8 replies to this topic

[TLBFestus]

that now PGI has decided to postpone the skill tree implementation that they take a serious look at So1ahmas suggestion?

https://www.reddit.c...9ei&sh=d6f9c516

From what I've read it seems pretty well received, especially in comparison to what PGI came up with. Yes, there are still flaws but it does seem to be a better idea.

I think it will really be determined by seeing if PGI is willing to flush all their work down the toilet and accept that an "outsider" actually has come up with a better framework.

Will they be interested in using it, or a modification, when a 3rd party developed it? I assume he wants nothing for it, unless maybe it's a nod and a thank you. Personally should they use it, they should give the guy free mechs and mechbays for life simply because he saved their bacon.

Right now it looks like all they considered were the c-bill and XP issues for outliers as the reason they've delayed things, nothing to do with the other issues around the skill tree.

Is it going to be another typical case of PGI delaying something forever? Or is it going to be a case of them delaying it for a short period and then forging bravely ahead with minor tweaks and the reasoning that "they made changes and the players don't understand the game as well as we do"?

[Lupis Volk]

the video in So1ahmas suggestion IS what the skill tree should be. I won't accept anything else.

[jjm1]

Splitting the firepower tree as an anti-boating measure what I proposed too.
(https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5639485)

Desperately need something to make weapon mixing more of a feature, rather than making them even less efficient by promoting one weapon specialisation.

[palu12]

wrong forum my bad.

Edited by palu12, 14 March 2017 - 09:22 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

The reason why they may not go with it, is it is relatively easy to min max, and it also takes away the choice of forgoing firepower all together, which is an option they wanted to have.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 14 March 2017 - 09:41 AM.

[Pyed]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 March 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

The reason why they may not go with it, is it is relatively easy to min max, and it also takes away the choice of forgoing firepower all together, which is an option they wanted to have.

There have always been separate mech and weapon module slots. Doesn't mean that it always should be that way in any future bonus system, but just pointing out it's always been that way.

And there isn't a role for mechs where weapons aren't important except dedicated narcer.

Also makes it way, way, way easier to balance the whole thing to separate weapons out, and easy to give more nodes to certain mechs that need it (i.e. few hardpoints, few hardpoints and of multiple types, low hardpoints, IS vs Clan, etc) and less to the KDK-3s.

[Mechteric]

The main thing Solahma's gets wrong is the weapons skills separation, and I still think its a bad idea to have skills specific to individual weapons, since that will certainly only further the necessity of taking one (or two) specific weapons, rather than allowing 3 or more different weapon systems from equally benefitting (yes, I know have 3 or more different weapons usually not found in meta, but that's ok)

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 14 March 2017 - 10:09 AM.

[1453 R]

Solahma's tree is the wrong implementation, just as much as Skill Swamp was.

Solahma's proposal makes it trivial to unlock the strongest and only the strongest nodes from every single skill branch, effectively leaving us exactly where we're at now - every 'Mech gets the exact same bonuses out of the skill tree, nobody can use the tree to differentiate themselves or their build. The only way to do so is to intentionally take weak, null-value nodes like Hill Climb or Improved Gyros instead of taking the freely available power choices like Extra Artillery, Gun Cooldown, More Ammo or Seismic.

No one build should be able to maximize every single power choice in the game. You shouldn't be able to get max extra ammo AND max consumable use AND max weapon cooldown AND max heat performance AND max RaDerp/Seismic AND max armor/structure all on the same machine. Solahma's tree means you can do exactly that, and that makes it uninteresting. There's no choice or impact in the skill tree because you can just grab whatever you like whenever you can afford it.

A middle ground between messy, unappealing, and confusing Skill Swamp, and uninteresting over-simplified Skill Spokes is the ideal. Well, that and fixing things like Hill Climb and Improved Gyros to not be actively awful, but even then. A player should have to pick one or two, maybe three, power-choice capstone abilities out of the available options in the skill tree to try and get to. They should be able to pick how they get there, and they should be able to derive at least some benefit from only lightly investing in a tree, but you should not be able to 'lightly' invest in Seismic, or Extra Artillery, or any of the rest of those big-impact choices. They should require some work, and that means they get to be gated behind at least some lower-impact stuff if we want choice in the Skill Tree to matter for snot.

[Dino Might]

Just make each firepower node have an associated downside.

Lesslaser burn time? More heat.
Longer ballistic range? Lower ROF.
Etc.