66 replies to this topic

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Why scrap variants? What if I have a support Catapult (LRMs), a Sniper Catapult (Gauss), and a Brawler Catapult (SRMs)?

There is absolutely no reason to lock an entire chassis into a single role.

I'd also posit that combining a system that lets you pick and progress a role for a variant with a further breakdown of module types (sub-divide Mech modules into Mobility, Sensor, and Support types) would allow for some extra value in modules, allowing people to have more than two or three that they put on everything (Radar Deprivation and Seismic, I'm looking at you). Give Scouts three Sensor module slots, give Supports three Support module slots, give Vanguard three Mobility module slots, etc.

[Brawler1986]

Alardus, on 13 March 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

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.

If you already against the skill tree system, why do we have the current lame pilot tree. We actually got 3 systems in place.

- The module system
- The Pilot tree
- Quircks system

So what is the use of the Pilot tree if we are eventually all Mastered those mechs. Its just plain grind and gives you a disadvantage to other players. Maybe just remove the Pilot tree and add it to the quirck system? I think the MoonUnitBeta has a perfect point on role definition. If we have this bloated/uggly Quirck system, why not have 1 system and merge the Pilot tree and the Quirck system into 1 clear system.

When I started playing this game it frustrated me that this game is so unnecessary complex when it comes to leveling mechanics. Russ Bullock mentioned that they had plans to have it more in-depth leveling mechanics. But having 3 systems which manipulates your combat effectiveness + your own mech customization is just horrible.

My suggestion is just to have:

- The module system > which are enables you to equip special abillities, and makes sense to manage those in your mechlab
- The role definition > which defines how you want to play your mech.


To comment on point 3:

If a system is proven that it works, why choose/try to find for more complicated systems. The comparison with WoW and LoL doesn't make any sense lots of other games implement these systems BECAUSE it works and its easy to understand.

The fact is: This PGI Pilot tree system IS a leveling system with the only purpose: GRIND. So why not make this XP GRIND more fun. Or do you think this system is perfect?

To comment on point 4:

It seems your a pretty blunt person without any ambition to make this game better from a player perspective.

[Aetes Nakatomi]

I would be worried about the gap it would create between veterans with elited trees and new players.

It needs more negatives to offset the positives so they become different and more specialist rather than strait up better than the Base chassis.

[DaZur]

Like I stated last night...

There's a crisp dividing line between players that wish for there to be a little roleplaying mixed in with their stomp-stomp, pew-pew and those believe such nonsense would get in the way of their stomp-stomp, pew-pew.

IMHO I believe there should be a pilot skill tree right along the mechs skill tree to include reflexes, balance, heat tolerance and endurance...

But there I go again getting my chocolate mixed with my peanut butter.

Edited by DaZur, 14 March 2016 - 03:42 AM.

[Bud Crue]

I really applaud the effort and thought that the OP put into this. I like where he is going with this.

My only criticism, mirrors that mentioned by a few others above. Specifically,
I don't like limiting the paths to whole chassis as opposed to variants. Under the current system I tend to try and build each of my mechs of a 3 variant chassis to have fairly distinct roles (Panther with ERLL or PPCs is a sniper, Panther with ML and SRMs is a flanker, Panther with 2x AMS, a beagle, etc. is assault escort...that sort of thing); and this system would appear to require all members of that chassis to emphasis the same role. In this regard the only way I can see the OP's proposal working/being acceptable is if PGI dumped the 3 variant requirement; and I don't see that happening.

My own view is that we need (I really mean that word "need") a system that is player specific to give us a sense of "character" or role(s) and with that some form of long term multi-path "leveling" that has both positive AND negative skills consequences affected by each character path. Over time ( a very long time) multiple paths could be taken to off set any eventual negative skills, but in the short term the skills would simply encourage certain roles, and thus certain mechs; and discourage certain roles and thus certain mechs, but only to a limited degree.

Assuming MWO remains the only game (that I am aware of) that has no player specific roles/leveling and that it never will get such a function, anything that provides a bit of "role" flavor, such as the OP's proposal, is certainly a step in the right direction.

[Doman Hugin]

Don't like the power creep aspect, but that can be mitigated by looking at each roles opposite and giving them those bonuses in negatives.

The class per chassis, medium scouts!, is limiting. how's about once unlocked you can load a class like a module.

But overall like it. certainly time to get rid of that "Pinpoint" place-holder after how many years?

[MoonUnitBeta]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 14 March 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

Why scrap variants? What if I have a support Catapult (LRMs), a Sniper Catapult (Gauss), and a Brawler Catapult (SRMs)?

There is absolutely no reason to lock an entire chassis into a single role.

Sorry, I guess this wasn't clear. Each mech can choose it's own role like how you want. An entire chassis isn't locked into one role. (not that roles are locked anyways, you can freely swap between them)
What I was talking about regarding the Chassis is that instead of unlocking skills on a per-mech basis, and being required to own and basic 3 mechs before you progress, you can do this by owning only one mech. Role ranks are unlocked across the entire chassis. The caveat to progress through the ranks is instead of requiring to basic 3 mech variants to elite, you need to basic 3 roles.

Bud Crue, on 14 March 2016 - 03:54 AM, said:

I really applaud the effort and thought that the OP put into this. I like where he is going with this.

My only criticism, mirrors that mentioned by a few others above. Specifically,
I don't like limiting the paths to whole chassis as opposed to variants. Under the current system I tend to try and build each of my mechs of a 3 variant chassis to have fairly distinct roles ...

Thanks, and no problem. See above quote. You can definitely assign the CPLT-K2 as a brawler role, and the CPLT-C4 as support role, or even a brawler role as well. An entire chassis isn't locked into one role.

I can see how that's not clear though, so I'll make the changes when I get home tonight.
Is it the "Choose a Role:" line in the image that's causing confusion, or just that it wasn't clarified what you can do?

I added a little blurb in the OP, but I'll add it to the image tonight to hopefully help.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 14 March 2016 - 07:05 AM.

[Remillard]

Love the idea in general. I think it would be helpful to newer players as well to indicate a path to explore. I started in brawly mediums and moved to brawly heavies. It takes mental adjustment to switch roles when going to lights (and I still tend to prefer brawly lights).

I'm not sure who mentioned this, but for a battlefield awareness perk, the "mark target" would be amazing. I've been in organized groups before and hear the call over TS "Everyone target CC!" and there's 10 different available targets, cycling between them until CC shows up takes an enormous amount of time. Having a keybind for "target marked target" and having only someone in that role able to mark a target would be an interesting synergy.

If I had to quibble, you've got the Support role at each weight class, but the perk for that role seems a little lackluster. Additionally you've got sniper Heavies. While heavier weight classes have the space for larger and longer range weapons, it sort of makes me sad that all that armor is sniping. Moving sniper to the light weight and finding another heavy role (skirmisher and sniper seem quite similar) might be a good idea.

[cazidin]

MoonUnitBeta, on 13 March 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

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 chassis you enjoy.
The main goal is personalization/customization.

Each Weight Class has 3 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.
You can choose any of the unlocked roles for any mech variant within that chassis.

This does come with some caveats, such as requiring to rank up all previous ranks in one tier before moving onto the next (similar to how we have it now where you need to basic 3 mechs before getting elite). However, you are able to play any variant in the mech chassis to grind through to experience, and it will help you out with your other variants. I feel like this would make the grind a lot more fun, and easier for new players to accept. Rather than getting excited to basic one mech, only to be faced with the daunting task of buying, playing, and basicing another two mechs.





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.

The good news is PGI DOES want to do something like this. It'll either be in the April CW patch or a few months later. The bad news is that I disagree with those percentages.

[Lugh]

I'd be fine with most of it if those represent the final values.

[Malleus011]

Really like the general direction of this.

I'd like to see more exclusivity/lockouts; so if you commit to a certain path, you can't just unlock the other tree buffs. (Perhaps you could change your mind for a small GXP fee).

I really like getting rid of 'three to master' as it is not canon and wouldn't even be possible in Battletech due to lack of variant availability.

May I also suggest more 'levels' that fit with Battletech experience ranks: Green, Regular, Veteran, Elite (and possibly Legendary). Green skills should rank up pretty quick, be pretty general, and have small bonuses. The higher and higher you rank, the more specific the effect (but still small). So, like a Green skill might be a 5% boost to flexibility - twist speed, radius, and up/down range. The Elite skill might be a 2% bonus to speed, radius, or up/down, choose only one.

I'd also really like to see the Mechwarrior personality in the skill tree- portrait, name, rank, etc; give me some Mechwarrior in Giant Robot Online.

Just some suggestions. Love the direction.

[3xnihilo]

MoonUnitBeta, on 14 March 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Sorry, I guess this wasn't clear. Each mech can choose it's own role like how you want. An entire chassis isn't locked into one role. (not that roles are locked anyways, you can freely swap between them)
What I was talking about regarding the Chassis is that instead of unlocking skills on a per-mech basis, and being required to own and basic 3 mechs before you progress, you can do this by owning only one mech. Role ranks are unlocked across the entire chassis. The caveat to progress through the ranks is instead of requiring to basic 3 mech variants to elite, you need to basic 3 roles.


Thanks, and no problem. See above quote. You can definitely assign the CPLT-K2 as a brawler role, and the CPLT-C4 as support role, or even a brawler role as well. An entire chassis isn't locked into one role.

I can see how that's not clear though, so I'll make the changes when I get home tonight.
Is it the "Choose a Role:" line in the image that's causing confusion, or just that it wasn't clarified what you can do?

I added a little blurb in the OP, but I'll add it to the image tonight to hopefully help.

Thanks for clarifying, I missed that in my initial reading too. I like this idea very much. I think it would be fun to specify roles for my various mechs and choose their bonuses accordingly, rather than the same set of skills for all mechs.

PS. I would be in Heaven with 100m range boost on my 6 SPL locust 1e

Edited by 3xnihilo, 14 March 2016 - 08:06 AM.

[BigJim]

I like really the general idea (big thumb!), and I totally get how you are putting the specific abilities and percentages forward as examples, open to discussion, change and whatnot.

I understand your clarification regarding the freedom to allocate roles to specific mechs as & when the player chooses - Personally however, I kind of like there being consequences to decisions..

Not locking-in players after they make a mistake, not that extreme, but I would be totally ok with say, levelling-up a Cat C4 for a while, and then once the player has a goodly amount of Xp with it, he decides to specialise it toward a support role.
This can be seen as investing time & resources into low-level modifications of the mech, or pilot, or whatever.

However, that same player after he plays the C4 some more, now has accrued more XP. This can be further shunted into his support C4, or, he could get another C4, and begin to specialise it as a brawler.

To me, this would achieve a few different things.
1) It would give a strong reason to maintain multiple instances of the same variant. Currently, the only reason to do this is for a minor convenience, to avoid having to swap out loudouts, or for multiples in CW.
I don't believe that's enough of a reason tbh, but I could certainly get behind something that gives you a real reason to maintain, say, 2x or 3x Raven 3Ls, or a bevvy of K2s...

2) A "global" system that locks you in to a role (as some others interpreted your proposition) is, I agree too limiting, but giving the freedom to reallocate roles at any time, even after you have progressed up the tiers seems like too much freedom also - I'm not an RPG'er, but I like the idea of you working toward a goal, and sacrificing some bonuses & abilities to get there, and for that sacrifice to be more significant than simply "I don't get extra range this match, I have to wait until next match when I can reallocate my role".

3) It would make such a system a little easier to swallow on PGI's side, as the paulconomy wouldn't be radically shaken up after the "3x mechs to level" system goes away, and thus (potentially) increase the likelihood of a system such as yours being given the green light.

Overall? Like it Moon, hats off to that man.

Edited by BigJim, 14 March 2016 - 08:17 AM.

[3xnihilo]

BigJim, on 14 March 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

I like really the general idea (big thumb!), and I totally get how you are putting the specific abilities and percentages forward as examples, open to discussion, change and whatnot.

I understand your clarification regarding the freedom to allocate roles to specific mechs as & when the player chooses - Personally however, I kind of like there being consequences to decisions..

Not locking-in players after they make a mistake, not that extreme, but I would be totally ok with say, levelling-up a Cat C4 for a while, and then once the player has a goodly amount of Xp with it, he decides to specialise it toward a support role.
This can be seen as investing time & resources into low-level modifications of the mech, or pilot, or whatever.

However, that same player after he plays the C4 some more, now has accrued more XP. This can be further shunted into his support C4, or, he could get another C4, and begin to specialise it as a brawler.

To me, this would achieve a few different things.
1) It would give a strong reason to maintain multiple instances of the same variant. Currently, the only reason to do this is for a minor convenience, to avoid having to swap out loudouts, or for multiples in CW.
I don't believe that's enough of a reason tbh, but I could certainly get behind something that gives you a real reason to maintain, say, 2x or 3x Raven 3Ls, or a bevvy of K2s...

2) A "global" system that locks you in to a role (as some others interpreted your proposition) is, I agree too limiting, but giving the freedom to reallocate roles at any time, even after you have progressed up the tiers seems like too much freedom also - I'm not an RPG'er, but I like the idea of you working toward a goal, and sacrificing some bonuses & abilities to get there, and for that sacrifice to be more significant than simply "I don't get extra range this match, I have to wait until next match when I can reallocate my role".

3) It would make such a system a little easier to swallow on PGI's side, as the paulconomy wouldn't be radically shaken up after the "3x mechs to level" system goes away, and thus (potentially) increase the likelihood of a system such as yours being given the green light.

Overall? Like it Moon, hats off to that man.

I think a system that makes you choose between poles would be interesting. For example, you have an xp bar with weapon cooldown on one end and weapon range on the other. A new mech starts in the middle with 0 bonus for either. As you can gain xp you can allocate it in either or both directions, but there is a cap so you can go say 100% bonus for cooldown, but it leaves you with 0% bonus for range, or vice versa. Or, you can go balanced at 50% for both, or whatever increment in between. This way you have a give and take option for each mech. You could even make it an infinite xp sink by allowing a filled xp bar to be changed by paying out more xp. For instance, if I want to take my 50/50 mech to 60/40 I still have to buy the 10% xp to make the change. That way I am not locked into something that doesn't work for me, but I don't get a free do-over.

[Malleus011]

This is tangential to the OP, but I'd like to see us get actual pilots who are attached to the 'mechs, who earn skill ranks; and could possibly even be killed or wounded (say in CW matches, or something). It would be the pilots who would be earning the ranks in the OP, affecting the 'mech they run.

Then the pilot would be customized to the 'mech he drives; you could own three ARC-2Rs, but all three pilots could have different skill setups to complement different role/builds for their 'mechs.

That would be an awesome upgrade to the skill tree.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I like the idea, but it would need more serious flushing out, I definitely don't like the overlap in roles between classes. Support would also be a much less useful role outside of PUG queue. So I feel it needs to be more general and less focused on TAG/NARC. It would be more neat if these were unique in some way per chassis, but that would be a lot of work, especially once someone factors in quirks which add to all that.

Extra care would need to be taken with stats because not all stats are equal, especially when throwing around +30% range, yes I know the stats were just you throwing them out there, but PGI has a habit of not quite grasping the unintended consequences of these compared to the skill tree which currently gives minimal, but still much needed bonuses to mechs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 March 2016 - 12:00 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Alardus, on 13 March 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

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.

Cool story bro


You are a minority in the community FYI, the skill tree is lame and about as imaginative as your salty, sad reply.


OP,


Need flavor, need specialties and need something to work for other then the x2 basics that really arent worth what they used to be since the skill tree nerf. I'd love to see specialized roles and the ability for my lights to lock more then one target is a interesting thing to add honestly. Having an Atlas that actually specialize in brawling with twist bonus' and maybe even structure from running him through the BRAWL skill set sounds like a lot more fun then the cookie cutter BS one we have now that just makes my normal mechs a little better.


Its just do dull and more of a chore then anything, i just rip through it as fast i can so i dont have to worry about it when PGI could actually make leveling and PLAYING you mech a good time from start to finish.


Would we allow for skill overlap? Maybe do some Brawl and then a few Support skills? Be cool to mix and match to some degree on the skill. Defiantly think it should be forced down a path but a little diversity (like having a brawler with Support skills or Scout with Brawl skills) i think would also go a long way in making you mech FEEL like YOURS and differentiate it from the rest of the Atlas' you see in your drops.

Edited by Revis Volek, 14 March 2016 - 11:54 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

There is absolutely no reason to lock an entire chassis into a single role.

This. Even locking a single variant into a single role is a terrible idea. Role is determined by loadout and how the mech is played.

Game needs a modular skill system that lets players decide the role a mech has. Roles should not be predetermined and forced upon you.

[Summon3r]

OP i love the direction your going there, only thing i think would run supreme is the heavy sniper role.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Khobai, on 14 March 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

This. Even locking a single variant into a single role is a terrible idea. Role is determined by loadout and how the mech is played.

Game needs a modular skill system that lets players decide the role a mech has. Roles should not be predetermined and forced upon you.

Agreed, and role selection on a per mech basis was the original intent. But I can see how the too-liberal use of the word “Chassis” could imply something different. The “Chassis” part that I was trying to drive home is that if a Rank is unlocked in one roll, it’s unlocked for all variants within that chassis group, unlike our traditional way of requiring you to rank up individual variants.

Regardless, I’ll be making changes to the image title, and rewording a few things to simplify the description.
And specifically, I’ll create another mock-up to illustrate a tree showing that each mech in a chassis has access to each roll, and explaining how the Tiered 3 role requirement system is similar to the current 3 mech requirement.
As mentioned in OP, customization is the name of the game, and if an entire chassis were locked into a single roll… well, as you have said, it would simply defeat the entire purpose. lol