88 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

XX Sulla XX, on 05 March 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

Would be nice if there was an option for or against decoupling engines.

It's the biggest step in correcting weight class balance since PGI introduced quirks. If they removed decoupling, I would most likely stop playing for a while out of sheer frustration with the lack of progress. That's just me though.

I'm more worried about the fact that my poll doesn't reflect how many people have actually tested the current build properly. It's possible that most people responding have not really thought much about what they're saying.

[soapyfrog]

I think decoupling is a necessary step going forward. Contrary to what people have been saying, large engines in real life are great for straight line speed and acceleration but agility is much more a function weight and chassis design.

Simply put, high speed + heavy weight = poor maneuverability.

Speed should be desirable in and of itself, and I think the "250 engine meta" crowd don't really realize how important speed is independent of agility.

Skill tree clearly needs a major rework. I am heartened to see a majority of players are unhappy with it.

[AngrySpartan]

Thanks for summarizing that Alistair. To my mind PGI should just copy this topic and put it on a wall as a guideline for further skill tree development.

Considering engine decoupling - that's the only way to get flexibility in balancing different chassis. Without it there always will be a factor preventing certain decisions in favor of balance. As it often happens with PGI gameplay balancing, the idea is great, that's the implementation that fails to deliver.

That's just my opinion, but to start balancing weight classes mobility PGI should have taken current live servers as a starting point (e.g.detach mobility from the engines and requirk every chassis to get similar performance). Nerfs accross the board or massive mobility adjustments aren't healthy for gameplay anyway.

[Alistair Winter]

soapyfrog, on 05 March 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

I think decoupling is a necessary step going forward. Contrary to what people have been saying, large engines in real life are great for straight line speed and acceleration but agility is much more a function weight and chassis design.
Simply put, high speed + heavy weight = poor maneuverability.
Speed should be desirable in and of itself, and I think the "250 engine meta" crowd don't really realize how important speed is independent of agility.
Skill tree clearly needs a major rework. I am heartened to see a majority of players are unhappy with it.

In regards to real life, I agree, but it's just so hard to come up with good examples that translate to humanoid robots. But given that a Leopard 2 battle tank with a top speed of 72 kph may not be as agile as a quad all-terrain vehicle with the same top speed, and given that Usain Bolt or a power lifter may not be as agile as a gymnast (despite being faster or having more power), I think it's reasonable to accept that mech mobility may not depend primarily on engine size.

[BenWhiskeyjack]

Alistair Winter, on 05 March 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

I now realize I should have put another question in the poll. I should have asked how much people have tried the current build.

• Never tried it, only read what others have to say.
  
• Never tried it, only read the patch notes
  
• Barely tried it in testing grounds
  
• Tried it in both testing grounds and live matches
  
• Extensive testing in testing grounds + live matches

I'd love to hear how much you guys have tried the current build. Personally, I've tried it quite a lot in testing grounds, but I've not had a chance to have many live matches, because the wait time is absolutely brutal.

I've built out about 3 mechs and did a couple of matches and testing grounds. So not extensive, and I enjoy playing the game, but I'm at a Potato skill level, so I voted "don't know" on the agility...my Oxide felt reasonably responsive, but I don't feel like I've spent enough time to have an informed opinion. My personal ideas/opinions were posted in your "do better than PGI..." thread: https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5640602

[C E Dwyer]

Reno Blade, on 05 March 2017 - 05:48 AM, said:

I am in for a simplification ... as long as we are not going to turn this into modern wow style (3 choices per tier) system. Using vanilla WOW style tallent trees (where you can spec 31/0/20 with the 11, 21 and 31 being unlocked special skills) would be fine, but that 3 choices every 10 levels thing made the whole "talent tree" too simple for me. The only problem in the vanilla wow trees were the fact that you always took the same talents with maybe 2-3 points variable. I want to take choices where I have to balance between each aspect (defense, ofense, mobility, sensors...) and no options is a "must have" in >70% of the builds. Ofc, having skills providing too less of an impact (e.g. 2% overall buff to something) would feel wasted, so total % of any buff should be at least 10% and up to 20% (e.g. 15% cooldown, 20% torso twist speed, 12% range...)

I agree every ten levels and only three choices would be extremely dull, I was just using it as an example of lay out and how I think it should work.

There would of course be more than three choices, and there would be sub sections like there are now with the nodes, and the level unlocks would be more frequent like they are now.

Though of course this is I think rather moot as I don't see PGI ever agreeing to start from scratch

As to Alistar's the new question I've played 10 drops on test so not extensive I found they didn't allow me to get a feel for the mech as there is zero attempt to do anything but put 4v4 and the tonnage has been completely out of whack for many matches.

With a lot of people dropping in the big meta mechs to test them, rather than to drop in under performers, it seemed better to try out various chassis unskilled and then build up skills, until they were maxed out.

With the fix to inertia going in, a lot of the initial problems are gone, with a slight agility buff to hard breaking and a person willing to spend points to get the full five, a locust would be nearly as agile as it currently is.

This is why I think it's very important for each weight class to have it's own set of values in it's nodes.

Edited by Cathy, 05 March 2017 - 03:10 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I voted Witcher 3 style, but what I would really like is a Perk/Drawback system.

To begin, ideal case, every 'Mech and equipment item is balanced at the base level. Every 'Mech is assigned a Threat value; let's say the cap is 3.

You are presented with two lists: one called Perks, one called Drawbacks. Each perk is assigned a positive Threat while each Drawback is assigned a negative, with magnitude increasing with potency (i.e. Hill Climb might be +1 while PPC Velocity might be +3).

So let's say I build a PPC jumper, tight? The perks I want might be PPC Velocity (+3), PPC Heat Gen (+3), and Jump Jet Lift Speed (+3). Total threat value is 9. I can only fit one of those onto my 'Mech. So everybody gets one free major perk or two or three minor perks. If you want to perk your 'Mech a certain direction beyond that cap, you have to add some drawbacks (i.e. Reduced Torso Yaw for -3).

So where does that leave levelling? There is a second cap, a limit to the total number of nodes you can equip. Each time you level up, you can add more perks and drawbacks to further specialize your 'Mech. This takes it further away from neutral balance, but that's the point: you are giving up certain opportunities to make your 'Mech shine the way you've built it.

Perks and Drawbacks don't have to be one-size, either, you can have Velocity I-III or whatever, the bottom line is that to get more you have to give more.

[Alistair Winter]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 March 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

I voted Witcher 3 style, but what I would really like is a Perk/Drawback system.

That's something I've been advocating for years, probably since 2013. Well, to the extent that I still bother to mention it, anyway.

[Y E O N N E]

Alistair Winter, on 05 March 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

That's something I've been advocating for years, probably since 2013. Well, to the extent that I still bother to mention it, anyway.

Yeah. It's what Heavy Gear 2 did, and it was utterly brilliant.

[Alistair Winter]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 March 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

Yeah. It's what Heavy Gear 2 did, and it was utterly brilliant.

Totally forgot about that. Good times!

[Appuagab]

About structure: I'd prefer non-linear, but with real structure, not chaotic mess of totally unrelated skillnodes just to hide useful behind useless. Hiding very useful behind less useful but still good as support to further nodes — okay. Not hiding but making them more expensive — okay. Chaotic scrambled mess — not okay.

Edited by Appuagab, 05 March 2017 - 09:59 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Sign me up for the tiered structure. We basically have that in the live server now, except with more skills and actual choice beyond unlock order.

[MechaBattler]

Yeah, alright. I'll pitch in with they should consolidate the existing skills. They're sooooo small that even if you make a trade off you feel almost no difference.

I don't have a problem with spending on "useless" skills. But even when you do, you get what 3% that you can barely feel? And that's from two or three skill points.

Edited by MechaBattler, 05 March 2017 - 09:09 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

The results were remarkably stable from 50 votes to 100 (and now 106) votes.

73% of 106 voters agree that the skill system should be simpler, less convoluted and have fewer skill points per mech.

80% of 106 voters agree that the skill tree should not force players to pick unrelated, random skills in order to unlock the most valuable skills.

32% of voters feel that the current baseline mobility is good enough. 47% of voters would like to see baseline mobility buffs (the majority of whom voted for lighter mechs to get special attention).

Only 8% of the voters are happy with the current structure of the skill tree. 46% of the 106 voters would like to see something more similar to linear RPG-style skill trees (a majority has voted for linear skill trees with some sort of tier-structure)

I think everything points to a clear consensus that the community wants a more simple system with fewer skill points, without being forced to take random, unrelated skills. There's also a strong feeling that agility is not good enough, although there's no clear consensus. Personally, I put that down to people not having had a chance to play the PTS enough. If the current build goes live, I think we'll see that the balance between weight classes is, at best, the same as it was before. And light mechs will still be the least popular mechs in the game by far.

Also, there's over 9000 different ideas for what a skill system should look like. The only clear consensus is that most people do want one. There's also a clear consensus that it shouldn't look like what we have now. A simple linear, tier-based system seems to be a safe option that doesn't offend too many people. And it has worked for countless other popular games, so...

[AngrySpartan]

Alistair Winter, on 06 March 2017 - 12:11 AM, said:

The results were remarkably stable from 50 votes to 100 (and now 106) votes...
I think everything points to a clear consensus that the community wants a more simple system with fewer skill points, without being forced to take random, unrelated skills. There's also a strong feeling that agility is not good enough, although there's no clear consensus. ...
Also, there's over 9000 different ideas for what a skill system should look like. The only clear consensus is that most people do want one. There's also a clear consensus that it shouldn't look like what we have now. A simple linear, tier-based system seems to be a safe option that doesn't offend too many people. And it has worked for countless other popular games, so...

Amen!

Alistair Winter, on 06 March 2017 - 12:11 AM, said:

And light mechs will still be the least popular mechs in the game by far.

Unless turned into untargetable ultra-mobile gun blazing meatgrinders, lights will always be the least popular class in the game by definition (at least in a public queue).

By definition lights are fragile, thus cost of a mistake is much higher. You can be killed by simply being in a wrong place in a wrong time or by accidentially tripping into terrain obstacles. They require a skilled pilot to make the best of them. By definition lights carry less guns, thus more time is required to make some damage, more facetime, more risk, superior situation awareness. Again a skilled pilot is required.

And, although Lights still need some love right now (rescale legacy), IMHO there is no reason to turn them into most popular class in a game. IMHO the most capable lights in the game are almost there they should be in terms of mobility and firepower, that's the additional capabilities they still miss (e.g. unique Infowarfare stuff or 2nd unlocked UAV by default or smth.).

Edited by AngrySpartan, 06 March 2017 - 02:20 AM.

[MischiefSC]

I encourage anyone who wants to to also test just what a brutal nerf to IS XLs the mobility hit is. I don't want to just go off anecdotal experience but I found it absurdly easy to focus a ST. Torso twist is now slow enough that even someone trying to twist can not avoid a full laser burn to a single ST. I was consistently able to get 2 CLPLs and 3 CERMLs almost completely on a side torso of pretty much any/every heavy or assault mech. At least 80%. The inability to 'jink' in light mechs made ST focusing them out terribly easy as well. I found it easier to kill a Locust via ST than trying to leg it.

Which is to say that even with full 'survival' tree perks the loss of mobility has left IS XLs in an untenable situation, at least in what I've seen.

[Alistair Winter]

AngrySpartan, on 06 March 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

Unless turned into untargetable ultra-mobile gun blazing meatgrinders, lights will always be the least popular class in the game by definition (at least in a public queue).

I just think people enjoy winning. In periods where light mechs have been powerful, they have been very popular. Never more so than during the reign of the Streak+ECM RVN-3L, but I do recall periods where the Firestarters, especially the super-MG Ember, were quite powerful and (thus) popular.

I do agree that there is a tendency for MWO players to want to play the bigger mechs (which is why many are drawn to the franchise to begin with - the feeling of being bigger and more powerful), but I don't think it is enough to explain the disparity.

With respect, though, I'm going to stop there, because I don't want to derail the thread.

AngrySpartan, on 06 March 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

And, although Lights still need some love right now (rescale legacy), IMHO there is no reason to turn them into most popular class in a game. IMHO the most capable lights in the game are almost there they should be in terms of mobility and firepower, that's the additional capabilities they still miss (e.g. unique Infowarfare stuff or 2nd unlocked UAV by default or smth.).

We can at least agree that light mechs that are supposed to be scouts (and not all light mechs are), should probably have some more info warfare abilities.

MischiefSC, on 06 March 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

I encourage anyone who wants to to also test just what a brutal nerf to IS XLs the mobility hit is. I don't want to just go off anecdotal experience but I found it absurdly easy to focus a ST. Torso twist is now slow enough that even someone trying to twist can not avoid a full laser burn to a single ST. I was consistently able to get 2 CLPLs and 3 CERMLs almost completely on a side torso of pretty much any/every heavy or assault mech. At least 80%. The inability to 'jink' in light mechs made ST focusing them out terribly easy as well. I found it easier to kill a Locust via ST than trying to leg it.

Which is to say that even with full 'survival' tree perks the loss of mobility has left IS XLs in an untenable situation, at least in what I've seen.

Great point, the part about XL engines didn't occur to me as a bigger problem with the new PTS build.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 06 March 2017 - 03:14 AM.

[Dogstar]

You didn't even bother asking about the costs, grrr.

[Alistair Winter]

Dogstar, on 06 March 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

You didn't even bother asking about the costs, grrr.

Heh, it didn't even occur to me. I guess I should have, just in case anyone from PGI is reading and they haven't noticed that people are upset with the costs too.

Then again, if they drastically reduce the number of skills without changing the costs, we're getting somewhere.

[Baulven]

I am not completely against decoupling the engine from mobility but it seems like PGI decided to hit ev3rything with the slow stick pretty hard. Case in point my MAD IIC had to drop it's engine from 390 to 340 range or it turned like a freaking boat. I spent more time face planting into random structures due to the turning radius change than ever before.

I don't expect ballerina options but needing to reduce my average engine significantly so I retain a semblance of reasonable agility seems odd. Particularly since now there is no disengage option, if you commit to a bad push you get to just hammer away until yoy die. The problem with that is it reinforces peek and poke and makes brawling and pushing even more high risk without giving any additional reward.