9 replies to this topic

[Captain Arctic]

First of all I would like to say thanks to PGI: you had done a great job and I really like how its results look like! The Skill Tree is a way better than previous unlocks list, more native and more interesting to deal with it. I was literally enjoying testing the new system, it’s just awesome!

Of course as any other new system, the Skill Tree requires some amount of a small tweaks and polishing - it's not a problem at least for me. But there is a very serious problem - only one problem, which able to ruin the whole concept of the new system. As I can see, the Skill Tree is supposed to encourage variability of the mech builds, but the current build of the system does exact the opposite.

I found that there are only TWO (!) main (meta) variants of the nodes sets, depends on a type of installed weapons (ballistics or energy). I assure you, that there aren't any more variants if the players really want to master (maximize) their mechs. You just can't exchange the speed tweak for the arms angle, or the radar deprivation for the UAV improvement, etc. As well as you can't exchange the "must have" nodes mentioned above for a secondary weapon type branch. They aren't equal, the second isn't worth the first, and will never be. Also the JJs and the Aux branches will be abandoned forever, while there are much better branches and you have limited SP shared between all of the branches.

Furthermore while you can (must) have only one weapon type skill branch (if you want to be max-effective) and mastering mechs became longer in the new system, you will never want to invest your XP points (time) into anything else except the tier one top-mechs, which are much more suitable for monotype weapons boating due to their hardpoints. All other mechs will become underdogs as never before. It also ruins previously perfect synergy in the sets of LPL+ML, SRM+S(P)L, Gauss+PPC, Gauss/UAC+Lasers, etc.

So what we have as a result:
1. Monotype weapon boats based on the top-mechs (like quad-UACs, or pulse laser-vomits, or pure SRMs, etc. on Timbers, Marauders, etc.);
2. The player has only two ways to maximize his mech, and the way depends not on his will, but only on the type of installed weapons.

I don't think, that you wanted to make the new system like that, don't you, devs?

Here is my suggestion how to deal with it.

Maybe this isn't so obvious, but the root of the problem hides in combined together offensive and utility skills - shared SP points between them. Thereby there is a need of reworking a base principle of the new system: separate SP points into offensive SP (OSP) and utility SP (USP). OSP should be enough for a two weapon branches or a one weapon branch and an auxiliary branch (MGs, Flamers, NARC, TAG, UAV, Artillery, Air Strike - for support builds). USP should be in current amount minus 20 SP previously spent on one weapon branch and maybe plus spare 5-15 SP for the variability (for JJs or torso nodes). And that's all - the simple and effective countermeasure against boating that returns a lot of variability as before. Maybe adding restrictions to add variability sounds weird, but it will work. Also it looks like easy to implement.

And I have one more suggestion for the future improvement of the Skill Tree system. I understand, that this one is much harder to implement, requires hard work, and will take some time, if you will like it, so it's just a thoughts about the future (isn't something I expect in this month or even in this year). My suggestion is to evolve the Skill Tree into the Engineering Department (sort of). The key concept of it is upgrading each specific gun just like each specific mech that will get rid of the half-measure of the separating SP points. In addition it will add to the game even more variability and fine-tuning of each specific build. From the frontend it will look like compilation of a technical project for the engineers (in the Skill Tree interface) and submitting it with all mechs and guns to the engineers' job queue (kind of a factory). It will take some time, during which you won't be able to use submitted for upgrades mechs and guns. Also it's a fair way to reap from impatient players some MCs for prioritizing their project in the queue and completing them right now. As well such system has a lot of common sense, something like: "Hey guys! I'm respected pilot; I bet you heard about me. How about upgrading my mech and its guns?" - "Hey man! Nice to see you! Sure thing, what do you want exactly?" - "This, this, this, and this... and... maybe this... yes, this." - "Ok! We've just added your project in the queue. But... if you don't wanna wait... you know... some MCs could help us find a reserved spot for you at the beginning of the queue." This simply adds the feeling of the real upgrading process (not just one click to upgrade that feels so synthetic and unrealistic). Balance issues can be fixed by changing tonnage and size (slots) of the upgraded gun. Also there may be upgrades for decreasing size/weight, which also decrease firepower/range a bit and can't be combined with upgrades for increasing firepower/range. And… I have to stop my thoughts right here, 'cause there are too much to discuss, but this post isn't about it.

Side notes (for devs if they're reading this):

Spoiler

1) Bug report: If you install 2 coolshots, only one of them displays on the HUD (but in fact there're still 2 equipped, and you can use all two by pressing the assigned coolshot key).
2) Adding coolshot improvement nodes near the heat containment and the cool run nodes looks like a good idea.
3) Buffing a bit the underdog skill branches like JJs also sounds good.

And some side notes irrelevant to the topic:
1) Adding firing pattern computer (macro computer, like the Targeting Computer or as skill branch or upgrade for the TC) - anyway you can do nothing with macro players, but you can equalize them with everybody else.
2) More PTS events maybe, like “free testing weekend”? I have a friend who runs tests with me. He's pretty new to the game. When he had tested on the way some builds irrelevant to the current PTS, he got assurance that they are suitable for him, and he does want to buy them now (even for MC).
3) Adding an option for 4-vs-4 matches in the regular quick play would be cool. They're simply more competitive, w/o meatshiled, no chance to hide behind teammates' backs, fast and pure combat experience.

I hope that my suggestions will be useful, and you didn't too much tire while reading the long post. Also sorry for the grammar if I mistook somewhere (English isn't my native language).

[ShadeofHades]

I've been bouncing around the same thought in my head, but hadn't reached something you did - including the aux/UAV/NARC branch with 'weapons' for things like the NVA-Prime, with only one weapon type, to spend those extra nodes on. I've found that I spend somewhere around 70-75 nodes in utility and defense, but I think that would actually be too high with 30 nodes for weapons...in order to make those decisions feel like they matter a bit more I'd suggest a forced split around:

60-65 nodes for utility
30-35 nodes for weapons and auxiliary

[Kuaron]

I read the first sentence of the post, and than the first sentence after the bold “suggestion” line.

But sounds good, could work. At least in the long run it could strengthen hybrid builds, even if they stay more expensive (in terms of skill points) than boating ones. But at least they wouldn’t be straight out inferior in the long run.

As always, you can link your thread in the one for collecting anti-boating-concepts if you like,
https://mwomercs.com...weapon-boating/

[Captain Arctic]

ShadeofHades, on 10 February 2017 - 06:18 AM, said:

I've found that I spend somewhere around 70-75 nodes in utility and defense, but I think that would actually be too high with 30 nodes for weapons...in order to make those decisions feel like they matter a bit more I'd suggest a forced split around:

60-65 nodes for utility
30-35 nodes for weapons and auxiliary

Approximately 30-35 SPs for weapons and auxiliary nodes sounds good for me too. I’ve tested the classic set of LPL+ML and found that 29 SPs is enough to maximize the set and make the sync trick work. Also 20 SPs for a primary weapon and 10-15 SPs for secondary weapon or auxiliary things should be enough anyway.

But I really don't know how many SPs you need for utility and defense nodes. I haven't tested it yet in this context. Anyway already from here I can say that we should expect some problems. The 1st expected problem: the number of utility SPs should be enough to cover logically relevant builds (like mobility vs armor or armor vs ECM/radar-derp). The 2nd expected problem: the number of utility SPs shouldn't be enough to make an OP build (every best node in one build). Need further testing.

Anyway I know for sure one of those small tweaks that is already needed to be implemented: reducing the number of mobility nodes. There are simply too much of them while they're not so important. For example reduce the number of their levels from 5 to 3 or combine together yaw and pitch angle nodes, etc. This would clarify previous question.

Kuaron, on 10 February 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

But sounds good, could work. At least in the long run it could strengthen hybrid builds, even if they stay more expensive (in terms of skill points) than boating ones. But at least they wouldn’t be straight out inferior in the long run.

As always, you can link your thread in the one for collecting anti-boating-concepts if you like,
https://mwomercs.com...weapon-boating/

Personally for me it doesn't matter how much more expensive hybrid builds will be. I just don't want to play on, with or versus that one-button-gameplay (press X to win). Nah-nah-nah, it's too boring; and it kills about 80% of the gameplay. At least for me, but I think I'm not the only one who concerned about it.

Sure, I'll leave a link and few words about my suggestion. Really few this time.

[1453 R]

Hm.

I think this is the first notion I've read that addresses the Damn Dirty Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Meta-Humping Cheese-Bagging Boater Turdlord issue people keep throwing up in here without breaking things wide open, rendering the system nonfunctional, or...well, basically just complaining about boating with no real solution.

I could see something like this. On the other hand though, you also have to consider things like the Spider, that would be very hard-pressed to find a use for thirty 'offensive' nodes and would otherwise be absolutely desperate for every 'utility' node it could get as its assigned role is "basically unarmed recon pest." Folding extra nodes for things like offensive air/arty strikes into the Auxiliary tree might help, but no amount of offensive nodes is going to make two medium pulse lasers in a Spider effective.

'Course, it's a Spider. People piloting those know what they're getting into, I suppose. Overall I think this might be a usable idea kernel, though the exact numbers would depend on where the final implemented values for the skill tree go, and which branches count as Offense or Utility. The game might benefit from letting certain otherwise weaker/niche-y branches count as both, like Auxiliary, so you can spend either type of point in there, for example. Make it easier to utilize spare points that don't fit well into other branches in the 'swing' ones, as one possible idea.

[Kuaron]

Concerning the spider: We’d need MGs and flamers in the offensive part then, ofc.
Maybe even some of the consumable buffs? It would have to be something rarely used by heavily armed weapon boats.

[1453 R]

Kuaron, on 10 February 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

Concerning the spider: We’d need MGs and flamers in the offensive part then, ofc.
Maybe even some of the consumable buffs? It would have to be something rarely used by heavily armed weapon boats.

Well that's kinda the point. You can spend nodes to get scary airstrikes or artillery, or you can spend nodes on your regular weapons. If you're a Spider and you don't get any regular weapons (), you can get scary strikes guilt-free. If you're a Marauder IIC, you have to sacrifice some power in your already-terrifying arsenal of badness to get scary strikes. It works out.

[Captain Arctic]

By the way I've already mentioned MGs and Flamers as auxiliary skills in the first offensive part of the Skill Tree. And you read my mind: furthermore Spider may get some special auxiliary nodes like 5-10 slots for UAV/Artillery/Air Strike for example. Sounds fun and fits into specialty concept. Also there's an option to change SP limits individually for each mech variant, or chassis, or weight class, like it was before with modules slots. I mean there're a lot of ways to buff (and specialize) underdog mechs, and balance the entire system if that kernel idea will be implemented. Obviously it won't get rid of meta-builds, but will make them more complicated and balanced.

I've tested KDK-3 fitted with 2xUAC/10+2xUAC/5 and enough ammo to deal 2100 dmg (with the magazine capacity skill, 6+4 tons). It's a way too OP and can't be countered literally by anything in 1v1 fight. It's a real immortal unstoppable turret. Dakka-dakka, dakka-dakka, dakka-dakka... Brawling Atlas build could try to handle with it but only with upgraded AC and SRM nodes without the need of losing SPs in the defensive/utility part of the Skill Tree. So once again I became convinced of the need for dividing the Skill Tree into two independent parts, otherwise it will be too imbalanced and overbuffing already good top-mechs.

[Widowmaker1981]

This isnt a bad suggestion to be honest - the current set up really does favour single weapon type boats (though actually to an arguably lesser extent than modules do, because at least weapon families are grouped - this system presents an argument for running C-LPL + C-MPL builds which are currently silly because the duration doesn't sync, so why pay the tonnage for short duration MPLs)

It does have to include some kind of useful non weapon option in the weapon grouping though, because a lot of smaller mechs can only boat to be effective, and those mechs dont need to be nerfed compared to bigger things by having to waste a bunch of skill points.

[Captain Arctic]

Widowmaker1981, on 10 February 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

This isnt a bad suggestion to be honest - the current set up really does favour single weapon type boats (though actually to an arguably lesser extent than modules do, because at least weapon families are grouped - this system presents an argument for running C-LPL + C-MPL builds which are currently silly because the duration doesn't sync, so why pay the tonnage for short duration MPLs)

I've found during testing that only 6xC-MPL build can be a worthy replacement for 2xC-LPL+4xC-ERML build. It has lesser range (-100 m) and lesser alpha (-6 dmg), but also lesser duration (approx. -33%) and lesser heat (3 vs 2 alpha-strike in a row), which mean slightly higher sustained DPS (approx. +0.5 dmg/sec). According to my feelings they are pretty equal, but the classic LPL+ML build is still slightly better, a bit more universal. A set of C-LPL+C-MPL is... just meh.

Widowmaker1981, on 10 February 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

It does have to include some kind of useful non weapon option in the weapon grouping though, because a lot of smaller mechs can only boat to be effective, and those mechs dont need to be nerfed compared to bigger things by having to waste a bunch of skill points.

That's why I suggested to add in the first part of the separated tree also auxiliary nodes for MGs. Flamers, NARC, TAG, UAV, Art, Air, and maybe additional slots for consumables. In this way you have two options: to carry two weapon types or just one type and some auxiliary things for supportive role. You have even third option: simply boat one weapon type and don't spend spare SPs in the first part of the tree. Anyway it doesn't affect the second part of the tree with its own limit of SPs.