1 reply to this topic

[Leonidas the First]

Before I get into the real topic here, the one issue that is almost universally agreed upon is that the interconnected nature of the nodes kill the goal of customization. The trees need to be linear. If PGI want to have some special nodes like Magazine Capacity as a bonus for completing multiple branches then that is fine, but no one want to be forced to spend resources on Hill Climb or Arm Flex on a mech with no arm weapons.

There are a few other major concerns that player talking about the most, but the I want to talk about here is boating verses mixed builds. Even if you could create a mixed and a boat build that were equal in capability, boating is still the natural meta direction becasue you only have to tactically plan for and execute a single play and to further maximize this idea many boaters play the same build type (large pulse and medium laser) on almost every mech. On the other hand this way of playing is boring to many who like variety. I do not care which direction someone wants to go, but the game can not be built to favor boating/min max/meta. Does anyone remember the Magic the Gathering days when everyone showed up with one of three decks that were all played the exact same way and the winner was determined by who was lucky enough to have the right cards come out first?

Popular solutions for this problems in terms of the new Skill Trees have been loading of bonuses (I have seen this one the most), lengthening the trees or having increasing costs. From a software perspective an engineer has to look at how any implementation can be broken, weather intentionally or unintentionally, by a user, so as a software engineer this is my take.

Front Loaded Bonuses provide not reason not to boat, so dedicated boaters will still boat. For sake of argument let's say this system allows a mixed build too achieve a +6% bonus on all the paths for a SRM, Laser and Ballistic mix with a mix of non-weapon bonuses. Can these builds compete with a Large Pulse or SRM boater with a +10% bonus on those weapons and the same amount spent of non-weapon bonuses chosen to fit a very specific need? With specific non-weapon bonuses geared toward getting that mech into its optimal range and equally skilled boater probably still has an advantage based only on skill trees and on top of that has greater simplicity and specialization of play style. A lesser advantage still goes to boater. If you front load it too far the boater buys the first couple nodes and then refocuses the rest of the nodes on better tuning of the non-weapon nodes to support that boating style. This might diminish the advantage a little more.

From a developers (PGI) perspective it does uses the existing structure. A single cost method can be developed and used by every branch and each branch then needs one or two properties associated with it to customize the rate of increase. This is even something that could be adjusted on the fly during PTS without patches.

Lengthening Branches fits within the current system based on 91 nodes with the same cost. This does not reduce the number of nodes a boater has and ends up being less effective then Front Loaded Bonuses. Let's say it takes 20 nodes to max a tree now and lengthening the tress makes it take 40. The mixed build described above now has to buy 60 nodes to get half way though 3 trees and is not severely disadvantaged. Lengthening popular or branches might make previously unpopular options more viable, but this does not solve weapon boating becasue if you lengthen one weapon type then the boater all switch to the shorter one and boat that.

From a developers perspective this makes the interface bigger, forces you to create and delete nodes and rearrange the interface for every change.

Increasing Costs for Nodes in a Branch in a system based on max XP spent, maybe even with a slight exponential curve to the expense, leaves boaters with less nodes purchased overall which balances out the natural advantage of boating. The goals is not to kill boating, but to give either option an equal shot at success. Instead of leading to A Meta that half community runs, this leads to players finding their individual meta that best fits their natural abilities.

For the realist, boating is the way to go in a real tactical situation, but this is not about real life, it is about the most people getting the most enjoyment possible. Any boaters so put of by this system will likely feel that way becasue they have to create an advantage at all costs probably. Most of the hackers fit into this category as well and if they want to leave the game then don't let the door hit you on the way out! You can go spend a $1000 on the latest card game deck and demolish all the kids at your local gaming shop instead :-)

From a developer's perspective this system requires changes to the system, but not to the interface and provides the same on the fly flexibility of Front Loaded Bonuses.

[Pyed]

I agree.

It seems the solution that solves the most problems with the tree as-is, with the least wholesale changes to the tree as-is, is to make progression down the tree less interconnected and skill costs to be variable--higher costs for minmaxing and higher costs on individually more valuable nodes (i.e. seismic).

It also makes sense from the "realism" standpoint in that tweaking a mech to get a little bit better performance than base design in one area is fairly simple, but the more you tweak that one aspect to further outperform the more you'll see diminishing returns. And it's more costly to introduce an entirely new capability (i.e. seismic).