Yeonne Greene, on 28 April 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:
I am not wrong, I'm just three steps ahead of you. Your concept is based entirely around being able to alter the value-per-node of each ability such that you can get the performance you want for what you think is a fair price in nodes. First, PGI has already told you what they want the value to be (i.e. 100% Radar Deprivation being worth 17 out of 91 nodes). Second, being able to alter that value does not inherently require changing the architecture, you can do that simply by increasing the values on the nodes as they stand.
As for increased customization, no. You've fallen for the illusion of choice. There are certain capabilities that are essential to 'Mech performance (i.e. Cool Run, Heat Containment, Anchor Turn) and they will always get taken first and always to the the maximum value possible before continued investment begins harming performance. You'll continue grabbing nodes down the priority list and the only time those mediocre capabilities will be chosen is when there's nothing more useful to spec, which depends entirely on how generous you are with your value-per-node. Ultimately, most competent 'Mechs will end up looking very similar except for the last 10-20 nodes which will be dependent upon the weapons payload (I do think firepower was better off split into separate weapon families). And do note, there is an upper limit to how powerful a capability can be because the tree, being universal, has to make sure it doesn't become abusive when applied to certain 'Mechs.
Now, whether or not we pick up some extras we would not otherwise go for has zero bearing on whether or not you get cookie-cutter selection. You will get cookie-cutter selection regardless because the nodes in the web and in the linear version just creep power upwards for each one you acquire rather than deviate power toward a particular niche, because killing 'Mechs is the single overriding objective of the game, and because some 'Mechs are inherently flat-out better than others but still have the same tree.
There are plenty of arguments when your "proof" has all of the same high-level deficiencies as the problem to be solved and when your defined successes are such only because you've said so and not because they actually achieve it. I've seen many skill trees in many games and the only one that is remotely appropriate for this game is the one from Heavy Gear 2, not what PGI has constructed and not the piddly reshuffle you are pitching. Those both belong in PvE games, not PvP.
No, you're not. Lol.
Lets see... they can just increase the value of the nodes. Sure, go ahead and tell me how they can increase 100% radar dep to something higher. How much can you crank up the distance on seismic? How much more arm movement is enough to make that node valuable? How much can they turn up sensor range before people are being spotted 1500m away?
The very fact you think they can just increase node value to make something more attractive to select shows how far behind you are in your thinking.
The underlying problem is some skills have inherently more value than other skills. If you can't change the skills to have more value then there has to be other options to making them something a player would use. PGI has chosen to acknowledge these skills are inherently worthless and use them as a tax that is charged on the way to the skills people do want. That's not really customization, it's just a marketing ploy to say "look at all you get for free".
Lets go with the 17 points you stated for radar dep. That's the value PGI places on that skill and will "give" you four other skills on your way to radar dep. Which is an automatic cookie cutter because if radar dep is that important than everyone is going to get it and everyone will have those same four skills. Zero customization because it's all the same.
On the linear system that cost for radar dep is made 15. Then you have those other four skills that were bundled into radar dep sitting all by themselves as one point options. You get radar dep with enough points left to pick two of the skills you want instead of the four the devs decided everyone has to have.
Yes, I'm fully aware there will be min/max builds where those two points are put into some other skill deemed to be the most return for the points. There is no way to avoid min/maxing in any game where the players have any ability to pick their own options. However, there will be plenty of people who don't min/max. They'll use those two skills for whatever they think is most valuable to them. I know this will happen because we still see underpowered and non-meta mechs being played everyday.
The linear system is superior to the web design for everything PGI has stated is the goal of skill tree. The fact you want to deny this statement doesn't change it's truth. The exact design of that linear system can vary, but the key aspects are higher cost for more valuable skills and sufficient points to select less valuable skills to round out a build.
Ideally the tree would be divided by roles and the majority of the points would be spent to fulfill a role with a few points leftover for flair skills. Unfortunately PGI doesn't seem to be interested in developing roles so we work with what they do seem willing to provide.
Here's the difference between us. I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong when you can provide an example or situation where the linear tree isn't better for PGI's stated goals. So far I've only see people try to counter the concept without digging into specifics.
The exception is you pointed to radar dep with the idea it has to stay a fixed 17 points without acknowledging those 17 points actually were for five skills and not just one. As soon as you admit your are paying 17 for five then it's easy to see that radar dep itself costs less but they have to charge something for the other four skills. If those four skills had zero value then they would be automatically provided as a baseline. Since we do have to spend skill points on those skills they do have some value which means radar dep actually costs less than 17 and refutes your conclusion.
1
