Increased time to kill
9
Say Something Positive About The Pts...
Started by CK16, Feb 09 2017 10:24 AM
62 replies to this topic
#62
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 320 posts
Member
- LocationBristol UK
Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:20 AM
First thing the skill tree does is increase the time to kill. Now I am not sure they needed the skill tree to do that but the fact that now for most weapons you get only 5% cooldown slows rate of fire and changes the dynamic. I think this is good
It has personally made me think about other mechs and how I use them. The balance between mobility armour and info is rather interesting. For example all my brawlers start with me maxing out the armour and structure and then scaling back as I feel I need other thing that would promote variety in builds. My lights start with movement and then heat and then weapons last of all you are not looking for DPS you are looking at hit and run with the emphasis on run. The idea of 40 point alpha light has always troubled me now you can make the choice do I prioritise the hit or the run and what compromises do I make.
The spread in both LBX and Missile are interesting. It seems to have replaced higher DPS with accuracy, for example the spread is reduced by as much as 20% which in a brawl make is the LBX feel like a dual munition able to crit and also do pin point damage (something that lore allows with the dual ammo of slug and buckshot). The SRM is another one which makes the brawl deadlier.
The rule of three going is also interesting. It would mean that I would buy a Hellbringer buy the right omnipods and create a decent mech without having two variant I just would not use. It may mean that having two WHM-6R I may have one which is a 2 UAC5 5ML design on one and a 3LPL -2SPL build on the other but may not buy the WHM-6D as it does not buy me enough over the 6R. I also means that I could take a chance on a mech which I may be less likely to buy or mechs which are given as loyalty but are never used because leveling them up would be costly. Now I may take my loyalty WVR and try and run it but will it also will thin out my garage.
There are the bad things: Some of the transitions just don't make sense. If I had ECM I would not want radar dep but I would want seismic. now ECM can be changed to make it different to what it is but essentially it is seen as a higher performance radar dep at a minimum I am spending skill points on something I already and that makes no sense. There is also the ARM versus torso anomaly. If I have a design has basically no arms to speak of or that I do not use then I am wasting points on things that have no effect on my mech. Arm and Torso should not be as tightly coupled as they are. it make little sense for something like a CDA for example anyway. Indeed that is an option for have a specific skill tree for mech of certain types so ECM capable mechs have a different skill tree to those without although I am not sure what you do with omnipod swaps
If the idea is to make you take a variety of weapons, this fails 91 points would limit you. If you look at a BSW-X1 build you would have a ballistic, missile and energy essentially the old system mean that you could trade mech slot for a weapons slot but there was a basic set of items you happen to get in mastering your mech. I am not saying that this is a bad thing but it is very different and I can see some people saying they don''t like it.
In the end I bias my frontline Assaults with Armour first, a modicum of mobility, little or no info tech and attempt to fashion enough firepower. My lights are pretty much mobility based and infotech and again surprisingly firepower last. mediums depending on whether they are laser vomit or not I look at what I need for mech heat containment and cooling as a bias, as the weapon cooldowns do really buy you that much and in some cases I have made some sacrifices to help with keeping DPS high enough.
Lastly the skill tree may mean that business model which appeared to be very much mech focused changes to be more game focused. For example I would be happy to pay a MC cost to enter the competitions such a fire rooster one for example. I would also be happy to pay for new maps and indeed access to maps such as the 1v1 map and the 4 v 4 maps in training ground s for MC too or indeed buy maps and game modes. Making it mech centric to the level we have I am not sure helps the development. If the mech centric approach is to continue what it may be interesting to do is to have one variant of two or three chassis each with a different style of warfare rather than a chassis centric feel. for example for example a assassin and javelin variant in a pack would be an interesting model.
It has personally made me think about other mechs and how I use them. The balance between mobility armour and info is rather interesting. For example all my brawlers start with me maxing out the armour and structure and then scaling back as I feel I need other thing that would promote variety in builds. My lights start with movement and then heat and then weapons last of all you are not looking for DPS you are looking at hit and run with the emphasis on run. The idea of 40 point alpha light has always troubled me now you can make the choice do I prioritise the hit or the run and what compromises do I make.
The spread in both LBX and Missile are interesting. It seems to have replaced higher DPS with accuracy, for example the spread is reduced by as much as 20% which in a brawl make is the LBX feel like a dual munition able to crit and also do pin point damage (something that lore allows with the dual ammo of slug and buckshot). The SRM is another one which makes the brawl deadlier.
The rule of three going is also interesting. It would mean that I would buy a Hellbringer buy the right omnipods and create a decent mech without having two variant I just would not use. It may mean that having two WHM-6R I may have one which is a 2 UAC5 5ML design on one and a 3LPL -2SPL build on the other but may not buy the WHM-6D as it does not buy me enough over the 6R. I also means that I could take a chance on a mech which I may be less likely to buy or mechs which are given as loyalty but are never used because leveling them up would be costly. Now I may take my loyalty WVR and try and run it but will it also will thin out my garage.
There are the bad things: Some of the transitions just don't make sense. If I had ECM I would not want radar dep but I would want seismic. now ECM can be changed to make it different to what it is but essentially it is seen as a higher performance radar dep at a minimum I am spending skill points on something I already and that makes no sense. There is also the ARM versus torso anomaly. If I have a design has basically no arms to speak of or that I do not use then I am wasting points on things that have no effect on my mech. Arm and Torso should not be as tightly coupled as they are. it make little sense for something like a CDA for example anyway. Indeed that is an option for have a specific skill tree for mech of certain types so ECM capable mechs have a different skill tree to those without although I am not sure what you do with omnipod swaps
If the idea is to make you take a variety of weapons, this fails 91 points would limit you. If you look at a BSW-X1 build you would have a ballistic, missile and energy essentially the old system mean that you could trade mech slot for a weapons slot but there was a basic set of items you happen to get in mastering your mech. I am not saying that this is a bad thing but it is very different and I can see some people saying they don''t like it.
In the end I bias my frontline Assaults with Armour first, a modicum of mobility, little or no info tech and attempt to fashion enough firepower. My lights are pretty much mobility based and infotech and again surprisingly firepower last. mediums depending on whether they are laser vomit or not I look at what I need for mech heat containment and cooling as a bias, as the weapon cooldowns do really buy you that much and in some cases I have made some sacrifices to help with keeping DPS high enough.
Lastly the skill tree may mean that business model which appeared to be very much mech focused changes to be more game focused. For example I would be happy to pay a MC cost to enter the competitions such a fire rooster one for example. I would also be happy to pay for new maps and indeed access to maps such as the 1v1 map and the 4 v 4 maps in training ground s for MC too or indeed buy maps and game modes. Making it mech centric to the level we have I am not sure helps the development. If the mech centric approach is to continue what it may be interesting to do is to have one variant of two or three chassis each with a different style of warfare rather than a chassis centric feel. for example for example a assassin and javelin variant in a pack would be an interesting model.
Edited by tokumboh, 11 February 2017 - 12:14 AM.
#63
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 131 posts
Member
Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:52 AM
Positive:
as a new player, I got to know community and mindset of people who make it.
And found few pretty smart folks (only few unfortunately).
as a new player, I got to know community and mindset of people who make it.
And found few pretty smart folks (only few unfortunately).
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
