17 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

personally i see many discussions about the Weapon Boating problem,
and people moving to Fill out whole Trees(All or Nothing Mentality)


this can be done in 2 ways,

1) Increasing Costs per Consecutive Skills, Ex:
Cost of (JJ Lift Speed Lv1) = 1 Skill Point,
Cost of (JJ Lift Speed Lv2) = 2 Skill Points,
Cost of (JJ Lift Speed Lv3) = 3 Skill Points,
Cost of (JJ Lift Speed Lv4) = 4 Skill Points,
Cost of (JJ Lift Speed Lv5) = 5 Skill Points,

2) Decreasing Percents per Consecutive Skills, Ex:
Percent of (JJ Lift Speed Lv1) = 10% Percent,
Percent of (JJ Lift Speed Lv2) = 8% Percent,
Percent of (JJ Lift Speed Lv3) = 6% Percent,
Percent of (JJ Lift Speed Lv4) = 4% Percent,
Percent of (JJ Lift Speed Lv5) = 2% Percent,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 10 February 2017 - 03:18 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

Diminishing returns is better than increasing cost.

Increasing the costs punishes players who specialise; "I took Lvl 5, now I'll miss out on 4 other skills"
Diminishing returns encourages variety but doesn't punish specialists; "Do I take +1% on my primary or +5% on my secondary weapon"

[pyrocomp]

I'm for diminishing returns.
Might be an idea to have flat returns and actual drawbacks upon higher tiers like '+5% increased projectile speed and +5% heat generation'.

[Fox2232]

I am categorically against 1st.

And I would support 2nd for almost everything.
- Improves multi weapon choices.
- To gain full effect of radar derp one would still need 5 nodes, but 1st two may achieve 60% of the effect.
- I would definitely like to see boost to actual JJ
- But this has pre-requirements too => Linear trees. Because now, as you kind of pick stuff on way to achieve that one thing, you almost achieve 2 others. (So comes in play "Just 2 more nodes and I have this complete too. And then you have nearly everything in tree")

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

I'd rather have neither and alternatively I'd like the ability to go much further down into a skill tree or to be able to purchase a tree then do that multiple times so that you can specialize in one thing in particular. This way you get actual diversity between mechs and you will not be sure who decided to go full armor, or full firepower, or full mobility, or some mix between.

[Kuaron]

Your basic idea seems the same as mine (you’ve seen the linked thread already, probably), I just listed a few additional measures to round up the concept. So you can guess if I like it.

For example, you’d need a measure for balancing popular vs. unpopular skills, because if higher levels of skills are designed as being strictly optional and mostly for specialists you cannot hide the more popular ones (even their first levels), as currently the heat gen, behind higher levels of less popular skills. This hiding works now on the PTS, more or less, but with the suggested concepts we’d have to make skills linear.

[Andi Nagasia]

Kuaron, on 10 February 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

Your basic idea seems the same as mine (you’ve seen the linked thread already, probably), I just listed a few additional measures to round up the concept. So you can guess if I like it.

For example, you’d need a measure for balancing popular vs. unpopular skills, because if higher levels of skills are designed as being strictly optional and mostly for specialists you cannot hide the more popular ones (even their first levels), as currently the heat gen, behind higher levels of less popular skills. This hiding works now on the PTS, more or less, but with the suggested concepts we’d have to make skills linear.

O i see, sorry i didnt see your Topic,

i think after we have a system inplace to help with diversity(as ether here)
then we can work to buffing some trees to balance everything out,

much like as it is the JJ Tree is abit of a Joke, its way too weak,
tested the VPR no tree vs Full Tree, +5m vertical +15m Distance,
thats less than 5% increase for Committing 15 Points to the Tree,

[Nimnul]

I want more.

[Fox2232]

Andi Nagasia, on 10 February 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

O i see, sorry i didnt see your Topic,

i think after we have a system inplace to help with diversity(as ether here)
then we can work to buffing some trees to balance everything out,

much like as it is the JJ Tree is abit of a Joke, its way too weak,
tested the VPR no tree vs Full Tree, +5m vertical +15m Distance,
thats less than 5% increase for Committing 15 Points to the Tree,

JJ Tree is bit of a "Joke Jet Tree" because someone does not understand basic laws of physics.
Tree gives boost +5% to initial speed. Increasing initial speed is way to boost something what relies on ballistic curve like "Jump of the Frog".

But here we deal with continuous thrust of Jets. And that is actually called acceleration. And therefore real boost to achievable height for jump jets comes from higher thrust overcoming downward acceleration caused by gravitation.
+5% to thrust power would improve total height significantly more than initial Jump speed given by mech's legs.
(because acceleration is applied over time)

Edited by Fox2232, 10 February 2017 - 03:37 PM.

[Mycroft000]

Diminishing returns.

[Mr T]

Diminishing returns

[Andi Nagasia]

Diminishing returns

[Bellum Dominum]

Fox2232, on 10 February 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

JJ Tree is bit of a "Joke Jet Tree" because someone does not understand basic laws of physics.
Tree gives boost +5% to initial speed. Increasing initial speed is way to boost something what relies on ballistic curve like "Jump of the Frog".

But here we deal with continuous thrust of Jets. And that is actually called acceleration. And therefore real boost to achievable height for jump jets comes from higher thrust overcoming downward acceleration caused by gravitation.
+5% to thrust power would improve total height significantly more than initial Jump speed given by mech's legs.
(because acceleration is applied over time)

Well that actually depends on if we are talking sustained thrust or initial thrust. If it's +5% initial thrust then the amount of time to reach the peak lift of sustained thrust is indeed shortened in accord with the duration of the increased initial thrust. For example: If object A's sustained thrust will after 1 minute achieve 10m of lift then increasing the amount of thrust for the first 10 seconds the object will still only achieve 10m but get there in less time.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 10 February 2017 - 06:34 PM.

[Horseman]

Neither. Both will lead to people filling up the cheaper nodes instead of specializing. That leads to homogenity instead of diversity.

What might work is capping the number of skill points that can be spent per tree and making some of the choices mutually exclusive - pick if you want range or beam duration, jump height or jump vectoring, that sort of thing.

[Sixpack]

Yes to diminishing returns.

It allows for either boating or spreading out the skillpoints on different things more while still getting decent effectiveness.


I am also sure that many people would be receptive to streamlined skill selection.


Example:

Laser Range 1 -> Laser Range 2 -> ... -> Laser Range 5

Instead of the current:

Laser Range 1 -> Laser Burn time 1 -> Laser Heat Generation 2

[kapusta11]

Define boating.

I have enough SP to unlock useful skill nodes from 2 weapon trees.

[Illias Illtempered]

I certainly prefer a streamlined skill selection to the current method and diminishing returns is not a bad idea and allows for super specialization or effective diversity.

[Cbayer8]

I came up with a visual representation just to get an idea on paper. Its similar to what Kuaron brought up in that post and the diminishing returns as seen above. First couple stages give largest bonuses and cost increases as stage increases.


Example tree is in the middle of post. https://mwomercs.com...97#entry5611097