0
Rampage, on 09 February 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:
Having a universal 91 skill points for all Mechs widens the gap between the top tier Mechs and the bottom Tier Mechs. I have seen a couple guys post analysis of what it takes to get a Mech back to where it is as a Mastered Mech on the current skill system. Both of them came out with a number around 70-75 skill nodes to do this. That means that above that number you are allowing Mechs that had no quirks before to add quirks to increase their performance. Mechs such as the Kodiak KDK-3 can undo many of the adjustments that have been made over the last few months that was meant to rein them in which widens the gap or at the very least does not close the gap to lesser Mechs.
I was looking forward to the Skill Tree when I thought that it would help close the gap between the have and have not Mechs. Now that I see that it may even worsen that situation, I am finding it hard to see any positives that can come close to balancing that failure.
If it takes 70-75 Skill Points to bring a Mech up to the previous Mastered level then give the previously un-quirked, top tiered Mechs a maximum of 70-75 skill points to use. Give the lower tiered Mechs the additional 16-21 Skill points free. This will keep the cost to level all Mechs comparable and allow the performance gap to be closed somewhat.
#powercreepisbad
Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:
Well, your mastered mech probably doesn't consider modules. As a whole, mechs run hotter and are tankier, which is a net increase of TTK. I don't want power creep either, and agree that Kodiaks getting 20% ER PPC velocity is bad, but I also think that we can fix that by addressing the node values, and of course the fact that the IS is basically keeping all of their durability/mobility quirks. But yeah, there are a few weapon nodes on the Clan side that need nerfing, but remember that that Kodiak has more cooldown bonuses and potentially the same range bonus in the current system due to modules. Most mechs I think lose ~17% cooldown or something because of fast fire and the weapon skill only goes to 5%. Maybe the net reduction is 12% but still... less DPS, more durability, higher TTK.
On the other hand, being able to pick those strong skill nodes really helps some of the poorer IS mechs out.
Basically, if we can address the top mechs in the game getting some sizable improvements, I think it will be okay.
Rampage, on 09 February 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:
I believe they did factor in Modules in their analysis otherwise it would not take 70 SP to get you even. It was impossible for them to make an exact match due to things like heat changes but they got close and due to the way the new skill tree works they picked up quirks (skills) that the old Mastered Mech did not have.
I mention the KDK-3 because it is the poster child of power creep but there are several other (mostly) Clan Mechs that fit the same bill. The problem with adjusting the node values is that it changes the skill node value for all the Mechs that use that weapon, not just the top tier Mechs that need no help. For example, a Shadow Cat that can only carry a couple erPPC may need that 20% velocity to be viable. However, a KDK-3 or Marauder IIC does not need it because it also has multiple Gauss along with its PPC. Same thing for the cUAC jam reductions. A KDK-3 with 4 UACs is going to be affected a lot less by a jam than a Hellbringer or Huntsman that really needs that Jam reduction node to keep it in the fight. Therefore, reducing the node value hurts the lower performers more.
That is the reason I suggest limiting the SPs available for the upper Tier Mechs instead of changing node values.
I only have two complaints about the Skill Tree. The first one is cost, in both C-Bills and XP for both initial leveling and respect. As you can see by the above quotes, that complaint pales in comparison to my concern about how the Skill Tree is going to affect Mech balance.
I have given the problem some additional thought and I wanted to share an idea and get some feedback on it. I propose that each weight class would be treated separately with the top performing Mechs in each weight class being limited to approximately 70 SP while the worst performing Mechs in each weight class would get the full 91 SP.
Taking the Lights as an example, the Arctic Cheetah would get 70 SP (Locust too?). Mechs like the Mist Lynx (Firestarter?) would get the full 91. Mechs in between would get an allocation of SP somewhere between the two extremes. Things like performance and tonnage might be taken into consideration to determine the exact number of SP allowed for each chassis (variant?)
The same thing would apply to each weight class. For Assaults, the Kodiak KDK-3 and Marauder IIC would only get 70 SP and the Victor would get 91 SP.
In order to equalize the cost in both XP and C-Bills the additional SP that a Mech may receive over 70 would be free and could be used first before starting to pay for nodes. This would also have the side benefit of reducing leveling cost and grinding for all Mechs.
The goal is to prop up the underperforming Mechs while not allowing the Mechs that currently top performers and do not have quirks to become even more OP due to the player generated quirks from the Skill Tree. For me, this possibility is the biggest downside of the new Skill Tree and the changes it introduces.
Thanks to Gas Guzzler for his comments and making me think.
Edited by Rampage, 09 February 2017 - 07:23 PM.
