36 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

Yes, right now. But this is not a fundamental truth about skill trees. They have the potential to create more diversity.

They don't add diversity. If all builds are getting stronger, not just previously joke builds, then really there is no difference than before.

Even your example of a Gauss SCat, 2 LPL will be even better (seriously 15% duration, where do I sign up) such that a Gauss SCat will stay the joke build compared to the 2 LPL build just like before. In other words it is only misleading people into thinking that more builds are viable when the reality is there is no change.

It all that determines on whether we only care about viability when determining diversity or permutations. If we really want just raw permutations we could just remove hardpoints as a thing and diversity would be insane right?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 March 2017 - 01:59 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Cathy, on 02 March 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

All mechs but specifically lights and Mediums need a baseline, and skill buff on hard breaking. With lights and mediums getting a bigger one. the hexes for hard breaking also need to be placed in a more friendly position on the nodes.

Its easier with vehicles to accelerate than decelerate. PGI is simply making mech's follow the laws of physics than we in the real world already see with cars...trucks...etc. A good real world analogy is the folks who buy All/Four wheel drive SUV's and think that because they quickly and easily accelerated two tons up to 60mph on a snow covered road that they'll be able to brake again to avoid a collision just as quickly and easily.

[C E Dwyer]

soapyfrog, on 02 March 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

Nope. I don't know why anyone thinks this but it is objectively not true.

I said what they need, not what they want.

I currently own 367 mechs including the two doubled up Loyalty mechs, I have roughly a quarter kitted out with mech modules and about an eight with weapon modules.

I like many others in this game liked to buy and master and in many cases never use again mech after mech after mech, i'm not going to be able to master what I own, and I have fully mastered nearly all of those 367 mechs.

Now roughly half those mechs won't get skilled up under the new system.

I no longer care, this new system has made the mechs tougher they last longer under fire. I'm not going to be a Meme and hate it just because P.G.I aren't going to give me a system where they provide modules for every single mech I mastered.

My issues with it are the pathing of some skills and the inclusion of completely redundant skills. I'd also like it to be more newb friendly, but the only way to make it more newb friendly is to not have a skill system at all.

Also the Biggie, is it going to be more fun once the kinks are ironed out I come up with a big yes

Edited by Cathy, 02 March 2017 - 02:20 PM.

[Drebin Cormack]

cazidin, on 02 March 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

No.

NO.

NO!!!

We lost the Long Tom, despite a majority demanding it, because PGI couldn't get it to work right.

We lost Info Wars, despite a majority demanding it, because PGI couldn't get it to work right.

We even lost Energy Draw, despite a majority demanding an alternative to Ghost Heat, because PGI not only couldn't get it to work right, but added a lot of unrelated but bad ideas.

Give them constructive feedback. They're listening. Tell them what you want. DEMAND they fix it, not scrap it. Do NOT let another good idea be lost because of a few issues that are quite easily fixed. We're testing this for a reason. Let's help them fix this.

I find this interesting. Sounds like PGI needs to actually hire some--GASP--professional game designers? All you have to do is run the numbers to know what is a decent grind and what isn't. It's not my job to fix this, and I'm not getting paid or rewarded to do their job for them. So no, and let's revise your post:

We lost the Long Tom, despite a majority demanding it, because PGI was either too lazy, too stupid, or not motivated enough to implement it.

We lost Info Wars, despite a majority demanding it, because PGI decided they wanted to do it bass ackwards in the first place.

We even lost Energy Draw, despite a majority demanding an alternative to Ghost Heat, because it was a idiotic idea that had no place in a battletech game in the first place. Just like Ghost Heat was, but that garbage was implemented anyway.

We're going to lose this because PGI wants to create more cbill and xp sinks to incentivise me to spend more cash. Not to mention they want to bury decent skills behind crap I don't want or can't use in the first place.

And I'm leaving as a player because of all of this. The 3060 roll-out is going to go the same way. There are better games I can spend my money on.

[Alistair Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 March 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

They don't add diversity. If all builds are getting stronger, not just previously joke builds, then really there is no difference than before.

Even your example of a Gauss SCat, 2 LPL will be even better (seriously 15% duration, where do I sign up) such that a Gauss SCat will stay the joke build compared to the 2 LPL build just like before. In other words it is only misleading people into thinking that more builds are viable when the reality is there is no change.

It all that determines on whether we only care about viability when determining diversity or permutations. If we really want just raw permutations we could just remove hardpoints as a thing and diversity would be insane right?

Well, that's kind of the thing. There are room for more roles in MWO, such as crit seeking light mechs with multiple MGs. Right now, they're generally not worth taking (although they were used effectively in MWOWC), but they could become viable either by direct buffing or via the skill tree.

I also think that "tanky mechs" could become a viable role, but this is hard to discuss since we have so little relevant experience. In the last PTS, everyone took maximum survivability skills, and it was also only 4v4, so it was hard to get an impression of how a tanky assault mech could work in 12v12.

In general, I would just say that the MWO community (as all gaming communities and even sport communities) are often biased by the status quo. There's a tendency to underestimate the potential for future change in how the game is played. If this is a deliberate choice, based on PGI's track record, then I get it. But when people have a very narrow view of how the game could evolve, I think it's often the result of bias rather than an objective analysis.

[C E Dwyer]

Dee Eight, on 02 March 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

Its easier with vehicles to accelerate than decelerate. PGI is simply making mech's follow the laws of physics than we in the real world already see with cars...trucks...etc. A good real world analogy is the folks who buy All/Four wheel drive SUV's and think that because they quickly and easily accelerated two tons up to 60mph on a snow covered road that they'll be able to brake again to avoid a collision just as quickly and easily.

Agreed but this isn't the real world.

This system goes into live as it stands these boards are going to be filled with rage and hate about the F'in A -hole that keeps blocking me, simply because they couldn't stop, to say nothing of half the mechs in this game becoming non viable.

The whole point of change is to make it more run, not more realistic. Realistic won't be a selling point, on a weapons platform that will only ever be viable in a fictional world.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

Well, that's kind of the thing. There are room for more roles in MWO, such as crit seeking light mechs with multiple MGs.

Crit-seeking lights aren't a role, nor do I even think they should be a thing (for other reasons). The Spider is a harasser for example, it plays much like the RVN-4X did before it and the RVN-2X before that.

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

Right now, they're generally not worth taking (although they were used effectively in MWOWC), but they could become viable either by direct buffing or via the skill tree.

If you think crit-seeking MGs is the strength of the Spider then you don't quite know the main strength of the Spider (it isn't the MGs, those are usually only really used in a snowball). Don't get me wrong, they do make the Spider more of a threat, but that is generally once you are already losing.

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

I also think that "tanky mechs" could become a viable role

They already are, see HBK-4SP/AS7-S. That said, the HBK-4SP has the issue of having borderline firepower where it really doesn't have enough firepower to justify dealing with its structure and there in lies the rub. This isn't PvE, the idea of something taking aggro and keeping that aggro to protect your squishy mechs only works against teams who play badly. There has to be a balance between firepower/durability in order to justify dealing with all the health to take it down (which the Atlas does justify all of the aggro because of its firepower).

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

But when people have a very narrow view of how the game could evolve, I think it's often the result of bias rather than an objective analysis.

Could and should are two very different terms. Just cuz it CAN evolve in a way doesn't mean it SHOULD, nor does it mean the skill tree is the best way to go about that (other than you know, quirks). Sorry, but using the skill tree to impact diversity or anything related balance IS bad and should not be the case. If you want weapons to be a thing, buff the weapons, don't go in a round-about way of buffing them. If you want mechs to be a thing, buff the mech, don't go in a round-about way of buffing them.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 March 2017 - 03:45 PM.

[Koniks]

Yeah, the problem is that the PTS merged the skill tree into the module system rather than the reverse. So we've ended up with the worst of both worlds.

It'd be better if they just kept something like the basic and elite skills (with a pinpoint replacement) as mandatory prereqs at a comparable cost to the current live server then tack on the customization modules within the tree.

[Gas Guzzler]

Koniks, on 02 March 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

It'd be better if they just kept something like the basic and elite skills (with a pinpoint replacement) as mandatory prereqs at a comparable cost to the current live server then tack on the customization modules within the tree.

I like the sound of that.

[MischiefSC]

The problem is that the only diversity it creates is the ability for bad players to actually take bad quirks instead of good ones.

The only "choice" this system is adding is the "choice" to effectively remove good quirks for bad ones. It would be like the current system but letting people, say, remove a GHRs structure and laser quirks for a tiny JJ buff, missile buff and AMS quirks.

There is little parity between choices you have to make.

I'd rather you had, say, 10 trees each with 10 nodes of slightly increasing value. So, say, energy duration is +0.5% for node 1 and +2% for node 10 or the like. Give me 45 pts. Make the structure and mobility and sensor stuff at the high levels as valuable as a steep heat reduction. Real choices to build mech that are viable for different roles without wasting points on crap I don't need.

I hate this new one. It's got no real choices other than "obvious smart choice vs stupid derp" and a lot of worthless stuff to get a few critical ones.

It's bad.

[Wintersdark]

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that this is always the case, because PGI can't really create a game with actual role warfare where there is diversity? If so, you're probably right, but if we all adopt a defeatist attitude, then balance discussions become far less enjoyable. To the extent that they're enjoyable to begin with.

Or do you mean that even if PGI had the brightest minds of the human race, we would still inevitably end up with a game where any skill tree leaves MWO with as little variety as if the game had no skill tree to begin with? If that's your opinion, I disagree completely and I suspect there's no reason even having this discussion with you, because neither of us will change our minds about this.

Either way, I don't feel it's particularly helpful to say that the skill tree will never produce more variety, except if it's to throw your hands in the air and withdraw from the conversation.

I'm not saying it won't produce more variety.

I was agreeing with you that it would, for the majority of play.

However, at the top end, there will only be a few specific builds at any given time, the "meta builds", not because PGI is bad, but because that's the nature of competitive play: quantify and identify the best builds, and use those. That's normal for any PvP game.

That doesn't mean PGI shouldn't try out that is a lost cause, just that top level comp play having just a few meta builds isn't indicative of a problem.

If build A has Effective Strength 1000, and build B has Effective Strength 990, then build A will be used despite the difference being minor. You see this in all competitive games, even mildly competitive ones like WoW PvP.

However, outside of top level play, that difference is I significantly small and eclipsed by countless other factors.

Not defeatist at all, just how it works.

[Pyed]

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Or maybe 2xAC2 or 2xUAC2 Light mechs were not viable before, but suddenly become viable due to skill tree.

My 2xAC2 BJ-1 is kinda viable now, in its own way.

Those ACs:
35%->20% CD nerf
25%->5% heat gen nerf (won't matter anymore anyway)
30%->10% velocity nerf
and
30%->0% torso turn rate nerf
17->0 torso yaw nerf

Assuming these nerfs are here to stay?
Not viable anymore!

[rook]

MischiefSC, on 02 March 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

The problem is that the only diversity it creates is the ability for bad players to actually take bad quirks instead of good ones.

The only "choice" this system is adding is the "choice" to effectively remove good quirks for bad ones. It would be like the current system but letting people, say, remove a GHRs structure and laser quirks for a tiny JJ buff, missile buff and AMS quirks.

There is little parity between choices you have to make.

I'd rather you had, say, 10 trees each with 10 nodes of slightly increasing value. So, say, energy duration is +0.5% for node 1 and +2% for node 10 or the like. Give me 45 pts. Make the structure and mobility and sensor stuff at the high levels as valuable as a steep heat reduction. Real choices to build mech that are viable for different roles without wasting points on crap I don't need.

I hate this new one. It's got no real choices other than "obvious smart choice vs stupid derp" and a lot of worthless stuff to get a few critical ones.

It's bad.

I totally agree, diversity isn't gained with the skill tree as it is presented. They should either do away with skills that are "required" for an optimized mech, or set them as a baseline.

I believe that real diversity would come from a small choice of highly situational quirks, or quirks that are farther removed from performance.

[Vidarion]

Alistair Winter, on 02 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Also, I would say that, ideally, the skill tree may open up for new mechs that would otherwise be unviable. Just as a random example, you can imagine a situation where a Gauss Shadow Cat was not viable before, but suddenly becomes viable due to skill tree (bonus ammo quirks).

AC/20 Urbanmech. You can take a STD100, almost max armor and 3 tons of ammo. And you still get 27 shots and a reasonable range boost. And you can turn FAST. It feels responsive and you have almost 4 tons of ammo in 3 slots. It's glorious.

[Capt Deadpool]

MischiefSC, on 02 March 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

The problem is that the only diversity it creates is the ability for bad players to actually take bad quirks instead of good ones.

The only "choice" this system is adding is the "choice" to effectively remove good quirks for bad ones. It would be like the current system but letting people, say, remove a GHRs structure and laser quirks for a tiny JJ buff, missile buff and AMS quirks.

There is little parity between choices you have to make.

I'd rather you had, say, 10 trees each with 10 nodes of slightly increasing value. So, say, energy duration is +0.5% for node 1 and +2% for node 10 or the like. Give me 45 pts. Make the structure and mobility and sensor stuff at the high levels as valuable as a steep heat reduction. Real choices to build mech that are viable for different roles without wasting points on crap I don't need.

I hate this new one. It's got no real choices other than "obvious smart choice vs stupid derp" and a lot of worthless stuff to get a few critical ones.

It's bad.

Agree!

[Vidarion]

rook, on 02 March 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

I totally agree, diversity isn't gained with the skill tree as it is presented. They should either do away with skills that are "required" for an optimized mech, or set them as a baseline.

I believe that real diversity would come from a small choice of highly situational quirks, or quirks that are farther removed from performance.

What are you optimizing the mech for? Brawling? Sniping? mid-range? Missiles? Ballistics? Lasers?

Are you considering radar deprivation and seismic sensor required? Because it seems like a lot of people think so and are pissed that you have to spend "so many" points on "useless" skills to max those...completely ignoring the fact that (a) the skills aren't useless (just not as life-saving as RD/SS); and ( RD/SS are ridiculously over-powered in the module system.

Yes, there will be some skill nodes that a vast majority of players will take. But not everyone will be running around with the same skill load out like they are with modules now.

[rook]

Vidarion, on 02 March 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

What are you optimizing the mech for? Brawling? Sniping? mid-range? Missiles? Ballistics? Lasers?

Are you considering radar deprivation and seismic sensor required? Because it seems like a lot of people think so and are pissed that you have to spend "so many" points on "useless" skills to max those...completely ignoring the fact that (a) the skills aren't useless (just not as life-saving as RD/SS); and ( RD/SS are ridiculously over-powered in the module system.

Yes, there will be some skill nodes that a vast majority of players will take. But not everyone will be running around with the same skill load out like they are with modules now.

I'm too potato-ish to give an exact rundown of what's the best set of nodes, but I assume everyone won't pass up most of the survival tree. How does that make you more of a brawler vs a sniper of you've got all the same in survival? In that example, a straight up choice between sensor range and 360 targeting would be a better differentiator. Both of those skills are fairly removed from performance, but I would say it would be a clear choice for those rolls.