10 replies to this topic

[BumbleBee]

Instead of using XP to make your Mech better, how about using it to tweak your Mech in favour of the role you will use it for. All Mechs would come with the standard mid-range tweaks, and you can choose to upgrade in 1 of 2 ways for each selection, or leave as standard if you are after a general purpose build with the XP earned during matches.

I've just thought a few things up to use as an example.

Twitch Myomer
+10% acceleration/deceleration/handling
-5% top speed

Standard Myomer
No change

Extended Travel Myomer
-10% acceleration/deceleration/handling
+5% top speed

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

Twitch Rotator
+10% torso twist speed
-10% torso twist travel distance

Standard Rotator
No change

Extended Travel Rotator
-10% torso twist speed
+10% torso twist travel distance

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

Twitch Actuators
+10% arm movement speed
-10% arm movement travel distance

Standard Actuators
No change

Extended Travel Actuators
-10% arm movement speed
+10% arm movement travel distance

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

Rapid Fire
-7.5% weapon cooldown
+10% powerup time from shutdown

Standard Fire Control
No change

Fast Startup
+7.5% weapon cooldown
-10% powerup time from shutdown

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

Rapid Cooling System
+5% cooling speed
-10% heat ceiling

Standard Cooling
No change

Robust Cooling System
-5% cooling speed
+10% heat ceiling

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

ER Sensor Suite
+15% sensor range
+10% time to target info

Standard Sensor Suite
No change

Fast Acquisition Sensor Suite
-15% sensor range
-10% time to target info

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

Fast Missile Lock
-10% time to lock missiles
-10% time to lose lock

Standard Locking Computer
no change

Extended Missile Lock
+10% time to lock missiles
+10% time to lose lock

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

Respec = $2,000,000 C-bills + 2,000XP per choice


IMO, it adds a layer to role warfare and adds some diversity to the game. If you build and tweak around a Scout Mech, it will perform very differently from the same chassis built and tweaked as a harasser. All stats would stack with quirks, equipment and modules.

Edited by BumbleBee, 27 March 2016 - 02:44 AM.

[Doman Hugin]

Like the + / - aspect, and the suit you style options.

Some of your tweaks seem a bit off, but as examples to show the system they are fine.

[Pjwned]

A system that involves benefits for tradeoffs is the only way a skill tree and weapon modules would be acceptable and not be partly responsible for overall game balance being buried in a mountain of dogshit.

At best though PGI would take this idea and then screw it up massively, or more likely just ignore it for another 4+ years.

[Tristan Winter]

I like it. This is something I've been asking for since forever. I wish PGI would do this.

My only comment is that I feel absolute values, whenever possible, are more fun.

Spoiler

I think this is one of the things MWO has done wrong all along compared to MMORPGs, for example. Number crunching. It's a lot more fun to toy around with actual numbers than with percentages. In MMORPGs, people enjoy tinkering with different gear and different skill trees, because those games are built around number crunching. You don't have to bring out your calculator to add all the bonuses together ("+1 dmg from that frost spell, +4 dmg from my Frost Hands aura, +8.5 dmg from my Paladin skill....") the game does it for you. And those games typically use absolute numbers whenever possible, which is more fun.

It's more fun to see that my Timber Wolf has 110 degrees torso twist rather than 90 degrees + 10% + 12%. And ideally, the Mechlab should present all this data in a way that is easy to read. Personally, I think MWO is too cluttered by tiny +5% and +7% percentages here and there, and it's impossible to mentally organize that information and get excited about it. You can't really do anything fun with those numbers or create a build around them, unlike a +20% PPC speed quirk, for example. Or, using absolute numbers, +150 m/s PPC speed quirk.

[oldradagast]

The fact that the current skill tree offers no choices is a big part of the problem.

There are two ways to go with this, IMHO:

- The way proposed, where each tweak from the default has an advantage and a disadvantage, and you then pick which, if any, change from default you use.

- The other way is slot-based, where you have, say, 3 choices for each skill "slot" on the mech, so while each choice may not have a drawback, you still have to make a choice since you can't have ALL the upgrades. This is how World of Warships handles upgrades in the ships (although right now some of their upgrade slots have only one decent choice, but they'll probably fix that eventually.)

Either way works, but the way we have right now is just frustrating since the "skill tree" is really just an choice-free XP bar for the mech that makes it directly better... and it takes you grinding through THREE variants to get the most important upgrades... and we still have Pinpoint, which costs 3,000 XP and literally does nothing... argh...

Edited by oldradagast, 27 March 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[cazidin]

Am I the only one who likes a simple upgrade system?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Not bad.

I'd go further and add another layer on top of that. I'd suggest that we give mechs ranks like champion, hero, conqueror/defender of the inner sphere. Etc which would earn you more cbills and the like and encourage people to keep playing after they master a mech if they don't have the IRL dosh to buy more mech bays.

Tie some unique skins and other shinies to those ranks and you'll keep the playerbase pushing that lever and getting those tasty food pellets.

Pjwned, on 27 March 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

A system that involves benefits for tradeoffs is the only way a skill tree and weapon modules would be acceptable and not be partly responsible for overall game balance being buried in a mountain of dogshit.

At best though PGI would take this idea and then screw it up massively, or more likely just ignore it for another 4+ years.

Weapon modules originally had trade offs I believe but people complained and well... squeaky mouse gets the cheese (when they deserve the trap).

As for the 4+ years thing... PGI is finally taking my advice and replacing ghost heat with a power draw type system so... yeah 3-4 years sounds about right.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 27 March 2016 - 06:53 AM.

[Pjwned]

cazidin, on 27 March 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

Am I the only one who likes a simple upgrade system?

When it doesn't cause balance problems and add a needless grind shitfest then it will be fine.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 27 March 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

Weapon modules originally had trade offs I believe but people complained and well... squeaky mouse gets the cheese (when they deserve the trap).

The bigger reason people complained about the original weapon modules was that they were completely worthless.

[ArmandTulsen]

[cazidin]

Pjwned, on 27 March 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:

When it doesn't cause balance problems and add a needless grind shitfest then it will be fine.



The bigger reason people complained about the original weapon modules was that they were completely worthless.

Right. I mean a simple skill upgrade system that isn't a terrible grindfest but one that also doesn't have negative effects either.

[BumbleBee]

Im against a pure "upgrade tree".

IMHO, another level that allows further customisation of your Mech can only improve the game. Making your Mech more powerful in one area should always make it weaker in another, or covering a weakness in one area should awlays leave it less than optimal in another.

Mechwarrior and Battletech have always been games focused on tradeoffs. Its tradeoffs that make the game what it is.

You want more firepower? You are losing heat efficiency or speed.
You want more speed? you are losing tonnage for weapons and cooling.
...and so on and so forth.

I posted a few examples of what I think would be a good system for a "Tweak Tree", very much a concept, but im sure the community will be able to come up with other ideas to flesh it out a bit.

Edited by BumbleBee, 27 March 2016 - 03:09 PM.