Iteration Two- 2nd March, 2017
In the meantime:
I've been having me some kind of a time, whoa boy. Apologies for not further updating on the first session- I was unable to get more than one match per hour and a half in the time I had to try the test server, and then my car. My poor car. I'm just going to leave it at that.
Suffice to say, I've been busy as all heck.
Urgh.
Anyways, Imma keep trying to analyze and test. Even if it seems like I couldn't possibly have time to. I WILL NOT BE STOPPED FROM SPLODING ROBUTTS.
As I was saying, First Impressions:
Economy Changes:
Well, this is a step in the right direction, I think.
At 60,000 C-bills and 800 XP per node, it will now cost 5.46 million C-bills and 91,800 XP to complete the full 91 nodes that any one 'mech maxes out at. Looking way back to the beginning, this means that completing a 'mech now costs only about 7,000 more XP and something along the lines of 10 million C-bills less than mastering it and getting modules does in the current Live system. That's actually a considerable improvement in time spent (even counting only 'mechs purchased, mastered, and then kept, and not those purchased to meet a 'three-of' requirement). The additional XP gain to clear the last 9 nodes should result in approximately 7 million more C-bills earned as well, which is very good news for everyone going 'yeah, but I never bought modules for this thing to begin with, so what's my actual net loss/gain?'
(Just so you know, for a decent player without premium time who isn't accounting for module purchases, the loss is twenty-four more QP games played to accomplish this new form of mastery, but approximately 2.4 million more C-bills earned. For a player -with- premium time, the C-bills earned differential is the same, but it should only take about 16 more games played, since premium time magnifies all values of C-bills and XP to 150%.)
I know a lot of people are complaining/will complain about having to pay for nodes again at all when 'respeccing', but I think it's a fair cost- 400 XP to re-buy a node you took off means you can remove a node, play one QP game, and then put it back if you decide that was a mistake and still have about 300 XP left over on average- assuming you actually had a chance to perform in the match and didn't get headshot out the gate or something.
The fact that you still have to pay full price to open a node you never had open for that 'mech before also feels right- changing your node choices should not be something you can do freely and frivolously. We already do that with non-Omni 'mechs and literally all forms of equipment, and while there's something to be said for freedom of choice, it's created some bizarre and even possibly unhealthy player habits across the base that either create a break with the intended economy that makes it hard to balance (hotswapping engines and modules, anyone?) or encourage people to not think too much about what they're doing (hello, cookie-cutter 'mech builds that suddenly all change when something gets adjusted up or down.)
(Please note that I am not saying changing your strategy to meet the changes in the game is bad, just that it has severe side-effects on the landscape of the metagame when large portions of the player base make the same change at the same time, and nearly effortlessly. Jagged changes in demographic mean that the New Thing doesn't get tested much against the Old Thing- and vice versa- and there's little reason to see if there's a minor change that can be made to the Old Thing to make it more performance-comparable to the New Thing. Chasing the trend is fine, chasing it at hyper-speed is not.)
Layout and Structure:
Firepower
Not entirely sure how to feel about these changes here. On the one hand, it's nice to have an alteration that encourages mixed-weapon loadouts.
On the other hand, I really miss being able to play with refire rates to achieve better synchronization on cooldowns/refires.
I think I understand where this is going, though- with no way to synchronize cooldowns, repeat-alphas and large-quantity weapons batchfires are somewhat more discouraged than previously. I'm not sure that's the best way to accomplish that goal (particularly given it still doesn't do anything about same-weapons batchfiring, which is still predominant enough right now to be a potential issue,) but it's certainly worth a shot. Not going to judge on this at this point.
Nice to see missiles getting ammo boosts- it always felt odd to me that LRMs got a 50% increase in ammo per tonne, but SRMs still function on 100 missiles per tonne the same as ever. Not necessarily -bad-, given how much harder it is to get into position to fire an SRM rack than an LRM rack (although there's something to be said for ammo paucity preventing players from just chucking LRMs willy-nilly and not taking random, useless, or easily avoided shots.) Increased critical damage is also interesting.
Which things are gated behind other things is more than a little weird, though. I'm not sure that gating Range 3, Cooldown 2, and Heat Gen 1 behind
two laser duration nodes, among other odd situations, is the best way to have things organized- though it does make up somewhat for players spending less nodes to get a similar net effect to having invested in multiple trees (this 'branches' thing is silly, these are all separate trees currently and I'm done referring to them incorrectly.)
((Leaving off for the night. Bit low on time lately, will resume tomorrow night or Saturday morning.))
((Returning Saturday March 4th 2017.))
I have to admit to a bit of concern over one point- the way many of these skills are gated behind each other can make node selection have unpredictable results. It's very hard to design your loadout with, say, primary ballistics and secondary lasers, when you're operating off of the base cooldowns and durations of lasers, but then- for instance- have to get two laser duration nodes in order to speed up your autocannon as fast as possible. This makes the effects of changes slightly unpredictable, which will feel bad to players even if the overall effect maths out as a benefit to the 'mech.
Survival
This was always going to be a sack of dice walloped up the side of the head to deal with, let's be honest. It's a very hard line to tread, between 'not enough effect to be worth the investment' and 'mandatory' with durability upgrades for a player in a direct-competitive game like this. I'm glad to see PGI trying to thread this pass.
The addition of the crit reduction nodes is interesting here and I laud PGI for throwing them in, but this tree still feels like it doesn't have enough nodes to get the raw stat boosts, and that's really the major problem. It's a lot easier to adjust such a tree in small degrees of value by increasing or decreasing the investment in it, rather than its overall effect.
Specifically, armor increases will always be worth more than structure, due to the lack of crit damage- I would love to see a test with twice as many half as effective nodes for armor increase, just to see if the points investment change of adding another five nodes to the tree for full mastery makes a smaller difference in players' prioritizing it than adding a new set of five nodes. As it is, I think adding the crit nodes is a relatively small cost-benefit increase, since nobody's going to argue with losing equipment less (especially now that missiles can get a hefty boost to crit rate).
Otherwise, I like this tree.
I'd like to suggest that radar deprivation, ECM, and other indirect survival benefits (AMS improvements, reduced ammo explosion rate, etc.) could easily split off with the reduced critical hit rate to make their own second survival tree, but I can't think of enough other elements to add at the moment to justify an entire secondary tree. And the armor/structure improvements hardly need to be less expensive to get ahold of. I may come back to this later.
Mobility
Some serious improvements here with the meshing of the two trees. I really like where this is headed- but I'm not a big fan of the current layout. Having the tree lace together in the middle is good, doing it with Arm Pitch to make it a 'tax node' is better- but it doesn't feel like there's a reason to cross at that point unless the only thing you're interested in from the tree is Speed Boost- and that missing 3% is not, as far as I can tell,
ever justified by eight total nodes (see my later breakdown of 'mastery equivalence'-) and especially not so with agility effects being moved from post-engine application to pre-engine application (more on that later also). I think this tree would make a lot more sense if, say, the left side were speeds (turn, accel, decel, twist rate), the right side were mobility range (yaw angle, pitch angle, arm pitch angle, and bring back arm speed on the fringe for those who want it) and then the Speed Tweak nodes remained as they were.
The current layout makes it very easy to pick up full Speed Tweak if you're trying for, say, all the turning related nodes (such as for a brawler) anyways with a minimal extra investment, since you're already buying a bunch of speed nodes in the process and that gets you all the way down into the bottom loop of nodes anyways. Splitting the branches by effect type, while it makes it easier to benefit from a partial investment, would actually make it a more thought-invoking decision whether or not to go for a high Speed Tweak investment. This also means that if it turns out the ability to cross over at the central 'arm pitch 3' node is making it too easy/hard to pick up all of Speed Tweak, that node can be easily moved up or down to adjust the effect.
Jump Jets
Super gratifying to see this receive more nodes in something useful, and also the increase in value over the original nodes. Definitely a tree worth investing in now, if you plan to use jets for anything. Having the early Lift Speed nodes where they are is great too, since it forces any poptarters looking into the tree to make some tough decisions about whether they want to spend a lot of nodes to get the 9% lift speed at the end, or are willing to put up with a 50% forwards vector to get the earlier, easier 6% lift speed.
I still think the tree could do with a fuel recharge node set or something, possibly towards the lower end.
Operations
Improved Gyros stronk.
-cough-
I dig the current state of this tree. There is one point I want to pick at.
Part of the current revision set under consideration is a significant reduction in frequency and strength of heat management benefits. But a big part of the reason why alpha striking is so popular is that having high heat is a minimal risk- you only take damage from heat while over heat capacity regardless of override or shutdown, and there is no penalty for simply having high heat. If your shutdown lasts a short time- say, being abrogated by a 33% reduction in the time (what is it normally, 3 seconds without Efficiencies or skill nodes? A deadly lifetime on the battlefield) it takes to complete a shutdown or startup cycle- then the shutdown loses a lot of its teeth as well.
There are 'mechs I and other players overheat in (occasionally or regularly varies from player to player and 'mech to 'mech) without any real concern, because the shutdown time is functionally tiny unless you've got a brawler grinding its laser knuckles into your teeth. When these 'mechs were new and didn't have the current-in-live 33% reduction in startup time, overheating was never short enough, and that was to some degree because of the Quick Ignition.
I really think this bonus could stand to be weakened from the current 1/3 time reduction, but in the skill nodes system so far, the maximum point is now 35% instead of 33% reduction. That's actually a little concerning, because it reduces the penalties on a player for overheating, thus encouraging more heat-risky activities- such as massive pinpoint alpha strikes. The less time you have to worry about a pilot's friends shooting up your 'mech while it's shut down, the more likely you are to go 'yeah, okay, just throw everything at that CT now.' Since alpha-striking and superheavy weapons loads are something to be avoided according to PGI (irrespective whether or not any given player agrees with it) I can't understand why this benefit is actually getting increased.
I guess not many people think of its actual impact on the game, but trust me, it's there. It's there in spades.
Sensors
Not gonna lie..... I like this for the most part, but I don't think Radar Dep belongs here, nor do I think Enhanced ECM belongs here.
The ECM thing is a whole barrel of fish that I probably shouldn't tip over, but suffice to say I don't agree with most of PGI's decisions regarding ECM changes so far and think they've been barking up the wrong tree with it, but I'll just leave that at that for the moment.
The real point is that this tree is all about the sensors of the 'mech you're piloting- except for ECM and Radar Dep. I can't fathom why the NARC improvement is over in Miscellaneous either. NARC is not a separate object, it's a piece of sensor gear that happens to be significant enough to rate a tonnage, hardpoint, and ammo count. Bring both Enhanced NARC nodes here and move ECM and Radar Dep out to survival- because survival is what ECM and radar deprivation are about, not the sensor suite built into your 'mech. And for the love of the Stalker's original not-bird legs, PUT SOMETHING HERE FOR ACTIVE PROBES.
Oh, and a question comes to mind- why is Target Retention limited to 400 meters? Why is one point 200 meters? What kind of bizarre antenna/receiver adjustment is being made here that has that kind of effect? I just don't understand. A time limit would make much more sense than a range limit.
Miscellaneous
I hate the name of this tree. Can I just get that out there? This is a dumb name. Excepting NARC, everything here falls into one of two categories- support (objects outside of the 'mech, such as a UAV, aerospace squad, or artillery emplacement) and added non-tonnage gear (UAVs again, also coolant and some kind of capture auto-hacking computer or something? I don't even know.)
This should really be called Battlefield Support or something. Warfare Resources? Tactical Advantage?
Look, I just came up with three better labels off the top of my head. Criminy.
Mobility
A lot of people don't seem to understand what's going on here, so I'll lay it out simply.
In the current live system, this is the order in which effects apply to the mobility of your 'mech- speaking of turn rate, speed, torso twist, slope handling and arm movement.
- 'Mech- All 'mechs have a certain set of base agility stats. Things like how far the torso range is, how far up or down it can lean, if it has one, two, or no elbows and/or hands, and.... uh..... actually, that's pretty much it. Huh.
- 'Mech Size- this is a rating PGI assigns, and doesn't follow the weight class system. For instance, the Quickdraw originally was listed as 'Huge' mobility as some kind of compensation to its high engine cap, alongside the highest-tonnage, most-awkwards Heavies and the spryest Assaults. It later, after much disuse of the QKD, got adjusted downwards to 'Large', and may even have gone further down to 'Medium' more recently. As far as I can tell this hierarchy goes, from nimblest to most trundle-worthy: Tiny-Small-Medium-Large-Huge and maybe there's a sixth one? I'm not sure. This includes things like how high angle a slope has to be before it starts slowing the 'mech down, how sharply it turns, and how fast its torso twist and arm movement are.
- 'Mech Engine- Pretty straightforwards. The engine rating assigns a top speed and adjusts the acceleration, slope handling, and other forms of movement. It also, for some reason, determines how fast your 'mech takes steps when at top speed (scaled down for lower speeds) which is why light 'mechs often seem to bound along in constant leaps while an Atlas with a 350 is wiggling its booty HARD. Outside of stepping pace, these effects are determined by somehow multiplying the engine rating and the 'mech's size.
- 'Mech and Omni-Pod Quirks- And this is where it gets weird, because these quirks alter the base values WITHOUT taking into account engine size. The quirks give a bonus based on the rating from the first two values, but ignore the engine entirely.
To give an example using made-up numbers: The Sentinel is a Small 'mech with a base torso twist speed rating of 30. By using a 240 engine, it takes that twist speed and multiplies it by, say, 1.24- giving it a speed rating of 37.2. However, the STN-1J has a quirk that gives it +20% torso twist speed compared to the quirks of other STNs, which give them +10% torso twist speed. This boost to twist speed looks at the original 30, says 20% of that is 6, and adds that to the torso twist speed, bumping it up from 37.2 to 43.2. Other models of STN with the same engine would only see a 10% of original twist rating boost (3), giving them a torso twist speed of 40.2.
What we're going to have instead is this:
- 'Mech- The base agility stats. This will now include things like slope handling and twist and arm speed, in addition to the ranges of motion and actuator presence.
- 'Mech Engine- This will modify the previous value, increasing or decreasing it appropriately.
- 'Mech and Omni-Pod Quirks- While a lot of these are going to be moved into the first category ('Mech) as an inherent part of the chassis, which is the sensible thing to do, the quirks that remain will affect the result of the 'Mech Engine modification.
To use the same made-up example: In the new system, all Sentinels have a torso twist speed rating of 40 (folding in the quirk that was the same across all models to the 30 original rating). The STN-1J has a +10% torso twist speed quirk that is not duplicated on any other STN, and because it's unique to that specific variant, it's left as a quirk. If you give most Sentinels a 240-rating engine, they will have a torso twist speed of 40 multiplied by 1.24- or 49.6. The STN-1J, however, will have a torso twist speed of 55.56- because of its +10% quirk. Since the STN is a slower light 'mech and usually only has a 240 or so engine anyways, this makes it much more agile than it used to be, without increasing its actual speed of travel.
This also makes the math simpler, because rather than jumping back steps and applying quirk percentages based on a number you altered earlier, you're just multiplying a single number two times. This makes it a lot easier for players to predict the effects of their engine choices, it means that PGI can play around with overall agility more easily by directly altering engine benefits, and it means that lighter 'mechs will stay
very agile with even very low engine sizes, which may not help them with dodging shots, but gives them a strong advantage against heavier 'mechs- and all this without giving nearly as much benefit to 'mechs that were already running very large engines and have always been vastly more agile than their heavier bretheren.
I really really like this change. PGI let themselves be pressured previously into throwing absurdly gigantic engine caps at light 'mechs that normally have much smaller engines so as to act as 'mini-assaults'- the Panther, for instance, is supposed to have an identical movement speed profile to the Centurion (not the D with its huge engine, the other ones) or the Zeus, and the Cicada and Locust should both be far and away the fastest Inner Sphere 'mechs on the field. If this change functions like it should- making smaller engines more viable on the lighter 'mechs- then it could actually enable PGI to differentiate light-class 'mechs by having a larger variance in engine caps again. That's big. That's really big.
(Also, high speed bricks like the Pretty Baby will get more awesome, and who doesn't like the idea of a more-awesome Awesome?)
Re-Analysis This (wait, what? That doesn't grammar...)
So, for those who want to know, let's compare the original Mastery we have in live:- +15% heat dissipation
- +15% acceleration
- +5% torso twist range
- +20% heat capacity
- +15% deceleration
- +5% torso speed
- +5% arm movement speed
- +5% turn speed
- -33% start-up/shut-down time
- -5% weapon cooldown
- convergence?
- +7.5% top speed
- One open module slot
Attempting to mock-up the effects in the current PTS skill system, I came up with the following at 38 nodes:
- +10% Heat dissipation
- +15% Acceleration
- +4% Torso Twist Range
- +15% Heat Cap
- +20% Deceleration
- +5% Torso Twist Speed
- +8% Turn Speed
- -27% Startup/Shutdown Activation Time
- +4.5% Top Speed
And the added benefits:
- +4% Torso Pitch Angle
- +12% Arm Pitch Angle
- +10% Hill Climb
- -70% Screen Shake Under Fire
- +10% Speed Retention (when legged)
This is overall slightly better than current Mastery (not counting modules) despite the loss of some heat dissipation and capacity (which was inevitable at this point) a little bit of Quick Start, and 2/5 of Speed Boots.
If the pilot feels the start-up sequence time and the speed boost are super important, 10 more nodes gets:
- +5% Torso Speed
- +4% Turn Speed
- -7% Startup/Shutdown Activation Time
- +3% Top Speed
- +4% Torso Pitch Angle
- +6% Arm Pitch Angle
And now it's flatly superior outside of heat. Depending on the pilot's choice, this then leaves 53 or 43 more node selections to make up for not having modules- which is more than doable.
I like this, I like this a lot, and I think that after the 'but I don't want to change things noooooow' (even if many players won't admit that's what they're really bothered over, or might not even realize is what's really annoying them,) we'll find we're still gaining here. Perhaps a pain in the butt for those of us with a lot of 'mechs (I have 145 or so right now myself) but the end result will, I think, be worth it if we can keep to about half of nodes (or slightly less) spent to equivalence the Pilot Efficiencies.
To Testing, To Testing, L'chaim!
I don't know why The Fiddler on the Roof, but it's a good play/movie and should be watched.
ANYWAYS.
Gonna try to use the same 'mechs as before, though the skills will wind up different. I'll get right on laying that out.
The Lights
FS9-S Etrigan (Firestarter)- 79 Nodes
PNT-10P Backhand (Panther)- 85 Nodes
LCT-3S Obnoxtrous (Locust)- 91 Nodes
Medium 'Mechs
BJ-3 Sap (Blackjack)- 91 Nodes
ENF-4R Vinyl (Enforcer)- 73 Nodes
HBK-4G Igor (Hunchback)- 91 Nodes
Heavy 'Mechs:
ARC-5W Thorgirdr (Archer)- 57 Nodes
CTF-1X Thresher (Cataphract)- 91 Nodes
GHR-5P Fickle Freddy (Grasshopper)- 79 Nodes
QKD-4H Blotter (Quickdraw)- 91 Nodes
RFL-5D Slapman (Rifleman)- 86 Nodes
Assault 'Mechs:
AWS-8R Thunderous (Awesome)- 84 Nodes
BNC-3M Shrieker (Banshee)- 66 Nodes
MAL-2P Ordox (Mauler)- 71 Nodes
STK-5S Predator (Stalker)- 91 Nodes
Actual Testing Matches, March 4th 2017
CTF-1X Thresher
Test Server, 1:50 PM, Game 1:
Holy nuggets inna handbasket. Stalker with SRM-24 and a load of six medium pulse lasers is horrible to try and contend with. I got ruined in two volleys, so did our Battlemaster. Stalker got 646 damage in the match, that's insane.
Gonna have to either find a way to up my game or investigate a reason that this Stalker is even worse to deal with than usual (seeing as I don't recall ever having a particular issue with a brawlStalker before in the entire time I've been playing MWO.) Especially since I'm running pretty heavy durability boosts on this thing and it clearly didn't matter worth noticing at all.
Other than that I'm a little rusty at the weapons groups on this 'mech, I learned literally nothing.
FS9-S Etrigan
Test Server, 2:30 PM, Game 2:
Well, if the agility helps at lower speeds, it's not in evidence here, with little in the way of Mobility nodes. That's also a bit discouraging- the Etrigan handles like it's wading through tar compared to what I'm used to, even just in terms of turn rate.
It's looking likely that, at current values, Mobility and Survival trees are virtually 100% Musts for light 'mechs in order to be effective. It's possible only one or the other is necessary, rather than both, but this match makes it seem unlikely.
ARC-5W Thorgirdr
Test Server, 2:39 PM, Game 3:
Okay, some progress. The benefits I gained for the SRM-16 set on this thing are actually pretty nice, and allowed me to almost handle an Oxide, a Slaser Jenner, and a Medusa all at once. Our ON1-IIC finished things off with its own SRM volleys. I'm wondering (though I haven't figured out yet) if the refire rate boosts I've managed are enough to swap the CT LRM-5 for a fifth SRM rack and still manage a constant LRM barrage- though, given I use left and right click for the left and right punches, I'm not sure how I'd bind that into a group, or that the clustering of fire would work out.
The combined utility boosts from the nodes I chose and, surprisingly, the screen shake were very helpful here, and I only have 57 nodes on this thing- I can't help but imagine it would prove considerably stronger if I were to pick up the Survival tree to boot.
AWS-8R Thunderous
Test Server, 2:56 PM, Game 4:
Okay, that was, to make the obvious pun, awesome. The node choices I made here do very well- the range turns out to be enough that I was trading favorably from the city around C5 on Crimson with an LRM/PPC Scat on top the mountain, the refire boosts to the SRM-6s are very happy, and the durability quirks kept me going through the whole match despite barnface.
It's a little hard to discern the performance difference from Live here, but I'd say it feels just a little bit spryer than usual. It probably also helped that who uses Awesomes- especially this one- as anything but long-range fire support (usually LRMs) these days?
LCT-3S Obnoxtrous
Test Server, 3:18 PM, Game 5:
Holy hopping cropeaters I forgot how fun this little bugger is. Even with its previous hilarious missile cooldown cut to 15%, the overall effect here when batchfiring the SRM-2s is incredibly quick, tightly-clustered blots of damage. I definitely didn't miss the Mobility nodes I skipped taking here, and the modest half (12, actually) of the 22 Survival nodes was plenty of durability for judicious use.
This is starting to make me think it's an either-or for light 'mech survival- or at least intended to be: That is, Either a strong investment in Mobility Or a very large engine. That's got an interesting potential dynamic honestly- if it works out that way, that means that brawling 'mechs will likely take the Mobility tree and agility all over the small place, while others will grab a huge engine and motor clumsily but much speedily about.
An interesting tradeoff, because if true, it also means that slower 'mechs will likely take both Mobility and Survival in spades, leaving less room for supporting skill nodes like the Sensors or Operations trees- or possibly neglecting the Firepower tree instead of Operations (since Operations is where all the heat dissipation and capacity quirks hang out, as well as the startup time reducers) depending on the specific slant of the 'mech.
PNT-10P Backhand
Test Server, 3:45 PM, Game 6:
Well, we lost rather spectacularly overall, but holding out against an LB-40X Mauler in a Panther for a good ten or twelve volleys is nothing to sneeze at. This 'mech mostly wins fights by surprise and terrain, and while I had the terrain here, I didn't have the surprise- also, focus fire is super painful for a light, even with durability nodes on.
Bunches of extra ammo now, though, so I could probably afford a larger engine if I went and modified the build. Worth considering.
Ammo clip/rack size aside, this didn't feel much better or even much different from usual- I probably held out through more volleys of incoming fire, but that's about it. This in spite of heavy investment in both Mobility and Survival. It looks like even that plus the engine decoupling from agility stats is not really going to make slower lights enough better, at least not when you're talking about a 90 KPH (after skills) Panther.
I'll want to try this 'mech again later to verify.
CTF-1X Thresher
Test Server, 4:05 PM, Game 7:
Ow. I don't know what nodes that Arctic Cheetah had, but it was vicious. I badly mistimed a lot of autocannon shots too. Not really minding the Kit Fox with the two machine guns and three small lasers, the real MVP on the enemy team there was the cheetah. I spotted a SCR, but it ran for cover almost immediately.
I'm starting to get a little worried about this build, because I remember it being a lot better than it seems to be now. Very little of that rests on the PTS Skill setup, so I'm inclined to believe the thing just can't perform in small-force combat, at least not in my hands right now. I guess I'll have to lean on other 'mechs for the Heavy category here.
QKD-4H Blotter
Test Server, 4:23 PM, Game 8:
Matchmaker said only lights queueing up now. What the heck? Well, at least this is a good heavy for dealing with that.... right?
Standup fights are not this 'mech's specialty. Our light and medium ran off and the light disconnected, followed by the opfor (who stuck together) dropping a UAV and rolling right into and over myself and our Awesome. Not great.
On the upside, despite the lack of Survival quirks, I managed to last plenty long taking main fire from three enemy 'mechs, so clearly Survival isn't a truly mandatory part of the skill selection.
BJ-3 Sap
Test Server, 4:41 PM, Game 9:
I'm starting to wonder if there needs to be some kind of harsher cap on large-batch small-size weapons. Between the damage outputs of the various Clan 'mechs toting around 5+ small lasers all together with massively reduced duration due to the availability of such in the Firepower tree, time to kill can be hideously absurd.
Having only four 'mechs at a time to spread incoming damage across and use cross-fire to cover one another doesn't help either.
While the advanced zoom, laser duration, and range benefits this 'mech sees proved useful at least during the longer-range opening of the fight, the moment that Medusa closed in, it was essentially over. Considering some of the fights I've taken on in this 'mech and come out of alive (not necessarily victorious mind) it's absurd that a single Medium of comparable size should take it out with no appreciable damage to itself.
That said, I could have just had an 'off' game, so I'm going to try not to read too much into this one match.
PNT-10P Backhand (I might be stubborn.)
Test Server, 4:55 PM, Game 10:
Well, that was more like it. Almost wrecked a Bushwacker's legs and helped take out a Huntsman. My aim was a bit poor, I'm not used to such high agility with relatively low speed, so this is starting to look more like a 'needs time to adjust' thing than a 'this is just not going to work' thing.
I'll have to play this 'mech more in Live too, I forgot the raw amusement factor.
HBK-4G Igor
Test Server, 5:13 PM, Game 11:
Hi, Tesunie. Maybe shutting down there was a really really bad idea. That makes twice I saw and killed you, twice I saw you and someone else killed me. Reminds me of another friend of mine who I keep running into on Live servers. Every time he tries to kill me, and every time someone else on my team kills him AND someone else on his team kills me before he can secure.
I really need to reposition my ammo in this 'mech. (Done and done. Thanks for the note, me.)
Other than that, things went pretty well actually. Mag Capacity didn't really come into play, then again I have three tonnes of ammo in the thing, I could probably afford to shed one now for more engine or a third laser or something. Durability and agility was well on-point, which is encouraging since I mosty invested just enough in Mobility to nab the full Speed Tweak set. Sensors tree was useful too, that quick info is nice and I got to watch people prepare to peek out from cover a couple times.
Overall, I'm liking the changes for this 'mech.
ENF-4R Vinyl
Test Server, 5:38 PM, Game 12:
Wow, this 'mech works REALLY WELL. I dunno if it just suits me today or what, but that was loads of fun. AC/10 with nice refire rate MVP or something. Survived the match because people keep assuming I run XL engines in things I don't run them in, and vice versa. Even managed to forget I skipped the Survival tree entirely. Had Mobility, though, and it worked out great. A touch hot, but there are more skill nodes available with which to fix that.
Well, I've been at this for four hours, seems like a good place to stop for the day.
Thoughts so far, 6:44 PM March 4th 2017
Boy, there's a lot to go on here.
I'm very much adoring the concept of having skills in these trees and nodes like this. It provides both an interesting way to customize 'mechs and a lot of new balancing options for PGI that allow for more fine-tuning than altering the pilot efficiencies in the Live server.
I think, PGI, that you have some serious issues with naming things (Miscellaneous tree? Really? Also, branches? Do you guys understand what it means for things to be a tree? None of these 'branches' connect to each other, what you have is a set of trees. Please stop confusing the terminology.) and some menu issues (I get that you want people to have the chance to back out of mistakes, but yet again you have too many confirmation buttons in the menu in general..... and the ones that are appropriate, can someone explain to me why the buttons on the windows are so damn small? If I twitch a little while clicking I have to click it again because it didn't register. Please make the buttons bigger, even if/though it looks slightly less sleek.) (Also, the way you have us navigating the skill trees is bad. The menu at the top is fine, but the way a player slides from one tree to the next and zooms in and out is just... it winds up making a pretty thing ugly. Please replace this with actual pagination.)
I like the idea of gating nodes that provide one benefit behind nodes that provide a completely different, only partially related benefit. It's a good way to give players a choice to make about how many nodes out of their 91 the benefits of a given node are worth. Good on you. Your organization leaves a bit to be desired on many trees, though. The Jump Jet tree is very well laid out, the Weapons tree is alright, the Mobility tree is kind of a vague mess, and honestly why the heck are NARC, ECM, and Radar Deprivation where they are? AMS Overload also.
Look, between AMS Overload, ECM, Radar Deprivation, and Reduced Critical, you have the core of a second Survival tree for ancillary gear. All you have to do is come up with one or two more things to add to it and you can have two separate Survival trees, and doesn't that sound nice? I would expect it to lead to less complaints about the gating as well. Just consider it please?
I notice that things along the line of Target Sharing (+Target Info Gathering for allies locking the target you have locked) and Spotter Training (Other players can see hollow triangles over enemies that you can see hollow triangles over, if the enemy is within a certain distance from you, but cannot lock onto those targets) still don't exist as skill nodes yet, and that's kind of a travesty. You have an immense opportunity to build up that Info Warfare pillar by providing players useful tools as skill nodes that don't equate at all to equipment or modules we have right now, and you're not even testing to see if anyone finds the options alluring enough to try them on the PTS?
I can only hope you're planning something for after the skill tree system goes into live, when that happens.
I like the way you've been thinking about weapons. Separate trees led to more boating, so you're trying conjoined trees. That's not a bad idea. Here's another one to try:
Separate trees for different kinds of effects across all weapons.
For instance, a 'Projectile' tree consisting of Spread Reduction, Ammo Count, Projectile Speed, and a few more specialized (Ultra Jam, Gauss Charge Duration, Streak Maneuverability, etc.) kinds of nodes (put Projectile Speed near the base so PPC users can reach it easily), a 'Time On Target' tree for Beam Duration, Autocannon Fire Duration (for multi-shell cannon), and Refire Rate. And then an Efficiency Tree for Ammo Bins, Heat Generation, that kind of thing. Enh, maybe it wouldn't work, that doesn't sound very even, but worth considering briefly maybe?
Your goal with light 'mechs- making smaller engines more viable- is laudable, but the engine-decoupling effects on the PTS don't seem to be making as much of a difference most of the time as it sounded like you wanted them to.
Although I speak as someone who feels that even in the current Live environment light 'mechs don't need to be quite as fast as they usually are (I don't seem to have much more trouble hitting a 'mech traveling 150 kph than I do one traveling 120 kph, but the 120 kph 'mech is much worse to deal with than a 90 kph one- 115-120 kph seeming to be the 'cutoff point'- and my experiences piloting Lights support this as well,) I don't think this result is as strong as you were looking for and you may want to shift even more of the mobility of a 'mech into its inherent traits- possibly stealing some of it from engine size, in addition to consuming quirks.
That said, I do like the current state of the Armor/Structure tree- it no longer feels like taking it is completely non-optional, although it does seem
almost mandatory to take either most of Armor/Structure or a good 2/3 of Mobility.
More testing tomorrow, I think. Time to go on Live and have a few laughs driving Cyclopes. Man those things are a LOAD of fun, I don't care how nonoptimal they are (especially my builds).
Morning Thoughts, March 5th 2017:
In which we are reminded that yes, this was a thing, and learn that John Goodman has a really nice singing voice. Also, yeah it's kind of a dumb movie, but it's really fun (even if the kids are cornier than a silo of niblets). Because dinosaur friendship. And John Goodman should sing a lot more.
Anyways, where was I? Oh, right some more thoughts. A few things have had time to percolate, and I've decided I like the new weapons tree a lot more than I thought I did before.
This is mostly because of the way PGI have used the layout. With three 'wedges', each distinctly angled towards a particular weapons type (excepting the PPC/ballistic overlap in Velocity), they were able to put in a much higher number of nodes for things like weapons heat and cooldown, split up between the wedges. This means that a 'mech that uses two kinds of weapons and selects nodes for both those weapon types can pick up roughly twice as much weapons management boosts- vis a vis my Predator, which by glomming a bunch of energy and missile nodes has racked up a total of -7% weapons heat, across the board. Considering the best we could manage before was -5% for a single type of weapon, that's really good.
In fact, this seems to be a strong way to encourage weapons diversity. It would be easy to make it too strong, so I hope PGI proceeds with caution, but at the same time, more attention should have been specifically brought to this. This is a big difference, and something that people who are used to just boating copies of a single weapon or similar weapons likely won't have caught on to this right away, and some won't notice it at all without it being pointed out to them. Humans get tunnel vision like that when we are used to something being a certain way and then it changes.
Anyways, I'll go get me some breakfast/brunch and then probably come play some more.
-QKD-CR0
Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 05 March 2017 - 07:38 AM.
2
Cato Phoenix, on 04 March 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:
