138 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

But...but...I like it complex.

Me too!

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

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.

Yeah but that wouldn't be too hard to solve if they put their minds to it. Filters! We could use filters! You know, like in the event we had an awful lot of something to look at and we wanted to sort it by type or function or...or...

Wait...didn't PGI already do that?

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

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.

Nightmare...no pun intended?

Nesutizale, on 09 February 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

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.

Yeah, I'd love to see it too. I think it would add some nice depth as well as help get around some of the weapon balancing issues.

[Gas Guzzler]

After messing with it more, I do see how ONE weapon builds have a ridiculous amount of surplus points. But once you have 2 it makes a big difference.

[Nightmare1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

After messing with it more, I do see how ONE weapon builds have a ridiculous amount of surplus points. But once you have 2 it makes a big difference.

So, you've been arguing in favor of it all this time without really exploring it???

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

So, you've been arguing in favor of it all this time without really exploring it???

Oh I explored it, I guess I just didn't realize that I only made one mech with a single weapon type, and it didn't register how much other **** I had on it.

So... 2-weapon mechs are the ones that get the shaft, but I still think that 3-4 weapon builds just shouldn't waste skill points on their 3rd and 4th weapon groups anyway because its still such a small benefit when you only have a couple small weapons.

[Nightmare1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

Oh I explored it, I guess I just didn't realize that I only made one mech with a single weapon type, and it didn't register how much other **** I had on it.

So... 2-weapon mechs are the ones that get the shaft, but I still think that 3-4 weapon builds just shouldn't waste skill points on their 3rd and 4th weapon groups anyway because its still such a small benefit when you only have a couple small weapons.

Just as a friendly recommendation, before you go to bat so hard for something, you should really explore it beyond a single test case.

Otherwise, you're arguing without fully understanding.

Have a good evening.

[MechaBattler]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

After messing with it more, I do see how ONE weapon builds have a ridiculous amount of surplus points. But once you have 2 it makes a big difference.

Well at least you admitted it's a thing.

Which is really all I wanted. Since we all know PGI will tweak things as they see fit.

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

Oh I explored it, I guess I just didn't realize that I only made one mech with a single weapon type, and it didn't register how much other **** I had on it.

So... 2-weapon mechs are the ones that get the shaft, but I still think that 3-4 weapon builds just shouldn't waste skill points on their 3rd and 4th weapon groups anyway because its still such a small benefit when you only have a couple small weapons.

That's why I think giving a 'weapons only' free point for each point you spend would work. Because you can get the skills for that second weapon free of your total pool. And anything more you have to sacrifice for.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

Just as a friendly recommendation, before you go to bat so hard for something, you should really explore it beyond a single test case.

Otherwise, you're arguing without fully understanding.

Have a good evening.

I still think you are super hypocritical about whether or not you are a fun "for the lols" player or a tryhard who cares about 10% cooldown on medium lasers, and I don't want any recommendations from you thanks.

And I also don't think its a huge monumental issue, the sky is NOT falling...

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 09 February 2017 - 06:24 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

I still think you are super hippocritical about whether or not you are a fun "for the lols" player or a tryhard who cares about 10% cooldown on medium lasers, and I don't want any recommendations from you thanks.

And I also don't think its a huge monumental issue, the sky is NOT falling...

*Shrug* I suppose that's based on whether or not you can understand my point, that PGI should not be marginalizing its casual base in an attempt to pander to meta players.

Since you're an NS meta player, of course you don't see it as the sky falling. For the rest of us though, it is troublesome indeed.

...And you misspelled, "hypocritical." That takes some of the bite out of the accusation, you know?

Edited by Nightmare1, 09 February 2017 - 06:21 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

...And you misspelled, "hypocritical." That takes some of the bite out of the accusation, you know?

Lol. I'm multitasking, can't spare my full attention for you, sorry!

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

*Shrug* I suppose that's based on whether or not you can understand my point, that PGI should not be marginalizing its casual base in an attempt to pander to meta players.

Since you're an NS meta player, of course you don't see it as the sky falling. For the rest of us though, it is troublesome indeed.

I'm not a meta player, I play all sorts of mechs. Sorry you can't understand how I think, still don't think minor buffs for backup weapons are a big deal. Lived without modules before, this is no different.

[Wintersdark]

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.

What I've found personally (and certainly with only minor testing, nothing exhaustive) is that we've got lots of skill points, and it's pretty damn easy to take two weapon trees. Even easier if you're not taking ALL the skills in a given tree.

In fact, while good for this, if anything it's kind of like you don't have to make sacrifices much at all. Somewhat, but not a lot. But as a result, there's no forced boating.

[Nightmare1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

Lol. I'm multitasking, can't spare my full attention for you, sorry!

Do you do everything half-way then? You only half-checked the PTS, and only half-post?

If you won't give something your full effort or attention the moment you do it, then don't do it at all.

[DAYLEET]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

I even had space for the JJ skills.. in case they are ever not useless.

Wait till people figure out how to use vector JJ, they allow you to change direction in the air. You need more than one equipped obviously but when i tested it(not in combat mind you) they felt awesome and allowed you to not be an easy target while being able to either get a good shot on someone or get behind cover.

[Nightmare1]

DAYLEET, on 09 February 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

Wait till people figure out how to use vector JJ, they allow you to change direction in the air. You need more than one equipped obviously but when i tested it(not in combat mind you) they felt awesome and allowed you to not be an easy target while being able to either get a good shot on someone or get behind cover.

It's still boating. If all you're running is a bunch of SRMs with a couple pulse lasers, then it's still boating.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 08:05 AM, said:

Remove the firepower skills? They are supposed to make up for weapon modules. Universal firepower skills? What happened to trying to specialize and tailor a mech to a specific role?

You mean like how the existing module system doesnt support boating? Oh wait, it does.

Besides, I thought role warfare is what we were after. Frankenmechs take away from role warfare

But really, like I said you arent actually going to benefit an appreciable amount from the skills on your backup weapons.

Just because modules encouraged boating doesn't mean we have to continue that practice. Besides, you're confusing weapon boating with specialization and roles. "Laser boat" is not a role. Nor is "Ballistics boat" or "PPC boat".

Roles encompass things like "Brawler", "Support", "Sniper", "Striker", "Harasser", etc. Fulfilling those roles doesn't require you to specialize in only one weapon type. Some mechs are incapable of such specialization.

You can brawl by pair a decently agile mech with SRMs, heavy autocannons, pulse lasers, or use any combination of the 3 as your hardpoints dictate. You can snipe with ERLLs, PPCs, double Gauss, PPC+Gauss, ER Laser + Gauss, etc. Strikers pair high burst damage with big engines, using any combination of short ranged weapons. Support mechs run the gamut from heavy LRM fire support to medium escorts that harassing strikers from vulnerable units.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

Do you do everything half-way then? You only half-checked the PTS, and only half-post?

If you won't give something your full effort or attention the moment you do it, then don't do it at all.

More like 90% checked the PTS, going back through it up to 100%, this is still not nearly one of the major issues with the skill tree. More worried about chassis balance.

[Sjorpha]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

After messing with it more, I do see how ONE weapon builds have a ridiculous amount of surplus points. But once you have 2 it makes a big difference.

Which is exactly the issue, the system encourages using a single weapon.

It's not just a matter of encouraging boating, there are obviously many mechs that can't make good 1 weapons builds. It's more about chassis that are naturally good boats being buffed much more than mechs that needs to mix 2+ weapons. So mechs like the Mauler MX90, Battlemaster 2C, Arctic Cheetah and Kodiak 3 that typically is optimal with one weapon system gets a lot of bonus skill points that other mechs don't.

I can think of three good solutions:

1: make weapon skills general instead of specific.
2: Make individualized skill trees for each mech emphazising it's role, adjust points and skills as needed for balance.
3: Make skills cost more in the top end. So for example getting a 15% skill in one weapons would cost the same as getting 10% in two weapons.

PS: that fact that modules also encouraged boating is hardly an argument that this system should. It's bad that modules encourage boating too.

Edited by Sjorpha, 09 February 2017 - 07:39 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Sjorpha, on 09 February 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

Which is exactly the issue, the system encourages using a single weapon.

It's not just a matter of encouraging boating, there are obviously many mechs that can't make good 1 weapons builds. It's more about chassis that are naturally good boats being buffed much more than mechs that needs to mix 2+ weapons. So mechs like the Mauler MX90, Battlemaster 2C, Arctic Cheetah and Kodiak 3 that typically is optimal with one weapon system gets a lot of bonus skill points that other mechs don't.

I can think of three good solutions:

1: make weapon skills general instead of specific.
2: Make individualized skill trees for each mech emphazising it's role, adjust points and skills as needed for balance.
3: Make skills cost more in the top end. So for example getting a 15% skill in one weapons would cost the same as getting 10% in two weapons.

PS: that fact that modules also encouraged boating is hardly an argument that this system should. It's bad that modules encourage boating too.

This guy gets it.

[Sjorpha]

Kaeb Odellas, on 09 February 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Just because modules encouraged boating doesn't mean we have to continue that practice. Besides, you're confusing weapon boating with specialization and roles. "Laser boat" is not a role. Nor is "Ballistics boat" or "PPC boat".

Roles encompass things like "Brawler", "Support", "Sniper", "Striker", "Harasser", etc. Fulfilling those roles doesn't require you to specialize in only one weapon type. Some mechs are incapable of such specialization.

I have to disagree, in my unit we tend to call mech roles by weapon as often as by tactical function, because quite often that is more relevant.

For example when calling what mechs to bring for a Faction play match i would typically ask for weapon system cohesion. Obviously that also entails a combat role, but SRMs and small pulse for example don't behave the same and it matters tactially which one we are bringing to a brawls. ERPPCs and ERLLs means different ways of positioning.

I might say: "wave 1 95kph+ medium with SRMS and JJs" for a specific tactic, and so on.

[Spunkmaster]

It is quite apparent that PGI's intention was to increase time-to-kill (TTK) (and rid themselves of complaints of the "three variants to elite"). The new skill tree nerfs ALL weapon systems and allows some amazing buffs to defense (armor and structure). Some tweaking and balancing are still needed. However, the new skill tree will not encourage boating like the module system does. (Besides, hard points take far more of the boating blame than anything else.) Who will miss a laser cooldown of 4% or duration of 10%? We're talking the difference of a tenth or two of a second. The points are better spent somewhere else than the firepower tab.

Now I've only been playing for seven months and haven't gone down the module road at all, except for Radar Dep. I've chosen 'Mechs and built them to their strengths and my playing style. Yes, that has limited me to 14 'Mechs in my garage right now (and slowly expanding for FP). As I have been filling out the new skill trees for my 'Mechs, I leave firepower for last. After getting through all the weapon systems, I usually have two or three leftover points that I just don't know what to do with.

Is this new system perfect? Hardly. It may,however, evolve this game into one of more skill and tactics than pure steamrolling firepower (or PPC/Gauss from 1200m). After all, our 'Mechs are simply tools, not dissimilar to hockey sticks and baseball bats. MWO should have an emphasis on team play, tactics and camaraderie anyway. It might actually be a better game in the end. Only time will tell...

[50 50]

Gas Guzzler, on 08 February 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

Yeah but there is no reasonable way to support super mixed builds like that.. even the module system had the same issue..

With mixed builds it might be more a case of working particular paths in the skill trees.
eg. Only taking the range increases.

It's also like saying you have your primary weapons, then secondaries and only get the buffs for the primaries.

If the system has less skill points, then investing points into a weapon tree should really hurt the mech in other areas. This gives balance to a mixed build which can't afford to spend so many points on weapons and can instead invest in the other trees which will create a different advantage.

This would be in contrast to a mech boating all the same type of weapon which would encourage taking that weapon skill tree.

I think having less points to spend would be beneficial in more ways than one.
I would even suggest we could use more skill tree options.

Edited by 50 50, 09 February 2017 - 11:28 PM.