56 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

So I had a discussion with some fellow teammates and I figured I'd start a similar discussion. The idea behind the skill tree was to encourage build diversity and depth to build creation. A noble goal, but ultimately a misguided one. My reasoning for this is thus:

This game has 74 chassis' (with 4 more on the way within the next few months) and almost 396 variants announced (for comparison, that is more than the first 3 generations of pokemon). The goal should never have been to create build diversity in the first place, at least between different models of mech (models being things like HBK-4G, HBK-4SP, HBK-IIC-A, etc) because that doesn't create diversity among actual chassis choice. That chassis choice is very important because it should be what is helping sell mechs, but by encouraging build diversity among the top models, instead you are making selling new mechs solely about nostalgia rather than actually adding anything to the game other than a potentially worse "skin" of another mech. That is a huge problem with this game and the fact it has a serious issue with the illusion of choice (that is there are a lot of choices, but most of them are no optimal/viable/whatever you want to term it).

This is why I have always been perfectly ok with the old skill tree, that is to say, it is universal across all mechs and you can unlock everything, the specific stuff like modules and the rule of three I wish would disappear. So yes, I believe that the choice factor shouldn't involve the skill tree at all. You shouldn't be caught between the choice of taking a tanky Griffin and a super offensive Griffin, I think this is sort of a false dichotomy setup because the REAL choice should always have been do I want a tanky Hunchback or an offensive Griffin.

[Gas Guzzler]

Yeah I hear your argument, and some people actually do see it as a bonus that they can take their favorite mech and set it up how they want. But on the other hand, we are already getting overlapping roles in game.. you have multiple tanky options and multiple offensive options for different weapons...

I was also alright with the old skill tree, but messing with the new one, I was encouraged as some of my fears weren't actually realized. I'm totally cool with the current system, but the new one opens up some new options that are cool too.

[Oberost]

Didn't PGI say that there will be different skill trees for different mechs?

Where are those different trees?

[Barantor]

The problems start appearing as we have different shaped mechs, it isn't about what they do in lore. A hunchback is supposed to be a bit tankier than a griffin in lore, so how do we represent that in the game?

Quirks were there for some mechs to highlight some of their strengths and at first they also had tied in some very specific quirks for weapons that the mech carried stock, like the AC/20 for the hunchback. Folks didn't like these being that specific as they said it took away from options and you were 'forced' (not true) to take the most effective weapon for the quirks that they provided.

Quirks were changed up so that the weapon ones were more general, but this didn't help diversity at all either as folks still gravitated to the best chassis shape rather before quirks. Those that were good shaped with preferred placed hardpoints and good quirks were at the top of the game. This caused a lot of balance changes and a lot of hurt feelings.

This new skill system is a reset of sorts. Most of the quirks are gone and you pick whatever quirks you want within the confines of the skill system. This doesn't address the hardpoint or chassis shape problems that still exist and those mechs with the preferred will still be just as strong as ever.

IF pgi can use this as a base point and start adding quirks back in to the game on top of this system then you might see it work it's way out and be better for every mech. It will take time of course given PGI and it will not be well received because any big shift in a game folks have poured hours and hours into upsets them. A change is needed, has been needed and even if this skill system isn't done it will still be needed. I'd rather rip the band-aid off at this point than push it down the road.

I think the under-performers should definitely get preferential treatment if this skill system hits live and it should happen as fast as possible or the folks that are dissatisfied will only increase.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Barantor, on 09 February 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

Folks didn't like these being that specific as they said it took away from options and you were 'forced' (not true) to take the most effective weapon for the quirks that they provided.

This is where the actual rub is, the problem is that people want less restrictions and more depth when these are in fact at odds with each other. More restrictions translates to less overlap and thus allows for added depth with less options for min/maxing. This is the key people I think need to get over, you can't have your cake and eat it too (keeping in mind I was also one of the people that was opposed to specific quirks originally).

Barantor, on 09 February 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

This new skill system is a reset of sorts. Most of the quirks are gone and you pick whatever quirks you want within the confines of the skill system.

No, this is a terribly haphazard reset because there is a HUGE discrepancy between things like the GHR-5P and GHR-5H still with regards to base quirks.

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

I'm totally cool with the current system, but the new one opens up some new options that are cool too.

Again, it is an illusion of choice because there WILL be an optimal path for every build. Lower Chassis and Defensive are already auto-adds just like all the heat related items are auto-adds for laser boats. Seismic is also practically an auto-add for lights and assaults which rely on it the most, with weapon quirks taking up the rest of the skill points.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Again, it is an illusion of choice because there WILL be an optimal path for every build. Lower Chassis and Defensive are already auto-adds just like all the heat related items are auto-adds for laser boats. Seismic is also practically an auto-add for lights and assaults which rely on it the most, with weapon quirks taking up the rest of the skill points.

I will say here that I don't think this is necessarily an issue with the skill tree itself, but rather an issue with MWO as a whole. Like, for example, the Seismic Wallhack module is mandatory for the same reasons that the Seismic Wallhack Squirk is mandatory. It's really just exposing the underlying issues with the game in a more clear way than before.

[Pjwned]

I thought that the skill tree wasn't going to be the same for every mech.

I'm not seeing that at all here. What the hell happened?

I also think that 91 skill points is way too many, it should be half that or even less.

Edited by Pjwned, 09 February 2017 - 10:54 AM.

[Nightmare1]

How on earth do you see this as building diversity? If anything, it does the opposite and harshly punishes diverse builds.

[FupDup]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

How on earth do you see this as building diversity? If anything, it does the opposite and harshly punishes diverse builds.

He doesn't mean "building diversity" as building bracket mechs that have 8 different weapon groups. He means more customization to min-max the mech how you want it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

How on earth do you see this as building diversity? If anything, it does the opposite and harshly punishes diverse builds.

FupDup, on 09 February 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

He doesn't mean "building diversity" as building bracket mechs that have 8 different weapon groups. He means more customization to min-max the mech how you want it.

What Fup said, the skill tree was never meant to create micro scale diversity (that is, encourage mixed/bracket builds) at least from my understanding.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 February 2017 - 10:57 AM.

[Nightmare1]

FupDup, on 09 February 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

He doesn't mean "building diversity" as building bracket mechs that have 8 different weapon groups. He means more customization to min-max the mech how you want it.

Ah, so, in other words, more ways to min/max the meta cheese.

As for 8 weapon systems, I'd just like my Mechs that have three or four systems to remain viable. Mechs like this one:



It has three distinct systems. You can't do that anymore with this new skill tree. I'll have to drop the UAC and do something like this instead:



I don't want to do that though, because I already have a pulse/splat boat. This new skill tree effectively penalizes for having different tastes from the meta, and makes owning more than one Warhawk useless since I will be forced to make one a copy of the other.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

What Fup said, the skill tree was never meant to create micro scale diversity (that is, encourage mixed/bracket builds) at least from my understanding.

But that's not MechWarrior or BattleTech. That's CoD and GR:P.

"Here son, take a main gun. Now take a backup gun. Now take a Consumable Grenade. Now go out there and run around like a chicken with its head cut-off while you shoot up everything that moves!"

...Is that really what we want?

Edited by Nightmare1, 09 February 2017 - 11:03 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Would it be too complex to mix up the Skill point economy a little bit?

Say you get 200 Skill points: (just picking a round number)

"normal" base skills cost 2 points (so if nothing else changed you'd get 100 skills compared to 91 now...

-however-

"Upper" skills cost 3 points meaning you have diminishing returns on your investment, the further you go in the tree.

"Quirk Skills" - These are the skills that tie to the base config/lore/history of your variant, the cost is reduced by 1 for all such "normal" and "upper" skills, encouraging you to use weapons and such that are traditional to the variant.

This way the skill values stay the same, but filling out the tree will be up to you making all kinds of decisions about the innate advantages vs the perceived current "meta" because you could go all in for a boating build still, but you have to realize that some diversification would give you a more well rounded mech...

Does this make sense?

[FupDup]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

But that's not MechWarrior or BattleTech. That's CoD and GR:P.

"Here son, take a main gun. Now take a backup gun. Now take a Consumable Grenade. Now go out there and run around like a chicken with its head cut-off while you shoot up everything that moves!"

...Is that really what we want?

Ironically, that example of yours actually sounds closer to what you're asking for than Call of Duty. What I mean is that the average gundam in BT is usually designed as a "bracket" build, like "Hey, you use this gun at 540 meters and then you switch to this other gun when they get to 270 meters" or whatever. Taking a "primary and a backup gun" has basically the same intention as that.

In MWO or previous MW games, the meta is usually about just taking two primaries instead of a primary and a backup.

Edited by FupDup, 09 February 2017 - 11:05 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

But that's not MechWarrior or BattleTech.

Let's set some things straight:

• Skill tree won't solve the issue of weapon synergy which is at the heart of why boating is a thing in the first place (and every time we get weapons that work well together they are nerfed to no longer work together well).
  
• Mechwarrior AND Battletech have involved min/max cheese, this IS NOT something unique to MWO. Whether it be ML/PPC boats in tech 1 or cLPL/cERLL/(c)Gauss spam in tech 2, this seriously been around since people started customizing their own stuff.
  
• Boating does not suddenly turn this game into CoD because there is more that separates MWO from CoD than "mixed/bracket" builds, please stop using this stupid strawman.

MovinTarget, on 09 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Would it be too complex to mix up the Skill point economy a little bit?

Say you get 200 Skill points: (just picking a round number)

"normal" base skills cost 2 points (so if nothing else changed you'd get 100 skills compared to 91 now...

-however-

"Upper" skills cost 3 points meaning you have diminishing returns on your investment, the further you go in the tree.

"Quirk Skills" - These are the skills that tie to the base config/lore/history of your variant, the cost is reduced by 1 for all such "normal" and "upper" skills, encouraging you to use weapons and such that are traditional to the variant.

This way the skill values stay the same, but filling out the tree will be up to you making all kinds of decisions about the innate advantages vs the perceived current "meta" because you could go all in for a boating build still, but you have to realize that some diversification would give you a more well rounded mech...

Does this make sense?

This doesn't address the concern at all, your idea is still about build diversity within a model scale rather than encouraging chassis diversity.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 February 2017 - 11:15 AM.

[Tristan Winter]

Like everything else in MWO, the purpose of the skill tree has changed over time, both nominally and practically.

http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare
http://mwomercs.com/...le-warfare-cont

From 2012 to 2016, I was hoping that the new skill tree would actually contribute to role warfare, as was originally the plan. Right now, I'm not so sure if role warfare is what they were aiming for. It seems to be more about freedom and letting people play the game in different ways. That's not the same thing as role warfare, as they explained it.

Now, PGI's original description may have been incredibly naive, especially when it comes to the idea of 'Command' roles, whose main abilities revolved around calling in airstrikes, artillery, naval strikes, predator drone strikes and banana bomb strikes. But it was at least predicated on the idea that you would let players pick a role and then facilitate some sort of synergy from people working together.

Right now, it just seems like the idea is to give us 50 shades of killing mechs. As for pegging mechs to fulfill a certain role or trying to make every one of the 396 variants viable, this was always of secondary importance to me. In my opinion, quirks would have done that job better than the skill tree.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tristan Winter, on 09 February 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

As for pegging mechs to fulfill a certain role or trying to make every one of the 396 variants viable, this was always of secondary importance to me.

I mean there aren't that many roles which is why I think they need to reduce the number of variants in general, we are at a saturation level that you could probably combine a lot of variants into one because the difference between them is 1 or 2 hardpoints. Quirks and a skill tree could easily take care of the rest. For example, at this point, I think we could've gotten away with 1 normal variant and 1 hero per chassis.

Tristan Winter, on 09 February 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

Now, PGI's original description may have been incredibly naive, especially when it comes to the idea of 'Command' roles, whose main abilities revolved around calling in airstrikes, artillery, naval strikes, predator drone strikes and banana bomb strikes. But it was at least predicated on the idea that you would let players pick a role and then facilitate some sort of synergy from people working together.

My problem is still that mechs should revolve around those kinds of roles. So rather than letting players choose the role for their mech, PLAYERS should chose their mech based on those roles.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 February 2017 - 11:25 AM.

[Nightmare1]

FupDup, on 09 February 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Ironically, that example of yours actually sounds closer to what you're asking for than Call of Duty. What I mean is that the average gundam in BT is usually designed as a "bracket" build, like "Hey, you use this gun at 540 meters and then you switch to this other gun when they get to 270 meters" or whatever. Taking a "primary and a backup gun" has basically the same intention as that.

In MWO or previous MW games, the meta is usually about just taking two primaries instead of a primary and a backup.

What I'm driving at, is that it forces a one or two weapon system. Currently, yes, that's meta. However, you can run more weapons than that and still be effective. You can still freestyle.

This new skill tree completely removes your options to do that though by harshly punishing you if you dare to run more than one or two systems.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Let's set some things straight:

• Skill tree won't solve the issue of weapon synergy which is at the heart of why boating is a thing in the first place (and every time we get weapons that work well together they are nerfed to no longer work together well).
  
• Mechwarrior AND Battletech have involved min/max cheese, this IS NOT something unique to MWO. Whether it be ML/PPC boats in tech 1 or cLPL/cERLL/(c)Gauss spam in tech 2, this seriously been around since people started customizing their own stuff.
  
• Boating does not suddenly turn this game into CoD because there is more that separates MWO from CoD than "mixed/bracket" builds, please stop using this stupid strawman.

This doesn't address the concern at all, your idea is still about build diversity within a model scale rather than encouraging chassis diversity.

1) I recognize that the tree will not solve the issue of synergy, nor am I asking it to do so. I am simply asking that it stop pushing the single or dual weapon meta. There is a difference between asking that mixed builds be left as options and actively pushing for a solution to weapon synergy. Synergy is a longstanding issue that cannot be solved merely by revamping a skill tree. I'm just against the further marginalization of mixed builds, which is what I perceive this new skill tree to be doing.

2) You are correct, it's not unique. However, what is unique about this skill tree, is how it disallows the players from running something that is not min/maxed. Notice the first video I offered with three separate weapon systems. That build was not min/maxed, yet it was highly effective. My point, which I hope you will understand this time, is that you are not forced to play min/max builds, nor have you ever been forced to do so until now. With this new tree, you really have no choice anymore.

3) I agree that there is more to it, but this skill tree will remove one of those items, further blurring the lines. The diversity and the ability to freestyle this game contains, was one of the things which uplifted it above other arena shooters. While it is true that there remain other differences, it is also true that a major difference is now disappearing, weakening MWO's overall appeal in the process.

Edited by Nightmare1, 09 February 2017 - 11:38 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

This doesn't address the concern at all, your idea is still about build diversity within a model scale rather than encouraging chassis diversity.

Unless you give some notable advantages to the engine capped, the low placed hard pointed, and the crappily shaped mechs (3 things TT never really had to deal with), the same mechs will always be preferred because they have the best options in those categories...

...and I'm not even getting into the constructs of PGI's designs like the hitboxes...

Seriously, at this point in the game there is little reason to bring a cataphract save for nostalgia or shooting at kneecaps... and maybe ecm...

Vindicator, Victor as well, to name a few...

Edited by MovinTarget, 09 February 2017 - 11:42 AM.

[Tristan Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

I mean there aren't that many roles which is why I think they need to reduce the number of variants in general, we are at a saturation level that you could probably combine a lot of variants into one because the difference between them is 1 or 2 hardpoints. Quirks and a skill tree could easily take care of the rest. For example, at this point, I think we could've gotten away with 1 normal variant and 1 hero per chassis.
My problem is still that mechs should revolve around those kinds of roles. So rather than letting players choose the role for their mech, PLAYERS should chose their mech based on those roles.

I'm fine with both of those things. I also think it's a shame that PGI abandoned their infotech quirks, which would have helped create those roles and differentiate between, say, light mechs created for combat and light mechs created for scouting.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MovinTarget, on 09 February 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

Unless you give some notable advantages to the engine capped, the low placed hard pointed, and the crappily shaped mechs (3 things TT never really had to deal with)

That's what quirks are for.....well that and flavor. Skill trees shouldn't be used as that sort of fix because it depends on you leveling (meaning that unleveled bad mechs are EVEN worse when playing against a leveled meta mech).

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

1) I recognize that the tree will not solve the issue of synergy, nor am I asking it to do so. I am simply asking that it stop pushing the single or dual weapon meta.

That's fine, I thought you were saying it should fix it rather than trying to get it to stop rigging it. That is still more an implementation detail than a conceptual one imo and I'm mainly dealing with conceptual stuff here, or at least the intent.

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

2) You are correct, it's not unique. However, what is unique about this skill tree, is how it disallows the players from running something that is not min/maxed.

Not really arguing with you on this either.

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

3) I agree that there is more to it, but this skill tree will remove one of those items, further blurring the lines. The diversity and the ability to freestyle this game contains, was one of the things which uplifted it above other arena shooters. While it is true that there remain other differences, it is also true that a major difference is now disappearing, weakening MWO's overall appeal in the process.

This I do disagree, this could be stock only (or stock plus) and it would still be wildly different from typical FPS and still be a Battletech game as well (it just wouldn't be good unless they fixed some of the horrible stock builds). To me the biggest difference is still pacing of the game and that difference is still a large gulf that is yet to be changed in any serious manor.