34 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Ok changed the Topic alittle,

many of the Trees seem to be identical,
a LCT with 1SL should not have the same Quirk %s as a LCT with 6SLs,
i think Mechs with Fewer Equipped Weapons should get higher Quirk Percents,
For those weapons Equipped, Buffing Weapon diversity,

=0=Formula=0=
(#Weapons(By Type) + 2 / #Weapons(By Type) + 1)

LCT-1V = 1SL
(1SL +2 / 1SL +1 = 1.50)
all Energy Quirks x1.50,
(as SL are part of the Laser Tree)

LCT-1M = 2SL
(2SL +2 / 2SL +1 = 1.33)
all Energy Quirks x1.33,
(as SL are part of the Laser Tree)

LCT-PB = 4SL
(4SL +2 / 4SL +1 = 1.20)
all Energy Quirks x1.20,
(as SL are part of the Laser Tree)

LCT-1E = 6SL
(4SL +2 / 4SL +1 = 1.14)
all Energy Quirks x1.14,
(as SL are part of the Laser Tree)

this would be a Dynamic System,
that would look at how many of each weapon you have(By Type)
then increase your Quirks based on you Diversifying your outload,

a MAL-P would get Higher Quirk Percents for taking:
2UAC5s(UAC Tree) +2AC5s(AC Tree) as both would get x1.5 Quirks,

a CN9-D would get Higher Quirk Percents for taking:
1LBX10(LBX Tree) & 2SRM6(SRM Tree) & (2ML(Laser Tree)
as the LBX Tree would get x2 Quirks & the others would get x1.5 Quirks,

this would help make weapon diversity more of a Choice in the New Skill Tree,
(and lessening the Straight Weapon Boating the Tree Currently Supports)


as you can see this formula would buff Mechs & Trees by Mixing Weapons,
Mechs like the LCT-1V, CDA-3M, CN9-A, HBK-4H, having 1E or 1B would benefit,
and it being a formula could be easily incorporated into the Skill Tree,

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks

Edit- Mixing up the Stats,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 03 March 2017 - 08:24 AM.

[Mark Brandhauber]

I would add though this would be hard to enforce on omnimechs.

[Andi Nagasia]

Mark Brandhauber, on 11 February 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

I would add though this would be hard to enforce on omnimechs.

as its a formula they would make it retroactive for Omnimechs,
have the System Check how many Hard Points the OmniMech has(Mech Lab aready does this)
then have it use the Formula to change how much each of those Skills are Worth,
-
this would allow you to run a ADR with 1B and you get better Ballistic Quirks?

[FupDup]

This doesn't really account for mechs that have a lot of hardpoints but only use a few weapons.

Plus, having more hardpoints isn't always better. The Nova is fine, but the Nova Prime's massive hardpoint surplus would make its quirks get utterly shafted. The Dire Whale has hardpoints up the wazoo but it's sub-par these days. Etc.

You don't always need a lot of hardpoints to get high firepower. The best loadouts in the game generally range from 2 hardpoints (double ERPPC) to 4 (2 ERPPC + 2 Gauss). More hardpoints is not always better.

[Andi Nagasia]

FupDup, on 11 February 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

This doesn't really account for mechs that have a lot of hardpoints but only use a few weapons.

Plus, having more hardpoints isn't always better. The Nova is fine, but the Nova Prime's massive hardpoint surplus would make its quirks get utterly shafted. The Dire Whale has hardpoints up the wazoo but it's sub-par these days. Etc.

You don't always need a lot of hardpoints to get high firepower. The best loadouts in the game generally range from 2 hardpoints (double ERPPC) to 4 (2 ERPPC + 2 Gauss). More hardpoints is not always better.

but as with this Formula the %s can never drop below x1, even a Nova would get x1.08 so thats ok,
it also incentivizes people taking 1 large weapon and several small weapons, diversifying their out-loads,

[Kuaron]

FupDup has a point.
This system is doable if the skills themselves are specific for small, medium or large weapons. As long as they are shared but categories like “all pulse lasers”, one has to consider that a large lasers has about the firepower of two mediums, so that 1 hardpoint != 1 hardpoint.
The Nova could take few large lasers instead of many smalls, but wouldn’t see any benefits as long as you only count hardpoints present instead of weapons mounted.

Edit:
I still voted “yes” because there is some potential.
If you find the time to read the forum, maybe you’ll find a thread suggesting something roughly similar but for actually mounted weapons.

Edited by Kuaron, 11 February 2017 - 05:17 PM.

[Wraith 1]

Multiplying certain parts of the skill tree for specific 'Mechs adds a lot of unnecessary complexity, and giving better base quirks to 'Mechs that need them accomplishes the same thing without making the 'Mech unusable until it's properly skilled up.

[Andi Nagasia]

Wraith 1, on 11 February 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

Multiplying certain parts of the skill tree for specific 'Mechs adds a lot of unnecessary complexity, and giving better base quirks to 'Mechs that need them accomplishes the same thing without making the 'Mech unusable until it's properly skilled up.

if you have a mech with 6Energy and another with only 1 Energy, should the mech with 1E get better Quirks?
thats all this would do and it would work for all types of weapons Energy, Ballistic, & Missile,

the Formula is just set in place to give a starting point for a Base line,
and it would help balance Quirks for OmniMechs as well,

[Wraith 1]

Andi Nagasia, on 11 February 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

if you have a mech with 6Energy and another with only 1 Energy, should the mech with 1E get better Quirks?
thats all this would do and it would work for all types of weapons Energy, Ballistic, & Missile,

the Formula is just set in place to give a starting point for a Base line,
and it would help balance Quirks for OmniMechs as well,

Taking from your LCT-1E vs LCT-1V example, the 1V already has much higher energy quirks to start with. PGI hasn't done a great job at making iterative adjustments to quirks over time, but the quirk system is a more 'clean' way to accomplish the same thing you're proposing here.

Besides, a formulaic approach hasn't been the best way to balance MWO in the past. The 1 energy hardpoint in the SMN-Prime RA is a heck of a lot less valuable than the 1 energy hardpoint in the SMN-F RT.

I'm not opposed in the slightest to having varied skill trees for different 'Mechs, but I think applying a multiplier to specific sections of the tree for specific 'Mechs would get confusing really fast.

[Monkey Lover]

Not a bad idea but I think I it would be better to just do it mech by mech.

Some are better than others. It would have to take into consideration location of points and extras like JJ ,ecm or masc.

[FupDup]

Monkey Lover, on 11 February 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Not a bad idea but I think I it would be better to just do it mech by mech.

Some are better than others. It would have to take into consideration location of points and extras like JJ ,ecm or masc.

So basically, my idea of the "skill multiplier" that differs from mech to mech.

[Andi Nagasia]

Wraith 1, on 11 February 2017 - 06:21 PM, said:

Taking from your LCT-1E vs LCT-1V example, the 1V already has much higher energy quirks to start with. PGI hasn't done a great job at making iterative adjustments to quirks over time, but the quirk system is a more 'clean' way to accomplish the same thing you're proposing here.

Besides, a formulaic approach hasn't been the best way to balance MWO in the past. The 1 energy hardpoint in the SMN-Prime RA is a heck of a lot less valuable than the 1 energy hardpoint in the SMN-F RT.

I'm not opposed in the slightest to having varied skill trees for different 'Mechs, but I think applying a multiplier to specific sections of the tree for specific 'Mechs would get confusing really fast.

Monkey Lover, on 11 February 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Not a bad idea but I think I it would be better to just do it mech by mech.

Some are better than others. It would have to take into consideration location of points and extras like JJ ,ecm or masc.

FupDup, on 11 February 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

So basically, my idea of the "skill multiplier" that differs from mech to mech.

yes, the idea of the Formula is just the Starting point, then things can change up and down from there,

[Fox2232]

Big, No-No!

I am not using all hardpoints. And I do not want to be pressured to use them.

If PGI forced some Locust to boat Lasers, why should they punish them on top of it by giving them smaller bonus than mechs which have balanced number of hardpoints of different types?

Tree should not discriminate! If weapon balance is bad, improve direct weapon balance. If some mechs are total suckers, improve those mechs.
But having some mechs nodes which are much better than same nodes on other mechs... Even bigger loss if those players are not taking them.
= = = =
What if some light mech is too slow (and there are some). Will you now give him speed bonus higher than 7.5%? Like Give him 25% speed bonus...
And player will be like: "If I do not take those speed nodes, it is like if I cut off leg from my mech."

Tree Which discriminates is tree which forced decision in given direction. Fix the mechs, keep tree fair.

Edited by Fox2232, 12 February 2017 - 01:20 AM.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

With some thought, I vote no.

If a mech has for example one energy hardpoint, it's role is thus not laser vomit. There are obviously mechs that are greatly limited by their function due to tonnage and hardpoints, but the skill system should not be used to boost them. They either should have and take different role, and quirked accordingly.

Specially some light mechs can take just about all skills they could use, as they have really limited weapons. But they never were much of fighters so it should be like that.

[Kuaron]

After some more consideration, I like the idea a bit more again.
The comparison to quirks was the missing point, I guess.
It would allow to partly roll back quirks currently boosting single (thus often useless) hardpoints, if the skill bonusses are high enough.

Single ballistics are not that ineffective since there are very heavy ones s.t. a Mech would only mount one anyway. But for the other type…
Returning to the Nova example, it has single energy omnipods if one is planning to mounting few heavy ones.

[Wild Cat]

I've voted Yes,

But Fox2232 has a valid point, the formula should work based on weapons installed at the time not on slot's available.

Boating is something PGI is trying to discourage and stimulate players to use mixed weapon load-outs.
With the formula being fixed on hard points and not based on actual installed weapons I see this having a negative impact and stimulating boating...

Edited by Wild Cat, 12 February 2017 - 04:11 AM.

[Fox2232]

Wild Cat, on 12 February 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

I've voted Yes,

But Fox2232 has a valid point, the formula should work based on weapons installed at the time not on slot's available.

Boating is something PGI is trying to discourage and stimulate players to use mixed weapon load-outs.
With the formula being fixed on hard points and not based on actual installed weapons I see this having a negative impact and stimulating boating...

Boating will be easily diminished by making one shared property tree for weapons:
Cooldown, Range, Heat generation, ... bonuses in this tree.
And only weapon specifics in currently existing trees. Like Jam chance reduction for U-AC.

Current state is around:
1 weapon tree = 20 nodes
2 weapon trees = 40 points
3 weapon trees = 60 points
(And bonuses are not that great anyway as it is 60 points to boost DPS by 10%)
Proposed:
Shared weapon tree: 20 nodes (DPS of all weapons reeps benefits already)
5 points per specific weapon to gain better focus for given weapon is now much smaller investment than before and mostly not needed.

[Kdogg788]

The proposed system encourages nothing but boating because you can only skill up one weapon group at a time and viably only one if you want to apply a decent amount of nodes to the other trees.

-k

[Kuaron]

Wild Cat, on 12 February 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

Boating is something PGI is should be trying to discourage and stimulate players to use mixed weapon load-outs.

FIFY.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Voted yes, because that would bring more good than bad generally, but I have a few notes.

Mainly:
1. no penalties for having too much hardpoints. Just bonuses for having not enough. No point in penalising arbitrary for the very POSSIBILITY of having more weapons, plus it would force to use them all to not get the shaft. Forcing decisions on players is bad.
So, big bonus for 1 hardpoint, considerable bonus for 2 hardpoints, small bonus for 3 hardpoints, no bonus for 4 or more hardpoints.

2. This could be the default lineup, the starting point for balancing skills, but not the absolute rule. Please not that you need just 2 ballistic and 1 energy harpoints to have respectable 2gauss+ppc combo on a big clan mech. Does that combo need a buff? I think not.

EDIT:
2a) The Night Gyr also needs just 3 ballistic hardpoints to kick ***. Should we buff him? I think not. Also, comboing 1 or 2 gausses with a bunch of lasers on omnis is also a good combination, no needs to buff here.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 12 February 2017 - 06:02 AM.