102 replies to this topic

[Ukos]

To really push the idea of role based mech warfare we would need to make some changes to how the game works.
Currently it seems like we all have a built in c3 system from tabletop without any of the slot / tonnage costs (the shared targeting and missile spotting capabilities.

An option would be to remove this functionality unless the 'mech's are carrying the requisite equipment although this would probably be a non starter outside of faction play and organised teams as to run a full 12 unit network one mech would have to dedicate ten tons and ten crits worth of space and the match maker would need to be set to allocate the equipped mechs accordingly to lances.

Another option would be to give a greater bonus to the pilots carrying out recon and spotting for the rest of the team as they are ostensibly sacrificing their own battlefield performance as registered by the game and putting themselves at greater risk by having to get closer and fight in the effective range envelope of much of the enemy team with a compromised load out.

This could be fixed by adapting a similar principle to what is used in World of tanks where a spotter is assigned a bonus of fifty percent of damage allowed by their spotting to their totals in terms of xp and damage caused (note that this would NOT be taken from the individual performing the attack) but would be a proportionate bonus award to the spotter which allowed the attack.

Allow LRMs to only be fired indirectly at targets behind cover if a spotter is utilising TAG, Narc or is networked with A C3 component.

With luck it would reduce ramboing and more coordinated teams even if only in lances would be far more effective then a disorganised set of 12 glory seekers

[north ranger]

I like the idea of keeping specific weapon quirks on mechs and putting general quirks in skill trees.

It would help new players with stock mechs, promote lore friendly setups, and might allow for more mechs to be enjoyable.

The meta will always find the most efficient build, but this would make balanced builds a little more viable.

For example, playing a AS7-D you would have AC20, M.Laser, SRM6, & LRM20 quirks.

An alternate skill tree example of this can be found here.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

What makes me upset is that this proposed skill tree is just a glorified nerf for weapon cooldown. If they want to nerf cooldown just nerf it. Don't increase the grind and make us pay 9.1 m to implement their nerf

[Oberost]

SuperFunkTron, on 18 February 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

How would you go about it?

Someone posted a picture of WoW talent grid in another thread.
Several tiers of skills with 3 (or more) skills per tree where you can only choose one. This way, if you make the tiers balanced (not a skill better that the others) you have a real choice about how to customice your mech.

For instance, Tier 1 (just an on the fly thought): +3% heat capacity OR +10% acceleration/decceleration OR +2% structure/armour OR +2%cooldown, range and/duration/speed OR + 10% sensor range/Info gathering/UAV range...

Something like that (numbers are just placeholders...).

Edit: try to make it different at least for each weight class. It makes little sense if every mech has the same skill choice than the rest...

Edited by Oberost, 18 February 2017 - 09:24 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Ukos, on 18 February 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

To really push the idea of role based mech warfare we would need to make some changes to how the game works. Currently it seems like we all have a built in c3 system from tabletop without any of the slot / tonnage costs (the shared targeting and missile spotting capabilities. An option would be to remove this functionality unless the 'mech's are carrying the requisite equipment although this would probably be a non starter outside of faction play and organised teams as to run a full 12 unit network one mech would have to dedicate ten tons and ten crits worth of space and the match maker would need to be set to allocate the equipped mechs accordingly to lances. Another option would be to give a greater bonus to the pilots carrying out recon and spotting for the rest of the team as they are ostensibly sacrificing their own battlefield performance as registered by the game and putting themselves at greater risk by having to get closer and fight in the effective range envelope of much of the enemy team with a compromised load out. This could be fixed by adapting a similar principle to what is used in World of tanks where a spotter is assigned a bonus of fifty percent of damage allowed by their spotting to their totals in terms of xp and damage caused (note that this would NOT be taken from the individual performing the attack) but would be a proportionate bonus award to the spotter which allowed the attack. Allow LRMs to only be fired indirectly at targets behind cover if a spotter is utilising TAG, Narc or is networked with A C3 component. With luck it would reduce ramboing and more coordinated teams even if only in lances would be far more effective then a disorganised set of 12 glory seekers

I really like the idea of buffing scouting bonuses so that there is a stronger incentive to give up the fire power boosts and focus on locks and light harassment/distraction. It would really drive home the point of that role and help people accept that damage output isn't the only goal. I think reducing basic effective radar range for all mechs (except infotech mechs like the cyclops and other light scout dedicated builds) would also be helpful. That way LRMs will either require some sensor range nodes or cooperation with the scout.

You've got some nice ideas, even if they take 50% of what you say it'd be a great move.

Oberost, on 18 February 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

Someone posted a picture of WoW talent grid in another thread. Several tiers of skills with 3 (or more) skills per tree where you can only choose one. This way, if you make the tiers balanced (not a better skill that the others) you have a real choice about how to customice your mech. For instance, Tier 1 (just an on the fly thought): +3% heat capacity OR +10% acceleration/decceleration OR +2% structure/armour OR +2%cooldown, range and/duration/speed OR + 10% sensor range/Info gathering/UAV range... Something like that (numbers are just placeholders...). Edit: try to make it different at least for each weight class. It makes little sense if every mech has the same skill choice than the rest...

Do you have a link to it? I don't think I saw it

[Oberost]

SuperFunkTron, on 18 February 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

Do you have a link to it? I don't think I saw it

Something like this:



Every tier you have to choose one skill, and every skill on the tier is more or less useful so you have to make real choices.

[C E Dwyer]

Well fingers crossed.

Hoping it's more than a few stat changes

[Petrothian Tong]

wonder what the changes will be...

if we still need 9.1 mill credits to master a mech (and I have 130 mechs) I am canceling the last preorders I have lol

[MGEEZ]

Ukos, on 18 February 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

To really push the idea of role based mech warfare we would need to make some changes to how the game works.
Currently it seems like we all have a built in c3 system from tabletop without any of the slot / tonnage costs (the shared targeting and missile spotting capabilities.

An option would be to remove this functionality unless the 'mech's are carrying the requisite equipment although this would probably be a non starter outside of faction play and organised teams as to run a full 12 unit network one mech would have to dedicate ten tons and ten crits worth of space and the match maker would need to be set to allocate the equipped mechs accordingly to lances.

Another option would be to give a greater bonus to the pilots carrying out recon and spotting for the rest of the team as they are ostensibly sacrificing their own battlefield performance as registered by the game and putting themselves at greater risk by having to get closer and fight in the effective range envelope of much of the enemy team with a compromised load out.

This could be fixed by adapting a similar principle to what is used in World of tanks where a spotter is assigned a bonus of fifty percent of damage allowed by their spotting to their totals in terms of xp and damage caused (note that this would NOT be taken from the individual performing the attack) but would be a proportionate bonus award to the spotter which allowed the attack.

Allow LRMs to only be fired indirectly at targets behind cover if a spotter is utilising TAG, Narc or is networked with A C3 component.

With luck it would reduce ramboing and more coordinated teams even if only in lances would be far more effective then a disorganised set of 12 glory seekers

People hate artillery in WoT. I don't expect people to give a warm welcome to more indirect damage. Indirect damage is usually detrimental to gameplay.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

Just a thought but how about removing all permanent quirks and just giving handicapped mechs more bonus via skills you choose. For ex if you take a dragon and go cooldown route you'll end up with more cooldown than say a ebj. Same for speed bonus or other skills.

If historical xp stays varient specific and if the grind really does increase for my 80 some mastered but not far beyond mastered mechs i will definitely quit. Basically i don't want to grind mechs to get to a not really customized but definitely nerfd point

[Nimnul]

I want more choice for skills

[SuperFunkTron]

Nimnul, on 18 February 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

I want more choice for skills

I think it'd help if you list some of your ideas.

[PFC Carsten]

My opinion - geared toward more diversity - is that PGI should take steps in the direction to balance out chassis and the skill tree should be per mech in the first place, but very limited compared to what has been proposed now. So, they could make up one chassis low-slung ballistic mounts by increasing armor on the Torsi and increasing rate of fire on the ballistics - to balance out that it has to move more out of cover, being a potential target for longer. OTOH, give some torso-centric weapon plattforms higher torso yaw so UAVs could be reached more easily. Just examples.

Players should be able to choose, yes. But not choose everything, but one thing. Have better armor OR have higher maneuvrability. Do not touch weapons with skill trees. Weapons are manufactured independently of the mechs, even in the illogical order of things in BT, it is very unlikely, that a PPC blast travels 50% faster when fired by chassis N rather than O.

– Introduce ammo cost to offset their OPness in these free-refill scenarios. One of the major drawbacks of ammunition-dependent weapons is... their need for ammo. edit: To elaborate on this: It would be meaningful, if there was somehow a logistics component at least to faction play, but the way it is now, it's just tons that you invest. The SAME tons as in Table Top, where ammo logistics were kind of figured into the equation. So you basically just removed ONE side. The way things are now, this drawback is basically nonexistent in the short 5 minute matches.

– Get rid of the silliness that is Ghost Heat. No one understands it, no one wants it. Instead, prolong the cool-down phases and make forced shut-downs last a meaningful amount of time - something that WILL get you killed 95% of the time.

– Implement a heat system that's worth it's name. Make vision blurry when heat scale is over 50% for example. Or make IR-view get VERY low contrast when your mech is the biggest heat source in the vicinity. Make targetting increasing unrealiable when heat is over 75% (example, you already have a mechanic in place: Jump Jet reticle jiggling - just re-use it)

– Oh, yes. Jump Jets. Make them have reaction mass like in lore. Means: limited amount of uses. Not hovering around for full matches. Gets rid of pop-tarts and jj-feathering to confuse the hit-detection system in one go. If you want, make it use ammo - so players can decide how much they wanna jump - not how far.

– Implement physically based damage. Solves the ankle-biter problem and the idiotically racing of light mechs at the same time. Run into a structure at 160 kph and suffer. Run into it at 100 kph - suffer less. Learn to avoid collisions - do not suffer at all. Have an ankle-biter at the feet of your 100 ton mech and can't reach it? Just walk over it and crush it. You do not even have to implement a full physically based combat system for this, you know?

– If you really want to emphasize role-play (which I do not believe you want, but anyway), give clanner honor points based on how much they refrain from unclanlike stuff.


---
So, enough of the unpopular stuff. Just keep selling mech-packs, consumer-friendly size of one per serving.

Edited by PFC Carsten, 19 February 2017 - 01:14 AM.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

Oberost, on 18 February 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

Something like this:



Every tier you have to choose one skill, and every skill on the tier is more or less useful so you have to make real choices.

This type of direct upgrading really makes more sense. At the moment to get to Seismic, you have to waste so many points going through other items you dont even need.

I suppose it's better than them adding weight to certain trees e.g. Seismic from the above chart would take up 3 points per upgrade (PGI's goal is to hide the best items anyways). At least in the current proposed system you get something, while getting Seismic.

Overall, I just need something simpler if I have to rinse/repeat 100 times for the amount of mechs I have.

The costs, I am literally praying they'll sort out as I will get quite a bit back from modules, it won't cost pay for all the mechs I have. If thats the case, i'd rather sell mechs than grind them all back up again.

Come on PGI, dont mess this up, I feel everyone wants this to work but keep working with us.

[Tiantara]

PFC Carsten, on 19 February 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

– Implement physically based damage. Solves the ankle-biter problem and the idiotically racing of light mechs at the same time. Run into a structure at 160 kph and suffer. Run into it at 100 kph - suffer less. Learn to avoid collisions - do not suffer at all. Have an ankle-biter at the feet of your 100 ton mech and can't reach it? Just walk over it and crush it. You do not even have to implement a full physically based combat system for this, you know?

- Yeah and anytime when pilot get stuck in invisible polygon, run into transparent corner or ram into some small detail on surface support center gets whining about "damage from nowhere" and "mystery of dead mech which get damage from... engine falling?" Well... for that kind of "physics" game must have much better geometry of collision cage, level refining and much more. Some map after your suggestion become mine field and light mech speed become 60kph max... or they die before encounter enemy. As for assaults - crushing obstacles will make map work on 20fps max... or mech funny stuck into some buildings, stones, trees, water... you just not fully realize what you want and how difficult to make it within gameengine restriction.

[JaegerDjinn]

Maybe we can get the ultra 5s firing rate fixed for inner sphere before next roll out.

[JaegerDjinn]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 19 February 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

This type of direct upgrading really makes more sense. At the moment to get to Seismic, you have to waste so many points going through other items you dont even need.

I suppose it's better than them adding weight to certain trees e.g. Seismic from the above chart would take up 3 points per upgrade (PGI's goal is to hide the best items anyways). At least in the current proposed system you get something, while getting Seismic.

Overall, I just need something simpler if I have to rinse/repeat 100 times for the amount of mechs I have.

The costs, I am literally praying they'll sort out as I will get quite a bit back from modules, it won't cost pay for all the mechs I have. If thats the case, i'd rather sell mechs than grind them all back up again.

Come on PGI, dont mess this up, I feel everyone wants this to work but keep working with us.

EVERYONE OF YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT OR DONT CARE.If they put all the good stuff at top then we would be in the same crap we are now. Everyone would be the same. I am not saying that the new tree doesnt needs work, but dont exspect them too put all the good nodes where they can be easily obtained. The object is too make you make decisions about what you want the mech too do with the new tree. Not what it does now. Think it is great i can make a jagers torso twist almost 180 degrees with the right nodes. Great for strafing with it then. Not having too recenter as i run by. So with all your whining you are showing them they are working, Because now you have too make decisions on how you want your mech too preform.

[Uncle Totty]

PFC Carsten, on 19 February 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

My opinion - geared toward more diversity - is that PGI should take steps in the direction to balance out chassis and the skill tree should be per mech in the first place, but very limited compared to what has been proposed now. So, they could make up one chassis low-slung ballistic mounts by increasing armor on the Torsi and increasing rate of fire on the ballistics - to balance out that it has to move more out of cover, being a potential target for longer. OTOH, give some torso-centric weapon plattforms higher torso yaw so UAVs could be reached more easily. Just examples.

Players should be able to choose, yes. But not choose everything, but one thing. Have better armor OR have higher maneuvrability. Do not touch weapons with skill trees. Weapons are manufactured independently of the mechs, even in the illogical order of things in BT, it is very unlikely, that a PPC blast travels 50% faster when fired by chassis N rather than O.

– Introduce ammo cost to offset their OPness in these free-refill scenarios. One of the major drawbacks of ammunition-dependent weapons is... their need for ammo. edit: To elaborate on this: It would be meaningful, if there was somehow a logistics component at least to faction play, but the way it is now, it's just tons that you invest. The SAME tons as in Table Top, where ammo logistics were kind of figured into the equation. So you basically just removed ONE side. The way things are now, this drawback is basically nonexistent in the short 5 minute matches.

– Get rid of the silliness that is Ghost Heat. No one understands it, no one wants it. Instead, prolong the cool-down phases and make forced shut-downs last a meaningful amount of time - something that WILL get you killed 95% of the time.

– Implement a heat system that's worth it's name. Make vision blurry when heat scale is over 50% for example. Or make IR-view get VERY low contrast when your mech is the biggest heat source in the vicinity. Make targetting increasing unrealiable when heat is over 75% (example, you already have a mechanic in place: Jump Jet reticle jiggling - just re-use it)

– Oh, yes. Jump Jets. Make them have reaction mass like in lore. Means: limited amount of uses. Not hovering around for full matches. Gets rid of pop-tarts and jj-feathering to confuse the hit-detection system in one go. If you want, make it use ammo - so players can decide how much they wanna jump - not how far.

– Implement physically based damage. Solves the ankle-biter problem and the idiotically racing of light mechs at the same time. Run into a structure at 160 kph and suffer. Run into it at 100 kph - suffer less. Learn to avoid collisions - do not suffer at all. Have an ankle-biter at the feet of your 100 ton mech and can't reach it? Just walk over it and crush it. You do not even have to implement a full physically based combat system for this, you know?

– If you really want to emphasize role-play (which I do not believe you want, but anyway), give clanner honor points based on how much they refrain from unclanlike stuff.


---
So, enough of the unpopular stuff. Just keep selling mech-packs, consumer-friendly size of one per serving.

I would also like to see an active/passive sensor toggle function.

ECM shields friendly mechs as if they are in passive mode.

ECM does not hurt lock times.

ECM disrupts enemy sensors at close range.

Only mechs with BAP/C-AP can detect the disruption.

BAP/C-AP can find mechs in passive mode at close range.

Streaks have their own lock on reticle.

Streaks only achieve lock on when target is in range and LOS.

Streaks lose lock once they are fired.

LRMs become much more picky about keeping the reticle on target.

Rework Energy Draw into Target Computer Strain. (The more stress the target comp. is under, the more reticle shake you get.)

The stress level is based on your damage output.

The cap to this is 30. (Clan Advanced Targeting Comp. ads to the cap in increments on 5.)

Edited by Uncle Totty, 19 February 2017 - 06:19 AM.

[Arkhangel]

you know.... honestly, one thing that would help? make Guardian ECM actually ACT like Guardian ECM. it doesn't shroud a team. it just covers the mech it's on. period, and it doesn't actually prevent locks, it just screws up stuff like BAP, Streak homing or Artemis FCS.

what we currently has is what Angel ECM does, and that won't be out of the experimental stage in the IS OR Clans even with the upcoming Timeskip.

[tokumboh]

Arkhangel, on 18 February 2017 - 03:28 AM, said:

@Toku: they're not shutting it totally down, they're just taking it offline for now while they mull over some changes, it'll be back in about a week, is what they said, after they've messed around with it a bit due to the feedback already gained. that way we can get a second test and feedback before it actually goes live in March.

I understand that, but I have used the PTS for several things that I cannot use the live server for. I bought mech that I would never have dreamed of trying since I am not wanting to spend MC or Cbill on something that I can only get half the Cbills back for example.

I also was testing the other thing which they wanted in the live server, for example it is clear that they want to reduce cooldown so that it increases TTK. they are also messing with the Crit system both of these are nothing really to do with the skill tree and are things that I believe they could put in the live server. Lastly I was still exploring the effect of the skill tree, Most people have decided that they want to emulate what they have on the live server so essentially people have uprated armour and mobility and some info as if there is no trade off. I don't think that anyone has explored what the trade offs could be especially in a big team environment. Think about how scouting is so different to 12 v 12 basically we have been playing scouting and not QP. There is a lot that is just completely different.

They could leave the server up and change it when they have something new is all I am saying it is like they decide to turn off the live server a week before the new patch.