10 replies to this topic

[Elizander]

EDIT: I partially messed up. I should have connected all the HEAT nodes together or something so you aren't forced to get the max duration/range nodes to get to them.

Making a skill tree of this magnitude is time consuming and I won't pretend that I can create one in 30 minutes (but maybe I can given a few days) so I'm just going off the main sample we have on the website and introduce negative effects for going for certain skills.

Here you can get some basic range and duration quirks and the first node isn't a total loss cause it's dual. Going past 10% range and duration is possible so you can have 15%, but it comes with a consequence.

Also, increasing your sustain and your DPS via heat and cooldown quirks will come with defensive penalties so it will truly be a choice to go max offense and be a softer target or hold back on the firepower and be tankier.

Are the numbers here perfect? Hell no, but it's a quick sample of what I think can be done to make the skill tree more interesting and improve the illusion of choice. This is one way to make choice without increasing the cost of the defensive skill tree.

You can add general penalties the deeper you go in the general skill tree such as the mech moves slower the more structure it has or hotter the more armor it has near the bottom just like what was done here.

Anyway, go diss it or post better suggestions or go REEEEEEEEEEEEE. Just tossing in another 2 cents to help with the feedback.

[Ruar]

What really needs to happen is the heat line is it's own linear path to the right or left of the others. I should be able to go straight down whichever focus I want without having to spend points on stuff I don't need for my build.

Edited by Ruar, 11 February 2017 - 11:40 AM.

[EpyonComet]

REEEEEEEEEEEEE

. . .

Sorry, you were very persuasive.

[Ruar]

EpyonComet, on 11 February 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

REEEEEEEEEEEEE

. . .

Sorry, you were very persuasive.

Never mind, I misunderstood.

Edited by Ruar, 11 February 2017 - 12:38 PM.

[Skribs]

Personally, I don't understand the fascination people have with making sure some of the skills have negatives in them.

These are points we're unlocking. It's not like we're tuning sliders in a garage to go from faster acceleration to higher top speed. It's like putting points into acceleration or speed (in some cases literally).

You're already not getting defensive abilities by putting things here, or you got defensives and weapon quirks and you're not getting speed and sensors. There are already tradeoffs in place by simply not being able to get all the points. There is no need to have a disadvantage baked into a skill point.

[EpyonComet]

Ruar, on 11 February 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Seriously? That's all you have? Someone disagrees with your concept, explains why they disagree, and offers a counter proposal and the best you can do is... reeeeee.

Yeah, that's such a persuasive counter argument. I'm sure everyone is going to simply agree with what you say because if they don't.... reeeeee

Uh, no I actually wasn't trying to make an argument. I was just responding in one of the fashions suggested in the OP.

Elizander, on 11 February 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

Anyway, go diss it or post better suggestions or go REEEEEEEEEEEEE. Just tossing in another 2 cents to help with the feedback.

Feel free to criticize my sense of humor though, that would probably be a fair point.

As for this:

Skribs, on 11 February 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Personally, I don't understand the fascination people have with making sure some of the skills have negatives in them.

The idea, which I don't necessarily agree with but do understand, is that playing for longer should not give you straight-up advantages. Rather, individual pilot skill should increase over time, not hard-coded upgrades, while still allowing players a sense of progression in the form of increased capacity for customization and specialization. If you've ever played Team Fortress 2, it's kind of the same idea as the weapons in that.

Edited by EpyonComet, 11 February 2017 - 12:42 PM.

[Ruar]

EpyonComet, on 11 February 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

Uh, no I actually wasn't trying to make an argument. I was just responding in one of the fashions suggested in the OP.



Feel free to criticize my sense of humor though, that would probably be a fair point.

Apologies. I misunderstood the point of your post.

[Y E O N N E]

I don't think things like armor should be found in the laser tree. Like, if you want increased range, it should come at the cost of cool-down and heat. You should always split the drawback into two other stats, otherwise it becomes too gimmicky.

Also, I do not believe laser duration should even be a setting you can alter. They have an entire class of lasers defined by the fact that they have shorter durations, and here they are giving me the ability to straight-up obsolete the MPL by choosing to quirk ML down below the point of diminishing returns (~0.8 s). The only thing keeping SPL and LPL relevant are the increased damage values, and for SPL that's entirely because SL are complete pea shooters.

[Ruar]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 February 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I don't think things like armor should be found in the laser tree. Like, if you want increased range, it should come at the cost of cool-down and heat. You should always split the drawback into two other stats, otherwise it becomes too gimmicky.

Also, I do not believe laser duration should even be a setting you can alter. They have an entire class of lasers defined by the fact that they have shorter durations, and here they are giving me the ability to straight-up obsolete the MPL by choosing to quirk ML down below the point of diminishing returns (~0.8 s). The only thing keeping SPL and LPL relevant are the increased damage values, and for SPL that's entirely because SL are complete pea shooters.

They need to balance weapons against weapons instead of trying to balance them against quirks and skills. If MPL can't compete against ML because of the ability to reduce duration then MPL need to be adjusted individually. Denying the ability to make the ML more useful isn't balance.

[Y E O N N E]

Ruar, on 11 February 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

They need to balance weapons against weapons instead of trying to balance them against quirks and skills. If MPL can't compete against ML because of the ability to reduce duration then MPL need to be adjusted individually. Denying the ability to make the ML more useful isn't balance.

The current values on the ML are bad. Using quirks/skills to make weapons good means they have to be bad by default, and that's just broken.

They can reduce the duration on the MPL all they want. But, when your duration dips below 0.8 seconds, being shorter matters less and less. The LPL is 0.67 seconds and it's FLD in application if not on paper. The SPL at 0.5 seconds is barely discernable in advantage. The advantage of 0.67 seconds over the 0.75 seconds on the isSL or cSPL is also barely noticeable. When my isML can burn for 0.765 seconds, I am not going to ever take MPL except on those very rare cases when I'm trying to scrape every last ounce of damage that I can.

The ML should be colder (3 to 3.5 vs. 4), faster (2.5 to 2.75 seconds vs. 3), and only slight shorter in burn (0.82 vs. 0.9 s) than it is now. It doesn't really need anything beyond that, especially not with ERML all but a given in about four months. Hell, the isML will have to be colder than it is now else the ERML is going to be hot to the point of uselessness.

[Ruar]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

The current values on the ML are bad. Using quirks/skills to make weapons good means they have to be bad by default, and that's just broken.

They can reduce the duration on the MPL all they want. But, when your duration dips below 0.8 seconds, being shorter matters less and less. The LPL is 0.67 seconds and it's FLD in application if not on paper. The SPL at 0.5 seconds is barely discernable in advantage. The advantage of 0.67 seconds over the 0.75 seconds on the isSL or cSPL is also barely noticeable. When my isML can burn for 0.765 seconds, I am not going to ever take MPL except on those very rare cases when I'm trying to scrape every last ounce of damage that I can.

The ML should be colder (3 to 3.5 vs. 4), faster (2.5 to 2.75 seconds vs. 3), and only slight shorter in burn (0.82 vs. 0.9 s) than it is now. It doesn't really need anything beyond that, especially not with ERML all but a given in about four months. Hell, the isML will have to be colder than it is now else the ERML is going to be hot to the point of uselessness.

I appreciate the detailed response. I agree with your points. Thank you.