42 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

The Engine Decoupling, the base stat changes... not really an issue for me, although the individual values are often, IMO, quite a bit off the mark.

Even the individual Skill Node design itself, while still missing the mark, is not hugely off, as a concept. The execution? Needs to be de-cluttered a bit, and again, some Node values seem off.

The bigger issue? The completely generic approach.

Skill Nodes should reflect a combination of "General", Weight Class" and "Role" trees.

Aka Lights and Assaults, even both meant for direct combat could still have different node to specialize, for instance, the Light would be more mobility based, the Assault more "tanky" in Skill Nodes choices, with some overlap. But a Light Combat Unit and Light Scout would overlap Nodes from the Light Class.... but their Roles would be different, and as such, the Nodes for a Combat Light would improve it's combat effectiveness and improve it's rewards multipliers for combat actions... while the Nodes for a Scout would de-emphasize Combat Rewards and Improve it's Sensors, NARC, etc, as well as providing multipliers for those actions, such as NARC 1 giving 5x multiplier for NARC Kills and Dmg, NARC2, 10x, etc.

Every Weight Class should have class specific Nodes, as should each Role for a Chassis. A Hunchback 4G and 4J should share the same General and Weight Class Nodes, but one Should have "Juggernaut" Role Skill Tree, the other a "Fire Support" Skill Tree. Etc.

Just my 2ct. Not saying my way is the "right way", but this is the thing I feel PGI is missing the mark with this opportunity. Perhaps it's too massive an undertaking, but I feel it's the only realistic way to break the mold of it all being nothing more than different flavors of 12 man TDM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If PGI were willing to put in the effort to assign a role tree (or even two or three to give players a choice of how they use a given variant) to each variant, it would make this whole system feel a whole lot better. Even more, if they could make individual role trees for each variant (as in, a Catapult C1 Fire Support tree would be different from a Hunchback 4J Fire Support tree).

I'd still prefer actual trees to spiderwebs, though.

[Bishop Steiner]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 03 March 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

If PGI were willing to put in the effort to assign a role tree (or even two or three to give players a choice of how they use a given variant) to each variant, it would make this whole system feel a whole lot better. Even more, if they could make individual role trees for each variant (as in, a Catapult C1 Fire Support tree would be different from a Hunchback 4J Fire Support tree).

I'd still prefer actual trees to spiderwebs, though.

I agree, though I do see the desire to avoid pure linearity, to at least somewhat throw a wrench into the "minimum effort/maximum effect" mentality that grips this game.

[VitriolicViolet]

yeah there has to be some level of 'choose lame things to get good things' or we will end up with the current module situation all over again. It must force choice to an extent, if players can simply choose what they want then we will be straight back to radar derp and seismic being mandatory and everyone taking heat reduction, mobility and armor.

With boating im not sure nearly anything can be done to avoid it. its simply the easiest way to play, even without other incentives. Its simply easier to remember and use one range, one cooldown and one heat level. way easier to boat anything than to take mixed builds.

6x ML is simple to use and pilot, same with 4 AC5 or 4 LRM15, but taking 2 AC5, 3 SRM4 and 4MPL is way harder to use and pilot effectively. im not sure anything can change that.

[JC Daxion]

Id rather have them Boost the node power a bit, but reduce the number you can use. So instead of 91 points, maybe you only get 50, or 60 or 70? i dunno the exact number..

Then you would not be filling most of the trees, A tank could not pick all structure, and all weapons, and most movement ect.. But it would get a lot more bonus for adding the structure and weapons for example.. (aka tank assault)

a light on the other hand might take movement and jumpgets and some sensors..

a medium might take structure, some move and some weapons.

a medium/longer range mech might take sensors and weapons..


they are going in the right direction, but it needs a bit more tweaking.

[Bishop Steiner]

VitriolicViolet, on 03 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

yeah there has to be some level of 'choose lame things to get good things' or we will end up with the current module situation all over again. It must force choice to an extent, if players can simply choose what they want then we will be straight back to radar derp and seismic being mandatory and everyone taking heat reduction, mobility and armor.

With boating im not sure nearly anything can be done to avoid it. its simply the easiest way to play, even without other incentives. Its simply easier to remember and use one range, one cooldown and one heat level. way easier to boat anything than to take mixed builds.

6x ML is simple to use and pilot, same with 4 AC5 or 4 LRM15, but taking 2 AC5, 3 SRM4 and 4MPL is way harder to use and pilot effectively. im not sure anything can change that.

I agree...and that is the thing...boating is effective period...so why should it be rewarded? It is it's own reward. I honestly would love to see weapon quirks gone, period, oh...sorry.... weapon NODES.

JC Daxion, on 03 March 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

Id rather have them Boost the node power a bit, but reduce the number you can use. So instead of 91 points, maybe you only get 50, or 60 or 70? i dunno the exact number..

Then you would not be filling most of the trees, A tank could not pick all structure, and all weapons, and most movement ect.. But it would get a lot more bonus for adding the structure and weapons for example.. (aka tank assault)

a light on the other hand might take movement and jumpgets and some sensors..

a medium might take structure, some move and some weapons.

a medium/longer range mech might take sensors and weapons..


they are going in the right direction, but it needs a bit more tweaking.

I do agree with this, overall, though I think they also do need to streamline the Node "Nests" themselves. I would like to see a person have to decide...is my Juggernaut going to be such because it can tank huge damage...or because it can lay out huge damage.... not both.

[rolly]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

Just my 2ct. Not saying my way is the "right way", but this is the thing I feel PGI is missing the mark with this opportunity. Perhaps it's too massive an undertaking, but I feel it's the only realistic way to break the mold of it all being nothing more than different flavors of 12 man TDM.

To be fair though Bishop, your 2ct is like the the British Pound vs. the Peso. Your 2ct goes a long way.

That aside, "missing the mark" is pretty much PGI's modus operandii for the last few years. D for Done with a A- title, the only thing they do well is churn out decent mech models like Hesperus.

This game has really fallen short of its its initial proposed projected path. I want this game to be more but I've resigned myself to accept its mediocrity. Anything larger than a mech release has almost always been a massive undertaking.

[Bishop Steiner]

rolly, on 03 March 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

To be fair though Bishop, your 2ct is like the the British Pound vs. the Peso. Your 2ct goes a long way.

That aside, "missing the mark" is pretty much PGI's modus operandii for the last few years. D for Done with a A- title, the only thing they do well is churn out decent mech models like Hesperus.

This game has really fallen short of its its initial proposed projected path. I want this game to be more but I've resigned myself to accept its mediocrity. Anything larger than a mech release has almost always been a massive undertaking.

so is that saying my 2ct has value...is overinflated.... or just what I need to grab a pint at a pub? (cuz 2 pesos ain't taking me far!)

[Bud Crue]

"Roll Warfare" he said with a voice chocked with emotion.
Expressing in two words all sorrow, all hope.
His audience sighed audibly, lost in a collective reverie of what might have been.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 03 March 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

"Roll Warfare" he said with a voice chocked with emotion.
Expressing in two words all sorrow, all hope.
His audience sighed audibly, lost in a collective reverie of what might have been.

Shakespeare in the park? Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?

[Bud Crue]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Shakespeare in the park? Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?

Shakespeare would have typo-ed chocked for choked?

Seriously though, whenever this particular failing of PGI comes up, it feels like a collective breaking of the community's heart. Can't even get mad about it any more.

Edited by Bud Crue, 03 March 2017 - 05:26 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 03 March 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

Shakespeare would have typo-ed chocked for choked?

Seriously though, whenever this particular failing of PGI comes up, it feels like a collective breaking of the community's heart. Can't even get mad about it any more.

Eh, honestly feel that's pretty exaggerated, as tbh, there is far from any consensus on the forums, or Reddit, Twitter, etc, just various camps and cults of personality pushing their views and agendas. And that's from the extreme minority that bother to post, which we really don't know how representative they are.

Regardless of what they do, someone will claim disappointment and that the sky is falling, so I tend to not put too much weight, either way.

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 03 March 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

"Roll Warfare" he said with a voice chocked with emotion.
Expressing in two words all sorrow, all hope.
His audience sighed audibly, lost in a collective reverie of what might have been.

Shakespeare would disown you.

Edited by Mystere, 03 March 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

Eh, honestly feel that's pretty exaggerated, as tbh, there is far from any consensus on the forums, or Reddit, Twitter, etc, just various camps and cults of personality pushing their views and agendas. And that's from the extreme minority that bother to post, which we really don't know how representative they are.

Regardless of what they do, someone will claim disappointment and that the sky is falling, so I tend to not put too much weight, either way.

I meant from the perspective of the community for PGI.

In reading all the interviews and presentations and their own statements over the years I believe that unlike a lot of this game which is just a hustle to them, that aspect...the idea of giving each mech a role and an equivalent value...was something as recent as the infotech PTS that both Paul and Russ seemed to genuinely think they had provided. That sort of delusional belief system just breaks my heart.

Edited by Bud Crue, 03 March 2017 - 05:45 PM.

[rolly]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

so is that saying my 2ct has value...is overinflated.... or just what I need to grab a pint at a pub? (cuz 2 pesos ain't taking me far!)

Heh, well if you convert .02 British pounds to Filipino pesos thats $1.24. PGI needs to hire people like you for consultation or for market research. They probably won't, but a more agile and focused companies like HBS will.

But your post rings true regardless. This latest Hero mass sale and the mass distraction that is the skill tree PTS really just keeps all of us busy and distracted from the fact that this game has made no real progress lately. Now that everyone is caught up with the MW5 bait and the time jump the fishing hooks are pretty much set for another year or so.

[MrJeffers]

VitriolicViolet, on 03 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

yeah there has to be some level of 'choose lame things to get good things' or we will end up with the current module situation all over again. It must force choice to an extent, if players can simply choose what they want then we will be straight back to radar derp and seismic being mandatory and everyone taking heat reduction, mobility and armor.

No there doesn't need to be 'choose lame things to get good things' - that's a crappy design not a trade off. There are literally hundreds of ways to do it that doesn't require lame choices.
E.g. all of speed tweak is locked behind two arm skills. A ridiculous amount of mechs those arm skills are useless, and lets be honest the only people who are not going to be taking max speed tweak are masochistic or noobs. Eliminate those two arm skills, add it to the base stats of every mech, and reduce the available number of skill points by two. The EXACT same effect, but without forcing people to spend XP and C-Bills on skills they don't want. See? No choose lame things logic required.

Or, increase SP costs of skills as you increase the levels. Skill level 1 - 1 SP. Skill level 2 - 2 SP - meaning you are giving up a SL 1 skill somewhere else to take SL 2 on your choice. Again, no choose lame things required and actually does something to prevent/penalize specialization.

The idea that there has to be forced lame choices to limit over specialization is extremely short sighted. There are tons of other ways to do it right, this skill tree isn't it.

[Hit the Deck]

VitriolicViolet, on 03 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

...
With boating im not sure nearly anything can be done to avoid it. its simply the easiest way to play, even without other incentives. Its simply easier to remember and use one range, one cooldown and one heat level. way easier to boat anything than to take mixed builds.

6x ML is simple to use and pilot, same with 4 AC5 or 4 LRM15, but taking 2 AC5, 3 SRM4 and 4MPL is way harder to use and pilot effectively. im not sure anything can change that.

With increasing cost OR diminishing return: https://mwomercs.com...ncreasing-cost/

The system is actually not intended for boats but for specialization, though it could also be applied to boats since boats are kind of specialized 'Mechs.

Be aware that this system is not meant to punish anything. Specialized 'Mechs should best be used in competitions and/or coordinated group drops.

[Clownwarlord]

Just a thought, but what if this new skill tree is just step one. Second step would be to balance the base stats, to help bring bad mechs up. Step three might be a ways away if it happens but introduction of weight class specific or roll specific skill tree (with some extra SP to spend).

Just a thought at what might happen in the future, but for all the grips this could just be step one. Would be nice if we had a Town Hall and Russ was asked if this is the case, but I doubt it ... haven't had a Town Hall to ask questions in a long time. (Would also be nice to ask questions about future tech too.)

[XtremWarrior]

Hit the Deck, on 03 March 2017 - 11:59 PM, said:

With increasing cost OR diminishing return: https://mwomercs.com...ncreasing-cost/

The system is actually not intended for boats but for specialization, though it could also be applied to boats since boats are kind of specialized 'Mechs.

Be aware that this system is not meant to punish anything. Specialized 'Mechs should best be used in competitions and/or coordinated group drops.

Well, while trying to Skill up my Black-Knight on the PTS, i realised that the Weapons Tree actually "punish" boating.
An energy boat will have to spend points in a lot of Velocity / High Explosives / Ammo+ nodes to reach all the Heat Generation and Cooldown buffs.
I don't see that as a bad thing in general, but that's a bit frustrating when you have a Mech fitted with Energy Hardpoints only and you know that none of those nodes-step will actually do anything on your ride.

PS: ofc, you're not forced to get all those Heat Gen buffs but, then, less than half of the Weapon's Tree remains usefull...

Edited by XtremWarrior, 04 March 2017 - 01:11 AM.

[s0da72]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

I do agree with this, overall, though I think they also do need to streamline the Node "Nests" themselves. I would like to see a person have to decide...is my Juggernaut going to be such because it can tank huge damage...or because it can lay out huge damage.... not both.

This is what I thought the skill tree was going to be, more like a project management triangle.

https://upload.wikim...ct-triangle.svg

https://en.wikipedia...gement_triangle

just replace fast, good, and cheap with fire power, armor, and speed...

If I pick pure fire power I need to sacrifice armor and speed, or if I pick armor I sacrifice speed and fire power.

Edited by s0da72, 04 March 2017 - 01:57 AM.