88 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

the point is, RPG's have set classes, that play completely different.. If you are taking a magic tree, you go up the magic tree,, sword skills are not needed. this game is not like that.. EVERY tree can help EVERY mech to some degree. That is what i mean by not an RPG.


But onto your second point.. How many RPG's do you play? Some of the best ever made have wasted skills that either you just don't use, or you end up with better later.. I need to take X to unlock Y which is what i really want. So many games use this.

Fire burst.. guess what, get fireball fireburst is no longer used.. That one is used in so many RPG's i can't even count. It's not an upgraded spell, its a new and better spell, that needs the first to unlock.

just look at dungeons and dragons, or many bioware games, Or even games like the witcher.. In the Witcher, You took single weapon skills early, because you didn't have the Other tree unlocked well enough to use group and make it shine till latter game. In fact much of the early game the single weapon trees just work better, But end game you have your stats unlocked enough that group shines, and you want that one unlocked fully by end game. You still needed to spend points early in the others to make the game work early though. You stop also stop using a basic potion, because you can use a much better ones later. in shooters, you use basic shoot less, You end up using AIMED shot, or Head shot.. because it is better.. (Shadowrun is a perfect example of this) Mass effect has a lot of this too. You no longer use the basic heal, Because you have a better heal to use. So that first heal, is a wasted unlock only skill.

This is why linear trees have no place in this game IMO, and why you need unlocks as you go and sometimes a burn skill.. I'm sorry, but i don't want some Dakka boat, that only unlocks refire, vellocity, structure and move nodes and ends up with an extra 20 nodes, that they can just drop into more DPS, or more what ever.. Over someone that needs some sensors and has a couple of weapon systems because It's liner. Know what i mean?.


Like i keep seeing arms come up as pointless.. Well what if they slowed down arms enough that you really needed this to keep close to pin-point? IMO arm-lock should be removed completely but that is another topic.. then map design with more levels, making arm weapons more or less relevant.. just like areas to shoot under, verse over in the HIGH shoulder hard point meta.. Under ground caverns, or parking structures, overpasses ect are a perfect example of how this can effect gameplay. Now torso weapon only mechs might not need/want those arm skills, but if maybe those skills were not burn skills, but only needing one or two to make arms useful, i could see that working. But many of what people call Useless skills are not useless, they are just not desired as others and that is a Balance issue and why burn nodes are needed.


But if you have an example of an RPG that doesn't use that as a system i'd like to know.. I certainly haven't played every game ever made. But Diablo, Baldurs gate, Dragon age, Mass effect, Swtor, Starwars galaxies, WOW, Deus Ex, wasteland. all these games have skills that you unlocked for better skills later. seams like a pretty solid list of great games..

[JC Daxion]

AngrySpartan, on 06 March 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

Well, Russ was very devoted to make it happen. "It will happen by March latest" or smth. Anyway, I don't think they can back off as they did with Energy draw, that's like admitting that they aren't capable to do it right.


That is why WItcher 3 style system works so well. Every node is independent, yet you have to unlock certain amount of nodes to get the most tasty. That's everything that players were byzzing about in the feedback topic: less skills, no need to take every junk to unlock the best, limited min-maxing, cleaner UI. And on top of that it's flexible!

What surprises me is that players still prefer linear trees according to the poll. Can't see any pros in the linear trees, compared to the Witcher's system.

I haven't played III,, Only 1 and II, I liked 1 much better. I much perfer the 3D iso and mouse clicks, verse the first person and keyboard, so i don't know how III's trees work. the first was very liner, and many skills had pre-recs.. Also 1 had a way better potion system but i digress.

I'm sure i'll play it eventually, most likely when they give it away like they did the last 2, when IV is released.. Or i'll pick it up when it hits 10 bucks.. I still never finished II, and have a good 40-50 games i've been meaning to play.. You know those blasted 2 dollar sales!

ahh the golden age of gaming.. 1k's of incredible games can be yours for peanuts..

[Y E O N N E]

JC Daxion, on 06 March 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

ahh the golden age of gaming.. 1k's of incredible games can be yours for peanuts..

Off-topic, but the "golden age" of things usually involves pushing into the unregulated frontier, where wits, skill, and a little bit of treachery run the place and the accomplishments are great. For videogames, that was the mid-'70s through to the '80s, after which point the unscrupulousness and lack of regulation caught up with the industry and crashed it. I would say that we are still in a Silver Age right now; the frontiers being pushed are less great than those from the golden age as they are less fundamental, but we haven't yet stalled. With so many good games to choose from, we might have another crash as big budget titles can't make their returns since there are only so many hours in a day to play (compare to '83, where the crash was because games had become stagnant, plentiful garbage).

[Lehmund]

This poll is good and the OP has a point.

I recommend a linear progression set of trees based on battlefield roles. Just a few nudes per tree. Trees would be :

Firepower: cool down, range and all special weapon improvements into a progression. Invest here and you do more damage, faster and at higher ranges.

Defence: structure, armor hardening, crit protection. Make your mech harder to destroy and tank ire.

Movement: twist, yaw, arms, turn rate and speed. Hill climb, speed retention. Make your mech faster in all respects. .

Support: arms overload, ecm bonuses, sensor range, advanced zoom. Seismic sensors.

Engineering: cooling, extra ammunition.

You get the idea.

You gave 5 trees. Choose 3 for each mech and then in some you can choose how you spend 5 points in each tree for a total of 15 nodes . Some trees have more than 5 nodes forcing you to choose styles or avoid elements you don't need within a tree.

[Greyhart]

there are a number of routes that could be taken. I like the idea of the start point being in the centre if they are going down the road of all the trees been unlocked. Of course the problem is that with all trees unlocked then every node has to be worth the same as every other node to make the choice meaningful.

I think a system where you have to unlock trees first and the number you can unlock is limited would make balancing the skills easier.

Then within each tree there is a max number of nodes that can be unlocked.

this means that you only have to balance the overall usefulness of the tree against other trees not each individual skill. Then you balance within each individual tree as to the value of the node.

my idea https://mwomercs.com...tree-soluition/

[Alistair Winter]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 06 March 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

3. Hard to me to comment on mobility, but judging from votes it seems OKish. I bet lights and meds could use some more love, as always.

Unfortunately, the poll question on mobility does not reflect what the people voting consider to be the ideal. For example, a lot of people may agree that light mechs are still underpowered, but they vote that mobility is currently good enough, because they believe that light mechs should be underpowered, and not as good as assault mechs.

On top of that, I have my doubts that everyone voting on mobility has actually done extensive testing on the base level of mobility for all the different weight classes, let alone all the different tonnages (big difference between 40 ton and 55 ton mediums, for example).

[Reno Blade]

JC Daxion, on 06 March 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

...

Like i keep seeing arms come up as pointless.. Well what if they slowed down arms enough that you really needed this to keep close to pin-point? IMO arm-lock should be removed completely but that is another topic.. then map design with more levels, making arm weapons more or less relevant.. just like areas to shoot under, verse over in the HIGH shoulder hard point meta.. Under ground caverns, or parking structures, overpasses ect are a perfect example of how this can effect gameplay. Now torso weapon only mechs might not need/want those arm skills, but if maybe those skills were not burn skills, but only needing one or two to make arms useful, i could see that working. But many of what people call Useless skills are not useless, they are just not desired as others and that is a Balance issue and why burn nodes are needed.


But if you have an example of an RPG that doesn't use that as a system i'd like to know.. I certainly haven't played every game ever made. But Diablo, Baldurs gate, Dragon age, Mass effect, Swtor, Starwars galaxies, WOW, Deus Ex, wasteland. all these games have skills that you unlocked for better skills later. seams like a pretty solid list of great games..

Just like to comment here.
Great points overall JC.

When I was testing the Phawk without any arm skills (only torso speed), I had difficulties to actually aim as fast as I used to, so I will definitely check the arm skills again.


On the RPG part... i think Deus Ex is the best in regards to low amount of wasted points.
Most early skills are upgraded with more costly skills later on (e.g. 1 SP for 10% health and then later 2 SP for another 10% health) at least in the latest game (Mankind United) IIRC.

I think if the base unlocks are just "stats" and they might even get the 2x basic bonus (once reaching certain "tiers") the skill trees can be reduced in size (see my radial tree few posts earlier).

[Sickario]

I definitely want it simplified (not sure about less points, afraid PGI would overdo that and give us not nearly enough points to get what we need). I also think they went too far with acceleration penalties, Kinetic Burst seems pretty much useless on my Heavies and Assaults (haven't tried out the differences with Lights or Mediums but surprised to hear that many seem unhappy with their movement as well).

[C E Dwyer]

Alistair Winter, on 07 March 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

Unfortunately, the poll question on mobility does not reflect what the people voting consider to be the ideal. For example, a lot of people may agree that light mechs are still underpowered, but they vote that mobility is currently good enough, because they believe that light mechs should be underpowered, and not as good as assault mechs.

On top of that, I have my doubts that everyone voting on mobility has actually done extensive testing on the base level of mobility for all the different weight classes, let alone all the different tonnages (big difference between 40 ton and 55 ton mediums, for example).

I tend to agree, a lot of bad shots that play only heavies and assaults are wanting lights and to a degree mediums to be bad so they can feel good about themselves.

I'm in the middle ground, I've played every weight class, so I can see the pros and the cons somewhat objectively.

Using the Locust as the example, currently on live its mobility is to good, it's accel and deceleration are broken, on test servers they are not responsive enough.

Which is why I've been trying to push for separate trees with different values for each weight class, as I feel the base line without it skilled at all is about right, however the return your getting for the skill point investment is to say, not mincing words pathetic.

[JC Daxion]

Yeonne Greene, on 06 March 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

Off-topic, but the "golden age" of things usually involves pushing into the unregulated frontier, where wits, skill, and a little bit of treachery run the place and the accomplishments are great. For videogames, that was the mid-'70s through to the '80s, after which point the unscrupulousness and lack of regulation caught up with the industry and crashed it. I would say that we are still in a Silver Age right now; the frontiers being pushed are less great than those from the golden age as they are less fundamental, but we haven't yet stalled. With so many good games to choose from, we might have another crash as big budget titles can't make their returns since there are only so many hours in a day to play (compare to '83, where the crash was because games had become stagnant, plentiful garbage).

lol.. i love this post. But this is my take..

The 70's were the the stone age, a game consisted of a couple of white lines and a dot.. (pong/break-out) or some sprites dancing across a screen. (space invaders/Galaga/Galaxia), the 80's did lead to some innovation with consoles and text based adventures, gamings first steps into RPG's, and the beloved "Side scroller", but it wasn't till the 90's that 3D was even a thing.. outside of maybe battlezone and that great starwars game.

The 90's and early 2000's are the "Bronze age" Things really started to happened, Diablo, Civilization, DOOM, and the start of the modern RPG, Kings quest, heroes of might and magic! That lead to the late 90's/early 2k when we got ground breaking games, like EQ/Ulitma and Baldur's gate, when Dungeons and dragons and RPG's really came to life. (and yes Mech warrior!) Things slowed a bit during, but progress kept going with many gems popping up. Deus EX, Tropico, Age of empires II and even into the modder shooter times of Halo/COD ect

But then the late 00's hit, Many great MMO's came and went, and some great games sprang to life. (mass effect anyone?) and strategic has never been better, with Civ IV+, Paradox's games, and Stardocs Gal Civ II. The internet really has become part of peoples lives and not just e-mail. Just look at when games got Wikki's, To me that was the dawn of the "Golden age" Not because of wikki's but that time.

We have so many choices now. It's so much easier to get old games verse scouring the countryside bargain bins and second hand stores and people getting them to run on new systems. (gog i love you!) On top of that so many engines are free for making indy games. Even for novices, things like game maker, RPG maker, Adventure maker to name a few, but even engines like Unity are very indy friendly. In the older days, and not even so older days, a company needed to build the engine from the ground up. Today a couple people and a free engine can make a great game. (check out "Heroines quest" and it's free! Sure it uses old sprites, and the game play is very basic, but it is a very well done/writen game. Very much like a sierra classic of the late 80's early 90's)


Just the number of chocies, REboots some good and some bad, modern modding with games releasing toolsets with them, not like even in the 90's when fans had to make their own tools just to fix bugs! Wikki's and full on web presences, streaming, FTP, paid subs, 2 dollar games, large budget 400m dollar games and everything in between..


This IMO really is the Golden age.. (but fun topic ) Sorry OP, a bit off topic, so i will get back on....

Alistair Winter, on 07 March 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

Unfortunately, the poll question on mobility does not reflect what the people voting consider to be the ideal. For example, a lot of people may agree that light mechs are still underpowered, but they vote that mobility is currently good enough, because they believe that light mechs should be underpowered, and not as good as assault mechs.

On top of that, I have my doubts that everyone voting on mobility has actually done extensive testing on the base level of mobility for all the different weight classes, let alone all the different tonnages (big difference between 40 ton and 55 ton mediums, for example).

I agree here.. But i really think it needs to go live and then tweak more. todays games are always in flux, this really needs the masses to test it.. and yes i am a light pilot too.. Can't wait to try out a commando that has enough ammo to make it through a match!

Cathy, on 07 March 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

Which is why I've been trying to push for separate trees with different values for each weight class, as I feel the base line without it skilled at all is about right, however the return your getting for the skill point investment is to say, not mincing words pathetic.

They don't need separate trees persay.. But under performing mechs could easily get a multiplayer.

[Y E O N N E]

JC Daxion, on 07 March 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

lol.. i love this post. But this is my take..

~snip for brevity~

This IMO really is the Golden age.. (but fun topic ) Sorry OP, a bit off topic, so i will get back on....

Ah, I see. You're going by a technological progression. The thing is, the term "Golden Age" is a direct reference to Greek mythology, where the Golden age is the original and the best and each subsequent age (we are currently in Bronze) is lesser than its predecessor, and so that's what comes to mind when I read that.

More correctly, your progression ought to be labeled "Atari Age", "Nintendo Age", and "Nano-scale Process Age" for the technologies or parties that had the defining impact.

[Magnus Santini]

JC Daxion, I liked your point about beginner skills that are taken so the player can live to get advanced skills. But remember, as far as any of us know, most of the skilling that will ever take place in this new system is the conversion of existing experience into the new system, not from new players or mechs. It is more like those old games where you could "port" a character from one system into another. So your 20th level monk isn't thrilled to have to take "jab," he is ready for crouching dragon or something.

[C E Dwyer]

JC Daxion, on 07 March 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

They don't need separate trees persay.. But under performing mechs could easily get a multiplayer.

You could indeed go this way, but P.G.I want to remove reliance on quirks, a multiplier is effectively a quirk, so they might just as well leave the quirks and have a standard tree, it's less work as the method to quirk is still in place.

I just feel that by having separate skill trees for each weight class it gives an oppotunity to make each weight class react differently, and stand out

While it's not the same thing, you don't give a Tank class a D.P.S or burst damage skill tree in a RPG

Edited by Cathy, 08 March 2017 - 02:15 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Alright, show's over.

Not enough consensus.

Enjoy your 91 skills per mech, guys.

https://mwomercs.com...rch-8-4-pm-pdt/

[DGTLDaemon]

Alistair Winter, on 09 March 2017 - 12:11 AM, said:

Alright, show's over.

Not enough consensus.

Enjoy your 91 skills per mech, guys.

https://mwomercs.com...rch-8-4-pm-pdt/

Yup, PGI decided to do it their own way, and ignore most of PTS2 feedback. Well, it's their house, their rules. Time to take a looong break from MWO

Edited by DGTLDaemon, 09 March 2017 - 01:20 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Watching P.G.I's income decrease as I type this.

[Guile Votoms]

The skill tree is extremely clumsy and convoluted which makes it more frustrating than helpful or interesting.

Mobility should not even be in it, in my opinion. It should be hardcoded into mechs and/or engines instead.

The inclusion of roles (brawler, sniper, scout etc...) which limit how many points you can assign to certain trees would make sense so you can't just cherry pick skills. There should also be seperate IS and Clan trees.

[ShaneoftheDead]

A "Skill Tree" and "Experience" do not belong in this game. It is not a Role Playing Game. Battlemechs are not characters.

[Jay Leon Hart]

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.

They would have to add a little more nuanced balancing, though.

Take for instance the PPC nipple jump sniping Thor. It would be daft to allow it to take more PPC and heat gen Perks in exchange for, say, arm pitch Drawbacks when the arms are empty and probably armour stripped. Maybe limit Drawbacks to locations with weapons installed and weapon systems currently installed? Sounds like a headache to code though, it would need to check every time you saved your 'mech that you didn't try to cheat the system.

[Y E O N N E]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 March 2017 - 02:17 AM, said:

They would have to add a little more nuanced balancing, though.

Take for instance the PPC nipple jump sniping Thor. It would be daft to allow it to take more PPC and heat gen Perks in exchange for, say, arm pitch Drawbacks when the arms are empty and probably armour stripped. Maybe limit Drawbacks to locations with weapons installed and weapon systems currently installed? Sounds like a headache to code though, it would need to check every time you saved your 'mech that you didn't try to cheat the system.

Wouldn't have to be more nuanced. Arm pitch would be worth less in terms of Threat (i.e. -1) so it buys you nothing when you need at least -3 to to get the PPC heat-gen perk (there are no general heat gen perks).