154 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MechaBattler, on 02 February 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

With quirks going away or being baked into base performance.

Quirks aren't going away, Russ has confirmed that a long time ago because they heard enough complaints that mechs like the Vindi will need it. What they look like after this skill tree change is still up for debate though because they have still been vague about what quirks will stay.

[Tristan Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

Complexity doesn't directly translate to depth which is the problem. I don't want complexity added to the game for the sake of complexity because it only works at distracting the player (specifically new ones) with unnecessary crap. That's where the problem stems from.

That goes without saying. But in the case of both the MMORPGs I was citing, and the original PGI dev logs about role warfare, the point of complexity would be to have depth. Both in terms of how you play as an individual and in terms of how "classes" work together. PGI has long since moved away from the idea of classes, however. But there's still separate skill trees, even if they aren't called Scout, Commander, Assault or whatever.

Edited by Tristan Winter, 02 February 2017 - 01:36 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tristan Winter, on 02 February 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

That goes without saying. But in the case of both the MMORPGs I was citing, and the original PGI dev logs about role warfare, the point of complexity would be to have depth.

Oh I'm aware of the intent to add complexity in the hopes of adding depth, I just think it is folly to think that will be the case. Similar to how people think adding different weapon manufacturers will magically add depth, it is a cool idea/concept don't get me wrong, but how it works once min/maxers figure things out the reality is that all that extra complexity ends up just muddying the waters.

[DrxAbstract]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

It wouldn't add depth, because the choice would eventually fall to one that is most optimal for the role of that weapon. For example if there were different PPCs, the one that most fits with the high heat PPFLD role the PPC currently enjoys would be the one that is used over all the others. Sure it is nice to discover yourself which one that is, in a single player game, but in a multiplayer game, especially one that doesn't gate players much that is bad.

So people picking the manufacturer whose variant of PPC best fits their desired use of PPCs is... bad? Sniping isnt the only way to use PPCs because let's be clear: Being 'popular' does not automatically mean 'best'. It's an ideological use of an available weapon with associated pros and cons, that's it.

You may have it in your head weapons have one specific optimal 'role' and you're certainly welcome to play that way, but that's not the reality nor is it a basis for dismissing the concept of variable weaponry in MWO, because weapons are functionally viable in a variety of roles and the fact we have different play styles that employ different and overlapping weapon schemes is evidence enough there would never be a "one-type-fits-all" scenario.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DrxAbstract, on 02 February 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

So people picking the manufacturer whose variant of PPC best fits their desired use of PPCs is... bad?

It isn't bad per se, just sub-optimal, because weapons tend to fulfill a narrow role. Just like you will end up finding with this new skill tree depending on how many options are available per weapon, there will be a dominant trend with what people tend to focus on leveling first. For example lasers will be about 3 things depending on what the laser is: duration (for non-pulse lasers, range (all of them), and heat generation (all of them). PPCs will see something similar, with heat gen and velocity being the most focused on aspects.

Just like with quirks you will see certain stats are more important than others because of the weapon's role.

DrxAbstract, on 02 February 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

Sniping isnt the only way to use PPCs because let's be clear: Being 'popular' does not automatically mean 'best'.

I never implied that, that is a leap you made all on your own.

DrxAbstract, on 02 February 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

You may have it in your head weapons have one specific optimal 'role' and you're certainly welcome to play that way

While some don't (Gauss for example was just great at everything at one point), in the interest of good weapon balance and due to the sheer volume of different weapons we will eventually have, yes, weapons should ideally be optimal at one role otherwise we run the risk of overlap and run into the same problem we have been trying to deal with for years now, and that is weapons be picked over others because they are competing for the same role which hurts weapon diversity.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 February 2017 - 01:53 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

It isn't bad per se, just sub-optimal, because weapons tend to fulfill a narrow role. Just like you will end up finding with this new skill tree depending on how many options are available per weapon, there will be a dominant trend with what people tend to focus on leveling first. For example lasers will be about 3 things depending on what the laser is: duration (for non-pulse lasers, range (all of them), and heat generation (all of them). PPCs will see something similar, with heat gen and velocity being the most focused on aspects.

That's making a lot of assumptions concerning how multiple weapon variants would work. You're also assuming x type will also have y and z features, which there's no evidence of (Because the system doesnt exist).

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

Just like with quirks you will see certain stats are more important than others because of the weapon's role.

Again, there's no singular 'role' for weapons in MWO. SRMs can be used for Brawling, Hit and Run, Harassing, etc. and PPCs are not limited to long-range exchanges. As long as weapons can be used in a variety of methods, all of which are uniquely desirable, there will be variation in the preferred type of weapon variant used... i.e. The preferred brawling SRM variant would not be ideal for Hit and Run style fighting.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

I never implied that, that is a leap you made all on your own.

Never said you did - It was a "for instance".

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

While some don't (Gauss for example was just great at everything at one point), in the interest of good weapon balance and due to the sheer volume of different weapons we will eventually have, yes, weapons should ideally be optimal at one role otherwise we run the risk of overlap and run into the same problem we have been trying to deal with for years now, and that is weapons be picked over others because they are competing for the same role which hurts weapon diversity.

We have multiple long-range options in the game and the exact scenario you're describing exists because PGI fails at balancing and for no other reason. We have Ballistics, Missiles and Energy because variety and rock vs paper vs scissor matters, which PGI still hasn't quite grasped. Overlap is an essential component to balancing the weapons, otherwise you're setting the game up for more of the typical 'X weapons are best for brawling so X hardpoint-heavy Mech variants rule the brawling scene' because no other weapon type can compete... You're literally saying the solution is the problem and citing the resultant issues as being caused by the solution.

[Tristan Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

Oh I'm aware of the intent to add complexity in the hopes of adding depth, I just think it is folly to think that will be the case. Similar to how people think adding different weapon manufacturers will magically add depth, it is a cool idea/concept don't get me wrong, but how it works once min/maxers figure things out the reality is that all that extra complexity ends up just muddying the waters.

I assume your point is that PGI isn't capable, rather than that it's impossible to make MWO (a glorified arena shooter) any deeper than it currently is.

I agree with that. Hence my two concerns posted earlier in this thread.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tristan Winter, on 02 February 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I assume your point is that PGI isn't capable, rather than that it's impossible to make MWO (a glorified arena shooter) any deeper than it currently is.

It is more than PGI isn't capable, it is the fact that certain choices matter more for certain roles than others to the point that you are always going to end up with a bunch of worthless "choices" in a skill tree. In the end you add a lot of complexity and end up with a shallow level of depth. Not to mention you make balancing (even if PGI weren't part of the equation) much harder to balance especially if it isn't setup on a variant by variant basis.

In other words, I think it is a waste of time, if we want depth then we need to focus on balancing the mechs and stop caring about these extraneous things like skill trees to do that.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 February 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[Tristan Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

It is more than PGI isn't capable, it is the fact that certain choices matter more for certain roles than others to the point that you are always going to end up with a bunch of worthless "choices" in a skill tree. In the end you add a lot of complexity and end up with a shallow level of depth. Not to mention you make balancing (even if PGI weren't part of the equation) much harder to balance especially if it isn't setup on a variant by variant basis.

In other words, I think it is a waste of time, if we want depth then we need to focus on balancing the mechs and stop caring about these extraneous things like skill trees to do that.

Ah, in that case, I disagree 100%.

[Gas Guzzler]

Tristan Winter, on 02 February 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

Ah, in that case, I disagree 100%.

Its a legitimate concern that we will just end up with certain skill sets are "meta" skills, and the majority will remain unused.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 02 February 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

Its a legitimate concern that we will just end up with certain skill sets are "meta" skills, and the majority will remain unused.

Even with PGI taken out of the equation this is a concern.

[Marius Evander]

Bud Crue, on 02 February 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

I sure hope they have thought this through.

[Deathlike]

If there isn't a PTS by sometime next week, we're going to get it whether we like it or not (aka feedback won't matter until next month).

[FupDup]

The big thing that has me up in arms is the fact that the roundtable confirmed that the new Skill Tree WILL require C-Bills in addition to the usual XP. This is an atrocity. Can we not have any break from the Paulconomy, ever?



Beyond that, I do actually support the overall initiative at least on an ideological scale. The new Skillz Tree lets you customize your skillz, and customization is (contrary to some peoples' opinions) a major cornerstone of the PC Mechwarrior series. Tinkering with your gundams before a mission is one of the fun parts of the series, trying to figure out that "just right" way to squeeze the most out of your robbit. Skill Tree 1.0 just gives us one more aspect to tweak and min-max to find that sweet spot.

The issue of having some "meta skills" isn't really a core problem with the Skill Tree 1.0 itself, that's a problem with balancing. The only real "core" problem is the C-Bill requirement. Make it purely XP like it was meant to be and then it's just a matter of buffing/nerfing/adding skills to balance them out against each other.

I'm expecting the specific values of the skill tree to be screwed up in many cases, but that's an easy XML fix. But then again, so are weapons and those rarely get touched...

Edited by FupDup, 02 February 2017 - 08:00 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

OK check ... now start up the brain ...



OK what do I think the skill tree will be like and what do I plan to test out first?

Well my evil friends ...



I plan to get out my bigger mechs ... like my Atlas Boars Head and Direwolf Prime (with CBill bonus) and start re building them. Rebuilding them yes but not the way you are thinking. I plan to start slowly testing out the new skill tree by selecting a point and then play a match. Select another point in their skill tree, and then play another match. I will continue till I find a nice happy feeling of this is what I want.

Having been playing for so long I know what builds I like for what mechs now I will have to know what skill tree setup I want for the mech. It will take time but the best evil plans always do.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Sorry, I didn't even notice you had responded DrxAbstract.

DrxAbstract, on 02 February 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

That's making a lot of assumptions concerning how multiple weapon variants would work. You're also assuming x type will also have y and z features, which there's no evidence of (Because the system doesnt exist).

Well you can't change too much otherwise it becomes another weapon, there is only so much you can change. For example burst fire standard ACs compete with UACs and eventually RACs, they lose all their distinctness if you change them like that and then they directly compete with other burst fire oriented ACs.

DrxAbstract, on 02 February 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Again, there's no singular 'role' for weapons in MWO. SRMs can be used for Brawling, Hit and Run, Harassing

I don't mean role quite that way. SRMs and LBX directly compete because both are FLD spread weapons that are practically knife fighting weapons because of their spread. PPCs are a mid-long range high heat PPFLD weapon. There will always be more optimal versions of these, I'd be hard-pressed to see ANY developer correctly balance not only the some odd weapons we already have, but ALL of their variants.

DrxAbstract, on 02 February 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

We have multiple long-range options in the game

Sure, we have multiple long-range options in the game, but they all fulfill different roles. Whether it be burst hit-scan (ERLL), PPFLD alphas (Gauss/PPCs) or burst/sustain projectiles (UAC2/AC2). Within those roles though, there is only so many variations you can do before you reach some threshold of different kinds before you start creating things like the AC10 which is caught in a very precarious spot of usefulness.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 February 2017 - 09:13 PM.

[Major Tomm]

PGI has been using Quirks to balance Inner Sphere vs Clan. How will that be retained in the new Skill Tree system?

[LordNothing]

my preperations are as such

MASTER ALL THE THINGS

im far enough along that this is totally within my grasp, i had mastered 3 of everything as of a few months ago, and have been grinding 4th and 5th varients all this time. especially with a month long wad of active premium time running as we speak.

now i currently am working on 14 mechs, many in this batch are all basic or better, about a third are elited. it will take many days to complete the stack. in addition to those there are 4 mechs that i have not bought yet, i will throw away some of the weaker mechs, and all the redundant night gyrs to free up the bays for those, i just have to master em first. a little monkey wrench in all of this is the huntsman release, which will add 5 expensive clan mechs to the pile. at least 9 of the 14 will be downcycled (cashed in to buy the next). id like to keep as many mechs as possible, but my goal is to not have a single unmastered mech in all 125 of my bays.

[Clownwarlord]

Major Tomm, on 02 February 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

PGI has been using Quirks to balance Inner Sphere vs Clan. How will that be retained in the new Skill Tree system?

They will probably add their quirks to be base stats for that mech and then the skill tree will just be what the pilot or player decides to add to those "new" base stats. Although that is assuming they will add the quirks to the current base stats.

[RestosIII]

Clownwarlord, on 02 February 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

That's not tinfoil. It's either steel or aluminum.