3 replies to this topic

[Slambot]

First, let me say that the new tree is an improvement over the old one. That being said, let's look at some things that could use some improvement.

First off: the conversion... okay, keeping mechs at the same level of progression without a huge investment of cbills is a huge relief to me. The module refund and how all the various items convert is a bit confusing.

Second: the new tree STILL encourages boating as hybrid builds will have to invest a ton more to get the same reward. There is some mitigation as many of the nodes give bonuses to all weapons, but...

Third: mechs in general will be less capable than they are in the current live system.. I do like how you have to decide your priorities based on role but the game only rewards doing damage. To truly make people feel like they dont have to spec out their weapons loadout first, you would have to switch to an objective based reward system for matches (ie, more exp, more cbills for capping points in conquest than killing things), which PGI is extremely reluctant to do.

Fourth, PGI has reduced the inherent mobility quirks of many lighter mechs thereby reducing their survival characteristics. I fully specced out my locust for mobility and it has a noticible reduction in mobility. I found myself making choices and after I specced out my lasers and mobility, I chose a few survivals and then specced out for sensors for some radar dep which I consider an essential survival ability, I had nothing left for consumables. So, big ponderous mechs will be more slow and ponderous due to having to prioritize but lighter mechs will still be less agile than they are. The jury is out on the effect of these changes.

Fifth: The consumable tree is not something I feel gives much back for the investment required. Many players will not want to invest heavily if at all in this tree. Being as mc consumables seem to be an area where PGI wants to see an increased revenue gain, this won't happen.

Sixth: lurmageddon is probably incoming. With the huge investment required to get any radar dep, and the fact that to get 100% radar dep requires an enormous investment, most mechs will not have any, meaning lurms will have a much easier time holding locks.

[ForceUser]

Lurmgeddon is like the 2nd coming. A lot of people have predicted when it would come.

They haven't been right yet.

[Chound]

Slambot, on 27 April 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

First, let me say that the new tree is an improvement over the old one. That being said, let's look at some things that could use some improvement.

First off: the conversion... okay, keeping mechs at the same level of progression without a huge investment of cbills is a huge relief to me. The module refund and how all the various items convert is a bit confusing.

Second: the new tree STILL encourages boating as hybrid builds will have to invest a ton more to get the same reward. There is some mitigation as many of the nodes give bonuses to all weapons, but...

Third: mechs in general will be less capable than they are in the current live system.. I do like how you have to decide your priorities based on role but the game only rewards doing damage. To truly make people feel like they dont have to spec out their weapons loadout first, you would have to switch to an objective based reward system for matches (ie, more exp, more cbills for capping points in conquest than killing things), which PGI is extremely reluctant to do.

Fourth, PGI has reduced the inherent mobility quirks of many lighter mechs thereby reducing their survival characteristics. I fully specced out my locust for mobility and it has a noticible reduction in mobility. I found myself making choices and after I specced out my lasers and mobility, I chose a few survivals and then specced out for sensors for some radar dep which I consider an essential survival ability, I had nothing left for consumables. So, big ponderous mechs will be more slow and ponderous due to having to prioritize but lighter mechs will still be less agile than they are. The jury is out on the effect of these changes.

Fifth: The consumable tree is not something I feel gives much back for the investment required. Many players will not want to invest heavily if at all in this tree. Being as mc consumables seem to be an area where PGI wants to see an increased revenue gain, this won't happen.

Sixth: lurmageddon is probably incoming. With the huge investment required to get any radar dep, and the fact that to get 100% radar dep requires an enormous investment, most mechs will not have any, meaning lurms will have a much easier time holding locks.

Yes the stats do emphasize kills or doing the most damage. in the stats. You currently get points for assisting in a kill as well as scouting enemy mechs, participating in a base capture. The conquest game mode which in theory does not require killing all the enemies(but most do anyway) has a bonus for it. I think each resource point captured gives you bonus in C bills and XP I thiink this game mode needs to be adjusted to put less empnasis on killing enemy and capturing and HOLDING the base.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

2. Module system encouraged boating even more, so it's an improvement. Maybe not big, but still.
4. This is what I'm afraid for. Skill tree and decoupling is a great chance to improve balance between classes, Seems like we may miss this chance. (still, due to agility integrated into chassis, that's easy to fix)
6. All we need to stop lurmaggedon is to start using some AMS. Perhaps with less pressure to max engine always, it will be easier to fit one on a chassis without much sacrifice.

--------------
a ) My issues: quirk nerf broadens gap between underperformers and overperformers.
b ) Clan skills should be reduced more to facilitate clan tech advantage.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 28 April 2017 - 03:29 AM.