36 replies to this topic

[Skribs]

And all they've done is reface them and raise the costs.

I came up with a completely different one because the one as it exists is terrible in many ways.

[Bellum Dominum]

Skribs, on 20 February 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

And all they've done is reface them and raise the costs.

I came up with a completely different one because the one as it exists is terrible in many ways.

Short the having to move through skills you might not want what so ever... I disagree.

Also they did more than simply reface them. They also broke them down into smaller pieces enabling people to be able to take a little of this and a little of that to form their own combinations instead of all or nothing.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 20 February 2017 - 04:16 PM.

[Skribs]

They encourage boating. There is a cookie cutter people have already found of structure/armor, mobility, and sensors. You can now essentially get all the Mech Modules without much effort because they are all together. Some numbers are so negligable they are barely worth it (torso twist speed). Removal of quirks will affect game balance.

A lot more than just the cost that most people hate and the useless skills.

[Bellum Dominum]

Skribs, on 20 February 2017 - 04:36 PM, said:

They encourage boating. There is a cookie cutter people have already found of structure/armor, mobility, and sensors. You can now essentially get all the Mech Modules without much effort because they are all together. Some numbers are so negligable they are barely worth it (torso twist speed). Removal of quirks will affect game balance.

A lot more than just the cost that most people hate and the useless skills.

Current iteration sure. That is why testing took place. They listened to the responses from the testing and took it back to the proverbial drawing board. Quirks need to go. They do everything you listed much worse than the skill tree would have. Were you around before the quirkening? NOTHING I repeat NOTHING caused more meta/boating/cookie cutter than quirks in this game. Who in their right mind is going to put energy weapons on a mech loaded with ac quirks?

The skills are hardly useless else you wouldn't even be a fan of the quirks as you argue that the skills are simply the quirks + modules.

The skill tree wasn't perfect. Obviously PGI didn't think it was either else they'd never have put it to the test server and instead patched it into the live game. (PGI has certainly done that to us enough times over the years).

The 'cookie cutter' you bring up needs help. So how about instead of presenting an even more simplified cookie cutter actually make some suggestions that lead away from the cookie cutter?

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 20 February 2017 - 05:55 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Skribs, on 20 February 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

I appreciate it! Just curious, were all 4 builds different?

Yes.

Nova
6x cERSL
1x cUAC-10

Summoner
2x cERPPC
1x Flamer

Maddog
5x cERML
6x cSRM4

Shadowcat
1x cERPPC
2x cSSRM4
cECM

[Excalibaard]

Bellum Dominum, on 20 February 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

Current iteration sure. That is why testing took place. They listened to the responses from the testing and took it back to the proverbial drawing board. Quirks need to go. They do everything you listed much worse than the skill tree would have. Were you around before the quirkening? NOTHING I repeat NOTHING caused more meta/boating/cookie cutter than quirks in this game. Who in their right mind is going to put energy weapons on a mech loaded with ac quirks?

The skills are hardly useless else you wouldn't even be a fan of the quirks as you argue that the skills are simply the quirks + modules.

The skill tree wasn't perfect. Obviously PGI didn't think it was either else they'd never have put it to the test server and instead patched it into the live game. (PGI has certainly done that to us enough times over the years).

The 'cookie cutter' you bring up needs help. So how about instead of presenting an even more simplified cookie cutter actually make some suggestions that lead away from the cookie cutter?

With the proposed 'simple' system you can still get 3x3x5x4x3x3x5x4 = 32400 different skill combinations with just the base points. If you have 2 freely allocated bonus points this already improves to 32400x14x13= 5896800!
How do you mean that this is cookie cutter? You can't get all the skills for the weapon that you've installed, but you'll have to make a rational decision whether coolrun or fast fire or aim assist (for example) benefit your build the most. That is a big improvement over the first iteration of the new skill system.

Yes, the current system probably has trillions upon trillions of combinations, but realistically: how many of those are you going to use? And more importantly: instead of having to give one thing up for another, each 'choice' you make is just another marginal increase and 90% already decided for you by your loadout --> If you run AC5s you're not going to consider non-AC5 skills. Just like you wouldn't think of putting energy weapons on ac-quirked mechs. Therefore the actual variation that you get in the original system may even be less that with this 'simple' system that you loathe and the problem with quirks is not resolved. Cookie cutter galore.
The mix&match simply barely happens when min/maxing, because a tree for each weapon(type) seperately incentivises boating --> Why run lasers and ACs and skill them both for a small increase, if you can just run ACs and put the skill points from lasers ALSO into ACs for a big increase? In the last case you have overall more benefit from your entire loadout, and you also have the inherent advantage of boating where all weapons are the same and thus converge perfectly.

Before the quirkening everything was dominated by mechs with high/close together hardpoints and PPC+AC5s for convergence reasons. Dragon Slayers poptarting in every game with a competitive player was a horrible experience, and quirks that incentivised other weapon systems were far from perfect, but better than it used to be. The changes to Jumpjets and PPC velocity since then (the shake was already implemented during that time) will have no effect on the fact that pinpoint burst and 100% damage reduction behind ridges, will outperform sustained damage builds which have to stay in line of fire in terms of health preservation and will deal better DPS to single components.

The only thing that this suggestion needs in particular, is a few more weapon options. With freely allocated bonus points it's too easy to get almost everything for your weapons. Instead, Flexibility can be made into 3 distinct choices: Better Twist, Better Turn, Less Shake and then weapons will get 5.

Accuracy: 10% Shorter beam times and smaller spread
Velocity: 10% Increased projectile and missile velocities (yes, including LRMs)
Fury: 5% faster fire rate on all weapons, decrease UAC jam chance by 2%
Cooling: 10% increased heat cap and cooling rate, less overheat damage
Target Lock: 20% decreased lock time. Locking onto targets will keep all arm-mounted weapons locked until their maximum angle as long as lock is retained. (experimental, might make arm lasers too strong. Beneficial for mechs that twist a lot because it's difficult to keep arm weapons on target during twisting.)


That said, the new changes they've released look promising, we'll see where it leads!

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 February 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

Yes.

Nova
6x cERSL
1x cUAC-10

Summoner
2x cERPPC
1x Flamer

Maddog
5x cERML
6x cSRM4

Shadowcat
1x cERPPC
2x cSSRM4
cECM

I think the idea was: did you pick different skills for each, according to the different type of build you have?

Edited by Excalibaard, 21 February 2017 - 05:36 AM.

[Bellum Dominum]

Excalibaard, on 21 February 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

With the proposed 'simple' system you can still get 3x3x5x4x3x3x5x4 = 32400 different skill combinations with just the base points. If you have 2 freely allocated bonus points this already improves to 32400x14x13= 5896800!
How do you mean that this is cookie cutter? You can't get all the skills for the weapon that you've installed, but you'll have to make a rational decision whether coolrun or fast fire or aim assist (for example) benefit your build the most. That is a big improvement over the first iteration of the new skill system.

Yes, the current system probably has trillions upon trillions of combinations, but realistically: how many of those are you going to use? And more importantly: instead of having to give one thing up for another, each 'choice' you make is just another marginal increase and 90% already decided for you by your loadout --> If you run AC5s you're not going to consider non-AC5 skills. Just like you wouldn't think of putting energy weapons on ac-quirked mechs. Therefore the actual variation that you get in the original system may even be less that with this 'simple' system that you loathe and the problem with quirks is not resolved. Cookie cutter galore.
The mix&match simply barely happens when min/maxing, because a tree for each weapon(type) seperately incentivises boating --> Why run lasers and ACs and skill them both for a small increase, if you can just run ACs and put the skill points from lasers ALSO into ACs for a big increase? In the last case you have overall more benefit from your entire loadout, and you also have the inherent advantage of boating where all weapons are the same and thus converge perfectly.

Before the quirkening everything was dominated by mechs with high/close together hardpoints and PPC+AC5s for convergence reasons. Dragon Slayers poptarting in every game with a competitive player was a horrible experience, and quirks that incentivised other weapon systems were far from perfect, but better than it used to be. The changes to Jumpjets and PPC velocity since then (the shake was already implemented during that time) will have no effect on the fact that pinpoint burst and 100% damage reduction behind ridges, will outperform sustained damage builds which have to stay in line of fire in terms of health preservation and will deal better DPS to single components.

The only thing that this suggestion needs in particular, is a few more weapon options. With freely allocated bonus points it's too easy to get almost everything for your weapons. Instead, Flexibility can be made into 3 distinct choices: Better Twist, Better Turn, Less Shake and then weapons will get 5.

Accuracy: 10% Shorter beam times and smaller spread
Velocity: 10% Increased projectile and missile velocities (yes, including LRMs)
Fury: 5% faster fire rate on all weapons, decrease UAC jam chance by 2%
Cooling: 10% increased heat cap and cooling rate, less overheat damage
Target Lock: 20% decreased lock time. Locking onto targets will keep all arm-mounted weapons locked until their maximum angle as long as lock is retained. (experimental, might make arm lasers too strong. Beneficial for mechs that twist a lot because it's difficult to keep arm weapons on target during twisting.)


That said, the new changes they've released look promising, we'll see where it leads!



I think the idea was: did you pick different skills for each, according to the different type of build you have?

Skribs, on 19 February 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

I think you need to look this over again. First huge problem I see: skills grouped which equals simplification and it also is already it's self cookie cutter before a person even spends a single point.

Trillions upon trillions of possible combinations (your words) vs this equals simplification. Also takes away from uniqueness. You might not do the things you bring up but just because you wouldn't does that mean others shouldn't be able to?

We both know there were problems before the quirkening (part of the reason the quirkening happened) but you can't deny that the quirkening caused an even more reduction of diversity and one that was literally forced by PGI because obviously you are going to configure your mech mostly around it's quirks.

Agreed for the most part on the new changes... just not really liking how much they appear to be cowtowing to the 'omg grind' crowd. A group I'm not even sure why they play this game as that so called grind is nothing more than playing the game.

As to how many would I personally use with more options... given enough time: all of them. I like theory crafting so I'll explore all the stuff that the meta gamers would rather have simplified so they don't have to explore it. STO when it first came out had quite a complex system for their skills, it had been out for a couple of years before I started playing and went that whole time pretty well unchanged (skill system that is). Not even 3 months into playing the game I had one of the lead devs go into a private match with me so I could demonstrate to them what it was I was doing, at my own request and supported by most of the pvp community, because they needed to do some equation adjustments to bring down the power level of what I was doing.

Point is: this is the heart of diversity and uniqueness: options. Limiting options inherently promotes meta.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 21 February 2017 - 01:52 PM.

[Skribs]

I'm going to agree that quirks suck, and my tree resolves the issue that quirks solved that the new trees do not, by giving more bonus points to underpriveleged Mechs.

However, I disagree with you that this tree is cookie cutter. On the one hand, most mechs would get at least a couple bonus points they could use to specialize. On the other, you get bigger choices than the current proposed tree has. Which is going to be a bigger decision:

• Whether you get 5% cooldown or 10% armor
  
• Or whether you get 10% cooldown or 10% heat reduction

They're on a different axis, yes, but overall there are just not that big of bonuses you'll get with the new skill system. The ones that gave you the biggest bonuses are getting nerfed in the next iteration, according to PGI. How much armor you allocate to your Mech, what engine you pick, how many heat sinks you have, what weapons you have, these will have a far more important role in any system (current, proposed, and my suggestion). The skill system is just extra flavor, and it doesn't need to be overly complex (or expensive).

[Excalibaard]

Bellum Dominum, on 21 February 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

I think you need to look this over again. First huge problem I see: skills grouped which equals simplification and it also is already it's self cookie cutter before a person even spends a single point.

Trillions upon trillions of possible combinations (your words) vs this equals simplification. Also takes away from uniqueness. You might not do the things you bring up but just because you wouldn't does that mean others shouldn't be able to?

We both know there were problems before the quirkening (part of the reason the quirkening happened) but you can't deny that the quirkening caused an even more reduction of diversity and one that was literally forced by PGI because obviously you are going to configure your mech mostly around it's quirks.

Agreed for the most part on the new changes... just not really liking how much they appear to be cowtowing to the 'omg grind' crowd. A group I'm not even sure why they play this game as that so called grind is nothing more than playing the game.

As to how many would I personally use with more options... given enough time: all of them. I like theory crafting so I'll explore all the stuff that the meta gamers would rather have simplified so they don't have to explore it. STO when it first came out had quite a complex system for their skills, it had been out for a couple of years before I started playing and went that whole time pretty well unchanged (skill system that is). Not even 3 months into playing the game I had one of the lead devs go into a private match with me so I could demonstrate to them what it was I was doing, at my own request and supported by most of the pvp community, because they needed to do some equation adjustments to bring down the power level of what I was doing.

Point is: this is the heart of diversity and uniqueness: options. Limiting options inherently promotes meta.

Skills grouped, so that you can't just take all the firepower skills every time. Instead you have to pick which firepower skill applies best to your build. When running a bursty SRM boat, do you take the faster fire for quicker bursts, or does it generate so much heat that you'd rather run with cool run? Maybe you prefer extra velocity so you make sure your burst hits?

The whole idea that they're grouped into significant decisions instead of just taking everything that you like for your build keeps it balanced and anything but cookie-cutter as you'll have to make tough decisions instead of solving a little puzzle. Of these trillions upon trillions that you want to tinker with, only a select few are viable. Most of the combinations will be garbage where you barely advance in any tree towards any notable skillpoint. People who don't know what they're doing will thus be crippled from the start.
So, while in this suggestion there are 5 million equally viable builds, the incremental system will have much less viable 'puzzles' for people to solve and much larger fringe cases where new players are even more disadvantaged besides the steep learning curve (note: also for people who are less inclined to tinker beyond their mech loadout than you) and the differences between the good builds will be much smaller due to it being an incremental system.

The quirkening was overall bad, but it had some fun aspects. It removed focus from running 'the best weapon combination' towards 'running quirk-supported weapon combinations'. The whole reason the 7 MPL TDR-5SS exists instead of being slaughtered by PPC+AC combos is because the quirks incentivised playing other weapons too (though yes, there is a big downside that tinkering with weapon systems was inherently made worse/ less interesting).

Your last statement is wrong IMHO. Having MORE options does not innately equal MORE diversity. If the options themselves are much smaller you'll end up with a net loss of diversity. Besides, diversity is a relative thing, it depends on how different you are from others. Once these 'others' can make basically the same build, but get 2% more torso twist instead of turn speed, the diversity between these two players is effectively removed.

Adding a lot of unnecessary complexity to a game which is already niche because it's too complex for the average joe is not a design philosophy that I think will benefit the game. No/an easy skill system is a better supplement, then leave the diversity in mech customization.

Edited by Excalibaard, 22 February 2017 - 04:38 AM.

[0bsidion]

I think this is a little too streamlined, which is a trend I'm seeing in far too many games these days. They keep catering to the lowest common denominator to appeal to broader audiences, but it alienates those of us who appreciate complexities and gradient choices as opposed to simple binary ones.

[Bellum Dominum]

0bsidion, on 22 February 2017 - 10:13 AM, said:

I think this is a little too streamlined, which is a trend I'm seeing in far too many games these days. They keep catering to the lowest common denominator to appeal to broader audiences, but it alienates those of us who appreciate complexities and gradient choices as opposed to simple binary ones.

Yup. I've avoided bringing up the death of so many games due to over simplification. Touched on it with sharing a bit about STO but I really try to not compare games to each other however on this topic it is a historically proven safe generalization to make: over simplification of something as important as a skill system = crappy game and one that either doesn't last or loses a very large portion of it's player base in an incredibly short amount of time. (can you say skyforge?)

[Admiral Brad]

My favorite thing about MechCommander 2 was the Pilot specializations. Each choice was important and significant. Should he specialize in light mechs, laser or sensors? The answer depended on what would best augment him as a pilot given his mech and weapon choices. Those choices would then in turn force his choice of a new mech later. Thus showing the effect of the original choice. This is the kind of choice being shown here. You can't have everything and each choice matters.

That is why I like this proposed skill system far more the the tree/web that is being offered, though I still prefer that to the old skill system with zero choice. The proposed system provides fewer but much more significant decisions I like the idea of asking the question of how would I prefer to defend my mech or what sensor package I have or how am I improving my firepower.

If you need to make 91 decisions in order to skill up your mech it is too many. You have a lot of options but most of those choices are moot. Each node individually is almost pointless to take with the exception of the old modules nodes and the ones required to get to those nodes. Each decision you make is simply selecting the nodes you want (i.e. Heat containment, Radar Derp, Speed Tweak) and every node that gets in your way is a non-choice. I don't like non-choices.

[Excalibaard]

Exactly. It's like do you want to make 8 good choices, or 3-4 choices in skill tree and 87 non-choices?

[Bellum Dominum]

Excalibaard, on 23 February 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

Exactly. It's like do you want to make 8 good choices, or 3-4 choices in skill tree and 87 non-choices?

Well I completely agree that every choice should be important, but I also feel that every choice should be up to the one doing the customization. Grouping skills issues: #1 It is at the prerogative of the one doing the grouping as to which skills should go with other skills which takes customization away from the end user. #2 It is it's self making the skill system cookie cutter in that simply choosing a group of skills is the cookie cutter. Whereas with skills on their own axis/branch/whatever you want to call it then each skill has it's own merit/flaws and the end user gets to make the decision of which skills they want to group.

Now all of that said EITHER type of system is still going to require that the designer/coder be able to make each choice both a value and limiting upon further choices.

I think this topic is really just a matter of differences in preferences. Some people like to have their choices limited, and others don't.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 23 February 2017 - 03:41 PM.

[Osis]

Bellum Dominum, on 20 February 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

Skill Tree is being worked on right now. I think Osis point is why you came along with a completely different type of skill tree while one is in the process already of being worked on.

As to your skill tree. Personally I'd be completely done with this game if they implemented such a simplistic system. It appears to me as all you have done is take the current skills and modules and refaced them while at the same time lowering their costs.

No thank you.

Hail,

Actually, I hate the PGI system (honestly beside the artwork for the Mechs, not of fan). Skribs version is cleaner, simpler which is generally better. But lets face it, I am not redoing 143 Mastered Mechs, just not going to happen. Not to mention I have a boatload of really crap Mechs that need to be retired and I already have 24 bays available.

The refunds are not going to even come close to being worth it. Over a Billion C-Bills required? Nope.

S!

[Skribs]

This system is simple because we already have the MechLab, which I feel offers deep enough customization as it is.

We already balance where our armor is, how many weapons we take, any utility items, ammo, and number of DHS. The MechLab gives us plenty of detailed customization.

[Macklehatton]

Hey Skribs, every topic you’ve started has been really on point, good work.

Your tree does seem a little compact, I assume because you wanted radar dep and seismic to be the base unit of skills. If you broke those up into multiple parts you’d have to pack fewer semi-related skills together.

More broadly I think part of why it seems like there aren’t a lot of options in your system is that there aren’t really a lot of mechanically distinct options in the game. ECM coverage probably doesn’t belong with AMS, but there’s not really anything else in the game like ECM to put it with and somehow making it as good as radar dep would be a huge change to the game. There’s no other electronic warfare abilities and no other vaguely stealthy abilities, so it just ends up in your loose countermeasures category.

The emergent roles in this game, like scouting/sniping/skirmishing/brawling don’t seem to have much top down support. It’s harder to say whether a particular role isn’t getting enough attention when you’re not sure if that role is supposed to be there or an accident of circumstances.

The devs have some thinking to do on what the game is about and whether it is trying to appeal equally to all the people that hitched them dreams to it when it was generic and amorphous and could become anything. If they want to please everyone they probably need to get a process in place for playtesting that’s quicker and more responsive, but they run the risk of disappointing everyone.

Edited by Macklehatton, 01 March 2017 - 06:11 PM.