5 replies to this topic

[Xzip]

So I watched closely screens from presenetation of new skill tree and to be honest? I am excited - ability to fine tune mech into role I want? YES.

However I see tiny bit of problem here. Some mechs require absurd amount of tweaking to be viable - be it from their low hardpoints amount, bad geometry or specific role.

If new system will be "one size fits them all" aka - there is some max cap of improvement you can earn - say +20% to range/cooldown/burn/etc. then there is problem that good mechs become even better and meh quirky/tweaky mechs get even worse.

Perfect example of such problem is in my opinion Spider 5V and 5K.

Best Spider 5V can do is 2 MPLs. Best 5K can do is LPL + 4 MGs. ATM this bulids are usable and can be fun - I got 4th in Spider leaderboard using my 5K and 5D.

However 5K is only working at this moment thanks to insane quirks it got. If you remove it - this mech goes into obscurity - any other light can bring more firepower - maybe except Myst Lynx.

And here is problem - if that is one size fits them all type of skill tree - both Spider 5K and Locust 1E can get our example +20% to each laser stat. Problem is - Locust 1E can field 6MLs and 5K can field at best 1LPL.

To me it shows that one size fits them all is not way to go.

Other good example may be Victor. As we all know Victor either fills role of fast assault or mini-Atlas. Imho - it is pretty solid mech when played with its strengths - however its geometry is pretty bad and comparing to some 80 tonners and even smaller mechs it can feel at times undergunned. So there is again problem - how Victor fielding 2xLPL + AC20 and having maxed out its respective weapons is any way comparable with Wubhammer or Lazer Knight?

I know that some may argue - some mechs have to be better than others, etc... however I feel having one size fits them all may end that all mechs that will be used will be the ones with best geometry and hardpoint layouts/boating capability.

So... I suggest to make skill point tree biased with how much each mech can boat and its hardpoints distribution plus geometry.

Opinions?

[Moonlight Grimoire]

I feel dividing the bonus gained by a factor of number and placement of hard points used is the way to go. No exact formula but even a Bonus/(# of used relevant hard points*.5) would be a good starting spot. Maybe change from .5 to .3 if they are in the arms, varing amounts dependent upon if knuckle draggers or the rotating boxes Jaegersmechs and Riflemen have or particularly high mounted. Of course this is just some guess work, but some form of factor should exist, maybe make it so the more of a certain hardpoint type a mech has the shallower that pool of SP points can be, even though that is counter intuitive it means the mech more relies on sheer volume than fine tuned tools to get the job done with those hard points. So a mech with a single SRM launcher can get said launcher firing faster, further, and cooler than a mech that can have six.

I think some variation of these two ideas would get close to making the skill tree work in my opinion as it takes into consideration hard point type, amount, and the designed role of the mech. This also means the skill tree can be used to give an idea of what roles said mech can perform. Omnimechs I would have shallower skill trees tied to their CT, they are meant to be mass produced interchangeable part mechs, and not highly fine tuned to the pilot. This would give an obvious downside to omni mechs with not being able to as deeply customize and fine tune their mech.

However, there still remains the problem of Clan Battlemechs. I will flat blanket state clan battlemechs would have to have a shallow skill tree as well, maybe they just can't get as high tweaks as IS mechs, but, more tunable than omni's due to they can't swap components thus making them an in between between IS battlemechs and Clan Omni's, as they should be. This also allows for IS omni's to exist in the same manner as IS Omni's are pretty bad in the time frame MWO is likely to cover.

This system I do feel would still be abuse-able, but, this would curb it a bit. Wouldn't allow a KDK-3 to do the same deep cooldown quirks for ballistics an Atlas could due to the cooldown quirks and jam chance quirks would be divided into multiple weapons instead of into an Atlas' one or two ballistic weapons in it's side torso. This would allow flavor and mechs meant to be jack of all trades (which typically suffer the most) be able to invest deeper into certain weapon systems to prop up the mech.

Beyond this, skill point cap should be a function of hard point amounts, location, and type as certain combinations do well on their own without quirks while others suffer badly. To boot with the dividing bonuses by number of weapons making use of said bonus you would give a feeling of allotting power to certain systems over others based on what you think are the priority.

Still, a flawed, but, better system than what we currently have and hopefully both of our concerns and feedback will be listened to and considered (as well as hopefully factored into balancing).

[Xzip]

I think actually that Clan mechs could use a some kind of hybrid system - some parts giving flat bonuses to some stats - like current quirks. Examples here - empty STs of Mad Dog could keep their current IS buff, Gargoyle STs could have same buff or some agility bonus, some legs could give some mobility and some could be beefier.
Basically give Clan chance to get edge but have them less fine tuneable most of the time. Especially that a lot of Clan mechs needs a lot of love...

And here is another problem with full removal of quirks - mechs with weird geometry get hurt badly. For example - Dragon with huge arm, Centurion, Hunchback with hunch - beefness quirks help them to offset their meh geometry. I think this is worth taking into consideration too.

[Jep Jorgensson]

I just hope that I do not have to buy back all the mechs I sold back to master the ones I still have.

[50 50]

@Jep.
The answer to that is no. It will no longer be a requirement to have 3 variants of a single chassis to unlock the next level.

Need to keep in mind everyone that what was shown was a mock up of the skill tree. We still know way too little about it.

This thread should probably be moved to General discussion btw.

[Jep Jorgensson]

50 50, on 06 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

@Jep.
The answer to that is no. It will no longer be a requirement to have 3 variants of a single chassis to unlock the next level.

Need to keep in mind everyone that what was shown was a mock up of the skill tree. We still know way too little about it.

This thread should probably be moved to General discussion btw.

Thanks for putting my mind to ease.