23 replies to this topic

[Spunkmaster]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 February 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

I don't think it's any more painful. You are looking for a way to mitigate this potential outcome, but to me that appears like an over-correction. It wouldn't be any worse than now. You'll still have people who want to play brawler or sniper or whatever and they will have what they have for each map and the combat will not always allow for ideal play. (side note: there are no maps which favor brawling, closest is actually Caustic, but that's really more of a hammer-and-anvil power position dealio).

The trees aren't all-or-nothing, either. You could spec a little in each tree, but the overall benefit would be small compared to if you went all-in on a role because the good stuff would be deeper in and/or cumulative with earlier selections. Alternatively, you could spec a tree that complements only part of your build, the one you expect to be leaning the most on, and just work with the natural traits of the rest.




Scouting isn't really a thing in this game, and even if we had strict role trees it still wouldn't be a thing because the game mechanics don't allow it. We don't have differing radar cross-sections and we don't require a lock to get maximum impact on a target. The Mk. I Eyeball is the most powerful tool.

There are also no builds which are both skirmisher and fire support. Effective Fire Support 'Mechs are too slow to be Skirmishers because they are pretty much strictly ballistics with the odd ERLL boat in very niche conditions. Skirmishers don't have the sustainable DPS to be Fire Support. They have high burst DPS that can't be sustained or they have low burst DPS that can be sustained for awhile.

To be clear, Fire Support would be something like the WHM-6R running PPC+UACs or the pop-tart Night Gyr. Skirmisher is more like the pop-tarting Summoner and Hunchback-IIC or the old Jenner IIC SRM36 bomber. That CDA-3M, assuming the UAC build, can be specc'd either way. My point, though, is that you shouldn't be able to optimize to do both equally. That would just drive those aforementioned strong builds up (i.e. pop-tarts that rely on Gauss like the Night Gyr...are also very capable brawlers if you are a good shot and we should allow them to be equally good at both FS and Brawl simultaneously because that makes the whole 'Mech and build too good).



And that's still an option. If a pilot feels he has trouble spreading damage, then he could spec the Brawler tree for increased durability even on his ERLL boat, he just won't also get the advantage of maximum range and shorter duration that a Fire Support tree might give him. And nor should he, that's the opportunity cost. The good pilots, however, will spec trees that synergize with the build and role they want to perform, and just deal with drawbacks that come with it. Teams especially will be able to assign roles to members that cover gaps in capability.

I apologize if I'm not articulating this very well, it's early AM for me.

Early AM for me too. You're communicating very well. I appreciate you taking the time to answer the questions.

My last thought of the night is: i can see this working in larger group drops, both FP and Pug. But what about solo drops?

[Excalibaard]

Yesyesyesyes!

Though I'd approach it differently:

Imagine you have a starting point and then a grid extending in 4 directions:

UP: Scout (radar-depr, speed, targeting, UAV, ECM, NARC)

DOWN: Tank (Armor buffs, structure buffs, component integrity, damage reduction)

LEFT: Brawler (SRMS, lasers, MGs, big ACs, flamers, heat dissipation)

RIGHT: Support (LRMS, PPC, small ACs, range, cooldown, Ammo)

Some things, like quicker target lock/NARC bonuses (Support/scout), or component health boost (Brawl/tank) could apply to multiple trees. Instead of locking people into one role, it could be interesting to customize the role you want to play. The skills in between directions would give a way to branch out into different roles without having to spend points on the early stuff that you don't necessarily need, though you can also just B-line one role in particular to get the best skills. Think Path of Exile.

Each mech you 'master' gives you 1 skillpoint to spend in this tree. Skills further away from the middle cost more points. This can be unlocked/set per mech, even if you don't have experience yet for it. Lacking experience may lock certain skills beyond a barrier, and there might be multiple levels per mech that unlock more ranges of skills and/or unlock more skill points, so you can optimize your favourite mech, but still get a few points for other mechs that you just grind for the skills without an excessive XP barrier per mech.

Almost all mechs will fit between a combination of two subtypes. Skirmishers (Brawler/Scout) vs Brawlers (Brawler/Tank) vs Fire Support (Support Tank) vs Sniper (Support Scout), and the jack-of-all-trades is still possible as well by just advancing in whatever direction you like.

Edited by Excalibaard, 14 February 2017 - 06:58 AM.

[Arctourus]

As is, the skill tree is...bland. It doesn't really promote any sort of specialty, aside from maybe picking weapon quirks for a specific weapon type. Putting whole skill sets into a specific role category that your mech lives in exclusively would certainly create a good class/role system. There can be some crossover...a little durability, info, mobility etc in each, but make each branch of the tree essentially exclusive and focused.

[Horseman]

Gentleman Reaper, on 13 February 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

There's some changes I would also make to available skills, namely, having weapon skills being universal to encourage mixed builds,

I'd say largely universal with some minor specialization at the end. If any chassis should get more opportunities to specialize in specific weapons, that should be a separate "specialty" tree, not unlike the role trees you propose.

Quote

and the removal of seismic and jam/spread weapon skills, as I feel seismic should be rolled into BAP and weapon jam and spread values should be fixed.

Seismic should be a sensor skill, IMO - but one requiring serious consideration before it can be taken.

Quote

Would you rather have the choice of a single class-based tree, or do you just want to freely choose any skill like we have now?

I would rather have the choice among a handful of specialized roles for each chassis can fit in. Also, I think that after picking a node, we should be limited to selecting one next node from its' child nodes only - done right, it should automatically remove the ability to max out all aspects of a given system (eg: we can max out Energy Heat Generation, but then we'd have to give up Energy Range and Energy Cooldown to some extent)