66 replies to this topic

[MoonUnitBeta]

I put together this little visual of one of my ideas I've had for a while.

It's to replace skill trees, and lets you focus on playing certain roles for the mechs that you enjoy playing.
The main goal is personalization/customization.

Each Weight Class has 3 special Roles/Specialties (w/e you wanna call them) to choose from. And instead of unlocking skills per Mech Variant, you unlock roles per Mech Chassis. What this is that you do not need 3 mechs from the same chassis to progress through skills. Furthermore, you can choose any of the unlocked roles for any mech variant within that chassis.

The importance of removing the “the mech requirement” is to open the game up for new players. Recently, our skill trees were reduced in effectiveness to lessen the power gap between new and old players. To me, this is an inherent flaw of the current system, and we need a revision. So rather than requiring new players to invest copious amounts of time into grinding to buy mechs that they might not play, they instead can buy the mechs they want, and have fun leveling up the 3 different roles.

Please review the images below.






DISCLAIMER: In case it was missed, the orange bonuses/abilities are EXAMPLES only. I don't care if you think +x% is too much. It's all besides the point.
The main thing here is to do-away with the basic, elite, mastered skill trees that are the same for every mech. It's dull, boring, and it could be so much more.


Major Edit:
Added new picture to help clear up confusion. Hopefully it's doesn't cause more confusion .

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 23 March 2016 - 02:43 PM.

[DaZur]

Kind'a the direction that mastering a mech was supposed to go (merit towards a given role etc..) but ultimately resulted in nothing but a grind sink.

Personally I like it as it flavors mechs and roles intended...

There's others who will think such blasphemy would get in the way of their stomp-stomp, pew-pew.

Nice graphical mock-up FWIW!

[El Bandito]

Definitely looks fun. Yes please.

[MoonUnitBeta]

DaZur, on 13 March 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

Kind'a the direction that mastering a mech was supposed to go (merit towards a given role etc..) but ultimately resulted in nothing but a grind sink.

Personally I like it as it flavors mechs and roles intended...

There's others who will think such blasphemy would get in the way of their stomp-stomp, pew-pew.

Nice graphical mock-up FWIW!

Thanks And yeah, I kinda thought that this was where it was supposed to go too. Know where that image went that showed what PGI wanted to do with the skill trees? I feel like I saw it a long time ago.... but oh well.

El Bandito, on 13 March 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

Definitely looks fun. Yes please.

Cheers!

[Sergeant Random]

Ooh! Pretty picture!

Speculating about in-game systems is a joy though, you may want to find a way to sneak this past Paul.

I don't know if the 3-mech requirement will disappear soon - it would disrupt their c-bill, xp, mc and premium time Paulconomy F2P business model. They may have already fallen into a rhythm with their production cycles and cash flows -- you might want to think of ways to harmonize your suggestions with their data.

Edited by Sergeant Random, 13 March 2016 - 10:18 PM.

[Alardus]

No.

1.Mechs are supposed to be upscaled versions of smaller machines which all do a similar job.

2.Quirks already "special snowflake" the mech you choose. So do modules.

3. This isn't WoW or LoL. Play those if you want a special snowflake level 80 whatever specced with certain abilities.

4. Ask PGI to build your mech RPG as a different game.

Edited by Alardus, 13 March 2016 - 10:23 PM.

[Khobai]

Its kindve of a bad idea to predefine mechs in roles since a mechs role can vary wildly depending on its loadout

its better to let the players decide the role by having more modular system

[MoonUnitBeta]

Sergeant Random, on 13 March 2016 - 10:16 PM, said:

Ooh! Pretty picture!

Speculating about in-game systems is a joy though, you may want to find a way to sneak this past Paul.

I don't know if the 3-mech requirement will disappear soon - it would disrupt their c-bill, xp, mc and premium time Paulconomy F2P business model. They may have already fallen into a rhythm with their production cycles and cash flows -- you might want to think of ways to harmonize your suggestions with their data.

Thanks


Well, I did take into consideration ways to harmize my suggestion with their current implementation of skills.
For example, the required XP is very similar
To breach basic:
- Current: 27,300 (9,100 / mech)
- Proposed: 22,500 (7,500 / role)

To breach Elite:
- Current: 64,500 (21,500 / mech)
- Proposed: 52,500 (17,500 / role)

To obtain Master:
- Current: 21, 500 (per mech)
- Proposed: 27, 500 (per role)

Total XP required to Master 3 Mechs: 156,300
Total XP required to Master 3 Roles: 157,500

The only difference is that, if you buy a 4th mech, you must also Basic, and then Elite, and Master them. With this role's system, that would not be the case.

I was also thinking, once you unlock Rank 15 on all three roles for the Chassis, you are given the option to pay one time 10,000gxp to unlock a 30% c-bill boost for one variant in that chassis that you chose. I know PGI says they don't want to do c-bill boost tokens or w/e, but it would really help people earn more cash to start buying more mechs. And this isn't just something you pay for from the Gift Shop, you earn this bonus, and then also pay GXP to get it.

I think PGI's main source of income is mech packs. Actually, I'm pretty sure Russ has confirmed that on multiple occasions. I would be willing to bet that GXP conversion income is probably only enough to pay for the heating bill.

When/if they implement this system, they can focus their dependencies on custom geo/cosmetic micro-transactions, but GXP is still of value when you consider modules where most of the GXP is used anyways.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 13 March 2016 - 11:37 PM.

[GreyNovember]

Too. Positive. Your setup isn't really doing a tradeoff for roles, as much as it is directly upgrading itself in one direction. Arguably it's still a grind, except now you grind in a different direction.

On that note, a hard weapon range upgrade would be absolutely massive when given to mechs with AC20s, SRMs, and Small class lasers. Suddenly it's not a piddly +25m range for the + 15% ballistic quirk.

Would appreciate more. Specialized roles. That are weight specific. "Dogfighter" for Light 1v1. "Light hunter" for mediums. Decreases weapon ranges, but increases overall RoF and beam durations.


- Please define passive radar and battlefield spotting in this context?

- two targets at once sounds like a UI problem. Where do you display the other lock? To expand this, what happens if it's 3? 4? 10 targets?

[MoonUnitBeta]

Khobai, on 13 March 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

Its kindve of a bad idea to predefine mechs in roles since a mechs role can vary wildly depending on its loadout

its better to let the players decide the role by having more modular system

I don't think so. The only defining things about a role would be the name associated with the role, and negative quirks. It's partially why I left most of the roles without any negative quirks, because when you start taking away from the pre-quirks, that's when you start defining the role of the mech, rather than accentuating a desired playstyle. The Vanguard and Stationed roles for the Assault are good examples of what forcing a player into a certain role would be. I wanted to include those in there to start to show case how specific we can get with roles.

If the roles are simply adding specific bonuses to certain aspects that you would expect that role to be performing, you would be surprised by how people might use the role differently.
Is that bad though? Personally I don't care if a "scout" light mech is not scouting. It just means that the role he chose for his mech isn't matching his playstyle, or, he's utilizing the roles benefits to suit a completely different play style. And that's OK. He's not pigeoned holed into ONLY being a scout, he just gets bonuses to perform that role better. If it helps another build or play style, more power to him.
I see the roles more of as guideline, rather than a linear path one must follow.

But yea I'd agree that negative quirks will start defining a role maybe a bit too strongly. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.

[Alardus]

There are other mech games out there which allow this RPG like customizing. MWO currently holds a more unique place. It would not only be bad business but bad for people that want to play battletech, not an RPG game skinned with BT shapes.

[Sergeant Random]

Removing the 3-mech requirement threatens the Mastery Pack business model. So maybe just that part needs tweaking?

[MoonUnitBeta]

GreyNovember, on 13 March 2016 - 10:42 PM, said:

- Please define passive radar and battlefield spotting in this context?

- two targets at once sounds like a UI problem. Where do you display the other lock? To expand this, what happens if it's 3? 4? 10 targets?

Passive Radar: Turning off your Radar signature. Your radar only stretches as far as 400m (less maybe in MWO), and it takes you off the enemies radar. You can't target in this mode unless the mech is within your passive radar range.
It helps light mechs move around easier without being spotted, so they can sneak around the enemy and relay information with less risk.

Battlefield Spotting: People are going to crucify me for mentioning this game, but Hawken has a "ENEMY SPOTTED" feature where you look at a place on the the ground and Press .. Q? And it put a red HUD blip in that exact spot on the Terrain for all your teammates to see.
It would be a lot easier than saying "bla bla C2" or typing that you made contact with an enemy.
There's a cooldown on the Spotted feature so you can't spam it.
Helpful if you see the enemy but can't target them


Two Targets At Once: It's handled very simply. Uses the current Targeting system (you target the mech that's closest to your reticle). The only thing you're adding is a second target, which cycles round-robin style.
So:
Press R: Acquire 1st target.
Press R: Acquires 2nd target.
Press R: Drops 1st target and acquires new target "A" (keeps 2nd target)
Press R: Drops 2nd target and acquires new target "B" (keeps A target)

If it's 3, or 4, it works exactly the same way, by retaining all the newest acquired targets, and drops the oldest to target a new one.

Sergeant Random, on 13 March 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

Removing the 3-mech requirement threatens the Mastery Pack business model. So maybe just that part needs tweaking?

See above post. Link: http://mwomercs.com/...96#entry5076696

You cannot move into Tier 2 (for ranks 6-10) without first acquiring ranks 1-5 in the other two roles.

Works the same way, just instead of 3 mech requirements, you have 3 role requirements.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 13 March 2016 - 11:06 PM.

[GreyNovember]

MoonUnitBeta, on 13 March 2016 - 10:56 PM, said:

Two Targets At Once: It's handled very simply. Uses the current Targeting system (you target the mech that's closest to your reticle). The only thing you're adding is a second target, which cycles round-robin style.
So:
Press R: Acquire 1st target.
Press R: Acquires 2nd target.
Press R: Drops 1st target and acquires new target "A" (keeps 2nd target)
Press R: Drops 2nd target and acquires new target "B" (keeps A target)

If it's 3, or 4, it works exactly the same way, by retaining all the newest acquired targets, and drops the oldest to target a new one.

Full disclosure, going into nitpick QA mode.

I already press R to shift targets completely. This now changes that functionality to store mechs in a list of targets.

I don't have an indication of:

-how many target slots I have left
-whether I can see all those mech's loadouts
-what keys I use to go up and down the target list
-which targets I want to prioritize as stored

Disengaging QA.

A "Mark" target seems more appropriate. A seperate key to highlight the mech, apart from your main target. A target may be marked and targeted at the same time by you, but is not necessary.

Targets that are marked are treated as "Visible to the rest of the team".

A mark is lost if you lose LOS; much like how the current targeting system works. Radar Dep and ECM, along with other lock delay effects apply.

Since you don't need to manage your marks, you may have a list of marked targets; visible as blips of filled/unfilled boxes next to your radar. Marking a target beyond your maximum mark range will replace your earliest added marked target.

[MoonUnitBeta]

GreyNovember, on 13 March 2016 - 11:04 PM, said:

Full disclosure, going into nitpick QA mode.

I already press R to shift targets completely. This now changes that functionality to store mechs in a list of targets.

I don't have an indication of:

-how many target slots I have left
-whether I can see all those mech's loadouts
-what keys I use to go up and down the target list
-which targets I want to prioritize as stored

Disengaging QA.

A "Mark" target seems more appropriate. A seperate key to highlight the mech, apart from your main target. A target may be marked and targeted at the same time by you, but is not necessary.

Targets that are marked are treated as "Visible to the rest of the team".

A mark is lost if you lose LOS; much like how the current targeting system works. Radar Dep and ECM, along with other lock delay effects apply.

Since you don't need to manage your marks, you may have a list of marked targets; visible as blips of filled/unfilled boxes next to your radar. Marking a target beyond your maximum mark range will replace your earliest added marked target.

Yeah, I see what you mean. The limit would only be two mechs though. I think one light mech being able to target a whole battlefield of mechs would be a little extreme, although LRM boats would LOVE it. haha.

So with that in mind just to touch on the storing part with only 2 targetable mechs:

-how many target slots I have left
. . . . . Only 2 targets allowed. Ideally, scouts are outside of the battle initially, and when you target the two mechs, it's assumed that you see both on your screen. Management would be very easy.

-whether I can see all those mech's loadouts
. . . . . How I kind of envisioned it is that YOU can only see the most recent targeted mech's loadout. But the rest of your team can target either the first or second mech and see their load outs just as they would today when someone targets a mech.

-what keys I use to go up and down the target list
. . . . . Since there's only two mechs targetable, if you want to see the other mech's loadout, you would Press R when he's in your reticle, and it would swap the target data appropriately without losing your previous mech. I didn't mention this, but I assume there would be colour change or visual difference in target hud (the red square box around the mech) to show you which one is being displayed.

-which targets I want to prioritize as stored
. . . . n/a?

And side note, if you want to deselect mechs, it would work the same way as today, except you press R twice, each press eliminates the oldest target (done by looking away from the target and pressing R? I think. I forget exactly how it's done in-game. It's second nature to me now haha. I just do it.)



Interesting thoughts about the marking system.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 13 March 2016 - 11:38 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Going to bed - will answer more questions tomorrow if there are any.

[LordNothing]

so long as my previously mastered mechs stay mastered i will be fine. if they set it up so i have to buy back all the mechs ive sold to remaster those i will be pissed and will probibly abandon ship for that.

Edited by LordNothing, 13 March 2016 - 11:33 PM.

[jss78]

I like the general idea. If they go with a skill TREE of any sort, I guess the essence of this will be there.

A few thoughts:

1. Must be cautious of power creep -- I think whatever the benefits and specific values used, they should not be excessive. Maybe couple any positive effects with smaller negative effects in areas not central to that specialization, so there's a cost in specialization.

2. The system must involve some tradeoffs. For one thing, I wouldn't allow the player to fully unlock all three specialities: make him choose. Give him a maximum number of level-ups which he can distribute in the different pathways. For example 20 total, so he could go max 15 in one pathway and do a secondary level 5 in another. Or mix it up and do 10 in two pathways. But if you allow unlocking everything, it'll still be a skill TREE in name only: we'd still be getting the whole skill set, just from three different piles.

3. This goes beyond the scope of your proposal, but I think overall the skill tree shouldn't be that central to MWO. This should be just a bit of flavour, not the "end game" of MWO. The end-game would ideally come through a long-term career mode which gives you faction-specific achievements/swag/bragging rights. Ideally implemented within a fully fleshed-out CW (we can dream right?).

[Darian DelFord]

To me it is absolutely ridiculous that this has gone unchanged as long as it has. However I applaud the OP's time and effort and I approve his message there needs to be so much more when it comes to skill tree. Personally I want a many paths for each variant.

For example a Jenner F plays vastly different than an Oxide. A Jenner D plays very different than a Jenner F. Neither mech should be roped into the same skill set. Have an in depth tree that eliminates choices as you choose things.

I am sooooo few up with Arena Team Death match every single game for the last 3 years. I want variety

I want Mechwarrior

[SmoothCriminal]

New experience system Soon^TM.