Jump to content

Constructive Criticism For Cw


81 replies to this topic

#1 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 07:44 AM

First: PLEASE do not turn this into a PGI flame thread. There are many, many, many of those and that is not my goal here; if your goal is to flame, head on over to one of the other threads and have at it. I enjoy this game. I think this game is the best attempt at capturing big, stompy Battletech robots to date.

That said, it has its flaws, which I'm sure the developers are aware of, especially after this event. While they reset the borders, and check the numbers, I wanted to throw in my two cents on things I think would make CW more fun, more balanced, more successful, and more flavorful (for those who want to roleplay or have "single player" missions, for example).

Some of these will be possible with relatively small changes, others will take a lot of work:

1.) Rewards/XP: This has been said by others, but the Rewards and XP system need to be more specific. Right now, you have Speed Tweak, Torso Twist, acceleration skills, modules that can flop between mechs. Nothing is unique other than quirks (I'll get there). Skill trees should be Class-specific, there should be "or" choices, make the quirks mech-specific skills the player can unlock instead.
  • Class/Role-Specific Skills: Lights, for example, should have access to speed and mobility skill trees. Assaults should have access to weapon heat and cool-down skill trees. Mediums should be a blend, but more focused on mobility. Heavies should be a blend, but more focused on firepower.​


  • Chassis-specific Trees: Rather than Quirks, create a system of mech-specific skills. Rather than a system of "UNLOCK ALL THE SKILLZ!," have the trees be choices: "You have a 9S - you can unlock the ERPPC Velocity chain OR the ERPPC Heat chain." You now have to make a choice of what this mech will be, what you want it to do. Who knows? Maybe you can unlock the other tree for double (or x10) the XP. A Raven could have a longer range TAG or one with a fainter TAG beam (rather than the "shoot me!" one that exists now), or it could have the missile refire tree. Make players have control over what their mech is.​


    • Side note on ECM: ECM covers only the mech with the ECM, but this can be expanded through the skill tree. You can cover one additional mech per level (or expand the bubble), with it favoring lighter mechs first, or randomly if the tonnage is the same.


  • Clan XP: You can't force people to roleplay and you shouldn't. In the past, Clans were balanced by two things: numbers and fighting style. Apparently 10v12 isn't going to happen, so I won't suggest it here, but roleplaying can be encouraged through XP. NO XP and C-bills for Assists would be a good start. Low XP and C-bills for non-solo kills. To balance this, MASSIVE XP and C-bills for Solo Kills. Clans shouldn't have artillery...come on.
2.) Mercenary Units: Basing the rewards for mercs on faction population and success (or lack thereof) creates a flood of mercs flowing from one faction to another. This is fine if the mercs are all flowing to different factions, but because of the current reward system, they all flow to the same one or two factions, creating overnight superpowers. Here's a couple ways to calm that down:


  • Longevity Rewards: Let's face it - people play mercs for two reasons: 1) they don't know or care about the lore and just want to play the game, 2) they want the freedom that being a merc provides. In BT lore, it was a BIG DEAL when merc units jumped from one power to the next. Ones who did it frequently were blacklisted and maybe used, but were seen as little more than pirates for hire. Units should be free to do this, but the rewards should be tiny. If you want to jump faction to faction, you should be able to with zero cooldown period. Merc units initially will get paltry rewards: the faction doesn't know how long they'll stick around. For every [insert length of time here - week?] the merc unit stay with that faction, the rewards ramp up by, say, 10%. There's some incentive to stay put and there's an actual cost for leaving.


  • Faction-Specific Rewards: Join with Steiner? You get more money. Join with Kurita? You get weapon upgrades. Join with...you get the idea. Right now, there is zero difference between dropping with different factions. I assume that's because of the "beta" tag. Flavorful rewards for the role-players or at least to get twitch players to lean that way.
3.) Community Warfare Fixes: Like the others, there’s a couple suggestions here. The first has to do with the current gamemodes, and the second has to do with the droptimes, ceasefire, and population issues.


  • Implement Conquest Mode: It looks like PGI looked at their three gamemodes (Assault, Conquest, Skirmish) and decided that Assault and Skirmish (Invasion and Counter-Attack, respectively) were the best routes to go. In my opinion, this was a mistake: Conquest is a lot more like what CW should be like, but with a twist.

​"Destroy the big gun" is a great boss level. This would be a good "once every ten matches" game mode, but it's not very strategic-minded. It has more team-play involved because of the number of mechs, waves, and so on, but it's still more about big alphas, causing the most damage, focused purely on combat and not roles, and so on. It's deathmatch where you can blow up a couple buildings. You guys should have gone with Conquest instead. Here's Emerald Taiga reimagined around this new gamemode:

Posted Image

The green circles are the dropzones - not much change there. Each side starts with one node already captured. The change from Conquest happens in two ways: 1) you must capture the nodes in sequence, and 2) the nodes become new dropzones.

How this would work is that teams would move out, having to fully conquer a node before it flipped (so no "sliver counts as capped" that exists in Conquest: all or nothing). Once a node is conquered, it becomes available as a new dropzone. A player respawning can choose which captured node or spawnpoint to spawn in - no more spawn-camping.

Now you can reinforce the front, or withdraw and regroup to an earlier-captured node. Roles matter: Lights with capture accelerators will be able to push the front quickly, but if the other team goes Assaults, those Lights will be wiped out. Scouting will matter. Mediums to bridge the gap will matter. Heavies to hold and defend will matter. Teams might actually have to split their forces.

The attacker wins if they control more than 50% of the nodes, the defender wins if they don't. Conquering nodes should take a long time unless a LOT of mechs are on them. This should be take-and-hold: one Light focusing on caps shouldn't be able to do it.

  • Toss the Ceasefire: I know why PGI implemented the ceasefire, but I'd say it's time has passed. Have planet conquest based on an overall percentage games won by the attackers. When you have a limited number of zones, the only matches that matter are the last ones before the attack window closes. Prebuilt teams, unless they're grinding XP or practicing, don't even bother dropping outside of an hour or two before the ceasefire because there's no point.

Worse, players who either aren't grouped up, or can't play during that critical time, feel like their contribution is totally worthless and pointless. And they're right: it is. A ceasefire mechanic is fine, but count ALL the matches played for that planet as opposed to just the last few.

  • Planet Selection: Allow factions to choose which planets to attack. This can open up broader fronts, take away the weird attack algorithm that creates bizarre pockets and wormholes and sends Clans off on goose-chases across the Great Wherever, rather than towards Terra (which is the whole point).

I know PGI's eventual plan is to make the planets mean something, to have conquering a sector matter because it'll give perks. This is a great idea. Let the players decide where their houses should attack. Larger factions could be at a disadvantage because they might have to spread that population across more planets. Smaller population factions can focus their attacks where they'd be most effective. Factions can engage in sneakiness and strategy, pushing towards planets that give better perks (ie Hesperus II, for example) or Solaris VII, or drawing the enemy to one place and then hit them in another.




4.) Other Stuff: AI, Destructible Terrain, Melee, Solaris, Single player/team play/roleplay: This is a catchall section of cool things I think are on the drawing board, but maybe not?
  • AI: Cryengine comes with AI built-in. Crysis had some great AI. Tank models, especially at the scales we're talking about, don't have to be high-poly affairs. Turrets are...sorry, this isn't very constructive...stupid. Turrets just don't feel "fluffy." They don't fit. Tanks? Do. Infantry? Do.

Killing turrets is boring. Let me stomp after an Ontos (8MLs!!) and kill it? AWESOME. Pop around a corner and see an (AC40) Demolisher? Oh crap!! I see a turret that exclusively targets my legs, doesn't move, doesn't "think?" Yawn. Tanks could move around a base and might not be where you'd expect them to be - they aren't stationary and predictable like a turret.

Finally, Ghost Drops? SOLVED. You still have to fight, you're just fighting lesser vehicles than mechs. The planet didn't say "Well, geez - let's just not fight for this territory," they said "We don't have enough mechs - let's put some tanks out there and hope they don't attack with mechs..."

It's more flavorful. It's more fun. What's more is that it would put just how terrifying mechs are into perspective. "Nice 80 ton tank." *splat*

  • Infantry: I'm an IS loyalist, and Steiner loyalist specifically, but I'd LOVE to see Elementals in this game. They NEED to be in this game. Not in huge numbers, not as player-controlled entities, but defending a base? [EDIT: as a Clan-themed "artillery strike"?] Do it.

Even IS infantry could be a lot of fun. More than shooting mechs, could you imagine stomping through a line of dug-in infantry and splatting them JUST BY WALKING?? How cool would that be?

This doesn't need to be overdone, and they really shouldn't be effective (the man-pack PPC is the most powerful weapon IS Infantry have; they do 2-3 points of damage, if memory serves). This grounds the player in this universe. It makes it feel like a real place. It makes this universe seem lived in, a place people are fighting over: not an arena.

  • Destructible Terrain: Pretty sure this is on PGI's list, but is a low priority. I don't need to be able to blow apart buildings (although that would be amazing - imagine just rumbling through a building to get to the enemy hiding behind it), but able to knock a path through trees? Make those Flamers light stuff on fire [I'm getting there]? Awesome.
  • Flamers: Please make these things useful. Be able to light the ground or trees on fire. Make them generate less heat for the user than the target. Have the ability to create smoke screens that disrupt thermo and night vision. Do something - I love flamers, but there's little reason to take them outside a troll build.
  • Melee: I'm going to say something unpopular here - implement melee, but only give it to the IS (with the exception of a very few, specific Clan mechs designed for it). This goes to balance and I really feel for you, PGI: so many different developers, including FASA itself, have tried to balance the Clans to IS and failed. It's a losing game. I'm sorry.

That said, one possible way to do it is to have IS weapons do more damage, but only at closer range with a steep drop-off. Have Clan weapons do less damage, but it would be consistent out to a much longer range. The goal for the Clans should be to keep the IS at range, the goal for the IS should be to get to brawling range as soon as possible. Melee would be the last tool in the IS toolbox. It doesn't need to be complicated: just a punch and/or kick button (which Cryengine already has built-in).

  • Solaris - The Game World: Pretty sure this is on the drawing board, so I won't say much here, but one-on-one, grudge matches, "best pilot in the IS," specific rewards, tags, challenges, events, experimental tech, etc. Solaris could be a lot of fun, but it could also let PGI test and balance things on a micro scale.
  • Single Player/Player vs Environment/Missions: Again, pretty sure this is on the drawing board, and isn't a real high priority, but having an invasion or defense tree unlock for single (or small groups) could be fun. "Destroy the airbase" would take out airstrikes for the opposing team. "Destroy the gun" would take out artillery strikes. Or even just "kill the convoy" to build up XP for a single player? There's lots of choices here, but of course it will require AI to implemented first.
  • Ejecting: (just remembered this one) Please have the eject sequence. I mean, actually blow up into the sky on your mech chair and float to the ground on a parachute, your feet dangling as you float down over the combat zone. Let other players shoot at that chair. If it's a Hatchetman (please, please, please), let the whole head blow off and fly away. Immersion, PGI - it's all about immersion.
And that's what I got. What thoughts do you have? Again, constructive, honest ideas: I don't want this to devolve into the usual "PGI SUX lol" threads that permeate seemingly everything. I like this game. I want this game to succeed. I want PGI to succeed.

Edited by Dawnstealer, 29 April 2015 - 06:41 AM.


#2 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:21 AM

bumped in the vain hope it floats above the usual "CLANS OP - NERF!", "IS OP - NERF!", "PGI IS TURBLE - NERF!" threads.

#3 Tasker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:46 AM

Minimum viable product.

#4 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:51 AM

View PostTasker, on 28 April 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Minimum viable product.

Currently, that's very true. I realize PGI's hand was kind of forced: "go gold or lose funding," but if I were to classify this game, I'd say it was in late Alpha, early Beta stage. But the goal here is to say "This is what you need to do to make this thing viable - new mech packages are fun, quirks and tweaks are...whatever, but this game isn't working at the moment and is falling short of the original goals - as a player, this is what would make it better."

And I should say that you NKVA seem to have a pretty good grasp on the game - I'd love to hear more from y'all.

#5 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:52 AM

View PostDawnstealer, on 28 April 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

bumped in the vain hope it floats above the usual "CLANS OP - NERF!", "IS OP - NERF!", "PGI IS TURBLE - NERF!" threads.


I'd hope some of that comes out, but personally I'd like to see a pass across the whole of weapon balance again. Heat neutral mechs need to be encouraged, need to see a break away from the constant alpha-strike mech designs. And then some things like Electronics warfare need to be looked at a bit more.

I had a game yesterday with enough of a cluster of ECM mechs that even two UAVs made it so missile lock couldn't achieved.

#6 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:54 AM

View PostMirkk Defwode, on 28 April 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:


I'd hope some of that comes out, but personally I'd like to see a pass across the whole of weapon balance again. Heat neutral mechs need to be encouraged, need to see a break away from the constant alpha-strike mech designs. And then some things like Electronics warfare need to be looked at a bit more.

I had a game yesterday with enough of a cluster of ECM mechs that even two UAVs made it so missile lock couldn't achieved.

Good point - in that vomit of text, I forgot that heat and convergence were serious issues. Convergence shouldn't be instant, and Clans should have their weapons converge faster at longer and extreme ranges. Heat's in a weird place and I don't think it's ever been implemented correctly in this game.

I'd love to see a mech that's overheating start to "drunk waddle" around, or, as the pilot, start blacking out from the extreme heat. Some sort of visual cue that "you are killing the pilot of this mech with your lack of heat management."

#7 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:58 AM

View PostDawnstealer, on 28 April 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

Good point - in that vomit of text, I forgot that heat and convergence were serious issues. Convergence shouldn't be instant, and Clans should have their weapons converge faster at longer and extreme ranges. Heat's in a weird place and I don't think it's ever been implemented correctly in this game.

I'd love to see a mech that's overheating start to "drunk waddle" around, or, as the pilot, start blacking out from the extreme heat. Some sort of visual cue that "you are killing the pilot of this mech with your lack of heat management."


I did math for a different heat system with unique behavior for Single Heat Sinks vs Double Heatsinks, each with pros and cons. The included a heat penalty scale for running too hot. Made a suggestion post on it a while back. I think the heat system needs to be redone from the ground up for it's mechanics.

#8 Stoned Prophet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:59 AM

View PostDawnstealer, on 28 April 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

snip

A lot of REALLY good ideas and points in here. +1

#9 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:00 AM

View PostMirkk Defwode, on 28 April 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:


I did math for a different heat system with unique behavior for Single Heat Sinks vs Double Heatsinks, each with pros and cons. The included a heat penalty scale for running too hot. Made a suggestion post on it a while back. I think the heat system needs to be redone from the ground up for it's mechanics.

Repost it here, if you would, please.

#10 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:02 AM

View PostDawnstealer, on 28 April 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

Repost it here, if you would, please.


Done :D

Edit: Put in a repeat of the post. I've reiterated on this point a few times in multiple places in the forums.

Spoiler


Spoiler

Edited by Mirkk Defwode, 28 April 2015 - 09:06 AM.


#11 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:09 AM

Oh! I think I did read those. Yes - good ideas and I agree. I'd like to have there be a more..."mech-y?" feel to heat scale: make the thing wobble, make the sensors start fuzzing out, make the pilot's vision blur, then start to fracture, then start getting tunnel vision, and finally black out.

And totally agree: there needs to be SOME benefit for taking SHS.

#12 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,600 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:44 AM

They also for some reason gutted Cryengine to make this game instead of using an engine that was more suited to their needs, so most of the stuff you think it probably there as resources, very likely isn't.

#13 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:48 AM

I didn't read it all, but I liked the way you are thinking.

#14 Apnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationMidWest

Posted 28 April 2015 - 09:49 AM

Wow OP, that's a heck of a data dump. There's good stuff in there, there's also a bunch of "pie-in-the-sky" requests (such as infantry) that won't make it into the game any time soon.

You got a like for the constructive criticism bit and you deserve it. We need more level headed people like you than snarking trolls on these forums.

My thoughts on CW are a bit more general, so here goes.

1) CW needs depth and it needs lots of players to make it fun:

Invasion and Counter Attack aren't enough for CW. They cater to a certain type of player, leaving the rest of the players (customers!) out. Then, because CW has population issues being so specific to a certain type of player, they have to entice, lure and cajole other players in. If CW had enough depth that all player types had something to do for the IS map, CW would be a great success.

As it is now, CW is turning into a "this is only one game mode, if you don't like it, GTFO and QQ" Again, dividing players (customers!) from the whole product. Its not good in the long run for the game or PGI.

So because of that, I always say: Bring the PQ game modes into CW and make those games mean something to the factions and the IS map. PGI is beginning to do something like this with the impending 4v4 "scouting" mode, but we need a lot more and we need it right now.

The simplest solution is to haul the PQ game modes into CW, and while we're doing Skirmish, Conquest, Assault, Invasion and Counter Attack, they can work on things like 4v4 scouting and other fun modes we'd all like to see, like King of the Hill, and Assassinate the VIP, and Convoy Escort.

And yes, we should have "pilots" that are like characters in other MMOs with skill trees that reflect role warfare. Why isn't there a scouting skill tree? Why isn't there a sniper skill tree? We could ditch a bunch of quirks if we had our "pilots" unlock weapon and tech perks.

2) Teams should play teams, PUGs should play PUGs. (AKA "Oh look! MWO history repeats!"):

In the Tuk. event I've dropped 12 man with HHoD and I've dropped random PUGs. The premade v. premade experience is very different from the PUG v PUG experience. Both are fun, but they're apples and oranges to each other. Not everybody likes apples, and not every body likes oranges. Therefore, they should have separate queues. Its more fun and fair for everybody. I've had some really epic and fun PUG v PUG games in CW, we should have more of that. When its Premade v PUG its a pretty terrible experience. Either the premade screws the pooch or the premade rolls the PUG. Half the players have a miserable time. Why play a game that makes you miserable?

#15 zeves

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 282 posts
  • LocationNorway

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:01 AM

only big thing from the event that i saw, was the huge IS que makeing it asumably quite annoying for IS, so maby when CW resets you could have 3 planets to cue up, clan vs clan , clan vs is and is vs is, would make CW alot faster working, until uve implemented more depth into cw.
Community Warfare is BETA afther all.

Edited by zeves, 28 April 2015 - 10:02 AM.


#16 Brimbooze

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 94 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:21 AM

I think if they made it so that planets to attack were voted on by the faction loyalists instead of a random algorithm it would not only mean that you could plan out strategic attacks but then it would also give some sort of incentive to stick with a faction. For example, say each faction loyalist unit is allowed to submit a list of planets to attack but there are some restrictions. First is they have to have been a member of that faction for a certain duration of time (1 month or some other line) so that groups can't jump factions long enough to screw up a vote. Second, it would pool all attack lists submitted and then select the ones with the most votes there by giving incentive for the faction units to work together on attack lanes and to solidify fronts. Obviously this isn't a perfect solution but I think it would definitely help.

#17 Senor Cataclysmo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:32 AM

Oh wow, Dawnstealer, I want to like this post ten times for the skill tree bit alone. I've been trying to find a good way to phrase the skill tree idea for weeks and you've just perfectly summed up what I had in my head. Skill trees that allow nuance and force the player to make potentially difficult choices. I'd love to see dragon age style skill trees that figure into builds as much as the actual weapons do. Fantastic.

So many other good ideas too! I'd love to see faction specific bonuses to CW loyalties, different rewards for Clan and IS, all the good stuff!

The only thing I'd like to add, and Im not sure of a good way to implement this, would be a different mastery system for omnimechs. As it stands having to get three variants doesn't feel very fluffy.

#18 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:41 AM

View Postsycocys, on 28 April 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

They also for some reason gutted Cryengine to make this game instead of using an engine that was more suited to their needs, so most of the stuff you think it probably there as resources, very likely isn't.

I've actually used Cryengine - it's in there.

View PostApnu, on 28 April 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

Wow OP, that's a heck of a data dump. There's good stuff in there, there's also a bunch of "pie-in-the-sky" requests (such as infantry) that won't make it into the game any time soon.

My thoughts on CW are a bit more general, so here goes.

1) CW needs depth and it needs lots of players to make it fun:

2) Teams should play teams, PUGs should play PUGs. (AKA "Oh look! MWO history repeats!"):


That's why the "wouldn't it be cool if" stuff was down in its own section.

For 1 and 2, totally agreed.

View PostBrimbooze, on 28 April 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

I think if they made it so that planets to attack were voted on by the faction loyalists instead of a random algorithm it would not only mean that you could plan out strategic attacks but then it would also give some sort of incentive to stick with a faction. For example, say each faction loyalist unit is allowed to submit a list of planets to attack but there are some restrictions. First is they have to have been a member of that faction for a certain duration of time (1 month or some other line) so that groups can't jump factions long enough to screw up a vote. Second, it would pool all attack lists submitted and then select the ones with the most votes there by giving incentive for the faction units to work together on attack lanes and to solidify fronts. Obviously this isn't a perfect solution but I think it would definitely help.

This might be a better solution than what I came up with - with mine, a larger population faction could conceivably "swamp the border" of a smaller one, attacking every world at once in an assault the smaller couldn't possibly match. With yours, the faction has control, but it's still one world at a time.

Good idea.

#19 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:45 AM

View PostSenor Cataclysmo, on 28 April 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:

Oh wow, Dawnstealer, I want to like this post ten times for the skill tree bit alone. I've been trying to find a good way to phrase the skill tree idea for weeks and you've just perfectly summed up what I had in my head. Skill trees that allow nuance and force the player to make potentially difficult choices. I'd love to see dragon age style skill trees that figure into builds as much as the actual weapons do. Fantastic.

So many other good ideas too! I'd love to see faction specific bonuses to CW loyalties, different rewards for Clan and IS, all the good stuff!

The only thing I'd like to add, and Im not sure of a good way to implement this, would be a different mastery system for omnimechs. As it stands having to get three variants doesn't feel very fluffy.

Agreed - Clans need...something. As an IS-specific player, I'll leave that to Clan players to decide.

As a Clan player, what do you think about the idea of balancing the weapons with range (for Clans) vs damage (for IS)? So Clans would have beams that had a very gradual fall-off and a much longer top range, vs IS having a shorter range with a steep fall-off, but a higher (hotter?) damage output.

Edited by Dawnstealer, 28 April 2015 - 10:45 AM.


#20 Dino Might

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:53 AM

Whatever you do, please make modules, skill trees, etc. have some tradeoffs and not be pure must-have upgrades. I want specialization to have a downside, too. And no, boating a weapon with 450m effective range has no downside, because 90% of the engagements happen within that range. I'm talking things like weapon range modules that make the weapon run hotter, or have a slower cooldown, or something of the sort. Give an acceleration bonus skill but reduce the top speed as a result.

These can be balanced such that they are overall improvements for most conditions, but there is some negative associated with it, where you can't be jack of all trades straight upgrade with everything.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users