154 replies to this topic

[Marius Evander]

FupDup, on 02 February 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

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?

Russ said at Mechcon the Skill tree wont cost more in XP and cbills than an elited mech + modules cost in xp / cbills.
Im more concerned about the MC respec costs, if they dont give a free respec to everyone who's skills are effected everytime they patch the skill tree's the game will not last very much longer.

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?

More points for IS to spend than Clan ?

[MechaBattler]

I will pre-order the Javelin if Russ announces PTS is tomorrow. TAKE MY MONEY!

[Tristan Winter]

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.

I know, that's the whole premise of my original post! Why are you telling me this?

Tristan Winter, on 01 February 2017 - 04:36 PM, said:

I have two concernes and they're connected.

1 - It won't really promote role warfare. That was basically the point of separate skill trees as sketched out in 2011, 2012. (Five years ago. Heh.)

2 - It won't really add any complexity or fun to the game.

At the end of the day, I think this is just going to be like modules.
Take some mech with ER PPC and gauss. If possible, level up to get speed tweak, radar derp and advanced zoom or whatever good skills are easily accessible. Add weapon skills to make your shooty guns shootier. Congratulations, your mech now... basically the same as always, but shootier.

^^^

And it's also what I've been saying in multiple threads now. My disagreement with Kalaasa was about whether an unnecessary skill tree that doesn't really add depth to the game is predicated on PGI's incompetence or whether skill trees can't really add depth to MWO, given the structure of the game.

Edited by Tristan Winter, 03 February 2017 - 02:15 AM.

[KinLuu]

A skilltree CAN add depth to MWO, depending on how it is done.

There need to be choices - if one can has all the good stuff, builds will be obvious. But if one has to decide between different, equally attractive options, there will be more variation in builds.

But right now, we have not enough information to make an informed judgement on which scenario it will be.

[Snazzy Dragon]

KinLuu, on 03 February 2017 - 02:23 AM, said:

A skilltree CAN add depth to MWO, depending on how it is done.

There need to be choices - if one can has all the good stuff, builds will be obvious. But if one has to decide between different, equally attractive options, there will be more variation in builds.

But right now, we have not enough information to make an informed judgement on which scenario it will be.

I expect the limitations to make hybrid builds even less soptimal-- why spread skills so thin for a bunch of 5%s when you can get all your points focused on a 30% for a single weapon type

Edited by Snazzy Dragon, 03 February 2017 - 02:34 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Snazzy Dragon, on 03 February 2017 - 02:28 AM, said:

I expect the limitations to make hybrid builds even less soptimal-- why spread skills so thin for a bunch of 5%s when you can get all your points focused on a 30% for a single weapon type

They'd have to give diminishing returns for more points spent on the same skill... the preview was linear though so this is not only a valid concern, it's one probable way that the new skill tree will fail in, among many others... tbh I don't envy PGI, there are so many ways to get this wrong.

[Lollercoaster]

Cadoazreal, on 02 February 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

Russ said at Mechcon the Skill tree wont cost more in XP and cbills than an elited mech + modules cost in xp / cbills.

That's like what.... 10m cbills? Per mech? Even if I just want to stick with the essentials I got for free all these years (like the speed and heat buffs)?

I am not entirely sure I understand the new system correctly, but I am slightly underwhelmed by this prospect. Guess I will just have to wait and see (and then wait some more until they fix it after the inevitable riots).

[DrxAbstract]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 09:11 PM, said:

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

I see how it is...

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 09:11 PM, said:

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.

Seems rather moot to compare Standard ACs to UACs, given they still wont have the doubletap (Which is the only distinction anyway) and Clan UACs already behave in a similar fashion as I believe RACs would. Boiled down, they're all the same gun slinging the same lead the same way with differentiated audio and visual representation... Not sure how many times you can reinvent the wheel using the same basic concept with minor differences and maintain 'variety' in this case, especially given the sheer number of Autocannon types in BattleTech. This is all beside the fact Standard Burst-fire ACs do exist in Battletech and the firing style of the AC is a point of tactical consideration--I'd love to have a burst-fire UAC5 available so I could pair them with 2 standard UAC5s on my KGC simply for the extra concussive effect.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 09:11 PM, said:

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.

Well SRMs and LBX should compete, but in MWO it's not much of a competition (Unfortunately). Balancing them is a simple numbers game: Pick a baseline for the weapon and maintain it across all variations, such as maximum potential DPS. We're also talking about adding 1 or perhaps 2 versions at most to some weapons, not all of them. Balancing weapons in general is pretty blasted easy and I suspect most of the regular balance-sensitive forumites could do it with their eyes closed in some way or another... It's just not easy for PGI.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 09:11 PM, said:

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.

And we havnt begun to approach that threshold aside from the perception thereof generated by the poor balancing methodology employed by PGI (i.e. Dartboard). The AC10 is not the result of excessive variation--It's a prime example of "Oops, we did it wrong." that stems from BattleTech itself where whoever thought it up was clearly under the impression there should be a bast*** child AC weapon with the same usage principles as an IS Small Laser... Really, it's an easy fix.

It's not so much a question of whether or not it would be good for the game or if it would add some strategic differentiation, because it definitely would. The question is whether or not PGI specifically could pull it off... In which case I think you'd have better luck staying dry while pissing into a strong wind.

[El Bandito]

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?

Many quirks (most likely durability quirks) will still stay.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

Seems rather moot to compare Standard ACs to UACs, given they still wont have the doubletap (Which is the only distinction anyway) and Clan UACs already behave in a similar fashion as I believe RACs would.

That's the problem though and honestly my biggest issue with the way MWO is handling the ACs as being direct translations from TT. The weapons really don't have a unique flavor especially once we get all the different flavors that exist in the BT universe (AC, UAC, LBX, RAC, HVAC, and LACs).

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

Boiled down, they're all the same gun slinging the same lead the same way with differentiated audio and visual representation

Yeah, that's my problem, they need more differentiation.

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

This is all beside the fact Standard Burst-fire ACs do exist in Battletech and the firing style of the AC is a point of tactical consideration--I'd love to have a burst-fire UAC5 available so I could pair them with 2 standard UAC5s on my KGC simply for the extra concussive effect.

To me, there should be no standard UAC5s because that is the entire role of standard ACs. That and the jam mechanic should be specifically RACs instead of UACs.

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

Well SRMs and LBX should compete

Well they should compete for short range weaponry, but not in a direct way like they do now (because SRMs don't have any guidance).

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

Pick a baseline for the weapon and maintain it across all variations, such as maximum potential DPS.

I know this is an example, but this is why it is more tricky than I think people realize because max DPS will most likely HAVE to change across weapons, especially if you are going to mess with firing behaviors (such as making standard ACs burst) or messing with damage/recycle times.

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

And we havnt begun to approach that threshold aside from the perception thereof generated by the poor balancing methodology employed by PGI (i.e. Dartboard). The AC10 is not the result of excessive variation--It's a prime example of "Oops, we did it wrong." that stems from BattleTech itself where whoever thought it up was clearly under the impression there should be a bast*** child AC weapon with the same usage principles as an IS Small Laser...

This isn't something that is unique to MWO though, even MW4 had a similar problem (and that includes the mods). Now I think it would easily changed if you considered allowing it to do more than 10 damage per shot, but that seems to be against the rules for people and not just PGI.

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

It's not so much a question of whether or not it would be good for the game or if it would add some strategic differentiation, because it definitely would.

The word you are looking for is depth (which is determined by the level of actual player choices and not the illusion of them), and while I think you would get weapon variety, you would not actually get depth because there would optimal choices that would either pass up other weapons of that type or other weapons (like 2 LAC5s being better than the AC10).

[DrxAbstract]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 February 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

The word you are looking for is depth (which is determined by the level of actual player choices and not the illusion of them), and while I think you would get weapon variety, you would not actually get depth because there would optimal choices that would either pass up other weapons of that type or other weapons (like 2 LAC5s being better than the AC10).

I only agree that weapons with generally designated roles, such as Long, Medium and Short range, shouldn't overlap to such a substantial degree that, as we have now for example, IS Medium Range weapons are so comparatively powerful (Read: combination of damage, range and general flexibility) that Long and Short Range is typically overshadowed.

As far as the LAC5 goes I consider requiring 2 Ballistic Hardpoints instead of 1 (That are located in close proximity to one another to make such a setup truly comparable) an acceptable trade-off and limitation for making use of the LAC5s in this manner... Also assuming the AC10 gets some much-needed tweaks. Something to note is the LAC5 is 1 ton lighter than an AC2 at 2 Critical Slots ... I predict a direct translation of the LAC5 from TT to MWO would be disastrous, particularly for the Clans (MAL-MX90, KGC-000, HBK-4G).

Edited by DrxAbstract, 03 February 2017 - 09:29 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

As far as the LAC5 goes I consider requiring 2 Ballistic Hardpoints instead of 1 (That are located in close proximity to one another to make such a setup truly comparable) an acceptable trade-off and limitation for making use of the LAC5s in this manner...

When you consider how much more limited the AC10 is, I don't really agree. I can fit 3+ LAC5s on most IS mechs, I can't do the same with AC10s. A mech being able to mount multiple AC10s is a rarity (if the Bushwacker was any proof of that).

Though I just realized the BNC-3E would be able to carry 4 LAC5s and 2 PPCs all on an XL 380 with 8 tons of ammo, this pleases me greatly.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 February 2017 - 10:10 AM.

[Mawai]

Snowbluff, on 01 February 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

I'm worried bout the IS, structure in particular, for using XL engines. D:

Clan mechs kind of work becuase of the better tech base, but the IS use quirks to catch up.

One way around this would be to give IS mechs some base amount of allocatable skill points for the tree to start with. Players could then fit out the IS mechs with the skill tree quirks they want to start with and earn the rest. If the amount of earned skills allocatable to a mech is capped but the base skill points that come with the mech aren't included this would give specific IS mechs a leg up to start with and let folks build them out how they want AND keep all the balancing within the new skill system.

[DrxAbstract]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 February 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

When you consider how much more limited the AC10 is, I don't really agree. I can fit 3+ LAC5s on most IS mechs, I can't do the same with AC10s. A mech being able to mount multiple AC10s is a rarity (if the Bushwacker was any proof of that).

Though I just realized the BNC-3E would be able to carry 4 LAC5s and 2 PPCs all on an XL 380 with 8 tons of ammo, this pleases me greatly.

MX-90 can hold 6 with 13 tons of ammo, max engine and tonnage to spare for a PPC. the KGC-000, if it wasnt for the arm spacing and height, would be mighty scary.

[Ngamok]

I would expect skill trees like in many games where the top most one costs (making this simple) 1XP per choice, the box below it 5XP per box after you've spent 5XP in boxes above, the box below that 10XP after you've spent 10XP in boxes above that and so one but have only 100XP total you can spend per mech so you can't get everything.

Will it make things diverse? Probably not. All the try hards will just go Gauss + ER PPC skills and ignore the rest. The rest of us can try out new builds instead of having certain mechs have certain quirks and making other weapon systems not have any bonuses. This we we can play the mechs we love and give them the bonuses we want.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 February 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

When you consider how much more limited the AC10 is, I don't really agree. I can fit 3+ LAC5s on most IS mechs, I can't do the same with AC10s. A mech being able to mount multiple AC10s is a rarity (if the Bushwacker was any proof of that).

Though I just realized the BNC-3E would be able to carry 4 LAC5s and 2 PPCs all on an XL 380 with 8 tons of ammo, this pleases me greatly.

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

MX-90 can hold 6 with 13 tons of ammo, max engine and tonnage to spare for a PPC. the KGC-000, if it wasnt for the arm spacing and height, would be mighty scary.

What do you feel the range on LAC5s would be in MWO, just a ROM? 350ish meters?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 03 February 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

What do you feel the range on LAC5s would be in MWO, just a ROM? 350ish meters?

More like 450m, I don't expect them to avoid 2 LAC5s being better than the AC10.

[DrxAbstract]

Gas Guzzler, on 03 February 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

What do you feel the range on LAC5s would be in MWO, just a ROM? 350ish meters?

I think the range should be proportional to the tonnage reduction, so 370-380m would be acceptable for LAC5 and 485-500 for LAC2, but this is PGI we're talking about so it would probably be something like 500 and 650, respectively.

For many IS Mechs being able to fit 3 LAC5s, Kalasa, I don't see that as an issue. Many of the Multi-Ballistic Mechs in the IS lineup that could really make use of lighter weight ACs need the help, quite honestly.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DrxAbstract, on 03 February 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

For many IS Mechs being able to fit 3 LAC5s, Kalasa, I don't see that as an issue. Many of the Multi-Ballistic Mechs in the IS lineup that could really make use of lighter weight ACs need the help, quite honestly.

I don't disagree, just saying the fact they take up two hardpoints don't really stop them from basically replacing the AC10.

[FupDup]

Cadoazreal, on 02 February 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

Russ said at Mechcon the Skill tree wont cost more in XP and cbills than an elited mech + modules cost in xp / cbills.

The problem with this is that modules can be shared between mechs, meaning that after your initial purchase the modules are completely free to be moved around whenever you want.

Is Russ assuming that we buy new modules for every new mech? That will seriously skew the results here.


In the long run, needing to purchase 75 skills per mech (more if you ever have to respec) will cost MORE than simply buying a handful of modules and sharing them across your entire garage of mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2017 - 11:43 AM.