23 replies to this topic

[Gentleman Reaper]

The tree we have now needs work, but the framework is there, and can be used to make a system where we are given meaning choice over how our mechs are quirked. The current system simply encourages min/maxing, because there's no restrictions to the combination of quirks we can choose, so this leads to everyone choosing weapon, durability, sensor skills like radar dep, and whatever other skills they have leftover points for, as they are the most impactful skills for our current gameplay.

What I propose is having a set of trees formed around a class-based role, each tree has access to certain skills that the other does not, so you have to make a choice as to what role you want your mech. The trees would look something like this:

Scout:
Heavy reliance on mobility (accel/decel, turn rate, speed tweak, some JJ), sensor (range, deprivation, decay, info gathering), weapons range skills, and skills for the UAV, Narc and ECM.

Skirmisher:
A class focusing on burst damage and mobility, skirmishers get good mobility (turn rate, torso some JJ), durability (structure), and weapon cooldown skills. They run in, unleash a barrage of fire, and run out.

Brawler:
Focusing on sheer durability, brawlers get skills that increase survivability (armor, twist speed, arm pitch), although they can't put out as much damage overall as the skirmishers and fire support classes.

Fire support:
A class completely dedicated to sustained, accurate fire, fire support relies almost entirely on weapon skills (heat diss, velocity, duration), they don't have durability skills like the brawler and skirmisher, but they can put out a lot more damage over time.

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

What do you guys think? 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?

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 13 February 2017 - 10:03 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

I dig it.

Do you see them as being exclusive? Once you open the Scout Tree, the others lock?

Or would it be where you get 50 SP, and each takes 50 to complete, but you can pick and choose? In that case, I'd say put all the best bonuses (derp for example) at the end.

Or do it like KOTOR did where you can get a skill outside your specialization but you have to pay twice as much for it. So I go Scout, but if I want to unlock a node in the Brawler Tree it costs 2SP and x2 XP.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Jables McBarty, on 13 February 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

I dig it.

Do you see them as being exclusive? Once you open the Scout Tree, the others lock?

Or would it be where you get 50 SP, and each takes 50 to complete, but you can pick and choose? In that case, I'd say put all the best bonuses (derp for example) at the end.

Or do it like KOTOR did where you can get a skill outside your specialization but you have to pay twice as much for it. So I go Scout, but if I want to unlock a node in the Brawler Tree it costs 2SP and x2 XP.

I imagine it as you being locked into one tree. You also have a limited number of skills to unlock, to prevent a tree from being avoided because it has a skill that doesn't apply to your build (Narc, UAV).

[Y E O N N E]

I would add that Brawlers should get heat management skills so they can stay in the fight longer, else the Skirmisher class is going to be a little too good. But I like the direction.

[Alan Davion]

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

The tree we have now needs work, but the framework is there, and can be used to make a system where we are given meaning choice over how our mechs are quirked. The current system simply encourages min/maxing, because there's no restrictions to the combination of quirks we can choose, so this leads to everyone choosing weapon, durability, sensor skills like radar dep, and whatever other skills they have leftover points for, as they are the most impactful skills for our current gameplay.

What I propose is having a set of trees formed around a class-based role, each tree has access to certain skills that the other does not, so you have to make a choice as to what role you want your mech. The trees would look something like this:

Scout:
Heavy reliance on mobility (accel/decel, turn rate, speed tweak, some JJ), sensor (range, deprivation, decay, info gathering), weapons range skills, and skills for the UAV, Narc and ECM.

Skirmisher:
A class focusing on burst damage and mobility, skirmishers get good mobility (turn rate, torso some JJ), durability (structure), and weapon cooldown skills. They run in, unleash a barrage of fire, and run out.

Brawler:
Focusing on sheer durability, brawlers get skills that increase survivability (armor, twist speed, arm pitch), although they can't put out as much damage overall as the skirmishers and fire support classes.

Fire support:
A class completely dedicated to sustained, accurate fire, fire support relies almost entirely on weapon skills (heat diss, velocity, duration), they don't have durability skills like the brawler and skirmisher, but they can put out a lot more damage over time.

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

What do you guys think? 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 like where your heading with this, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what sort of mechs would fit into what trees, as some mechs could very well fit into two different trees.

For example quite a few assault class mechs could fit into both the brawler and fire support roles, though it would naturally depend a fair bit on their respective loadouts, but you see my point I hope?

Meanwhile there are definitely mechs that would fit only one tree. Firestarter, Wolfhound, Cheetah, Jenner/IIC. These guys are definitely purpose built skirmishers. Possibly the Locust as well, but as lightly armored as that is I would think it'd fit more as a scout.

[Y E O N N E]

Alan Davion, on 13 February 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

I like where your heading with this, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what sort of mechs would fit into what trees, as some mechs could very well fit into two different trees.

I think the point is that you can spec the 'Mech in such a way to maximize the impact of a specific build on that 'Mech, not to pigeon-hole 'Mechs to archetypes.

[Spunkmaster]

Why would you tie things up so tightly? Wouldn't that discourage build diversity and experimentation?

[Y E O N N E]

Spunkmaster, on 13 February 2017 - 07:46 PM, said:

Why would you tie things up so tightly? Wouldn't that discourage build diversity and experimentation?

No, because strict and limited, but powerful, role trees force more permutations for a build while a la carte trees mean there's only one optimal set of skills for everything. AKA, the role trees basically require experimentation while a la carte only creates the illusion of experimentation.

[Spunkmaster]

What happens if experimentation changes the role of the 'Mech?

[Y E O N N E]

Spunkmaster, on 13 February 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

What happens if experimentation changes the role of the 'Mech?

Then it was successful?

[Spunkmaster]

Then I might have to do a complete respec, which will have some kind of cost associated. On the proposed system I might only have to do a partial respec. The choice of chassis, engine (mech speed & survivability), hardpoints and loadout determine a 'Mech's role. The skill tree should do nothing but enhance the build, not dictate it. Why limit the way a pilot can/wants to do his job?

[Y E O N N E]

Spunkmaster, on 13 February 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

Then I might have to do a complete respec, which will have some kind of cost associated. On the proposed system I might only have to do a partial respec. The choice of chassis, engine (mech speed & survivability), hardpoints and loadout determine a 'Mech's role. The skill tree should do nothing but enhance the build, not dictate it. Why limit the way a pilot can/wants to do his job?

Costs can be changed or removed. There's nothing inherently limiting about the concept.

[Blind Squirrel]

Overall, I like the direction this thread is heading. If given a preference, I would take this role-based method with a few additional skill points available to spend in another tree (two trees total). In the example I saw above, to complete a single tree costs 50SP, but you can earn a total of 60SP. You can earn the 2nd tree once you've spent 40 points in the primary tree.

I would also like to see skills offset each other. For example, if you want additional durability, then you get mobility penalties.Think of the mobility differences between a real world archer vs. a fully armored knight.

If you want more heat dissipation, you need to give up that enveloping armor (durability) to make room for vents.

[Spunkmaster]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 February 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Costs can be changed or removed. There's nothing inherently limiting about the concept.

Do you not trust yourself to skill your 'Mech appropriately to support your role on the battlefield? My experience tells me, the more we compartmentalize, the more we limit. I'll usually choose more choice over less. Sure, more mistakes can be made. But isn't that half the fun?

[Y E O N N E]

Spunkmaster, on 13 February 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

Do you not trust yourself to skill your 'Mech appropriately to support your role on the battlefield? My experience tells me, the more we compartmentalize, the more we limit. I'll usually choose more choice over less. Sure, more mistakes can be made. But isn't that half the fun?

There are certain abilities and certain builds (read: combat roles) that are worth more than others. If you allow a la carte selection of skills, you make it easy to keep the inherently stronger builds where they are. If you limit skills to bundles that provide better enhancements to alternative builds, you encourage greater diversity.

[Mondos]

How about the following Roles
Scout
Support
Juggernaut
Striker
Skirmisher

Thinking if you drew a circle around those five say clockwise and spread all the skills out in a circle around them.
Strikers and Skirmishers start closer to all the weapon quirks, Support has ECM, Sensors Narc over on it's side.
Juggernaut has more Structure, Armor and Radar Derp on it's edge.
Spread out some general skills and improvements through out to flesh out the gaps.

Idea being a Mech build like ECM ER L Laser Raven, would start at the Support side and has the best access to ECM improvements, but only just enough to take that and ER Laser improvements, maybe a couple of arm quirks. Missing out on movement and speed etc.

On the clan side, you have two things to consider.
You either take the variant that has ECM and start closer to the ECM talents thus spending less to get them.
Or you swap in the Arm/Torso component with ECM but have to start over in the assigned role for the base variant and spend extra points to get to the ECM talents over in the support tree.

Edited by Mondos, 13 February 2017 - 09:54 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Striker is a subset of Skirmisher. It's the short-range version, whose complementary long-range number would be the Harasser.

[Spunkmaster]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 February 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

There are certain abilities and certain builds (read: combat roles) that are worth more than others. If you allow a la carte selection of skills, you make it easy to keep the inherently stronger builds where they are. If you limit skills to bundles that provide better enhancements to alternative builds, you encourage greater diversity.

OK. I'll buy that. The problem then is, except for FP, we don't know what map or mode we'll be dropping into, or what fellow teammates are bringing (in solo drops). If you limit builds to strict roles, we may find our team with a third of its 'Mechs worthless for most, if not all, the game. Have you never dropped into Mining collective, only to find that your team has not one brawler? I have. Several times. Polar Highlands, in conquest mode, with no lights? Been there, done that. Pilots are often forced into roles their 'Mechs are not designed for. Why make this occurrence even more painful?

How do we handle versatile 'Mechs? An SCR can be many things. My CDA-3M can be scout, skirmisher or fire support; all with the same build. How do we skill that? How does it get categorized and assigned a skill tree? An optimal build on paper, doesn't always mean optimal for gameplay. There's a reason some people prefer to carry a Swiss Army Knife rather than a Bowie. Of course, when you really need the Bowie, and don't have it, you're SOL.

I still say that the role of a 'Mech, on the battlefield, is best optimized by the skill of its pilot. That's what's missing in this concept. We often skill the 'Mech to make up for its pilot's weaknesses. How do you figure that into the equation?

Edited by Spunkmaster, 13 February 2017 - 10:01 PM.

[Reno Blade]

I'm also for maximum cap on Skill classes/branches.
Not sure if it needs to limit to predefined Role-trees.

If you have Survival, mobility and Mech-Ops together and can only spend X points (e.g. 21) in this group, you will have to make choices and can't get everything (from movement, twisting, armor, structure and heat).
At least that way you would have to make a choice!

[Y E O N N E]

Spunkmaster, on 13 February 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

OK. I'll buy that. The problem then is, except for FP, we don't know what map or mode we'll be dropping into, or what fellow teammates are bringing (in solo drops). If you limit builds to strict roles, we may find our team with a third of its 'Mechs worthless for most, if not all, the game. Have you never dropped into Mining collective, only to find that your team has not one brawler? I have. Several times. Polar Highlands, in conquest mode, with no lights? Been there, done that. Pilots are often forced into roles their 'Mechs are not designed for. Why make this occurrence even more painful?

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.

Quote

How do we handle versatile 'Mechs? An SCR can be many things. My CDA-3M can be scout, skirmisher or fire support; all with the same build. How do we skill that? How does it get categorized and assigned a skill tree? An optimal build on paper, doesn't always mean optimal for gameplay. There's a reason some people prefer to carry a Swiss Army Knife rather than a Bowie. Of course, when you really need the Bowie, and don't have it, you're SOL.

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).

Quote

I still say that the role of a 'Mech, on the battlefield, is best optimized by the skill of its pilot. That's what's missing in this concept. We often skill the 'Mech to make up for its pilot's weaknesses. How do you figure that into the equation?

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.