9 replies to this topic

[Tsar Bomba]

Enough with feat node trees. It's not good game design, it's just MOTS, and uninspired.

It invariably has some level of feat node tax; buying feats nodes you don't want to get to the ones you do.

Take a page from D&D, it seems to be popular again with 5E, and it's getting a lot of praise, and even being streamed now pretty regularly.

They got rid of their feat tax (and their 'trees') and made each feat expensive, but valuable in their own right. You aren't limited in what you get because you have to pick up a bunch of baggage along with what you want, You're now limited because each feat is EXCITING and you can't have them all.

So instead of limiting us by making us buy crap we don't want, limit us by making fewer, but all EXCITING nodes, and leave those choices up to us. The player will be much happier choosing one of three powerful nodes, than feeling forced into buying 5 crap nodes to get the 5 he wants. One is CHOICE, the other is OBLIGATION. Simple game design, do the exact same thing but empower the player, not force them.

Edited by Tsar Bomba, 15 February 2017 - 05:42 PM.

[Weepy Wanebow]

The only good thing about 5e is that it isnt 4e. It eas heavioy play tested and a lot of fans were not happy with the end result. Proving that 1) experienced game designers dont necessarily know how to make consistently good games. 2) public play testing dors always yield good results. 3) just because something wins awards doesnt mean it deserves them.

There is a reason pathfinder is still so popular, why faye had room to grow to what it is, and why shadowrun made such a come back. Its because wizards has been dropping the ball. 4e stuff won a bunch of rewards and was pretty mich universally panned.

I would argue that looking at other video games is more appropriate then other table top/ pen and paper games. Looking at the source table top and a ganeral unwillingness to diverge from it is what got PGI into the current problem

[Tsar Bomba]

Smell Da Glove, on 15 February 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

*snip off-topic D&D version warrior stuff*

I would argue that looking at other video games is more appropriate than other table top/ pen and paper games. Looking at the source table top and a ganeral unwillingness to diverge from it is what got PGI into the current problem

No problem looking at other video games, but the skill tree system is just old and hackneyed. Feat taxes are annoying to all and just because MMO Players are 'used to it' does not make it inherently enjoyable. Additionally the more 'nodes' the tree has the more tweaks are needed for balance. A coding analogy would be maintaining a long list of else statements or just one elegant loop.

As far as unwillingness to diverge from tabletop... Sorry, you're dead wrong on that one. PGI has said from beta days this isn't TT BT. They've never made any claim otherwise since then.

[MacClearly]

I would be much happier with what you describe because that would at least feel like I am getting some actual value with losing the ability to swap modules around. I would even be happy if it was simplified down to a few roles in a big tree. Such as brawl/tank or skirmisher or scout.

[Kmieciu]

The current skill system is actually better designed:

unimportant skills are cheap (Arm reflex 1,500 XP)
important skills are more expensive (Speed tweak - 8500XP)
and skills that are crucial are the most expensive (extra module slot: 21500XP)

[Old-dirty B]

Kmieciu, on 16 February 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

The current skill system is actually better designed:

unimportant skills are cheap (Arm reflex 1,500 XP)
important skills are more expensive (Speed tweak - 8500XP)
and skills that are crucial are the most expensive (extra module slot: 21500XP)

Well partly i agree, all tough the value / importance of these skills are reflect by their costs the current system is in every case a sheer upgrade. It has no real choices to customise the performance of the mech.
It would have been a big improvement of the current system if you would have to choose which skills to get and thus which not. For example, having to choose between the mobility skills (twist turn range and speed plus speed tweak) OR the heat/firepower skills (heat containment, coolrun and fast fire) that would make a lot of difference!

[Livaria]

I'm still an advocate of my own skill tree redesign. It address these issues. There are fewer but more exciting nodes, and each node is made to be more powerful.The objectively less valuable ones are not only placed as an early upgrade, but they are also combined with other upgrades to become more desirable and more useful in more situations.

For example: I combined the Target Retention and Target Decay all in one node. I also combined Hill Climb and Turn Speed in one node. So on, and so forth.

Edited by Livaria, 16 February 2017 - 03:51 AM.

[Almond Brown]

B3R3ND, on 16 February 2017 - 12:48 AM, said:

Well partly i agree, all tough the value / importance of these skills are reflect by their costs the current system is in every case a sheer upgrade. It has no real choices to customise the performance of the mech.
It would have been a big improvement of the current system if you would have to choose which skills to get and thus which not. For example, having to choose between the mobility skills (twist turn range and speed plus speed tweak) OR the heat/firepower skills (heat containment, coolrun and fast fire) that would make a lot of difference!

That is known as creating "Cookie Cutter" builds, or Meta. Choose your poison. It is when "every" Mech, in every weight class, just looks different but inside they all have the "exact set " of skills, becasue to chose otherwise would be silly. It is the same thing that MW4's "sized hard points" did back then. Not good.

[Tsar Bomba]

Kmieciu, on 16 February 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

unimportant skills are cheap (Arm reflex 1,500 XP)

If they are unimportant, then why are we buying them at all? Why are they even offered at all?

Having to pay for something you don't want to get to what you do want is bad game design. Just because we are used to it, does not make it an elegant system. There are better ways. Giving away arm speed when someone buys +10% Magazine capacity on the other hand makes it seem less like a forced garbage buy or 'node tax' and turns it into a bonus. Something you get for free by buying what you really want. Sure, it's just semantics, but our brains still register it this way even if we recognize the ploy.

Here is a post that puts the above concept into practical application.

Almond Brown, on 16 February 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

That is known as creating "Cookie Cutter" builds, or Meta. Choose your poison. It is when "every" Mech, in every weight class, just looks different but inside they all have the "exact set " of skills, becasue to chose otherwise would be silly. It is the same thing that MW4's "sized hard points" did back then. Not good.

Unfortunately, skill trees do little to change that. There's always going to be a 'best path' to get to the meta the quickest and cheapest. They just make you grumble at low levels having to buy 'Basket Weaving 1' on your eventual path to 'World Domination 5'.

Skill trees tax you with bad purchases until you suffer enough to start getting what you really want. Instead sell the abilities the players really want for a higher price with all the node taxes thrown in, and then give them the crap nodes for free. They bought exactly what they wanted, no more, but they get other things for what they perceive as free, and so the free items actual value is ignored... they're free.

[Nesutizale]

I kinda agree that haveing to buy a skill you don'T want is a bad design but it also give a bit of balance.
Hiding the valuable skills behind other, less interesting ones gives you a tool to limit the options you have.
The other way to do it would be to just give it a higher cost.

So you want to go the the ammo directly? Well you can either have all the other skills that are before it in the tree or just the ammo skill but you would have to pay the same as when you take everything.
What do you want?

The reason for this is that some skills are usefull...maybe to usefull so players need a barrier to pass to get it or to balance out people who get the skill and people who prefere to spend points elsewhere.

Skillstrees are an awefull lot of work to get right.

I would prefere if we leave skills to what the pilot can do...the real one. The guy/girl on the keyboard, mouse, joystick...whatever.

MWO as it is, is a competetive game that should be centered around the player learning the game...not the game learning to play itself...thats what RPGs are for. There you can have your Uber character that owns everyone with his skills.

Rather then haveing a skilltree that defines what your mech can do, let the tech do the work.
With PGIs goal to bring in new weapons and tech, why not make them the star of the show?

You can have your basic weapons, good allrounders. Then you can outfit your mech to your likeing.
Bored of the old AC? Get one of the many other types of ACs
LBX + Hypervelocity for range, UAC+Rotary for cooldown, light AC to save weight, caseless or cluster ammo.
Pulselaser for cooldown, heavy Gauss for the extra punch.....and lots more.

You can have a boat of one kind or go mixed, you still would have a viable mech when you learn to use your equipment effectigly....not when you just have grinded long enought or pured in enough money.