11 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

I know this may not address the "boating" argument but a thought that had been kicking around my head is if we had an option to *declare* the role a particular mech were to fill, we could then change the cost of certain skills accordingly. Further more, there may be further subclassifications:

-FOR EXAMPLE -

"Support Role"
-Discount on Upper Body Skills"

"Sniper Sniper Sub-Role"
- Discount of Energy and Ballistic Range Skills
- Cost increase for Energy/Ballistic Cool Downs

"Indirect Fire Sub-Role"
- Discount for LRM Spread, Speed, & Range(?)

"Scout Role"
-Discount on info-tech skills and lower body skills...


...and so on...

I admit that the trees may have to be a little reworked as the energy and ballistics are a little too generalized for role warfare, but its a thought...


My thought is that if people declare their role, then maybe MatchMaker could take those things into account for team composition.

So ultimately it may not kill boating, but possibly make for more diverse teams (unless there is simply a preponderance of missile boats)

[Snazzy Dragon]

Tank! *discount on durability skills for kdk 3, uses saved points for offensive skills*

[MovinTarget]

Yes yes thank you for the boundary case. I never said base quirks would be removed, since some mechs are built for tanking in the first place, so to declare would make it even tougher vs chassis declared for tanking w/ no inherent quirks.

[Kuaron]

Isn’t choosing the skills and equipment exactly what lets you define your role (as soon as it works properly and as intended, ofc.) but much more flexible instead of some lame WoW-style RPG group roles?

[MovinTarget]

Kuaron, on 12 February 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

Isn’t choosing the skills and equipment exactly what lets you define your role (as soon as it works properly and as intended, ofc.) but much more flexible instead of some lame WoW-style RPG group roles?

As "lame" as you may feel it would be, in WoW, you seldom get a dungeon drop with 3 tanks, 2 dps and no healer, or 4 dps and a Tank.

By having some established roles that people can ascribe to you can:

Have specialization bonuses/penalties as I mentioned above, so that, ideally, every role-player is either well-rounded or has additional benefits that come with some sort of Achilles' heel...

Give XP/Cbill bonuses for fulfilling your role *as a teammate*

If roles can be distilled and understood by all 12 players (yeah I know I'm reaching here) you could have some some semblance of understanding of "who needs to do what" Because if you are in a scout mech, and you don't scout, you get jack squat...

And no, this is something more than "I am defined by the weapons I choose" as MM will be able to identify *simply* what you are planning to do with that mech.

[Kuaron]

Well, that’s the difference:
In MWO every Mech is about dealing damage and surviving at the same time.
There is some infowar with NARC and stuff, but it’s not even properly rewarded.

At most, there are different ranges you build your Mech for. Brawlers decide the rush or protect the long range supporters from being underrun. But that’s defined solely by the choice of weapons.

Edit:
What could be a measure for this purpose, could be the choice of a label teammates could easily view by pressing Q or maybe on the minimap instead of having to turn around, zoom in and guess which weapons you have mounted.
I would support such an idea, but it wouldn’t have anything to do with skills.

Edited by Kuaron, 12 February 2017 - 06:29 AM.

[MovinTarget]

I guess i am thinking they tried role warfare pts a year ago, now the skill tree... they keep treating these aspects independently where perhaps there should be a relationship...

[Bud Crue]

Kuaron, on 12 February 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

Isn’t choosing the skills and equipment exactly what lets you define your role (as soon as it works properly and as intended, ofc.) but much more flexible instead of some lame WoW-style RPG group roles?

Let me know when it is "works properly and as intended", because in the current iteration nearly every mech that I can conceive of is going to have the same 70 nodes or so with 20 left over to apply to weapons or whatever special nodes (ancillary branch) the player may want to take. So the choice of role is: better guns or a UAV that lasts a couple seconds longer. That's how we "define our role"? Not much of a role, or a choice frankly.

[MovinTarget]

Bud Crue, on 12 February 2017 - 08:05 AM, said:

Let me know when it is "works properly and as intended", because in the current iteration nearly every mech that I can conceive of is going to have the same 70 nodes or so with 20 left over to apply to weapons or whatever special nodes (ancillary branch) the player may want to take. So the choice of role is: better guns or a UAV that lasts a couple seconds longer. That's how we "define our role"? Not much of a role, or a choice frankly.

My impression of what a skill tree should do is to have a few flavors of jack-of-all-trades but also have specialization that gives you notable bonuses but at the expense of other stats. The idea being that any mech can be OP in some subset of scenarios, but notably deficient in others.

[Kuaron]

Bud Crue, on 12 February 2017 - 08:05 AM, said:

Let me know when it is "works properly and as intended", because in the current iteration nearly every mech that I can conceive of is going to have the same 70 nodes or so with 20 left over to apply to weapons or whatever special nodes (ancillary branch) the player may want to take. So the choice of role is: better guns or a UAV that lasts a couple seconds longer. That's how we "define our role"? Not much of a role, or a choice frankly.

Then you see why I added the limitation in the brackets.
Now, this subforum is full of suggestions how to make the skill system work properly and, ideally, offer real choices.
But predefining a role doesn't count to the better of them.

[Bud Crue]

MovinTarget, on 12 February 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

My impression of what a skill tree should do is to have a few flavors of jack-of-all-trades but also have specialization that gives you notable bonuses but at the expense of other stats. The idea being that any mech can be OP in some subset of scenarios, but notably deficient in others.

Ideally yes, but the problem with that is the underlying imbalance of the game and its mechanics, even absent the skills tree.

Example: lets say the tree allows you to build a super fast and agile scout mech with super great sensors and that can take a pounding but its weapons are crap. That might actually be a fun mech but in this game where all mechs are some flavor of "mech that needs to fight other mechs effectively" it is near useless. There is no role in this game for that super scout I describe. Because there is no real role for scouting in a game with few maps, constant terrain feature, known drop zones and win conditions based on dealing damage. So, building such a mech, even if the system made it possible, is not so much a choice of "roles" but a choice of being viability or not. Hell, with the power creep of late, I would say the only two roles are gauss/PPC sniper vs everything else of lesser value . And the skills tree helps that how? Sigh.

[MovinTarget]

Gauss/PPC - so there you go. You get a sniper role bonus that, say gives you better range but does nothing for heat. Perhaps your also become more fragile so enemies get a crit bonus against you. Something like that...