Jump to content

Upper Chassis Vs Mechs Without Ability To Move Arms Sideways


5 replies to this topic

#1 Fox2232

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 131 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:00 AM

Hi, I have one big problem which applies to all skill trees. They go only in downward direction, as result players have to take many nodes they do not want as much (but are still helpful somehow).
That goes for Lasers, Autocannons, ...

But when it goes to UPPER CHASSIS: taking all those Arm nodes on mech where you have no weapons on arms...
That's so bad, it visually hurts as they do absolutely nothing for mech.


Other than that some boosts look bit too big and some bit too small. But in general I love them. Much more diversity.

What's good IMHO:
+ refund cost = one tree refund can be done in one or two matches so it is not prohibitive for people who will want to change stuff on mech. Increasing cost would be bad, and decreasing it below 15k would be bad too. so 20~25k seems about right with current rewards for matches.
+ All that stuff which is in trees

What's Bad:
- Initial skill cost in ComStar Bills is way too high since it is thrown away once "refunded"
- values: stuff like "Target info Gathering +3%" is nothing in comparison to "+1.25 AMS overload" or "Armor Hardening +3%"
- placement of some upgrades: Players who want Advanced Zoom are likely going to play outside of their sensor range anyway = yet another wasted points to get one point you want from entire tree.


Change Suggestions:
=> Trees: Trees should have multiple entry points (points from which player can start taking skills based on different play-styles)
=> Trees: moving to any connected node (current "Only Downwards" is very bad)
=> Cost: Initial skill cost increase from 100k to 125k. Removal cost reduced to 0k. Skill is not thrown away as it is re-attachable module to system and can be inserted back at 5k cost (cleaning pins, solder, whatever reason). If player decides to sell this removed upgrade, it will refund 25k (so total cost of gaining and throwing away upgrade will be 100k).
= = = =
Defensive Tree:
It is apparent that increasing 400 Armor by 15% is much greater bonus than increasing 150 armor by 15%.
Proposed changes based on weight class (trade-off):
Assault: Armor Hardening +3% (Speed -0.1%); Skeletal Density +6% (speed -0.1%)
Heavy: Armor Hardening +3.5% (Speed -0.2%); Skeletal Density +6.5% (speed -0.2%)
Medium: Armor Hardening +4% (Speed -0.4%); Skeletal Density +7% (speed -0.4%)
Light: Armor Hardening +4.5% (Speed -0.8%); Skeletal Density +7.5% (speed -0.8%)
"AMS Range Increase" is missing.
= = = =
Lower Chassis
Only Speed Tweak has proper value, other are way too big. (total +50% acceleration/deceleration, +30% turn speed). While I love Arctic Cheetah, this is too much.
+30% total to Acceleration/deceleration is just fine. +25% turn speed is still quite high, but with reduced acceleration, it will likely be OK.
= = = =
Jump Jets
They are kind of underwhelming and this tree is quite a waste.
Vent Calibration should give +2% bur time instead of 1%
Lift Speed should give 2.5% maybe even 3% boost to initial speed as total 5% increased starting speed is nothing.
+ Add 4th branch to tree: "Fall Damage Threshold" = increases minimum required speed at which mech has to collide with ground to take damage. (While "Defensive - Fall Damage" is for everyone, jumping mechs are much more likely to hit the ground at higher velocity.) => Make Jumpers Jump Again.
= = = =
Mech Operations
Looks like it is mostly about heat. Yet I feel like it should be only about all the non-heat related parts of tree.
(I wonder what's logic behind taking all those heat reducing nodes on mech which benefits from "Magazine Capacity" placed at very bottom)
=> Move Heat to its own tree, enrich it with "Engine Heat Reduction" = Engine generates 30% less heat while running in total 5 nodes taken (6% per node).
=> "Hill Climb" Can as well be moved to "Lower Chassis"
Remains: "Speed Retention", "Quick Ignition", "Improved Gyros", "Magazine Capacity". I would move "Advanced Zoom" Right next to "Improved Gyros".
"Magazine Capacity" does not improve AMS ammo magazine capacity?
= = = =
Sensors
"Target Info Gathering" should give same benefit to all Weight Classes. +7% Lights have would not hurt Assault Mechs too (Currently +2% = total waste).
"Seismic Sensor" should be different based on weight of mech: Light +80, Medium +90; Heavy +100; Assault +120 (Better contact with ground.)
"Target Retention" as above, size matters when it gets to signal processing: Light +180, Medium +200; Heavy +220; Assault +240
"Enhanced ECM" Should favor Light mechs over Heavy ones: Light +22.5%, Medium +20%, Heavy +17.5%, Assault +15%

Edited by Fox2232, 09 February 2017 - 01:51 PM.


#2 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,461 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:21 AM

Great post.

One thing I've seen in the official post that Mech weight classes get different bonus on some of the skills.
E.g. Armor/Structure already gets more bonus for light/med than heavy/assault.

#3 Fox2232

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 131 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:43 AM

View PostReno Blade, on 09 February 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

Great post.

One thing I've seen in the official post that Mech weight classes get different bonus on some of the skills.
E.g. Armor/Structure already gets more bonus for light/med than heavy/assault.

Yes, I noticed. And it is good. Because it means required code background is already in place. And I think that system can definitely be fine tunned before launch.

#4 Ranger Dave

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 48 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:04 AM

Definitely agree on the arm/torso. I have a number of mech's where the arms are just shields
Feels like the tree forces you to improve arms if you want to be able to use your torso.
The different bonus' to twist speed etc also seem to be fairly random.

Overall - no particular benefit to going one side of the tree or the other.
Feels like if you want to be able to maximise your torso twisting you need to take the whole dang tree :P

Suggestion: have torso and arms more distinctly separate.

#5 Omi_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • 336 posts
  • LocationWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:31 PM

I agree 100% with all but your take on the sensor tree. Rather, I neither agree nor disagree on infowars changes.

EDIT: This may be the best thread I've seen on the PTS yet.

Edited by Hornsby, 09 February 2017 - 03:32 PM.


#6 Fox2232

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 131 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:00 PM

View PostHornsby, on 09 February 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

I agree 100% with all but your take on the sensor tree. Rather, I neither agree nor disagree on infowars changes.

EDIT: This may be the best thread I've seen on the PTS yet.

That's absolutely fine as I made that Sensor tree not based on balance idealism, but as compromise between that what is implemented and bit of "real world behavior".
A lot of things in current trees feel weird, and it is more important to let developer team know why it feels bad and hint possible direction than giving perfect solutions. (But I think that my idea of buying/respecing/selling nodes is pretty close to optimal.)

I have not tested many things. I wonder how Target Info Gathering (up to +35%) + Targeting Computer (+75%) works together. From numerical perspective, it feels pretty broken.

And thanks for positive feedback.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users