34 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Scout Derek, on 22 March 2016 - 08:40 PM, said:

So, I'll indulge you on this one. So, to start off, there's a few flaws in the system that I propose, yes, it'd make mechs more "powerful" as you say, but the thing is, it's not just one mech that's getting them, it's all the mechs that will be getting this.

Cool, how about we just give every mech quirks like this then?



Not a problem, right? Maybe let pilots unlock it after accumulating 10,000,000 EXP for a mech LOL.

Quote

There's also the point of showing that I said this was a idea, be it horrible or not, I proposed it, so it's better than nothing.

Well, no, it's worse than nothing actually and that's why it's a bad ("horrible") idea.

Quote

And sorry to go off topic here, but, I believe you're using power creep incorrectly, power creep only applies when new content obseletes the old. In my case, everything is getting something, not just the old.

Wanna know something intresting that you fall under? Read the spoiler, it's quite, and rather, ironic from your standpoint, and many people fall under this category, be it that you fall under part, or all of it. Not a bad thing, but it is a pretty interesting standpoint you and others take on it.

Spoiler

A Power Creep virtually always leads to a Broken Base, with the most "conservative" players stating that the new unbalanced content is an insult to the original game (which might be true or not, depending on the case). On the other hand, there will always be players who like these new add-ons, saying that it actually makes the game more fun to play.

So back to what I was saying, this isn't power creep, which invalidates your current argument of this being power creep, because the new content will be not invalidating or leaving behind any mech whatsoever.

If you wanna know where I got this argument, look here.

That's a horrible definition of power creep with a poorly moderated wiki as a source. Power creep does not apply only to new content, and power creep itself is the process of making content more powerful (quirks are the primary example here), which can be a problem with new content making old content obsolete but that is simply a result of power creep and not the definition of power creep itself.

Let's say you're hellbent on using a bad definition from TV Tropes though and your idea isn't power creep and should instead be described by some other unknown term; it's still a bad idea. All this does is perpetuate a bull**** arms race by adding more quirks into the fire, make TTK go down the drain even further, add needless grind for no good reason because people simply must have their Skinner Box which is bad for multiple reasons on its own such as making the game even more harsh for new players...

It's not a good idea, it's not "better than nothing" because it's actually a bad idea, it makes overall balance even more of a joke which is completely unacceptable, and it's not needed at all.

If it was actually a good idea to do this crap then why do you think the skill tree was nerfed? It doesn't go both ways so I hope you're prepared to argue why nerfing the skill tree was a bad idea if you think your idea is good.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 March 2016 - 10:37 PM.

[CtrlAltWheee]

The current skill tree is a missed opportunity. I think we all agree on that.

I love funky builds and tooling with stuff. Variant-specific trees sound great. It's fun to have a little bit of secret sauce in a favorite mech's build. Hiding some variation in the skill tree system is good.

Don't lock it behind extra high xp costs. The game has so many mechs. The 3 mech requirement to elite things is barely tolerable as it is. Make a meaningful tree that's attainable by people like me who have lots of mechs and enjoy playing all of them.

[GRiPSViGiL]

As amazing as a true skill tree would be to quirk our mechs ourselves PGI couldn't get this right with guns to all their mother's heads. Never gonna happen. Depth and tried and true features allowing player customization can only be cosmetic that cost real money.

[CtrlAltWheee]

GRiPSViGiL, on 22 March 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

As amazing as a true skill tree would be to quirk our mechs ourselves PGI couldn't get this right with guns to all their mother's heads. Never gonna happen. Depth and tried and true features allowing player customization can only be cosmetic that cost real money.

Harsh but fair point

[Impyrium]

Alardus, on 22 March 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Was you picture meant to be ironic with your words? At any rate, BT and all previous incarnations of mechwarrior do not have magical skill trees that give you 10% more rage with each swing or whatever.

MW is based on BT. If you have skill trees that turn it into a typical RPG, its no longer MW.

As it stands, the ONLY reason skill trees exist at all is to give people a sense of progression as well as try to make a paywall that easier to break through with $$ than climb over, what with sales price being half and limited mechbays for F2P types.

Erm... not that I disagree with you fully or anything, but I wouldn't go drawing comparisons like that. There's always been a fairly deep divide between BT and MW. BT, essentially, is a RPG. For example, you can have pilots with certain abilities that give them advantages with a weapon type. Is that magical? Or is it just representing the idea that the pilot is quite proficient with that weapon?

MW has always been a little different. It's tried to be a 'what if BT was real' simulator approach. But then again, MWO isn't a simulator. MWO is a 'what if MW was a competitive MP shooter' approach, which again is even more removed from BT.

See, if this was a real BT game, we'd have some real focus on the actual pilot themselves. So something like a skill tree, if presented correctly, could reflect that. You could for example look at the current tree as a representation of your pilot becoming better at piloting mechs.

Now obviously in reality it's just a 2D F2P game progression mechanic, which is why I don't like it. But I wouldn't write off a decent skill tree as 'non-BT', when in reality it's quite suited to BT.

[Scout Derek]

Alardus, on 22 March 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

The skill tree as it is now affects everyone in exactly the same way, and, barring the cooldown business, could be considered 'rational' rather than 'magical' skill effects. When a mech starts to get +10% resist to damage from weapons to be a 'defensive mech'/swordandboard, then this is no longer MW or BT.



Was you picture meant to be ironic with your words? At any rate, BT and all previous incarnations of mechwarrior do not have magical skill trees that give you 10% more rage with each swing or whatever.

MW is based on BT. If you have skill trees that turn it into a typical RPG, its no longer MW.

As it stands, the ONLY reason skill trees exist at all is to give people a sense of progression as well as try to make a paywall that easier to break through with $$ than climb over, what with sales price being half and limited mechbays for F2P types.

The reason I say this, the only reason I say this, is because for many, many years since the start of this game, we've not gotten any, and I mean any, new tech to work with, save for clan tech and MASC. That's it. It seems that PGI is not going to be adding those in anytime soon either from the looks of it, I'd say by most of this August where they might actually start putting work into forwarding the timeline to get us new tech... or just more mechs yet again, or maybe both, we don't know.

And the +10% Resist damage coincides with this. There's something along the lines in BT called "Reactive" and "Reflective" armor. Reactive can handle Ballistic weapons better and Reflective Energy weapons. When we don't have the actual thing and we have something called a skill tree, wouldn't it be better to implement that as something rather than wait for it as what it really is if the real thing isn't going to be implemented for quite some time?

Rhavin, on 22 March 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

Wouldn't bother me to have expanded skill trees. But on what? We already get bonuses to everything but armor and structure through the pilot skills we have now. In addition the list of what we cant do through modules already is short. Extended burn jump jets or MASC? Expanded ammo capacity? Maybe lower the range radar detects your mech by 100 meters? But not all mechs can use those unlocks and with the last one ECM mechs would being useing their Jesus box to eat everyone like the last supper.

That's why we actually make it balanced; lower end mechs like the Commando, Ice Ferret get some major Legendary skills that will at least put them on a being standing point, while the Higher end mechs such as the Timberwolf and Stormcrow get a little under average skills that will help with their stance a bit.

Remember, the limits are endless when you can come up with what PGI hasn't already stated. There could be a mech skill where if you equip BAP, you can demeanor a mech's ECM and make it useless to them for more than a few seconds when hit with any energy weapon, ETC.

[Alardus]

Rhavin, on 22 March 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

Wouldn't bother me to have expanded skill trees. But on what? We already get bonuses to everything but armor and structure through the pilot skills we have now. In addition the list of what we cant do through modules already is short. Extended burn jump jets or MASC? Expanded ammo capacity? Maybe lower the range radar detects your mech by 100 meters? But not all mechs can use those unlocks and with the last one ECM mechs would being useing their Jesus box to eat everyone like the last supper.

I wouldn't mind being able to unlock further module slots though. Say another one at 75k exp and one more at 150k, another at 450k maybe. I would love to have derp, seismic, advanced zoom, and sensor range/info gathering or target decay on every mech I own and play regularly. But heck some people have mechs with 1 million or more extra exp on them already.

I still find it hard to understand how a pilot skill gives you more speed or faster/wider torso twist radius. Because the pilot has learned it can pull the stick ALL the way forward/ to the side?

[Alardus]

Dingo Red, on 23 March 2016 - 06:41 AM, said:

Erm... not that I disagree with you fully or anything, but I wouldn't go drawing comparisons like that. There's always been a fairly deep divide between BT and MW. BT, essentially, is a RPG. For example, you can have pilots with certain abilities that give them advantages with a weapon type. Is that magical? Or is it just representing the idea that the pilot is quite proficient with that weapon?

MW has always been a little different. It's tried to be a 'what if BT was real' simulator approach. But then again, MWO isn't a simulator. MWO is a 'what if MW was a competitive MP shooter' approach, which again is even more removed from BT.

See, if this was a real BT game, we'd have some real focus on the actual pilot themselves. So something like a skill tree, if presented correctly, could reflect that. You could for example look at the current tree as a representation of your pilot becoming better at piloting mechs.

Now obviously in reality it's just a 2D F2P game progression mechanic, which is why I don't like it. But I wouldn't write off a decent skill tree as 'non-BT', when in reality it's quite suited to BT.

Quote

See, if this was a real BT game, we'd have some real focus on the actual pilot themselves.

Quote

For example, you can have pilots with certain abilities that give them advantages with a weapon type. Is that magical? Or is it just representing the idea that the pilot is quite proficient with that weapon?

YOU are the pilot. If you can torso twist and spread shot damage, you don't need a skill tree that magically transfers damage taken in one spot to multiple spots on a % chance. If you git gud aiming PPCs, you don't need a skill tree that magically increases your accuracy with PPCs, in whatever way that would be possible in the game (more velocity? magical transference of damage from less damaged to more damaged areas?)

You are the pilot. If you get better, that's your skill. If you simply grind up a skill tree, that's an automated process not reflecting you. Its like you're piloting the pilot, not the mech.

[Scout Derek]

Pjwned, on 22 March 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

Cool, how about we just give every mech quirks like this then?



Not a problem, right? Maybe let pilots unlock it after accumulating 10,000,000 EXP for a mech LOL.

Overexaggerating is already part of why I know this is going to be a bit of a interesting argument, and I can tell you're a bit on edge with this already with the capitalized "LOL". Don't get on edge, be relaxed on this one for once.

Pjwned, on 22 March 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

That's a horrible definition of power creep with a poorly moderated wiki as a source. Power creep does not apply only to new content, and power creep itself is the process of making content more powerful (quirks are the primary example here), which can be a problem with new content making old content obsolete but that is simply a result of power creep and not the definition of power creep itself.

You got a actual website that describes the true definition of power creep? I'd sure like to see it so I can agree on this standpoint, regardless if it's good or not.

Pjwned, on 22 March 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

Let's say you're hellbent on using a bad definition from TV Tropes though and your idea isn't power creep and should instead be described by some other unknown term; it's still a bad idea. All this does is perpetuate a bull**** arms race by adding more quirks into the fire, make TTK go down the drain even further, add needless grind for no good reason because people simply must have their Skinner Box which is bad for multiple reasons on its own such as making the game even more harsh for new players...

It's not a good idea, it's not "better than nothing" because it's actually a bad idea, it makes overall balance even more of a joke which is completely unacceptable, and it's not needed at all.

If it was actually a good idea to do this crap then why do you think the skill tree was nerfed? It doesn't go both ways so I hope you're prepared to argue why nerfing the skill tree was a bad idea if you think your idea is good.

I'll start from bottom to top via paragraphs.

I never said this was a good idea, I said it was a ideal. So show me where I said this was a good idea -.-

As for the reason they nerfed the skill tree, you can blame the higher end players and units for the skill tree nerf. (I'm one of them, and yeah, Locust back then with SPL quirks were quite mean to the Dires that got cored out from behind)

When you get an elite cast of players in CW going against a pug( example), or in solo a mixed group que vs a 12 man, there's bound to be some hate when the elite use lights to their advantage to kill off the guys in the back within 2-3 minutes of a match, or when a Locust is going so fast that those who can't hit something that fast save for streaks or a good shot.

You can't blame them, those that get the wrong end of the stick on that one. Frankly I think it was a good idea because there wasn't enough variety in there. So that's where this "Horrible Idea" came from.

And balance Pjwned? Again, I'll say this: When is a game truly ever balanced? Hmm? When?

The answer is simple: No game is ever balanced, because there's always going to be those that find a loop hole in the system or use it to their advantage to the point where the Developers have to change it. And so on and so forth.

As for the EXP system, again, IDEA. IDEA my friend, IDEA! Did I say "Oh this should be implemented guyz, huhuhuhuhuhu." No! I said "Here's a idea guys, I know you're going to give me flak for this in some form."

So bad idea in some people's eyes? Yes, it is, and I'm prepared to defend this ideal because people will either try to reason, or reason and be rude, or be rude in general.

Alardus, on 23 March 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

I still find it hard to understand how a pilot skill gives you more speed or faster/wider torso twist radius. Because the pilot has learned it can pull the stick ALL the way forward/ to the side?

I think you got that part wrong. That's the mech skill tree.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Alardus, on 23 March 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

YOU are the pilot. If you can torso twist and spread shot damage, you don't need a skill tree that magically transfers damage taken in one spot to multiple spots on a % chance. If you git gud aiming PPCs, you don't need a skill tree that magically increases your accuracy with PPCs, in whatever way that would be possible in the game (more velocity? magical transference of damage from less damaged to more damaged areas?)

You are the pilot. If you get better, that's your skill. If you simply grind up a skill tree, that's an automated process not reflecting you. Its like you're piloting the pilot, not the mech.

Okay, so, I think that's about it on your part of why you think there shouldn't be a legendary skill tree. You're saying that there shouldn't be skills similar to reflective armor, and that skill alone should be enough. Least you brought up an interesting argument and points instead of like Pjwned and use exaggerated points to try and prove his side

(Also, where did the magical transfer of damage come into play??? Isn't that a PPC, which causes splash damage when it never did in the previous games? Lost on that one)

[Alardus]

Here's your power creep explanation.

[Alardus]

Scout Derek, on 23 March 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

Overexaggerating is already part of why I know this is going to be a bit of a interesting argument, and I can tell you're a bit on edge with this already with the capitalized "LOL". Don't get on edge, be relaxed on this one for once.


You got a actual website that describes the true definition of power creep? I'd sure like to see it so I can agree on this standpoint, regardless if it's good or not.


I'll start from bottom to top via paragraphs.

I never said this was a good idea, I said it was a ideal. So show me where I said this was a good idea -.-

As for the reason they nerfed the skill tree, you can blame the higher end players and units for the skill tree nerf. (I'm one of them, and yeah, Locust back then with SPL quirks were quite mean to the Dires that got cored out from behind)

When you get an elite cast of players in CW going against a pug( example), or in solo a mixed group que vs a 12 man, there's bound to be some hate when the elite use lights to their advantage to kill off the guys in the back within 2-3 minutes of a match, or when a Locust is going so fast that those who can't hit something that fast save for streaks or a good shot.

You can't blame them, those that get the wrong end of the stick on that one. Frankly I think it was a good idea because there wasn't enough variety in there. So that's where this "Horrible Idea" came from.

And balance Pjwned? Again, I'll say this: When is a game truly ever balanced? Hmm? When?

The answer is simple: No game is ever balanced, because there's always going to be those that find a loop hole in the system or use it to their advantage to the point where the Developers have to change it. And so on and so forth.

As for the EXP system, again, IDEA. IDEA my friend, IDEA! Did I say "Oh this should be implemented guyz, huhuhuhuhuhu." No! I said "Here's a idea guys, I know you're going to give me flak for this in some form."

So bad idea in some people's eyes? Yes, it is, and I'm prepared to defend this ideal because people will either try to reason, or reason and be rude, or be rude in general.



I think you got that part wrong. That's the mech skill tree.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Okay, so, I think that's about it on your part of why you think there shouldn't be a legendary skill tree. You're saying that there shouldn't be skills similar to reflective armor, and that skill alone should be enough. Least you brought up an interesting argument and points instead of like Pjwned and use exaggerated points to try and prove his side

(Also, where did the magical transfer of damage come into play??? Isn't that a PPC, which causes splash damage when it never did in the previous games? Lost on that one)

So, the mech gets more skill at being able to control itself? In logical terms, we still call it a pilot skill, because otherwise its nonsensical. Sure, its a "mech skill" but since, by logic, the mech doesn't improve itself, it must be the pilot. Maybe its a problem with calling them skills, though. Perhaps it is better to call them, "improvements" or "upgrades".

afaik, no, there is no splash damage for PPCs. load up the training grounds and shoot a jenner in the ST. It only affects that area.

If you want reflective or ablative armor, we need to advance the timeline and add it as an option compard to standard/ff. It does not need to be implemented with a skill tree.

Edited by Alardus, 23 March 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[Scout Derek]

Alardus, on 23 March 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

So, the mech gets more skill at being able to control itself? In logical terms, we still call it a pilot skill, because otherwise its nonsensical. Sure, its a "mech skill" but since, by logic, the mech doesn't improve itself, it must be the pilot. Maybe its a problem with calling them skills, though. Perhaps it is better to call them, "improvements" or "upgrades".

afaik, no, there is no splash damage for PPCs. load up the training grounds and shoot a jenner in the ST. It only affects that area.

If you want reflective or ablative armor, we need to advance the timeline and add it as an option compard to standard/ff. It does not need to be implemented with a skill tree.

I think the definition of what it's called and under is wrong, it should be rather called the tab its under called "Skills/Tech" and for the mech it should be changed to mech tech rather than mech skill tree.

And thanks for the info, I rarely use PPCs anymore so I tend to forget, like lostech you know?

[Doman Hugin]

I'm definitely in favor of improving the skill trees.

But not wanting straight power improvements, I'd suggest:

Unlocking options that can be switched on or off, and for every positive change there would be a negative one.

eg.
1) Speed bonus X% and Armour reduced X%
2) Armour bonus X% and Speed reduction X%

You could do lots with something like that, weapon velocities, duration, cooldown, heat. mech speed, twist, etc. but each would be counteracted with a logical negative.

No power creep just specialization. (somewhat like pilot skill specializations from the game).

Edit: I also wish modules would work that way too.

Edited by Doman Hugin, 23 March 2016 - 10:56 AM.

[Pjwned]

Scout Derek, on 23 March 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

Overexaggerating is already part of why I know this is going to be a bit of a interesting argument, and I can tell you're a bit on edge with this already with the capitalized "LOL". Don't get on edge, be relaxed on this one for once.

1) Exaggeration or not it's a valid point that you dodged completely. If it's fine to increase the power of mechs more or less "just because" and have it unlocked by needless grind, then why not take it a step further and use my suggestion?

Do note that I understand you want to make mechs stronger through more magic quirks because you want "variety," (which I don't necessarily agree with, especially not by adding needless grind, but I can see where you're coming from) but considering that can be accomplished without power creep methods like you suggest and that such methods are bad for the game, you need to be pretty convincing that it's a worthwhile idea (which would be pretty difficult) or else the idea should be shot down for being bad.

2) Throwing in a "LOL" doesn't mean being on edge, just showing you why my exaggerated idea is dumb in a very similar way that yours is.

Quote

You got a actual website that describes the true definition of power creep? I'd sure like to see it so I can agree on this standpoint, regardless if it's good or not.

Nope I don't have another source, but I could just go and edit the TV Tropes page and cite that I guess, which is why it's not a good source.

Quote

I never said this was a good idea, I said it was a ideal. So show me where I said this was a good idea -.-

I misread that I guess...? It's also a pretty poor ideal so my response doesn't change much.

Quote

As for the reason they nerfed the skill tree, you can blame the higher end players and units for the skill tree nerf. (I'm one of them, and yeah, Locust back then with SPL quirks were quite mean to the Dires that got cored out from behind)

When you get an elite cast of players in CW going against a pug( example), or in solo a mixed group que vs a 12 man, there's bound to be some hate when the elite use lights to their advantage to kill off the guys in the back within 2-3 minutes of a match, or when a Locust is going so fast that those who can't hit something that fast save for streaks or a good shot.

You can't blame them, those that get the wrong end of the stick on that one. Frankly I think it was a good idea because there wasn't enough variety in there. So that's where this "Horrible Idea" came from.

So was it a good idea to reduce the disparity between "elite" and new players or not then? Because what you're partly saying is "I would like to widen the disparity between elite and new players even further."

Quote

And balance Pjwned? Again, I'll say this: When is a game truly ever balanced? Hmm? When?

The answer is simple: No game is ever balanced, because there's always going to be those that find a loop hole in the system or use it to their advantage to the point where the Developers have to change it. And so on and so forth.

So your response is to just throw balance to the wind? How about we take your idea even further and allow pilots to unlock infinite benefits with EXP so that way they have infinite variety? Because balance apparently doesn't matter.

If you don't care about balance then I would suggest making that more clear in the OP, so that your idea and ideal can be safely ignored.

Quote

As for the EXP system, again, IDEA. IDEA my friend, IDEA! Did I say "Oh this should be implemented guyz, huhuhuhuhuhu." No! I said "Here's a idea guys, I know you're going to give me flak for this in some form."

So bad idea in some people's eyes? Yes, it is, and I'm prepared to defend this ideal because people will either try to reason, or reason and be rude, or be rude in general.

Right, and I'm telling you it's a bad idea and a bad ideal.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 March 2016 - 03:42 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Alardus, on 22 March 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

The skill tree as it is now affects everyone in exactly the same way, and, barring the cooldown business, could be considered 'rational' rather than 'magical' skill effects. When a mech starts to get +10% resist to damage from weapons to be a 'defensive mech'/swordandboard, then this is no longer MW or BT.



Was you picture meant to be ironic with your words? At any rate, BT and all previous incarnations of mechwarrior do not have magical skill trees that give you 10% more rage with each swing or whatever.

MW is based on BT. If you have skill trees that turn it into a typical RPG, its no longer MW.

As it stands, the ONLY reason skill trees exist at all is to give people a sense of progression as well as try to make a paywall that easier to break through with $$ than climb over, what with sales price being half and limited mechbays for F2P types.

Perhaps English isn't your first language or you are not very familiar with the BT/TT universe so I'll give you a pass for not understanding what's in the pic. That's a pic of the cover of the Mechwarrior sourcebook from back in the day. In fact, it clearly states "Mechwarrior - The Battletech ROLE PLAYING GAME."

Quote

MECHWARRIOR, FIRST EDITION provides the rules for character generation and advancement. A set of rules for personal combat is provided along with an extensive armory and other equipment that could be vital to the survival of a character once he climbs out of his Mech.

A summary of the Inner Sphere history up to 3025 is provided along with background information of the Great Houses the Periphery States, Pirates and ComStar.

Major elements of the game universe are addressed in a section that briefly covers Economics, Mercenary units, Inner Sphere Nobility, Land Holds and the Games of Solaris VII.

https://rpggeek.com/...ior-1st-edition

Maybe learn about what you are looking at or keep your mouth shut when it comes to things you don't know about. Option 2 would be my preference from seeing examples of your posts on this forum.