102 replies to this topic

[Bogus]

SQW, on 17 February 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

If only someone at PGI thought "Hang on! Implementing a one-size-fits-all skill tree across all mechs, all weight classes, all roles in a game where you already have unlimited mechbay customization might not be the best for game diversity" and we could have skipped this initial PTS feedback phase.

I mean, who on earth thought the current skill tree (I'm not talking about the xp cost here) is ready to be tested by the public in the first place? I was expecting, at the very least, individualized tree with emphasis on certain roles so not every mech is being min/max the same way. I play my Raven as spotter/narcer - why does it have the follow the same skill tree node progression as a Direwolf?

You've got a point--I honestly don't see how PGI didn't anticipate that giving all mechs all quirks would create KDK-3 Online. Unquirked mechs are, after all, unquirked for a reason. Presumably they wanted to save some efforts under the guise of role diversity with the universal skill tree, but I don't see how they'll get any kind of balance without making the tree specific to each mech.

[DAYLEET]

Bogus, on 19 February 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

I honestly don't see how PGI didn't anticipate that giving all mechs all quirks would create KDK-X Online.

I went ahead and replaced your 3 with an X because they all are monsters. I just started playing KDK four days ago, i did the basic on all of them and have 2 elited and all they need is the Kinetic and Break/stop buff with the X2 from elite and the two fabled module. Otherwise it takes 4 seconds or more to go from 100% to zero and you are just starting to reverse.

Everything else can be taken away. But without the Elite X2 on the Kinetic and Break you cant stop or go forward to save your life and you need a seer to anticipate when your team is going to stop or keep going forward. This makes me want to poke and snipe with them since this lack of manoeuvrability is less damaging in those scenario than brawling. A bear should be brawling.

But if theres a choice to be made, id rather have none, even no manoeuvrability than the same amount of points everyone gets.

Though i feel what im going to say next reeks of hypocrisy, since i just bought those, we need to stop rewarding PGI when they obviously create a stupid op mech. At least wait till they are released and have had a few nerf.

Edited by DAYLEET, 19 February 2017 - 02:33 PM.

[Vamblery]

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'm not sure that WOT is best game to take example. Reducing functionality lrm's probably kill these weapon, we will have lasers and ac/lbx. And it will be boring.
Reduction of mech abilities can kill experimenting. If You have mech that has defined role and it's difficult to change these - You dont spend time on these. Experimenting is half of this game. No experimenting - no fun - no players - no game.

New skill tree can kill experimenting too.

[Knighthawk26]

Reno Blade, on 18 February 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

Yes good idea.
Unlocking could cost Cbills and XP, and switching could be free.
Then the Refund on release could be just 91 free Unlocks for each of your mastered mechs (or the money/xp, as used for now).

Yes, allowing players to unlock all the nodes on a mech, but limiting the number of active nodes to 91 is a good idea. Players that want more flexibility could have it without needing to respec.

[Vamblery]

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 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...

Modificators to Tiers dont have sense now. You can play badly and up in tier "tree" because team win and that push You up. Need change - You play bad and go down, play good and go up - no depends on team win.

[Vamblery]

Knighthawk26, on 19 February 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

Yes, allowing players to unlock all the nodes on a mech, but limiting the number of active nodes to 91 is a good idea. Players that want more flexibility could have it without needing to respec.

Agree - best idea is pay for unlock but not pay for on/off node. Limit to 91 active nodes but no limit to "open" modes.

And two important things:
- diffrent skill tree for every mech (and even for mech variant)
- possibility to choose nodes and not "need" to choose some nodes because they are on path to other that You want (ex.: take range because after this node is cooldown. It's stupid and kill a variety of structures. If all mechs look similar why experiment? Cannot experiment - why play?

[Knighthawk26]

jjyn, on 19 February 2017 - 06:13 AM, said:

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.

The majority of players are saying that we don't want to be forced to take 10 things we don't want, just to get the one that we do want. Instead, make radar deprivation (for example) cost more "slots" per level instead of every skill having the same cost of one slot. A player will have to decide if he wants 1 level of radar dep or 5 levels of better torso twist for example. Both PGI and most players know which items are garbage, which are essential for most every mech, and which are deemed important because of a desired play style. I'm guessing you can count on one hand the players that previously bought a "hill climb" module.

[Knighthawk26]

First, we players (loyal, paying customers) don't want to lose what we already value very highly in this game. That means:

1. Current players can equip skills for an equivalent number of Elite/Mastered mechs that they have now.
2. The new skills system will maintain play balance (not bad overall at the moment) and avoid one meta having an extreme advantage over others.
3. Make respec free or very low cost. We can try new builds and loadouts by just buying weapons, etc. now, let us continue this.
4. Don't crush new players under a burdensome grind to not only buy new mechs and equipment, but also skills.

If we don't lose anything valuable that we already have in the game, and PGI succeeds in providing some new diversity, some added value, and some new, cool options in mech building. Hey, most of us will be happy.

[Exbe]

Looking forward to new iteration and how actual values would look like.
For example TorsoSpeed multiplier is different and less impacts clanners for all tonnages, while TorsoYaw has exactly same value regardless.

Not sure whatever it is intended or not, but this looks rather odd.

Edited by Exbe, 19 February 2017 - 05:47 PM.

[Shinzok]

I've done some games on the PTS, and omg .

All i know is that however they are gonna implement this, it's gonna make reconsidder even continue-ing being a gamer.

The new skill tree system is "another" oversimplefication of current system.
It will make the game less interesting for alot of people, and probably make it great for the complete idiots that run around.

I've seen this over and over with numerous games, first they are super awesome and have a hefty learning curve and indepth details and for some maybe difficult to understand term, then they want broader player base and start consolidating different weapons under a unified system (thus making it easier to comprehend by the not so smart people, but losing some of the indepth details that made people come and play the game), then they going to go a step further and do it all over again (Dumb the game down so that even dumber people come and play the game [which means more revenue]), in the end all those games started to wither out because people got fed-up with people trying to change something that worked into something that doesn't make sense and doesn't work. AND IS MORE BROKE than ever.

**** it , I'm not even able to continue my critique because the skill system revamp is just not gonna work in the longrun. So why bother anymore.

[aGentleWarrior]

PeppaPig, on 18 February 2017 - 02:02 AM, said:

Meta builds are going to go into overload with the skills trees, after all, why work on three 'mechs and balance builds when you can focus on one and be the meta-clone someone else has figured out?

When you look to reworking the tree system (no good asking for it not to be implemented, as you have already decided it must go through to live), please make it so as to encourage diversity; keep specialisation costs manageable and ensure it's a case of "by once, keep forever" on the nodes, otherwise you've pretty much killed the whole concept of individual play styles which is one of the things that makes MWO fun to play.

This can't be stressed enough!

[Doctor Dinosaur]

Skill tree will replace modules.
Some mechs have 5 (or even more?) module slots.
Some mechs have only 3 slots.
Am I the only one who sees the upcoming balancing problem?

EDIT: Not counting consumables.

Edited by Doctor Dinosaur, 20 February 2017 - 03:32 AM.

[Cpt FellWurst]

I am not active in the Forums but I like to follow some threads.
At this point of the development of the game i have to write something.

I play this game (like many of you) from closed beta on, with a break of course. And i had fun playing it.
There were some changes it didn´t like and some which i liked. That´s normal in the development of a FTP game.

BUT

when I read the problems and/or suggestions which are mentioned here (didn´t play the PTS but got friends testing it) a cold hand grabs my neck....
I am a fan of heroes - so I spent manymany Eur/$ in it and it was worth for my "hobby".
With the upcoming Skilltree some heroes and/or special variants become obsolet. They highly loose from this Skilltree.
Clan Mechs will become overpowered (ok, I play both) and the work to balance the game again will take aeons as we know PGI.
In addition you only have 91 nodes but HAVE TO GRIND TOTAL USELESS NODES to get to your favorite - thats totally annoying!
Same as the fact that a single skilltree for all chassis and variants should fit mechs from 30 to 100 tons.
Plus the game will become even more difficult for beginners.

So should we clap hands that PGI implements a system which only few like, destroys balancing, dind´t change anything to customize our mechs and even makes the game more complicated and annoying to "old dogs" and potential new players???
Sorry PGI but it is just another way for you to force the players spent their C-Bills AND MC!!

The last thing missing in this stupid idea of this "improvement" of the game are the Game-magazines which will retest your game and will proof that the access to the game become more complicated and will only recommend it to BattleTech fans.
I ordered the SuperNova and the Assassin as last Mechs and I am considering to cancel the preorder of the Assassin (SN too late).

AND if the feelings of so many of this very nice community are right and the game will worsen, not only a few of my fellows and I will make a looong break (without spending money for MWO of course!)
I hope we are wrong and PGI manages to fit the Skilltree-System in a proper way.
Of course we will all test the Skilltree at its release - and will then decide what we will do.

*crossing fingers*

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

You know wat? I'm convinced each varient needs its own individual skill tree/grid

[DAYLEET]

Doctor Dinosaur, on 20 February 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

Skill tree will replace modules.
Some mechs have 5 (or even more?) module slots.
Some mechs have only 3 slots.
Am I the only one who sees the upcoming balancing problem?

EDIT: Not counting consumables.

You don't think pgi will miss something as basic as this and give all mech the same number or skill points do you?

Seriously though im pretty sure they are going to balance with the number of skill points available per chassis. That will be much better than what we have now because at least youll chose that one tree you take. The first PTS was only pgi not being ready in the slightest and gave themselves a deadline they cant make. Aside the ui guy, whom i believe did a really nice job(love the sliding and zooming!), i dont think anyone else worked on this more than 4 days.

[SuperFunkTron]

Krocodockle, on 20 February 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

You know wat? I'm convinced each varient needs its own individual skill tree/grid

Individual trees would be a real nice addition. It may lead to forcing mechs into certain roles a bit more, but that isn't necessarily a bad things.

Realistically, I think that it would come in later iterations and a few mechs at a time. Even if they did it at a rate of 5 mechs per tech tree each month, it'd still be great forward progress

[Crash Test Dummy]

I am not about to grind my mechs up to mastered status again. Just sayin`...

[MovinTarget]

SuperFunkTron, on 20 February 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Individual trees would be a real nice addition. It may lead to forcing mechs into certain roles a bit more, but that isn't necessarily a bad things.

Realistically, I think that it would come in later iterations and a few mechs at a time. Even if they did it at a rate of 5 mechs per tech tree each month, it'd still be great forward progress

It wouldn't even force them into a role any more than quirks do now... there are lots of mechs where you take advantage of the hardpoint placement over the quirks... What it *might* do is give you a variety of options for optimization on the lowest performing mechs so they are more attractive... the innately better the mech, the less opportunity for a skill tree to allow it to become OP.

[Desintegrator]

We need some rework !

[Almond Brown]

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.

So what you really want is a Single Player game. MW5 is coming, hang tight.

As for the Heat Shut down idea? How is a new player going to learn about this new Heat system if they get killed 95% of the time after their first shut-down every Match?

"Shut down and your Dead!" Neat thought sorta. Just a piss poor game mechanic really...