138 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

Dee Eight, on 09 February 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

Myself I thought the reason to run medium lasers was that six of them were 30 damage for 6 tons at 270 meters all to the same spot.

That's actually a very good reason.

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

So I have taken my most mixed build that I still find fun to play and skilled it as I had before.
The config is (and I know its silly but strangly works for me as a support for others)

Loki
ER-PPC+ Cooldown module
LRM10
ECM
TC II
3ERMED
4ERSmall
Radar-Derp

Trying to mimic this I spend 71/91 points, leaving out upper mech. That needs a rework of placements IMO.
My PPC not only has a cooldown now but also a velocity quirk and heat quirk. So its better then before.
Got the entire lower chassis quirks, nearly all MechOperation and Sensor quirks.

So with the last 10 points I can either improve one of the weapons, armor, structure or upper chassis.
In result my mech can perform even better with the new set then the old rules. Now tell me that you can't do the same.

Of course it's better - it's Clan. Clan Mechs had very little to no quirks, so practically everything in this skill tree buffs them in a form of power creep. The IS got nerfed though through the reduction of its quirks.

Basically, if you have a Clan Mech, this skill tree helps you. However, if you have an IS Mech, you have to spend a lot of your points to get your old TTK back, which leaves you with too few to really flesh out your offensive abilities.

[Nesutizale]

1) These are constantly changeing. Thats why I prefere mechs without them. The whining I get from a friend about their mech beeing not usefull anymore...sweet tears.

2) You can have them in the new system too.

3) That didn't change

4) Again has nothing to do with the skill system

5) Also has nothing to do with the skill system.

So only point 2 of your list has something to do with the skill system at all.
So how many weapon modules do you use and how many other modules?
Can you copy these with the new system?

[Nightmare1]

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

1) These are constantly changeing. Thats why I prefere mechs without them. The whining I get from a friend about their mech beeing not usefull anymore...sweet tears.

2) You can have them in the new system too.

3) That didn't change

4) Again has nothing to do with the skill system

5) Also has nothing to do with the skill system.

So only point 2 of your list has something to do with the skill system at all.
So how many weapon modules do you use and how many other modules?
Can you copy these with the new system?

Point 1) was reduced and, in some cases, removed, which makes it harder to run mixed builds.

Regarding Point 2), modules can be mimicked in the new system, but to do so wastes a lot of valuable modes on junk stuff you don't need, which takes away from the number of nodes that available to buff your offensive stats. Mixed builds, arguably, need more offensive nodes in order to make themselves more viable. Take that away, and, when combined with Point 1), you lose your reason to even keep that Mech.

[Nesutizale]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

That's actually a very good reason.



Of course it's better - it's Clan. Clan Mechs had very little to no quirks, so practically everything in this skill tree buffs them in a form of power creep. The IS got nerfed though through the reduction of its quirks.

Basically, if you have a Clan Mech, this skill tree helps you. However, if you have an IS Mech, you have to spend a lot of your points to get your old TTK back, which leaves you with too few to really flesh out your offensive abilities.

So you argue with quirks that the skillsystem is bad?
That are two very different parts.

That a Mech without the quirks is not playable is because its a bad design. (Personal point of view)
If you have a problem with a mech beeing useless without the quirks ask PGI to keep the quirks and add the skillsystem on top.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

I haven't moved the goal posts. From the start, I was speaking about how it impacts Mechs across the board, and you asked for a specific example. Off the top of my head, the BLR-1S was the first Mech I thought of, so I ran with it.

All this time, you've yet to actually listen to what I had to say, because you were already prepared with a reply that fit your predisposed interpretation of what I was saying. In short, you expected me to argue a certain point, so you have been counter-arguing that this entire time, without ever stopping to realize what it is I'm actually saying.



Not really. A lot of the Mechs are already barely viable. This skill tree makes them less so, to the point where there really isn't any reason to run them.



Once again, you miss the point. In the current system, I can run MLs and still be effective because the Mech quirks and my design mesh. Now, however, I have to focus on either the AC/20 or the SRMs. There's zero reason to take the MLs now and, if I focus on the SRMs, then the AC/20 is also much less effective.

Once again, you are looking at this from the perspective of a meta player who expects everyone to just follow his example, rather than from the perspective that not everyone wants to run the exact same, boring Mech all the time.



That's my point; the problems already exist, but the skill tree is making them worse. Rather than the skill tree being fairly impartial, as it currently is, the new skill tree actively pushes you into running cookie-cutter meta builds that you may not want to use.



This is why you can't discuss things with a meta tryhard. As I said, you expect everyone to do exactly as you do and absolutely cannot comprehend how anyone can have fun running anything that did not come out of your cookie cutter.

Frankly, mixed builds are not as viable as meta Mechs. That's a given. There's no need to further marginalize them though, as this new skill tree does. That's the issue I'm driving at.




Boating is always better, yes. I'm not even asking that the skill tree favor one side or the other. Nor am I asking that it be used to balance the two. I'm simply asking that PGI not push boating on us. The current skill tree is impartial, so why can't the new one be too?



I haven't attacked you yet. Nothing I've said has been anything other than fact. If you take offense at being a meta tryhard, then stop expecting everyone to be happy min/maxing the way you are. Not everyone wants to be a meta flunky.

You are going back and forth with "I don't care about running the optimal loadout" and "There's no point in running this weapon now because it lost the 10% bonus". When I said its not optimal in the first place, you say "You meta tryhard, I don't want to run my builds like you", and when I say "We are talking about marginal differences here and there" you say "Without the 10% bonus, its not even worth bringing and the build is no longer viable". Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

You keep calling me a meta tryhard and you called that other guy a nitwit for missing the point, so yeah you are attacking

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 09 February 2017 - 03:06 PM.

[Nesutizale]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Point 1) was reduced and, in some cases, removed, which makes it harder to run mixed builds.

Regarding Point 2), modules can be mimicked in the new system, but to do so wastes a lot of valuable modes on junk stuff you don't need, which takes away from the number of nodes that available to buff your offensive stats. Mixed builds, arguably, need more offensive nodes in order to make themselves more viable. Take that away, and, when combined with Point 1), you lose your reason to even keep that Mech.

1) That is again a problem that has still nothing to do with the skill system. If a mech needs a flat bonus from the start to be playable ask PGI to keep it.

2) I can agree that the skilltree isn't in optimal shape but thats something else then you argueing that it boosts boats over mixed mechs. Its bad tree placement....and it is bad for ALL the mechs.

[Nightmare1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

You are going back and forth with "I don't care about running the optimal loadout" and "There's no point in running this weapon now because it lost the 10% bonus". When I said its not optimal in the first place, you say "You meta tryhard, I don't want to run my builds like you", and when I say "We are talking about marginal differences here and there" you say "Without the 10% bonus, its not even worth bringing and the build is no longer viable". Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

You keep calling me a meta tryhard and you called that other guy a nitwit for missing the point, so yeah you are attacking

You act like it needs to be min/maxed to run it at all and that, if it isn't you shouldn't even try to bolster your stats. I'm in the middle. I want to run a mixed build, but I also want it to be functional enough that I can put up a good match score. I'm not min/maxing my Mech, but I will partially min/max the weapons on it so that my Mech is viable. If I have three systems, I will partially min/max two of them and then rely on the quirks to buff the third. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do that as a compromise between the systems in order to have something that is entertaining and different while still remaining viable.

My point with regard to this skill tree, is that you can't go half-way anymore. You can no longer partially min/max a couple systems and then just rely on quirks, because the quirks often aren't there anymore, and partially min/maxing no longer provides the same advantages. Now it's truly all or nothing.

[MacClearly]

Gas Guzzler, on 08 February 2017 - 11:10 PM, said:

I have seen several concerns regarding how the skill tree encourages boating. One thing some may not be considering, is if you are purely boating, you have to contend with Ghost Heat, which is definitely a downside.

Another note, this is the same situation with the current module system.

If the skill point pool is lowered, I could see this being more of an issue, but as is I think its not bad.

Personally my issue is it favours all in over balance because of how things are hidden behind other things you don't want. So I can get my mechs back to the speek tweak I am used to at the cost of torso speed or vice versa. To take a little of both makes my mech worse than it is currently. Personally not liking that but if it is forced on everyone I guess we shall see.

Also with modules I can sync up med lasers and srms distance or mess with uac cooldown to sync them up. Not getting the same effect with being able to do that with two weapons systems here except to a couple on both trees and investing in two weapons means giving up on armour or mobility or tech. So far my experience is this is a giant nerf to balanced mechs and a huge buff to boating gunships.

[Nightmare1]

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

So you argue with quirks that the skillsystem is bad?
That are two very different parts.

That a Mech without the quirks is not playable is because its a bad design. (Personal point of view)
If you have a problem with a mech beeing useless without the quirks ask PGI to keep the quirks and add the skillsystem on top.

No, I am arguing that the nerfs this PTS brings combined with the poor design of the skill system are bad. Neither you nor Gas seem to get that though. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

The new system encourages boating while discouraging mixed builds. The old system treated both the same in an impartial manner. Of course meta players will prefer the new system because it panders to them. However, that's not right, and the system should be impartial like the old one.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

1) That is again a problem that has still nothing to do with the skill system. If a mech needs a flat bonus from the start to be playable ask PGI to keep it.

2) I can agree that the skilltree isn't in optimal shape but thats something else then you argueing that it boosts boats over mixed mechs. Its bad tree placement....and it is bad for ALL the mechs.

1) It's related to the skill tree because those quirks were nerfed to accommodate the tree. Without the new tree, we'd still have those quirks.

2) It is bad design, but it is not bad for all Mechs. It actually buff boats.

[Nesutizale]

So since IS is worse with the lost quirks...tried my Warhammer.

2ERL
4MP
2SRM3+A

Invested into Laser and Pulse, got my defence up, maxed lower chassis, nearly maxed Sensors and Mech Operations.

Still results in a good mech and I got 9 nodes to spend.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Some people are just looking from the *** end of things. By the logic of "X is best anyway, let's leave things at that because X is the best anyway because its the best" we could just cease on any attempts of balance. By that logic, we should still stay in the poptart meta of 2012 or whenever that was exactly, don't remeber. The game would be probably dead by now, but whatever, if somethings best while the other alternatives have unintended artificial drawbacks - no problem. Whatever.

Jesus, think of the actual strengths of this game. Not from your "I smash peeps with best builds because best builds are the best builds" perspective.

The more viable builds are there, the better it is for the game. It makes it less repetivive in the long run, it makes people more attached to it by allowing them to tinker in mechs themselves. There will always be best mechs and best builds, sure. BUT, the more viable builds there is, the better. Meta gamers should remember about it if they want to have anybody to play against and a game that won't get shut down due to playerbase leaving.

I play this game for 2 years now, and never EVER used a single meta mech (in terms of both build and chassis). LPL Banshee hero I won at some tournament was probably the closest one. And I had tons of fun, because I could come up with my own builds that weren't as good as top tier 1 at metamechs, but were still close enough to compete, and they were mine. Actually, most of the long-run players I know make their own build somewhere between meta and fun (because 1-click ponies get damn boring for most people after some time).
The problem with the new system - there probably won't be any runner ups good enough to bother using them. It will be go boat or go away. You want people to go away? Because I will go. Not as a protest, just out of boredom. Tinkering in mechs and making strange, but still working builds is the last thing that keeps me here after two years. This is how I have fun with this game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the skill tree itself, allow me to quote myself:

In term of weapon skills, there should be only one tree, with universal range nodes, universal cooldown nodes and universal "quality" (or whatever) nodes that would improve weapon-specific aspects (lbx+srm+lrm spread, gauss charge time, MG CoF, uac jam chance). It does not limit your choice at all, as you get your nodes for your weapons anyway. Additionally, it makes you less likely to need a respec if you want to switch a weapon or two.

For boaters, it will make no difference, they will pick skills just like under current PTS, while mixed builds will not have an additional, artificial disadvantage, they really not need to be kept in check.

Any other solution punishes people additionally for daring not to boat. It's detrimental to the game at best.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 09 February 2017 - 03:25 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

You act like it needs to be min/maxed to run it at all and that, if it isn't you shouldn't even try to bolster your stats. I'm in the middle. I want to run a mixed build, but I also want it to be functional enough that I can put up a good match score. I'm not min/maxing my Mech, but I will partially min/max the weapons on it so that my Mech is viable. If I have three systems, I will partially min/max two of them and then rely on the quirks to buff the third. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do that as a compromise between the systems in order to have something that is entertaining and different while still remaining viable.

That's not how I think. You came off as more of a tryhard to me because you were getting hung up on losing some marginal bonuses. And frankly, the amount of change we are talking about here is not going to affect your match score much if it all. I don't really think mixed build are as on the knife's edge as you are claiming. If its a halfway decent mixed build now, its not going to get much worse from the skill tree. In some cases it might even get better, when compared to how other mechs also were changed for the PTS.

I run all sorts of mechs, I have leveled every single mech released lately, some of which HAD to be mixed builds.

Prof RJ Gumby, on 09 February 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Some people are just looking from the *** end of things. By the logic of "X is best anyway, let's leave things at that because X is the best anyway because its the best" we could just cease on any attempts of balance. By that logic, we should still stay in the poptart meta of 2012 or whenever that was exactly, don't remeber. The game would be probably dead by now, but whatever, if somethings best while the other alternatives have unintended artificial drawbacks - no problem. Whatever.

Jesus, think of the actual strengths of this game. Not from your "I smash peeps with best builds because best builds are the best builds" perspective.

Missing the point lol.

I run primarily non-boats. May come as a surprise to some of you people.

[Nesutizale]

I can see a more compressed weapons node as a option. AC, UAC and LBX have many things in common. Why not make all the common one, one skilltree and leave just the special parts like spread and so on for a seperate tree?

My favorite idea is to remove weapon skils at all and just give weapons themself quirks. Combine that with a little lore like "this Armstrong Autocannon is realy accurate" and you can have very different builds.
Hell even mix your ACs from different vendors/quirks just for the fun of it ^__°

I could see a System where all Componets of a Mech can be bought with different quirks (positiv and negativ). A new mech starts with "no quirks/skills" and you then upgrade it to your likeing.
Put in a different Autocannon, LRM or Sensors. Buy these special heatsinks that glow in the night (I know they are not but that would be fun too)

A System like that would make for a real diversive build of a mech as you can only put in one Sensor sytem...so do I take Derp or Seismic?
Do I use more weapons with range or the one that jams less?


PS: Wish for every time I get a like for that idea my original threat about this would be bumped
https://mwomercs.com...lls-to-weapons/

Edited by Nesutizale, 09 February 2017 - 03:42 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

I can see a more compressed weapons node as a option. AC, UAC and LBX have many things in common. Why not make all the common one, one skilltree and leave just the special parts like spread and so on for a seperate tree?

My favorite idea is to remove weapon skils at all and just give weapons themself quirks. Combine that with a little lore like "this Armstrong Autocannon is realy accurate" and you can have very different builds.
Hell even mix your ACs from different vendors/quirks just for the fun of it ^__°

I could see a System where all Componets of a Mech can be bought with different quirks (positiv and negativ). A new mech starts with "no quirks/skills" and you then upgrade it to your likeing.
Put in a different Autocannon, LRM or Sensors. Buy these special heatsinks that glow in the night (I know they are not but that would be fun too)

A System like that would make for a real diversive build of a mech as you can only put in one Sensor sytem...so do I take Derp or Seismic?
Do I use more weapons with range or the one that jams less?

I could go for that. Even right now, I generally only take either Derp or Seismic wince most Mechs only have one Mech Module slot anyways. The freebie you get for Mastering is typically spent on a weapon module since most my Mechs are mixed builds.

Personally, I like how MW Tactics did their weapons. Each different manufacturer had its own quirks. Some gave range bonuses, some heat bonuses and (since it was TT-style) some yielded terrain bonuses. We could do something similar with range, heat, cooldown, accuracy (for weapons with a CoF), and velocity. It would add a lot more character to the game.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

Missing the point lol.
I run primarily non-boats. May come as a surprise to some of you people.

Actually, it is suprising. So why do you defend an additional artificial bonus to boats? Is more balance between varying options a bad thing? More viable builds good enough to bother* using them is a bad thing somehow?

In simplest, simplistic words: in the current live sytem, about 90% of all builds you could physically make are worthless, in a very small part because of the module sytem. With the new system, about 95% of builds you will be able to physically make will be worthless, because of BIGGER artificial penalties for non-boating. There is a proposal to limit or eliminate those artificial penalties, so the number of possible worthless builds will go down to maybe about 85%, thus providing more customisation and variety to the game...

....so what do you find wrong with it? How is the fact that there is a chance to make the gap between meta and runner ups smaller wrong in your eyes?


*good enough to bother is very subjective, probably unique for every players. Still, the better the runner ups, the more good enough to bother builds for everyone.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 09 February 2017 - 03:45 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 09 February 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

Actually, it is suprising. So why do you defend an additional artificial bonus to boats? Is more balance between varying options a bad thing? More viable builds good enough to bother* using them is a bad thing somehow?

In simplest, simplistic words: in the current live sytem, about 90% of all builds you could physically make are worthless, in a very small part because of the module sytem. With the new system, about 95% of builds you will be able to physically make will be worthless, because of BIGGER artificial penalties for non-boating. There is a proposal to limit or eliminate those artificial penalties, so the number of possible worthless builds will go down to maybe about 85%, thus providing more customisation and variety to the game...

....so what do you find wrong with it? How is the fact that there is a chance to make the gap between meta and runner ups smaller wrong in your eyes?


*good enough to bother is very subjective, probably unique for every players. Still, the better the runner ups, the more good enough to bother builds for everyone.

Its more just that everybody is making a big deal about having to sacrifice 5% cooldown or so on some of their weapons and pretending like that is a huge detriment, when it really isn't. In my experience, after 2 weapon types, your third and fourth weapon types are usually small fractions of your overall firepower so, compared to not having all of your weapons moduled as you would now, its not a huge detriment.

I have no qualms with a general weapon tree, or proposals to allow for bonus skill points when you have a more mixed build, as long as it can't be abused (like taking an MG or SL to get bonus skills).

[Nesutizale]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

I could go for that. Even right now, I generally only take either Derp or Seismic wince most Mechs only have one Mech Module slot anyways. The freebie you get for Mastering is typically spent on a weapon module since most my Mechs are mixed builds.

Personally, I like how MW Tactics did their weapons. Each different manufacturer had its own quirks. Some gave range bonuses, some heat bonuses and (since it was TT-style) some yielded terrain bonuses. We could do something similar with range, heat, cooldown, accuracy (for weapons with a CoF), and velocity. It would add a lot more character to the game.

Maybe we should make this a big point for PGI to work on instead of the Skilltree. Would be quite some work but should be worth it. It brings diversity in builds with adding more lore flavor to it. Something miss so much in this game.
Still hope that when Solaris comes they add a little bit of lore into it. They missed their chance with faction warfare...where it would be so easy to get a temp to copy/past Sarna.net into the game.

[Nightmare1]

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

Maybe we should make this a big point for PGI to work on instead of the Skilltree. Would be quite some work but should be worth it. It brings diversity in builds with adding more lore flavor to it. Something miss so much in this game.
Still hope that when Solaris comes they add a little bit of lore into it. They missed their chance with faction warfare...where it would be so easy to get a temp to copy/past Sarna.net into the game.

The weapons stuff has been floated before, but PGI shot it down because it would add "complexity" to the game.

[Nesutizale]

Question, how many here rebuild their mechs in the testbuild and tried it out?
So far I had surprisingly good matches....thats mostly why I also think that a mixed build with two weapon systems brought up with two major quirks/modules each actualy works well in the aspect of beeing still fun to play.

You just have to put a lot more thoughts into your skilling then before.
Also I can understand the problem of quirks beeing gone. As I said its not the first time and PGI even said that if they see that they removed to much they will bring them back. So play a lot. Give them the numbers that show what mechs underperforme and let them do their job.

[Nesutizale]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

The weapons stuff has been floated before, but PGI shot it down because it would add "complexity" to the game.

But...but...I like it complex.
Frankly whats so complex is that it is a shitload of work to figure out all the stats, manufactures and balance all of that.
Also its a lot for new players to look at when the weaponscreen show 200 AC2s (sarcasm) but it could be managed with simple sort functions.

I know what I talk about...I am currently trying to build my own boardgame and getting "real world" on the one side and playable on the other side into one palyable and understandable thing is a nightmare.

Hell if I would know that they would even look at it and realy concider it, I would even devote some of my time to get that kind of system up and running.