger engine cap is on the way. After that, Heavies or Assaults will receive a tuning pass.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solid answers, but not really anything surprising, new, or encouraging. Again, totally in favor of anything else you guys do besides AtD. After I got done reading this, my reaction is, "Meh." When I saw the picture of the Locust, I was ******* stoked.

Yes - honest answers about the reality of game development are far less exciting than shiny pictures. In addition to us being happier, it should save you some time. I'm sure it's no small feat to sift through these questions, pick the ones you want, write a response, and then forum-proof them.

But something that must be said, despite my disappointment with AtD: you guys have been absolutely rocking communication since Launch. Lots of Locust tease pictures, the CW reveal, Mr. Ekman sticking around to answer a bunch of questions in the feedback thread, the Seismic balance post, the heads up about bug fixes going in on the 15th... Keep doing what you're doing. It's actually making me excited again for the first time in a long time.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 04 October 2013 - 03:53 PM.


#3 Rasc4l

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:32 PM

Thanks!

EDIT: Although I really wish Information Warfare would receive some attention. Instead of having ECM/BAP as hard on/off effects, maybe ECM effect could be changed a little and BAP made more of an information gathering tool. I made a feature suggestion poll about this suggesting e.g. that with BAP one could see modules, engine type (XL/normal), ammo locations from the enemy mech after spending more time (10+ s) targeting it. Unfortunately, it went largely unnoticed. I guess there was too much text (even though it had pics). :D

EDIT2: The link was requested to the poll I made:

http://mwomercs.com/...are-your-input/

Edited by Rasc4l, 05 October 2013 - 11:43 AM.


#4 Deathlike

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bold
  • The Bold
  • 13,970 posts
  • LocationWherever Badges of Shame Exist

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:44 PM

In sum, soon™ and not yet™.

You know what stinks? BJs didn't get the speed buffs that the Hunchy and Centurion received (the Centurion got them long ago).

I guess it sounds like the Raven (non-3L) might get its speed bumped, but overall, meh.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 October 2013 - 02:45 PM.


#5 Claive

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:45 PM

Very good post. Thanks Bryan!

#6 Cion

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:50 PM

You guys should do the weekly post on any topic AND a monthly ATD. This way you get the benefits of :
Less dev time reading posts
Less repetitive questions
The benefit of community still voicing concerns/questions
More information to the players with the weekly post.

Trust me, it's a great idea :-)

Thanks

#7 Xenroth

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 313 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:51 PM

View PostDestined, on 04 October 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Answer from David: At the moment, I’m going over the Light Mechs, looking to improve those underachieving variants. One thing that I can say for sure is going to happen is that the max allowable engine is going to be increased for certain variants. This will allow them to travel faster than the current ~138 kph speed cap (~152 with Speed Tweak). The new potential max speed for these variants will be ~154 kph (~170 with Speed Tweak). I’ll also be looking at their maneuverability, torso twist angles and speed, etc in order to shore up their effectiveness.
When the Lights are done, the next group of Mechs will be either the Heavies or Assaults (as the Mediums have received a tuning pass relatively recently). In addition to tuning the usual aspects on those Mechs, I’ll be taking a look at their hitboxes, to try and ensure that their relative sizes are all in line with each other.



GIEV!

#8 Duncan Aravain

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 317 posts
  • LocationBehind you with a sharp tool...er,mech

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:53 PM

Each time I hope for more robust answers; each time I leave a bit more disillusioned. Perhaps we need better questions or more intelligent voting. As it is now, an old magic 8-ball would be almost as informative. Well, there's always next time.

#9 Sybreed

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,145 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:57 PM

a good AtD overrall...

my first few comments:

On stock mode only: I'm a bit saddened Bryan didn't really answer if we would ever see stock mode, this is something I would really love playing. But, a few things need to be fixed first (viable LRMs and less OP ECM, otherwise expect D-DCs and 3Ls all the time), in order to make Stock mode fun and fair for everyone.

On ECM/BAP: Sigh... what needs to be done to make Paul see things differently? Most players I know hate how ECM is implemented....

On Madcat artwork: Lol, that was kind of to the point.

Pilot tree: Can't wait to see new trees.

On light revamp: Meh, tweaking those values don't change much stuff in terms of gameplay, but it's better than nothing..

on MASC: Maps are already pretty small, will make capping so easy for lights

Edited by Sybreed, 04 October 2013 - 03:01 PM.


#10 Sir Stomps A Lot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:02 PM

View PostDestined, on 04 October 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Answer form Paul: No. Absolutely not.


This made me LOL!

EDIT:
Also, thanks for clarification on the Phoenix LP bonus.

Edited by Sir Stomps A Lot, 04 October 2013 - 03:03 PM.


#11 ObsidianSpectre

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 289 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:11 PM

Nothing encouraging, but nothing horrifying either. Probably the best I could hope for.

#12 Wolfways

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationWallsend, UK

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:14 PM

View PostDestined, on 04 October 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Question from StalaggtIKE: Now that streaks and LRM have been fixed, can we expect to see ECM and BAP revisited? To make them less like hard counters and more as information warfare tools.

Answer from Paul: There are no plans at the moment to revisit the core mechanics of ECM/BAP. The numbers associated with them may or may not be tuned but the core is currently okay where they are at the moment.

Is this a joke? I mean....it's a joke right?
If you seriously think LRM's and ECM are fine as they are then i guess i'm not waiting for my clan mechs anymore as they are worthless.
As soon as you release (or sell) the Timberwolf and Mad Dog every one of them will get the LRM's stripped off them straight away and replaced with SRM's, SSRM's, or maybe LRM5's as missiles hardpoints are now.

#13 Alex Novian

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 130 posts
  • LocationNew Vandenburg, Taurian Concordat

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:18 PM

View PostSybreed, on 04 October 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:



On stock mode only: I'm a bit saddened Bryan didn't really answer if we would ever see stock mode, this is something I would really love playing. But, a few things need to be fixed first (viable LRMs and less OP ECM, otherwise expect D-DCs and 3Ls all the time), in order to make Stock mode fun and fair for everyone.



You know that the 3L is the ONLY mech to have a STOCK ECM right? and the armour thin and speed slow.. let alone one of a few with NARC or TAG stock for that matter... The DDC is just another Atlas and no real problem.

#14 Zyllos

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:20 PM

View PostSybreed, on 04 October 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

a good AtD overrall...

my first few comments:

On stock mode only: I'm a bit saddened Bryan didn't really answer if we would ever see stock mode, this is something I would really love playing. But, a few things need to be fixed first (viable LRMs and less OP ECM, otherwise expect D-DCs and 3Ls all the time), in order to make Stock mode fun and fair for everyone.

On ECM/BAP: Sigh... what needs to be done to make Paul see things differently? Most players I know hate how ECM is implemented....

On Madcat artwork: Lol, that was kind of to the point.

Pilot tree: Can't wait to see new trees.

On light revamp: Meh, tweaking those values don't change much stuff in terms of gameplay, but it's better than nothing..

on MASC: Maps are already pretty small, will make capping so easy for lights


I personally think this is a pretty big flaw within the game.

It's full on hard counters, as you said, instead of conditional counters. The only thing I can hope is once we get past all of this "There isn't enough resources to spare for ANYTHING other than CW, UI2.0, and mechs." that they can begin to take a step back and see the issues with the system.

I believe it's the same thing when it comes to pin point accuracy. I just hope in the future that PGI will begin to see that it's just a flaw that has been perpetuated for a long time and just forgotten to be an issue anymore.

#15 Sybreed

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,145 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:34 PM

View PostAlex Novian, on 04 October 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:


You know that the 3L is the ONLY mech to have a STOCK ECM right? and the armour thin and speed slow.. let alone one of a few with NARC or TAG stock for that matter... The DDC is just another Atlas and no real problem.

which is exactly why I said ECM needed to be reworked before going with stock mode. You'd see 3Ls everywhere. Maybe not for D-DCs.

Edit: Gotcha, read your quote wrong at first. Yes, by saying stuff needed fixing, that includes NARC (less useless) and TAG (toggable). I would still expect a lot of Ravens 3ls around, but the NARC and Tag will surely scare most.

Edited by Sybreed, 04 October 2013 - 03:40 PM.


#16 Monsoon

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 1,622 posts
  • LocationToronto, On aka Kathil

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:36 PM

Thanks for the answers.

However, as one of those who voted for an answer about AtD itself, I want to clarify, that at least for me, it wasn't any dissatisfaction in AtD, but rather I think we've gotten to the end of it's overall usefulness.

Questions have become more and more redundant, repetitive and in some cases aren't really questions at all, but a way for the grief'ers to continue their grieving.

What myself and many others are more or less interested in, is in the progress of the game, and I feel a (bi)weekly blog would be a more effective delivery method (written or video...video preferably). A progress report with some teasers of what we can expect in the near future would certainly interest me vastly more then another question of weapon/item balance, or one of the dozen questions that already has an answer if the questioner bothered to spend 30 seconds using the search function...

#17 Sybreed

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,145 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:37 PM

View PostZyllos, on 04 October 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:


I personally think this is a pretty big flaw within the game.

It's full on hard counters, as you said, instead of conditional counters. The only thing I can hope is once we get past all of this "There isn't enough resources to spare for ANYTHING other than CW, UI2.0, and mechs." that they can begin to take a step back and see the issues with the system.

I believe it's the same thing when it comes to pin point accuracy. I just hope in the future that PGI will begin to see that it's just a flaw that has been perpetuated for a long time and just forgotten to be an issue anymore.

Maybe "stubbornness" isn't the correct word, but PGI needs to stay open minded about the way current features are implemented. Nothing is perfect, they know it, we know it, and we're glad to propose solutions to make things a little bit better. Saying ECM is how it should be right now is simply scary. It's on/off implementation is bad design at the core and I'm pretty sure Paul would agree if we could have the time to have a smart discussion with him.

#18 jay35

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:37 PM

Quote

> We're also looking into forcing the player to choose between unlocks as has been suggested.


Gosh I hope not. Nothing worse than being shoe-horned into only one track or specialty as a pilot, especially since we can pilot all four classes of mechs and within each class is a variety of chassis that excel with diverse playstyles.

To only be allowed to have buffs in one area would hurt when you want to pilot mechs that excel in other types of gameplay or when going up against people with buffs in an area that you aren't allowed to have.

It's a step away from the concept of player skill being the primary or only real differentiator between two pilots in identical mechs. Once you start introducing forced branching in the pilot tree such that a person cannot unlock each branch (given enough time and xp), you start to introduce external factors that artificially influence the outcome and limit the viability of piloting different types of mechs and diverse styles of play.

If you want to pilot a Light and act as a scout, you should not be prevented from unlocking the scout-related pilot tree buffs. If another day you feel like playing a Heavy brawler, you shouldn't be locked out of the brawler-related pilot tree buffs just because you also have unlocks in the Scout unlock tree. Etc.

Plus it also just reduces the overall grind available to each player. Once they've chosen a tree branch and completely unlock it, they wouldn't have the ability to go back and unlock other ones, except perhaps if there's a reset option, but that lacks incentive for most people who've unlocked one tree, as they'd be giving up their hard-earned unlocks, which again is bad design.

Quote

> The notion of having a limit to the number of unlocks is still on the drawing board. I think I know where you’re coming from, something similar to World of Warcraft’s talents where you have a finite amount of points to distribute across a series of talents but you will never have all of them. This leads to unique “builds” which is something we’ve been talking about since day one.


Talking about the individual Mech Tree, again being able to only use a mech you own in one role is a bit silly, too. That's not creating unique mechs, that's just restricting player choice. Creating unique mechs is what the mechlab is for - weapons, armor, camo, colors, etc. Forcing you to choose only a limited number of buffs or one branch of an unlock tree, is not adding diversity, it's restricting it.

Edited by jay35, 04 October 2013 - 03:38 PM.


#19 TostitoBandito

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 169 posts
  • LocationWashington, USA

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:38 PM

As far as ECM and mech balance goes, I think dropping ECM from the AS7-D-DC would be a great start. Nothing bigger than a medium ever needs to have ECM.

#20 Blade Pride

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:39 PM

A good read. Thanks.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users