252 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 10 February 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

I myself would not want such a set up. I'd rather have access to all trees and I will decide for myself which things to specialize on.

Having predefined "roles" just increases the probability of me not liking any of them. In my view, that would also increase the probability of cookie-cutter setups. I'd rather mix and match.

I get what you are saying, but they are generally built with a role in mind, same as today. YOu have Fighters, Bombers, abd "Attack" planes, along with recon, AWACs, etc. You have MBTs, Scout Vehicles, IFV, Tracked Arty, Ainti-air vehicles, Missile Batteries, etc.

While you can certainly modify your RIfleman or Jager to be a brawler, they are built and engineered to be a Sniper/AA design. Thus it makes no sense to have brawler specific or juggernaut Trees open to them. You want a mech to do those roles.. then get a Thunderbolt or Orion, a Mech designed for the role you desire. (Or, one could make a slight case for the Rifleman 3C, though it's more a skirmisher with it's armor levels)

Insisting that everything be generic gunbags... just makes having different mechs pointless to begin with.

[Khobai]

Quote

I myself would not want such a set up. I'd rather have access to all trees and I will decide for myself which things to specialize on.

except thats dumb. because when mechs are built theyre built with specific roles in mind. they arnt built to do everything. And shouldnt be able to do everything. if every mech can do everything why even have different mechs?

the game needs to subdivide mechs into roles in order to promote role diversity. not every mech should have access to all skills because that forces you depend on other roles.

instead of one generic skill tree, there should be at least 3 different skill trees in order to prevent any one mech from having all the best skills (command/support, striker/assault, and recon/skirmisher would be the three skill trees that cover all the basic roles from battletech)

that would for example prevent assault mechs and most heavies from using seismic (which they shouldnt be able to use, since it eliminates the need for lights to scout). only recon/skirmisher tree mechs should be able to use seismic. which would be most lights/mediums and some odd heavies like the dragon that fall into the skirmish category.

Creating interdependency between different roles makes the game much more tactical because you have to depend on teammates to take the skills you cant.

Edited by Khobai, 10 February 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

While you can certainly modify your RIfleman or Jager to be a brawler, they are built and engineered to be a Sniper/AA design. Thus it makes no sense to have brawler specific or juggernaut Trees open to them. You want a mech to do those roles.. then get a Thunderbolt or Orion, a Mech designed for the role you desire. (Or, one could make a slight case for the Rifleman 3C, though it's more a skirmisher with it's armor levels)

I agree with this sentiment, for the most part. I do think because there are some roles that will be overflowing with mechs it will be ok to not be 100% true to the BT role of the chassis. That said it should still try to use that as a guide wherever and whenever it can.

[WarHippy]

DrxAbstract, on 10 February 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

Considering the previous iteration required purchasing (But not necessarily equipping) 3 Mechs just to master one... But being completely fair here, the 2 extra Mechs people bought were typically as viable as the one they were focused on and would utilize offshoot builds, like the old TDR-5SS and TDR-9SE, as an example. The 3-Mech system often required a larger initial C-Bill investment and, for the wary buyers, typically meant grabbing equally useful variants provided the chassis had more than one.

The new system is far and away cheaper on C-Bills, but the XP requirement is nearly identical... Almost as if they took the combined XP of 1 Master + 2 Basic variants as their baseline.

Just looking at XP it is a great deal more costly. The excuse of "well you don't need 3 now" doesn't hold water because we do have 3 mechs now. To use your example of Thunderbolts I have the 9S, 5SS, and 9SE. Under the old system I had to level all 3 at ~60k XP each, but under the new system I still have all 3(I'm not selling 2 of them and I have them setup completely different from one another), but I need ~130k XP for each of them. ~180k for 3 mastered mechs under the old system is a great deal less than ~390k for 3 mastered mechs under the new system.

C-bill costs are just as bad if not worse.

Long story short is that the entire argument of "you don't need 3 now" is completely missing the fact that I still have those 3 mechs that need to be mastered. Selling 2 of the 3 is really only an option for Omnimechs and even then there are reasons to have more than one. Sure, future purchases might be better off if you are fine with only having one out of six versions of a new mech that is released, but who is going to bother with new mechs when you have 200+ mechs to re-level under this new system.

[DrxAbstract]

WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Just looking at XP it is a great deal more costly. The excuse of "well you don't need 3 now" doesn't hold water because we do have 3 mechs now. To use your example of Thunderbolts I have the 9S, 5SS, and 9SE. Under the old system I had to level all 3 at ~60k XP each, but under the new system I still have all 3(I'm not selling 2 of them and I have them setup completely different from one another), but I need ~130k XP for each of them. ~180k for 3 mastered mechs under the old system is a great deal less than ~390k for 3 mastered mechs under the new system.

C-bill costs are just as bad if not worse.

Long story short is that the entire argument of "you don't need 3 now" is completely missing the fact that I still have those 3 mechs that need to be mastered. Selling 2 of the 3 is really only an option for Omnimechs and even then there are reasons to have more than one. Sure, future purchases might be better off if you are fine with only having one out of six versions of a new mech that is released, but who is going to bother with new mechs when you have 200+ mechs to re-level under this new system.

I said XP cost was roughly the same per Mech as it was for the old 1 master + 2 basics. Where are you getting this 130k per variant figure from? I havnt had a Mech cost more than 75k thus far...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

that would for example prevent assault mechs and most heavies from using seismic (which they shouldnt be able to use, since it eliminates the need for lights to scout).

Seismic doesn't eliminate the need for lights to scout, it just gives assaults warnings of when to clinch. Not that all assaults deserve that warning, just wanted to clarify that statement a bit.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2017 - 12:08 PM.

[WarHippy]

DrxAbstract, on 10 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

I said XP cost was roughly the same per Mech as it was for the old 1 master + 2 basics. Where are you getting this 130k per variant figure from? I havnt had a Mech cost more than 75k thus far...

91 skill points at 1500xp each is 136500XP. If you are only spending 75k you are only using 50 skill points out of 91

[DrxAbstract]

WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

91 skill points at 1500xp each is 136500XP. If you are only spending 75k you are only using 50 skill points out of 91

Requires further investigation...

Aaaand I found it. Apparently I was using GXP without meaning to... Woops. Wasn't this discussed pre-PTS launch? A little curious at the otherwise exorbitant XP cost, although the C-Bill expenditures per Mech is cheaper in some instances, but you're right - it's far more expensive in general and it doesnt look like match rewards are going to be adjusted...

Le sigh.

This is exactly the kind of **** we've been trying to avoid. What sense does it make to have literally hundreds of Mechs with thousands of possible build variations operating on a system that's clearly designed to be used in a game where you would only have a handful of choices...

Edited by DrxAbstract, 10 February 2017 - 12:27 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 10 February 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Just looking at XP it is a great deal more costly. The excuse of "well you don't need 3 now" doesn't hold water because we do have 3 mechs now. To use your example of Thunderbolts I have the 9S, 5SS, and 9SE. Under the old system I had to level all 3 at ~60k XP each, but under the new system I still have all 3(I'm not selling 2 of them and I have them setup completely different from one another), but I need ~130k XP for each of them. ~180k for 3 mastered mechs under the old system is a great deal less than ~390k for 3 mastered mechs under the new system.

C-bill costs are just as bad if not worse.

Long story short is that the entire argument of "you don't need 3 now" is completely missing the fact that I still have those 3 mechs that need to be mastered. Selling 2 of the 3 is really only an option for Omnimechs and even then there are reasons to have more than one. Sure, future purchases might be better off if you are fine with only having one out of six versions of a new mech that is released, but who is going to bother with new mechs when you have 200+ mechs to re-level under this new system.

also look to CW decks, where sometime people run more than one of the same variant... now they have to buy up each and every one of those, separate.

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

also look to CW decks, where sometime people run more than one of the same variant... now they have to buy up each and every one of those, separate.

I didn't even think of that, but yeah that is even more needed XP that wasn't needed before. Anybody trying to make the argument that this system is cheaper in XP and C-bills is out of touch with reality. I don't mean that to be insulting to them, but it is painfully clear they are not thinking this out fully.

[SilentWolff]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

*MODS...this is intentionally placed here instead of the PTS Skill Tree section. No matter how much you may desire, most people read the General Discussion and will likely not even LOOK in the SkilL Tree section.*

So, after playing on the PTS for the afternoon, these are my conclusions.

The Skill Tree system is not a bad idea in theory.... but it's execution is lazy, sloppy and the Devs are being pretty dang disingenuous in how they present it, as it certainly will cost us a hell of a lot more, across the board, than previously.

I like the idea of there being Various Skill Trees, and you not being able to just max out everything. But.... they do it in as generic and lazy a manner possible.

-They do nothing to promote the actual Roles of individual Mechs

-It's the same options for everyone... to the point where your mechs with NO LOWER ARM ACTUATORS... are still required to waste Skill Points on Nodes dedicated to Arm Yaw. WTF?

-The Node Trees are not remotely Linear, and require you to cross pollinate on Skill Nodes you may have ZERO desire to spend your points on.

-91 Skill Points seems like a lot... it's not. Almost everyone is going to want to open up 90% of the Mobility and Operational Skill Nodes... and there goes 1/2 to 2/3 of your Points there. Then you get to decide between spending on super itemized weapon systems, most will want 15 of the 17 Defensive Nodes.... and that is without even touching InfoWar.

- Too expensive, requiring XP, GXP and Copious CBills expenditures, well beyond what one has to spend now, even with the 3 way XP Trees.

-The New User Experience is going to Hell in a Handbasket. The Time, XP and Cost needed to grind out a new chassis... is going to leave the Noobs farther in the dust than ever before.

-A lot of the actual percentages are still completely ludicrous when one maxes out.

Mind you, I'm not saying all is lost. Please don't do like you did with the InfoWar PTS, get sulky and chuck the whole thing because of a few butthurt Cryhards. Take the critiques and ADJUST THE DAMN THING.

-Diversify the Skill Trees, to actually promote the intended ROLES of each Mech. Scout, Sniper, Skirmisher, Juggernaut, etc.
http://www.sarna.net...attleMech_roles

-Streamline the Node Trees themselves so we are not forced into purchasing Nodes we do not want, unless they directly impact the next level of a Node. I should not have to unlock Arm Yaw to affect Torso Speed, etc. And don't force Mechs without Lower Arms to waste already scarce skill points on bloody Arm Yaw to get to torso Quirks.

-Re-evaluate the Prices. Realize there is a hell of a difference between the Smurfy Cost of a Maxed Out Mech, and the REAL cost, since most of us have not and will not EVER buy an individual Seismic, Radar Derp, etc, for each and every one of our 200 Gundams, no matter how you try to dress it up. Please for once, respect our intelligence.

PGI... you have a chance to do things real well here, or to ship it out halfassed. The idea is not bad, the execution, as seen in the PTS? Is execrable. (And that's not even getting into the real poor UI)

So basically what your saying is, par for the course for PGI. Lazy, uninspired, not thought through and not user friendly.
PGI= More fooked up than a football bat.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Huh. Just did some math...

It would take me ~150 days of playing for at least three hours every single day (estimating an optimistic ~1m cbills per hour) in order to grind out the cbills necessary to re-skill all of my 'Mechs to where they currently sit. If I can play roughly as often as I do right now (~1-2 nights per week), it'll take about three years. To recover current stats on all 'Mechs. Totally. Bugnuts. Insane.

That's including XP and module refunds as a head start (from scratch it would take ~300 days of playing 3hr days at 1m per hour for ~900m cbills required for 100 'Mechs to full mastery, but about a quarter of my 'Mechs are mastered with the rest either elited or basiced with a few not skilled at all- I'm estimating it at about 50% global progress, so that's the recovery target). The module refund plus a generous 3-4 nights of play between now and the 21st covers ~8 'Mechs at 9.1 million each- I only have about 50m worth of modules, since I swap out and only mount them on the 'Mechs I'm playing on any given night. The XP goes a lot farther, but still not far enough and it doesn't matter anyway since you can't unlock anything without both XP and cbills.

Yeah, no.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

I get what you are saying, but they are generally built with a role in mind, same as today. YOu have Fighters, Bombers, abd "Attack" planes, along with recon, AWACs, etc. You have MBTs, Scout Vehicles, IFV, Tracked Arty, Ainti-air vehicles, Missile Batteries, etc.

While you can certainly modify your RIfleman or Jager to be a brawler, they are built and engineered to be a Sniper/AA design. Thus it makes no sense to have brawler specific or juggernaut Trees open to them. You want a mech to do those roles.. then get a Thunderbolt or Orion, a Mech designed for the role you desire. (Or, one could make a slight case for the Rifleman 3C, though it's more a skirmisher with it's armor levels)

Insisting that everything be generic gunbags... just makes having different mechs pointless to begin with.

If the "role" was variant-specific or each variant had its own unique skill tree (or to a lesser extent, chassis-specific -- something I might be able to live with while holding my nose ), then I have no issue. I will just choose to use the variant I want.

But if "role" was made specific to weight class, then I have a big problem with that.

Khobai, on 10 February 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

except thats dumb. because when mechs are built theyre built with specific roles in mind. they arnt built to do everything. And shouldnt be able to do everything. if every mech can do everything why even have different mechs?

See above.

<and please choose you words carefully>

Edited by Mystere, 10 February 2017 - 01:10 PM.

[TorinZ]

Some good ideas floating around. CBill costs are a bit high, would like to see that dropped some. Would also like HXP handled differently, either at a chassis level instead of variant or just make it GXP.

But I can tell you, I have no intentions on going through all my mechs and skilling them all up. I think it's great that people are looking to do that. But for myself, if that mech doesn't have a 'FAVORITE' tag on it, it will just sit there till I care about it later down the road- if ever.

[Reno Blade]

I think the whole Mech-Ops, Survival and Movement branches should have a total cap, so you have to choose between being more tough, or having better agility, or better sensors or better heat control.

e.g. 30 points max for these skill classes/branches.


Then the Weapons and InfoTech should be the rest of the points (e.g. 61).

That would also give you more points to spend on multiple weapons rather than puthing 60+ into your mech.
Giving you more reason to actually spec AND use multiple weapons instead of single weapon type and boating that.

Edited by Reno Blade, 10 February 2017 - 01:59 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Been playing a lot of PTS and to be honest I don't see too much difference to be excited about especially having to go through all my mechs. I think what ticked me off most was mastered mechs I didn't have tons of time in came up short with historic xp.

So I have to grind and already ground mech again? No thanks. Existing players lose big time there.

I did like 4x4 and playing against some know top players there. Fun to see the Fairy's back poptarting in some matches but they are not thrilled either when asked. That may be good thing because I dislike fairy's.

[C E Dwyer]

I think adding to this you need to front load the benefits, so the first point gives more than the last, so that Diverse builds are not further penalised by having much reduced skill quirk benefits compared with a boat.

They'll still have better quirks than the hybrids but it will not be as big a gap

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 10 February 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

If the "role" was variant-specific or each variant had its own unique skill tree (or to a lesser extent, chassis-specific -- something I might be able to live with while holding my nose ), then I have no issue. I will just choose to use the variant I want.

But if "role" was made specific to weight class, then I have a big problem with that.




See above.

<and please choose you words carefully>

That's totally fair, I wouldn't want (for example) every Hunchback variant to have the same skill tree because the role for each variant is supposed to be fairly different.

[Dee Eight]

Pjwned, on 10 February 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

The old (current) skill tree being obtuse & grindy doesn't excuse the new (upcoming) skill tree from being less obtuse while being far more grindy.

Its only a grind if you mentally treat it as such. I find a more involved skill system more fun. So do a lot of other players. I suppose that's because I have an ACTUAL RPG background not just a tabletop gaming miniatures background.

Quote

And you're ignoring that new players are at a huge disadvantage when they don't gain any benefit from the skill tree.

What HUGE disadvantage is that ? I'm closer to the "new" player category than you are, by THREE years, and I still remember what being a new player here meant. A lot of folks who are open/closed beta era seem to think they know still what "new" players actually mean...when they clearly do not.

[Stone Wall]

Probably Not, on 10 February 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Well, MechWarrior was originally an RPG system for BattleTech, and skill trees are kind of RPG-y.

I'm not necessarily against new things being introduced to MechWarrior as a franchise, but...

I can understand a table top or D+D game having skill trees, but not one where you are a MechWarrior actually piloting the Mech in 3D space.