549 replies to this topic

[DangerousOne]

MovinTarget, on 30 April 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

My point is that raw power cannot magical translate to better handling without other factors involving the machine's tuning/construction...

I agree on this point.

[testhero]

Xorkrath, on 30 April 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

1: A lot of things "help me survive" and/or "prevent damage to my mech", and not all of them are in the "armor" tree. In fact very few of them are. AMS is active external equipment, not body armor reinforcement and/or shock absorbers. And it's "defense" lends itself to anything in range, so all in all, thematically, it has more in common with ECM than it does with armor. Mech operations is a much better fit for it. You can make a point about other odd pre-reqs in other trees to get to AMS, but it's PGI that's decided that a tree with strange pre-reqs is mandatory

2: "Some variant of an IS mech" isn't helpful if your current variant doesn't carry it. And if you want to make an argument for Clans being able to switch OmniPods to take better armor nodes than the IS can, you're further imbalancing the dynamic there. The discussions on these forums all indicate they're trying to go in the opposite direction.

3: I twice now made the case for why AMS makes better sense elsewhere. One example, not exclusively, was the jump jet tree since they're both optional external equipment not available on all mechs. All you have to do is rename the tree, which you yourself just did in trying to justify a phalanx anti missile system being a part of the armor reinforcement tree. Don't think for a moment that slipped by me, "survival".

1: Taking this in reverse order
It is not mandatory. If you prefer at the first branch you can take <Shock Absorbance 1>
at the next branch you can choose to unlock <Armour hardening 1> instead of <AMS Override 2>
You say ", it has more in common with ECM than it does with armor. Mech operations is a much better fit for it. " ECM is in Sensors not Mech Operations where do you propose to move it too?

I will state here that I think AMS Override would fit best. Firstly in the Weapons Tree, secondly in the Survival tree and lastly in the Mech Operations tree.

2:OK I said almost all variants can mount AMS. I Now Expand Upon it and state All Variants of IS and Clan BattleMechs Have at least one AMS Hard-point. Your Current Battlemech variant does Have an AMS hard-point!

I included the Omnimechs for completeness because they have to Chose too mount an OmniPod with an AMS hard-point. As such (and as far as I know) they would be forced to either

• A Take a AMS capable Omnipod
  
• B choose to take <Shock Absorbance 1>
  
• C Unlock a Node they can not Benefit from

I do not know if they can chose not to mount an AMS capable Omnipod and thus skip a node like you could in the first PTS when if you had a Missile (for example) node in your path but no Missille Hard-points.

I would not like to see OmniMech Pilots have to Unlock a node they can not benefit from (unless like in the first PTS such a node did not count against their 91 active nodes) as that would be unfairly encouraging OmniMech pilots to take AMS capable OmniPods so they can take full advantage of all the nodes they pay to unlock.
I firmly Believe OmniMech pilots should be free to chose their desired Omnipod Layouts with No penalties Or missed opportunities. Because they accept the limitations of fixed equipment s for the advantage of having flexible OmniPod layouts

3:I didn't name the tree Survival that was PGI (I would have gone with Structural Tree)

We Obviously disagree
I think having players Unlock AMS Override nodes to get Vent Calibration, Heat Shielding, Lift Speed or Vectoring is utterly ridiculous.
Having players Unlock AMS Override in the Auxiliary (or Sensors) tree slightly less ridiculous
And unlocking AMS override in the Mech Operations Tree passable (But a hard sell as there are already two crucial skills in there at the moment already requiring a large investment in points for most mechs)

DangerousOne, on 29 April 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

It's nice to see that you like your post (Also there are some reasonable thoughts in there. But skill tree is still messy and forces you to do things you wouldn't do if you have full control over said tree)

I think I'll like my posting either. Cuz why not.

Yes this Skill Tree is one of the most messy/complex I have come across online or on paper and it is explicitly designed to make you take things you wouldn't consider if you had full control but if we had full control it would be some kind of linear design or smorgasbord array

Yeah I saw that someone had liked their own post and also thought why not!

[Dee Eight]

Anavel Gato2, on 29 April 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...s-2-now-offline

"• Refund Process: The starting point for receiving C-Bill refunds from Owned Modules is now December 3rd 2016, rather than February 8th 2017. This new date coincides with the first announcement of the new Skill Tree."

So if i get it right, only the modules taken in the last months will be refunded, not all those taken since release?
To reskill over 150 mechs - half of them having 2 mech 2 weapon modules - , i have to earn that CBills again?
Maybe i have to spend my time on Heavy Gear Assault....

You skipped the second PTS didn't you ? I love how folks comment on stuff they didn't even bother to try out. EVERYONE who mastered/elited a mech previously, gets historical skill points, equivalent to the level of previous mastery, independent of the module refunding math, for every mech they owned, even ones they owned multiple variants of, regardless of how much extra XP was built up on that mech. Skill points once owned cost ZERO cbills to use unlocking skill nodes on mechs. If you only just mastered a spider 5D for example exactly with no extra XP on it, you'll get 91 skill points when the new system implements. If you for some reason had bought a second spider 5D before to setup a different way (say one for close range work and the other for long range sniping), you'll still get 91 points for the second copy you also.

This is an example from my refund ledger...



The first column is the mech variant, the second is how many you own of that variant, the third is the number of skills you unlocked under the existing mech skill system, the fourth is how many skill points you get for that, and the fifth is the total skill points you're receiving under the new skill tree for those mechs.

You'll notice several mechs there where I own 0 copies of currently. Those are mechs I took to a certain skill level (8 means the basic skills only) and then sold. I still get HSP points for the work I did on them, to use if I ever re-acquire them in the future.

[Dee Eight]

John McHobo, on 29 April 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

3 days.

The second test session was 3 days long.
In the middle of the week. From tuesday to friday.

I have NO idea what kind of data or feedback you might have possibly gathered in this time.
I really have a bad feeling about this.

The kind where people DON'T *****, moan and whine when they do it on a weekend...during an event.... but of course that's really too much to hope for around here... people complain about everything...even free prizes

[MovinTarget]

Dee Eight, on 30 April 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

The kind where people DON'T *****, moan and whine when they do it on a weekend...during an event.... but of course that's really too much to hope for around here... people complain about everything...even free prizes

What was Penny Arcade's formula for internet trolling?

Normal person + anonymity + audience = raging douchewad?

[Duilliath]

Dee Eight, on 30 April 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

The kind where people DON'T *****, moan and whine when they do it on a weekend...during an event.... but of course that's really too much to hope for around here... people complain about everything...even free prizes

Yet there wasn't even an event this weekend.

[Dee Eight]

Xorkrath, on 29 April 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

Prime example: why is "arm pitch" a prerequisite for anything? SOME. MECHS. DO. NOT. HAVE. ARMS. You can't even claim that "oh you're getting a benefit, just not one that you had wanted", because there is literally zero benefit to getting it. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

Actually all mechs in this game have arms... whether they have hardpoints or are merely shields makes no difference. You can still PITCH a shield arm upwards if its unlocked...which moves your aim point crosshairs so you can achieve target locks for example, outside your normal range of torso movement. Even with say every cicida variant except the X5 (which does have arm hardpoints), this can be useful to be firing torso hardpoint weapons to one spot, while pitching the arms upwards or downwards to lock another target for someone else to shoot missiles at.

Quote

Next, the AMS uprgrades don't belong in "Armor" tree at all. I don't know who convinced PGI that they did.. Worse yet, because of the hamstringing of pre-reqs, mechs that don't have AMS have to do some really bizzare jumping around to get some of the reinforcement nodes that are partially blocked by AMS upgrades. Because it is a piece of equipment available on a few select mechs

Almost every battlemech can carry AMS, its a defensive feature like armor so that's why its in the table it is, and most every omnimech has the possibility of AMS by swapping pods around. And for all the whining in the forums about LRMs (and soon to be MRMs, ATMs, and more streaks), that they've now made AMS support of your team contribute to your match score and cbill rewards....its a useful filler node for many players.

Quote

Speaking of arbitrary pre-reqs, I think the skill system would benefit greatly from being able to skill upward, instead of strictly downward. If you want people to have the freedom to create interesting builds, you need to loosen up these restrictions.

That's been suggested for months but many game systems only let tree branching work the same way so PGI isn't being unique in only having it straight down, down left or down right.

Quote

*Also worth noting - big nerf to NARCs since the total possible benefit seems to be cut in half.

And to seismic which goes from a 250m range module now to a 200m option from two 100m nodes under the new tree. Also the ECM bubble shrinks unless you unlock the two nodes for it (which doesn't affect lone wolf snipers but does the players who build support mechs for the lance).

[Duilliath]

Bluttrunken, on 30 April 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:

Nope. The agility after the engine decoupling depends on the mech in question. Mechs which are supposed to be more agile than their counterparts will behave different than other mechs in their weight class. The Night Gyr will stay bulky and the Linebacker will stay agile as far as PGI stated and planned it. Mechs like the Linebacker, Quickdraw, Gargoyle, Viper, Cicada will be as nimble, in comparison, as they are now.

In short: not all mechs in a given weight class share one mobility archetype. Every chassis has it's own archetype.

Less agile mechs won't benefit as much from higher engine ratings anymore and won't see benefits to their twist speeds and, iirc, accel/deccel which is a good thing, imo.

I'd like to see a quote from PGI to this effect, because I'd swear that's actually the exact opposite of what I read. I thought they said that mobility within a weight class would be normalized, such that all mechs of the same class would have identical mobility.

MovinTarget, on 30 April 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

For thise arguing that agility decoupling makes no sense, i would invite you to explain why drag race/funny cars machines have some of the most powerful engines modern technology can offer, how agile are they? That means they are good for more than accelerating in a straight line, right?

So much more is required for a machine to be agile than just their power source.

The fact is, that by canon, a mech with a larger engine equipped goes faster because that engine can cause the leg myomers to contract faster. If the engine will move the leg myomers faster then it should move the arm and torso myomers fasters as well.

This, of course, is simply reasoning by canon rather than game balance. I'm not sure decoupling helps the balance either, though. Normalizing the mobility would end up meaning the effectiveness of the mech boils down to weapon loadout, making certain mechs very much beter than others, thereby limiting the variety in the game. The current system actually balances mechs having better speed and mobility with a larger engine by requiring more weight be used for said engine, leaving less for weapons and other systems.

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

Can one of the resident experts describe what will happen to mechs that aren't mastered during the switchover?

Like say I have a new mech and it only has basic leveling. I know that gets 23 HSP on the changeover. And the XP the mech has converts into something... But then if I wanted to apply that XP to skills, I'll have to pay c-bills also, right? How much is it again? 40k per skill?

So we have to pay for skills, but don't have to pay for modules or necessarily 3 mechs anymore.

Were there examples done at some point of what the end cost difference between paying for modules/3 mechs vs paying for skills? Seems like such a switch may relatively benefit an expensive mech, like say the Executioner, while hurting the economics of cheaper mechs, like most any light or medium. Mastering an expensive mech may come out to be cheaper than before, while mastering cheaper ones might take longer now. IDK. I just know that mech prices varied, while skill prices do not.

[MovinTarget]

ShooteyMcShooterson, on 30 April 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

Can one of the resident experts describe what will happen to mechs that aren't mastered during the switchover?

Like say I have a new mech and it only has basic leveling. I know that gets 23 HSP on the changeover. And the XP the mech has converts into something... But then if I wanted to apply that XP to skills, I'll have to pay c-bills also, right? How much is it again? 40k per skill?

So we have to pay for skills, but don't have to pay for modules or necessarily 3 mechs anymore.

Were there examples done at some point of what the end cost difference between paying for modules/3 mechs vs paying for skills? Seems like such a switch may relatively benefit an expensive mech, like say the Executioner, while hurting the economics of cheaper mechs, like most any light or medium. Mastering an expensive mech may come out to be cheaper than before, while mastering cheaper ones might take longer now. IDK. I just know that mech prices varied, while skill prices do not.

Look at the op, you'll see every current skill translates to a certain quantity of HSP, so you simply add up the hsp for the individual skills you've unlocked.

To apply additional raw xp to sp you'll need to use cbills so you are better off applying existing xp to skills before the cutover.

Edited by MovinTarget, 30 April 2017 - 09:49 AM.

[Duilliath]

ShooteyMcShooterson, on 30 April 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

Can one of the resident experts describe what will happen to mechs that aren't mastered during the switchover?

Like say I have a new mech and it only has basic leveling. I know that gets 23 HSP on the changeover. And the XP the mech has converts into something... But then if I wanted to apply that XP to skills, I'll have to pay c-bills also, right? How much is it again? 40k per skill?

So we have to pay for skills, but don't have to pay for modules or necessarily 3 mechs anymore.

Were there examples done at some point of what the end cost difference between paying for modules/3 mechs vs paying for skills? Seems like such a switch may relatively benefit an expensive mech, like say the Executioner, while hurting the economics of cheaper mechs, like most any light or medium. Mastering an expensive mech may come out to be cheaper than before, while mastering cheaper ones might take longer now. IDK. I just know that mech prices varied, while skill prices do not.

My problem with people constantly quoting elimination of the rule of three as evidence that the new skill system will cost less is that if I bought three mechs under the old system and skilled them up I had three skilled up mechs. Under the new system if I buy three mechs, yes, I can choose whatever mechs I want, but I then have to spend about the cost of a mech each to skill them up. Therefore, from my point of view the new system seems like it will be about three times MORE expensive than the old.

[MovinTarget]

Duilliath, on 30 April 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

I'd like to see a quote from PGI to this effect, because I'd swear that's actually the exact opposite of what I read. I thought they said that mobility within a weight class would be normalized, such that all mechs of the same class would have identical mobility.



The fact is, that by canon, a mech with a larger engine equipped goes faster because that engine can cause the leg myomers to contract faster. If the engine will move the leg myomers faster then it should move the arm and torso myomers fasters as well.

This, of course, is simply reasoning by canon rather than game balance. I'm not sure decoupling helps the balance either, though. Normalizing the mobility would end up meaning the effectiveness of the mech boils down to weapon loadout, making certain mechs very much beter than others, thereby limiting the variety in the game. The current system actually balances mechs having better speed and mobility with a larger engine by requiring more weight be used for said engine, leaving less for weapons and other systems.

You are leaving out the inherent differences between TT and a RTS...

In TT you can say a mech has cruise/running speed of X and that translates to Y movement points, right?

So if we went "canon" there would be no acceleration, we just immediately hit top speed moving straight and then we can all pivot on a dime (as long as we have the movement points).

I get the point about upper body to some degree, bit to me its the "footwork" that is affected by decoupling....

[Duilliath]

MovinTarget, on 30 April 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

You are leaving out the inherent differences between TT and a RTS...

In TT you can say a mech has cruise/running speed of X and that translates to Y movement points, right?

So if we went "canon" there would be no acceleration, we just immediately hit top speed moving straight and then we can all pivot on a dime (as long as we have the movement points).

I get the point about upper body to some degree, bit to me its the "footwork" that is affected by decoupling....

I think I get what you're saying. The faster any given mech goes the wider it's turn arc should be. That, however, is already applied in the game. I could possibly see them decoupling turnspeed from the engine. That would make some of the speedier heavy/assault mechs turn on a dime a bit less while not affecting the torso and arms. Although, that also makes them less mobile when they're NOT at top speed. Either way it seems PGI is trying to change the meta by seriously nerfing the more mobile mechs.

[MovinTarget]

Duilliath, on 30 April 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

I think I get what you're saying. The faster any given mech goes the wider it's turn arc should be. That, however, is already applied in the game. I could possibly see them decoupling turnspeed from the engine. That would make some of the speedier heavy/assault mechs turn on a dime a bit less while not affecting the torso and arms. Although, that also makes them less mobile when they're NOT at top speed. Either way it seems PGI is trying to change the meta by seriously nerfing the more mobile mechs.

I don't think they are consciously trying to nerf the meta, I think they are trying to force us to make meaningful trade-offs that will innately broaden the meta.

[Zodie]

MovinTarget, on 29 April 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

I have 300+ weapon modules... just weapon modules... I stood to get 1.6 BILLION cbills in a straight up refund.

but consider this.

If you get some back in cbills and some back in GSP, it will be EASIER to insta-level new mechs bought with the cbills from later modules refunded, and insta-level those same mechs with the GSP from earlier modules being refunded.

Did you you buy any mech packs that are due to be released?

insta-leveled. boom.

Don't make it out like it would be useless... especially if you are talking about buying mechs in the future.

Hell It really needs an option to see what modules are "old", I want to sell it before refund!
I don't have any problems mastering new mechs, but c-bills because I play rarely. Those XL engines cost very high.

[MovinTarget]

Zodie, on 30 April 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

Hell It really needs an option to see what modules are "old", I want to sell it before refund!
I don't have any problems mastering new mechs, but c-bills because I play rarely. Those XL engines cost very high.

I don't disagree that giving us an option to sell off excess GSP would be *great*, I've already advocated it, I just like the idea of having both and it seems to me that converting GSP on demand makes a lot more sense than the other way around because it's supposed to be legacy currency and there is no such "legacy cbills" model and we really don't need another currency.

So I stand by my suggestion that GSP be treated as an inventory commodity that can be sold in groups of 1/10/100/1000(?) for raw cbills, but I want to keep some for the flexibility.

[Zodie]

I like it - your suggestion xD
devs try to read and get it

Edited by Zodie, 30 April 2017 - 02:26 PM.

[TheLuc]

Like I wrote previously, I'm at the point I don't care anymore. My time on the game already is so minimal as well as others of my own unit, most are on other games and the announcement of MW5 left them cold as they wanted the features in MWO and not an other game, so right off the bat the new tech or skill tree left them with a big, I DON'T CARE.

The skill tree still feel like an overall nerf gated with half the skill we don't want, yes its gonna be forced on us. I might play still here and there but it will be even less than now.

As also I wrote in other posts, my wallet is closed till PGI delivers Mechwarrior as its supposed to be. already the MW5 trailer ( gameplay vid with mistakes ) bodes for the worst.

[Gazbeard]

I've tried to read a lot of this thread but cannot read all of it - I simply don't have that long to live.

Some points that stand out ...

AMS Overdrive attracted a lot of attention as to which skill tree it should go into. Personally I feel it should not be a skill, it should be mountable equipment in the same way as Active Probes or Targetting Computers. To put the AMS into overdrive should require additional hardware in the mech (even if it's just an ammo feed belt, or for the new LAMS in the Civil War equipment - improved rotator and stepper motors).

Additionally, a lot of the other current modules represent improved equipment, not "skills" - take for example Improved Gyros to stabilise the cockpit shake. The reason they are currently a module instead of a pilot skill is because they are upgraded or additional equipment not pilot brainpower or muscle co-ordination.

The same applies to all the cooldown and range modules. These are mech modules because they are enhanced equipment NOT skills, and therefore should NOT be in the skill tree.

Let me say it plainly ...

Only PILOT SKILLS should be in a "Skill Tree".
Additional or enhanced equipment should remain in modules or a Tech Tree.

This is the fundamental flaw with the proposed skill tree, and if PGI cannot see that then they should not be developing this game,

If PGI insist that both the current Pilot and Mech skills attributes, and the modules attributes, should all be in skills trees ... then there should be a division of the skill tree between -

• Pilot Skills Tree - (hand:eye co-ordination e.g. spotting & targeting, heat management, weapon type familiarity and usage, etc. - acquired over time and applies in all mechs but is acquired once in one shared skills tree).

• Pilot's Mech Optimisation Skills Tree - (pilot's ability to get the best out of a mech based on time (battle count) in that mech e.g. acceleration/deceleration, turning, general handling and driving skills, etc.) This is variable between, and applicable to, individual mechs based on how much that variant is played - each mech will have its own tree.

• Mech Technology Enhancements Tree - (this is where the current hardware and software based modules trees fit and are, based on add-ons, improvements, refurbishments and upgrades, not on "skills" e.g. cooldowns, range, sensors, advanced view, seismic, etc.) Each mech will have its own tree giving bonuses due to the fitted equipment ... but the "ability to use" each tech should have basic skill levels in the Pilots Skills Tree, which are then shared between, and usable in, every mech.

The biggest problem I see with the intended Skill Tree is that it is treating Pilot Skills as having to be re-learned in each mech, without regard to the retained and transferable skills of the single pilot - i.e. the player.


The original offline games took care of this regarding the player and their subordinate lance pilots by using a pilot xp system that saw them gain rank as the number of completed missions increased. PGI have ignored this completely - perhaps due to the kerfuffle about PSR tiers etc., but even that is inherently broken when cadets and tier 5 noobs are facing tier 1 professionals in solo queue pug matches.

(edit - to fix typos)

Edited by Gazbeard, 30 April 2017 - 01:34 PM.

[TheLuc]

Gazbeard, as you are totally right, many times it was written, heck even the game has the wrong title

But ask PGI if they care......