53 replies to this topic

[EAP10]

How many of you would support giving the game's current "problem" mechs less nodes?

I've seen the idea floating around the forums before, and thought it could be a good solution to at least some of our problems.

[Mcgral18]

More Skill Points is less effort for similar results

[Y E O N N E]

Yeah, I am actually really surprised that PGI didn't use skill points or skill multipliers to balance 'Mechs. I thought that was the obvious no-brainer.

[FupDup]

If PGI did ever choose to differentiate mechs by number of skill nodes (they won't ever but let's pretend), then the costs per node should be adjusted so that the total cost to master is the same. Otherwise, the mechs with fewer nodes (probably the better mechs) get to have a shorter grind than the bad mechs.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 12 March 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

If PGI did ever choose to differentiate mechs by number of skill nodes (they won't ever but let's pretend), then the costs per node should be adjusted so that the total cost to master is the same. Otherwise, the mechs with fewer nodes (probably the better mechs) get to have a shorter grind than the bad mechs.

Or they just give you the extra nodes for free up-front.

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 March 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

Or they just give you the extra nodes for free up-front.

...via Quirks?


We've come full circle!

Edited by Mcgral18, 12 March 2017 - 01:40 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 12 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

...via Quirks?


We've come full circle!

Kek.

Meant give them the extra skill points up front. End up as nodes anyway, so whatevs.

E: Also, quirks provide benefits in excess of the maximum values the skill tree provides...so not quite?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 12 March 2017 - 01:47 PM.

[Lupis Volk]

Mcgral18, on 12 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

...via Quirks?


We've come full circle!

or have we gone full ouroboros?

[Dr Mlem]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 March 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Yeah, I am actually really surprised that PGI didn't use skill points or skill multipliers to balance 'Mechs. I thought that was the obvious no-brainer.

Yeah I always thought that was weird, but apparently something about "lots of work" or something? I dunno, they kinda brushed over it, on the Podcast. (along with the dumpster fire)

Seems the tree would be THE opportunity to balance mechs. I liked the proposed tree on reddit as well, that used skill points to balance.

Edited by Lazy Badger, 12 March 2017 - 01:57 PM.

[TKSax]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 March 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Yeah, I am actually really surprised that PGI didn't use skill points or skill multipliers to balance 'Mechs. I thought that was the obvious no-brainer.

Because that would take thought and imagination something PGI seems to lack.

[Koniving]

If I'm not mistaken, each mech was supposed to have its own skill tree. which I suppose we technically are getting... But I would think it to be ideal that each variant or at least each chassis to have its own version of the tree, with varying levels of "nodes" and options depending on what it is.

[Y E O N N E]

Koniving, on 12 March 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, each mech was supposed to have its own skill tree. which I suppose we technically are getting... But I would think it to be ideal that each variant or at least each chassis to have its own version of the tree, with varying levels of "nodes" and options depending on what it is.

Something something too much work...

That said, I don't think that was ever the intent. All the way back to the MWOWC announcement, I think they always meant that each instance of a 'Mech has its own tree, meaning that duplicates won't share the same allocations. I don't think they ever meant that each 'Mech would have a custom-tailored set of options.

[Nesutizale]

From what I undestood in the podcast there seams to be an engine limitation of how many different skilltrees you can have. think they said something about 3 different skilltrees would be the limit. Thats why they made a global skill tree for IS and one global tree for Clans

I am no programmer but I did guess that raising that limit would require some more resources then they have...or the lack of knowledge.
Looking at the only other group that works with the cryengine more openly (CIG) they had to do a hell lot of reworking to get things where they wanted them to be and are still on it.

So while I would support individual skilltrees that not only take into consideration the balance of mechs but also role-warfare (a Catapult should have more missile nodes then a more Energie focused mech) it seams currently out of reach of beeing doable by PGI.

[Jackal Noble]

Chassis' should get something along the lines of their role specialization.
Mobility associated and recon nodes etc. should be cheaper for scouts, whilst durability nodes are cheaper for assaults, with mobility being more expensive.

[Y E O N N E]

If they can have quirks per variant and if they can give you a switch that can toggle them on and off, they can have some form skill trees per variant. Don't buy that hogwash for even a second.

What it boils down to, every time, is that PGI does not see the value for them in spending the resources to figure it out. Same deal for LBX ammo-switching. That's their call to make, but it is not a strictly technical issue.

[Mystere]

Nesutizale, on 12 March 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

From what I undestood in the podcast there seams to be an engine limitation of how many different skilltrees you can have. think they said something about 3 different skilltrees would be the limit. Thats why they made a global skill tree for IS and one global tree for Clans

What possible limitation could that be? How different is that from being able to support N mechs, each with at least M variants?

Yeonne Greene, on 12 March 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

If they can have quirks per variant and if they can give you a switch that can toggle them on and off, they can have some form skill trees per variant. Don't buy that hogwash for even a second.

What it boils down to, every time, is that PGI does not see the value for them in spending the resources to figure it out. Same deal for LBX ammo-switching. That's their call to make, but it is not a strictly technical issue.

Precisely. Something definitely smells.

Edited by Mystere, 12 March 2017 - 02:09 PM.

[Jackal Noble]

Orr lights get double, assaults gets 1X and everything else in between at 5% decrease for every 5 ton increase

[dario03]

Yeah I really thought that was how they were going to do it. Like PTS1 to get a baseline and then a couple other ones for balance. Hopefully they get the base quirks right. And hopefully they don't nerf lights for the dozenth or so time.

[Y E O N N E]

dario03, on 12 March 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

Yeah I really thought that was how they were going to do it. Like PTS1 to get a baseline and then a couple other ones for balance. Hopefully they get the base quirks right. And hopefully they don't nerf lights for the dozenth or so time.

They will be nerfed. Inferring from comments I've seen around here and in the PTS section, there has apparently been a metric truck-load of complaints over the Locust...even though it takes one shot from just about anything to either kill it or cripple it so badly that it has to play extra-scarce.

[Clownwarlord]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 March 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Yeah, I am actually really surprised that PGI didn't use skill points or skill multipliers to balance 'Mechs. I thought that was the obvious no-brainer.

But they did. Look at the nodes of light mechs to nodes of other mech classes. You will see some of the percentages are different, and from what I understand they left it open for them to go back in and change the numbers on the nodes later for a per chassis bases if need be.