41 replies to this topic

[vandalhooch]

I'm in agreement with many players about the gating system of "most wanted" nodes. In eliminating the nodes there appears to be a way to create true trade off systems without penalizing non-boating builds and make applying quirks easier. The basic concept would be to break up the current active nodes limit for the entire mech into separate totals for each category. It will also need to break up the Firepower category into three, Energy, Ballistics and Missiles.

Within each category, remove the web design and create linear sequences of similar buffs with a few (really few) gated buffs. Then set a limit to the total number of active nodes within that category that requires players to make choices among the various types of buffs.

Example - Sensors has 27 nodes but I am limited to activating only nine of them. Yes, both seismic sensors are going to be chosen as well as all five radar deps . . . but wait if I only have two more nodes in Sensors, I can't enhance my ECM or Target Decay very much. Oh, and dang it, Advanced Zoom is at the end of the Sensor Range sequence. Maybe, if I sacrifice one of the Seismics and a couple of the Deps . . . hmmm choices.

Firepower would be broken thusly:

Energy with five lines: range-ten steps, duration/velocity-ten steps, cooldown-ten steps, heat-ten steps and flamer-three steps

The flamer steps are all range/heat buffs to flamers only as they don't benefit from the standard Energy nodes. The duration/velocity is so that an active node there benefits either lasers or PPCs. Players would be limited to 15 active nodes in the entire category. Have to choose to specialize in range at the expense of heat or a general buff in all categories. Brawlers might avoid the range altogether and go for the cooldown but a max cooldown limits the heat buffs. Pokers will like the duration but won't be able to max out the range . . . choices.

Ballistics with five lines: range-ten steps, velocity-eight steps, cooldown-ten steps, heat-eight steps, magazine-four steps and machine guns-three steps.

Like flamers in the energy category, machine guns don't benefit from the standard Ballistic nodes and have their own separate (short) sequence. Like the energy category, players would be limited to 15 active nodes in the entire category.

Missiles with five lines: range-ten steps, velocity-eight steps, cooldown-ten steps, heat-eight steps, magazine-four steps (will have to create some type of buff similar to autocannons) and target lock-three steps.

Target lock would be buffs to time for locks for LRM's and Streaks. Players are once again limited to 15 nodes in the entire category.

Overall, I think you can see what I'm getting at. Some of the categories would require more massaging to get into shape than others (Auxiliary being problematic).

Now for the pros and cons. Pro - Boating one weapon type does not give you extra nodes you could dump into Survivability or Mobility. Boats do not have a buff advantage over mixed builds. Nor are they somehow disadvantaged in firepower. Con - Mixed builds will take more XP and C-bills to fully buff because they will need to activate more nodes (which is allowed as each mech no longer has a max limit). Pro - Giving a mech quirks becomes much, much simpler. If Vindicators are too squishy, give them +5 Survival nodes. If Ravens are supposed to be better scouts, give them +3 Sensors and +2 Auxiliary. Cyclops is supposed to be a command mech? Boom, +5 Operations. Highlanders still suffering from hover jets? Boom, +3 Jump Jet nodes. Direwolves out of favor because they can't keep up? Boom, +4 mobility nodes.

During the switch over, give every mastered mech the full number of nodes in each category. Elited mechs get 75% and Basiced get 50%. Done.

Problems?

[FreeFragUK]

I read through your post a couple of times, just to mull it over a bit, and in honesty I really like this suggestion. It seems like a perfectly viable alternative which actually offers some very good options in relation to balancing for PGI.

I can't fault your proposition, as in principle it would work. My two fears are that a lot of people will shoot it down at the mention of even more categories requiring them to exercise their fingers a bit more and that PGI won't see this in time to actually consider it as a viable alternative.

It certainly sounds as though your proposal really does bring options to the table while maintaining the idea of some level of decision making and choice.

[vandalhooch]

FreeFragUK, on 29 April 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

I read through your post a couple of times, just to mull it over a bit, and in honesty I really like this suggestion. It seems like a perfectly viable alternative which actually offers some very good options in relation to balancing for PGI.

I can't fault your proposition, as in principle it would work. My two fears are that a lot of people will shoot it down at the mention of even more categories requiring them to exercise their fingers a bit more and that PGI won't see this in time to actually consider it as a viable alternative.

It certainly sounds as though your proposal really does bring options to the table while maintaining the idea of some level of decision making and choice.

I get that it has more nodes, potentially. But, most builds are not going to use all three weapon types and thus it reduces to about what we have now. Maybe a little more. XP and C-bill costs per node could be adjusted a little to reflect that.

[MischiefSC]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

I'm in agreement with many players about the gating system of "most wanted" nodes. In eliminating the nodes there appears to be a way to create true trade off systems without penalizing non-boating builds and make applying quirks easier. The basic concept would be to break up the current active nodes limit for the entire mech into separate totals for each category. It will also need to break up the Firepower category into three, Energy, Ballistics and Missiles.

Within each category, remove the web design and create linear sequences of similar buffs with a few (really few) gated buffs. Then set a limit to the total number of active nodes within that category that requires players to make choices among the various types of buffs.

Example - Sensors has 27 nodes but I am limited to activating only nine of them. Yes, both seismic sensors are going to be chosen as well as all five radar deps . . . but wait if I only have two more nodes in Sensors, I can't enhance my ECM or Target Decay very much. Oh, and dang it, Advanced Zoom is at the end of the Sensor Range sequence. Maybe, if I sacrifice one of the Seismics and a couple of the Deps . . . hmmm choices.

Firepower would be broken thusly:

Energy with five lines: range-ten steps, duration/velocity-ten steps, cooldown-ten steps, heat-ten steps and flamer-three steps

The flamer steps are all range/heat buffs to flamers only as they don't benefit from the standard Energy nodes. The duration/velocity is so that an active node there benefits either lasers or PPCs. Players would be limited to 15 active nodes in the entire category. Have to choose to specialize in range at the expense of heat or a general buff in all categories. Brawlers might avoid the range altogether and go for the cooldown but a max cooldown limits the heat buffs. Pokers will like the duration but won't be able to max out the range . . . choices.

Ballistics with five lines: range-ten steps, velocity-eight steps, cooldown-ten steps, heat-eight steps, magazine-four steps and machine guns-three steps.

Like flamers in the energy category, machine guns don't benefit from the standard Ballistic nodes and have their own separate (short) sequence. Like the energy category, players would be limited to 15 active nodes in the entire category.

Missiles with five lines: range-ten steps, velocity-eight steps, cooldown-ten steps, heat-eight steps, magazine-four steps (will have to create some type of buff similar to autocannons) and target lock-three steps.

Target lock would be buffs to time for locks for LRM's and Streaks. Players are once again limited to 15 nodes in the entire category.

Overall, I think you can see what I'm getting at. Some of the categories would require more massaging to get into shape than others (Auxiliary being problematic).

Now for the pros and cons. Pro - Boating one weapon type does not give you extra nodes you could dump into Survivability or Mobility. Boats do not have a buff advantage over mixed builds. Nor are they somehow disadvantaged in firepower. Con - Mixed builds will take more XP and C-bills to fully buff because they will need to activate more nodes (which is allowed as each mech no longer has a max limit). Pro - Giving a mech quirks becomes much, much simpler. If Vindicators are too squishy, give them +5 Survival nodes. If Ravens are supposed to be better scouts, give them +3 Sensors and +2 Auxiliary. Cyclops is supposed to be a command mech? Boom, +5 Operations. Highlanders still suffering from hover jets? Boom, +3 Jump Jet nodes. Direwolves out of favor because they can't keep up? Boom, +4 mobility nodes.

During the switch over, give every mastered mech the full number of nodes in each category. Elited mechs get 75% and Basiced get 50%. Done.

Problems?

I would love it. We already have seismic and derp all over. I would drastically rather people be able to invest in varying degrees in all this stuff, making real tradeoffs, then the current proposed gating system that makes any tradeoff a bad deal.

[Lupis Volk]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

Problems?

Liner skill tree. For some reason Russypoo has a thing against lines.

But other than that i think this is a good idea. I myself can't try the PTS due to garbage internet.

The only issues i'd see some having is this aversion to clicks and the IS having their offensive quirks toned down and/or merged with the skill tree while ignoring the fact that they have ubermench defensive quirks..

But your proposed skill tree would be one i'd say let us have and let the data from the live server serve as the answer.

Edited by Lupis Volk, 29 April 2017 - 01:30 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

I would love it. We already have seismic and derp all over. I would drastically rather people be able to invest in varying degrees in all this stuff, making real tradeoffs, then the current proposed gating system that makes any tradeoff a bad deal.

Caution with "real trade-offs" usage.

As long as a skilled 'Mech builds on the capabilities of a fresh one rather than skews them one direction at the expense of others, we haven't implemented real trade-offs.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 29 April 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

The only thing that has ever stopped me from boating is ghost heat. 5% cooldown , 10armor isn't going make me put extra Er lasers on a brawler.

[vandalhooch]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 April 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

Caution with "real trade-offs" usage.

As long as a skilled 'Mech builds on the capabilities of a fresh one rather than skews them one direction at the expense of others, we haven't implemented real trade-offs.

There will be trade offs within each category rather than between the categories.

Monkey Lover, on 29 April 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

The only thing that has ever stopped me from boating is ghost heat. 5% cooldown , 10armor isn't going make me put extra Er lasers on a brawler.

Yep. My proposal doesn't discourage boating, you still need ghost heat for that. But, this system allows mixed builds to max out all their weapon systems to be on par with a boat without having to lose out in other categories.

[vandalhooch]

Lupis Volk, on 29 April 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Liner skill tree. For some reason Russypoo has a thing against lines.

I'm under no illusion that this idea will be instantly picked up by PGI. Nor, do I think it's likely all that original. I just never checked every other thread to see if anyone put this idea up before.

If the new system crashes and burns . . . if. Then, if others are talking about an idea like this one then it might be looked at as an alternate to try in the future. I'm realistic about the chances that something like that would really happen but I had the idea rattling around in my head and I needed to get it down at least to let my brain think about other stuff.

Quote

But other than that i think this is a good idea. I myself can't try the PTS due to garbage internet.

The only issues i'd see some having is this aversion to clicks and the IS having their offensive quirks toned down and/or merged with the skill tree while ignoring the fact that they have ubermench defensive quirks..

The click problem could be solved by selecting the 7th level of a line and automatically having all the prereqs selected with it. Just make sure the costs add up properly. Honestly I don't think such a time saver is that big a need really but it wouldn't be impossible.

Quote

But your proposed skill tree would be one i'd say let us have and let the data from the live server serve as the answer.

[Roadbuster]

+1 for mixed builds!





Are people really complaining about...clicking? o.O

Edited by Roadbuster, 29 April 2017 - 02:52 PM.

[TLBFestus]

In a lot of ways this is similar to how you might build a characters traits in Fallout 4 (last PG I played that applies).

You buff traits, or skills, but you have more linear choices than points to spend. At some point you must decide what character trait you are going to leave less developed in order to buff others.

No wasted choices, no stupid gates to reach something, just a simple numbers game whereby you must sacrifice something useful for something else you consider more useful.

As the OP describes it you would get a lot of variation in built skills because of the number of options available.

Sure someone might choose to buff the heck out of their laser to boat them, but they will be lacking the skill points to move quicker, or twist faster, or maybe manage heat better. Simple...been done before and it works great.

[Y E O N N E]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

There will be trade offs within each category rather than between the categories.

Are you considering bundling negative characteristics to offset each positive one? Because that's the only way you satisfy my requirement and is, in fact, the only possible way to satisfy it by nature of said requirement because I'm not talking about opportunity cost.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 29 April 2017 - 03:04 PM.

[chucklesMuch]

Roadbuster, on 29 April 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

+1 for mixed builds!

Are people really complaining about...clicking? o.O

The clicking is less important than some of the other design/balance/de-quirking/baseline changes etc... (imho)

However the trouble with all the clicking... is you have to endure that to get too anything else... and tbh it's been rather off putting.

[vandalhooch]

TLBFestus, on 29 April 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

In a lot of ways this is similar to how you might build a characters traits in Fallout 4 (last PG I played that applies).

You buff traits, or skills, but you have more linear choices than points to spend. At some point you must decide what character trait you are going to leave less developed in order to buff others.

No wasted choices, no stupid gates to reach something, just a simple numbers game whereby you must sacrifice something useful for something else you consider more useful.

As the OP describes it you would get a lot of variation in built skills because of the number of options available.

Sure someone might choose to buff the heck out of their laser to boat them, but they will be lacking the skill points to move quicker, or twist faster, or maybe manage heat better. Simple...been done before and it works great.

Not quite. Your last paragraph describes what PGI is trying to get, trade offs between categories. That creates incentives for boating. My proposal creates trade offs within categories. Boat does not have an inherent advantage over mixed builds.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 April 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Are you considering bundling negative characteristics to offset each positive one? Because that's the only way you satisfy my requirement and is, in fact, the only possible way to satisfy it by nature of said requirement because I'm not talking about opportunity cost.

No. Negative values tend to turn players off. Opportunity costs are generally less objectionable to the psychology of most gamers. Just look at what happened with the first iteration and the "additional grind" that module swappers faced. They saw it as going backwards despite it not really being so. The screaming could be heard even in Vancouver.

Edited by vandalhooch, 29 April 2017 - 07:45 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

No. Negative values tend to turn players off. Opportunity costs are generally less objectionable to the psychology of most gamers. Just look at what happened with the first iteration and the "additional grind" that module swappers faced. They saw it as going backwards despite it not really being so. The screaming could be heard even in Vancouver.

Irrelevant and, also, not a trend throughout games as a whole. They only object in MWO because they weren't there to begin with and they don't like giving things up, but unfortunately the anthill has to be kicked over at some point and they just have to deal with it (git gud, if you will). As long as the trade-off is worth it, the level-headed among the population will accept it just fine.

If you only have pure positive values, you increase the advantages an established player has over a new one by one third, adding artificial boosters on top of the acquired equipment and experience. Boosters must alter a 'Mech's capabilities as part of a zero-sum game or you have not fixed that deficiency. If you don't, then the boosters must be weak to minimize the gap and, therefore, largely pointless.

[vandalhooch]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 April 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

Irrelevant and, also, not a trend throughout games as a whole. They only object in MWO because they weren't there to begin with and they don't like giving things up, but unfortunately the anthill has to be kicked over at some point and they just have to deal with it (git gud, if you will). As long as the trade-off is worth it, the level-headed among the population will accept it just fine.

If you only have pure positive values, you increase the advantages an established player has over a new one by one third, adding artificial boosters on top of the acquired equipment and experience. Boosters must alter a 'Mech's capabilities as part of a zero-sum game or you have not fixed that deficiency. If you don't, then the boosters must be weak to minimize the gap and, therefore, largely pointless.

The current module and skill system uses that last strategy, minor boosting. I'm okay with it.

I get what you are driving at with each node being a boost and cut but for this game I think that ship has long since sailed. It would also create a situation where players might choose not to use nodes at all which defeats the purpose of them being a currency sink. Modules were created to drain long time players of the massive amount of C-bills they had stockpiled. The bonus from modules was moderately small and the swapping mechanic added to ameliorate the difference between old and new players.

Edit: With modules being removed, the skill tree HAD TO include a C-bill cost. The people complaining about "paying for skills" that were free before are running around with blinders on. They need to step back and examine the development of the game in the big picture.

Edited by vandalhooch, 29 April 2017 - 08:25 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

The current module and skill system uses that last strategy, minor boosting. I'm okay with it.

I get what you are driving at with each node being a boost and cut but for this game I think that ship has long since sailed. It would also create a situation where players might choose not to use nodes at all which defeats the purpose of them being a currency sink. Modules were created to drain long time players of the massive amount of C-bills they had stockpiled. The bonus from modules was moderately small and the swapping mechanic added to ameliorate the difference between old and new players.

Perhaps it did sail long ago. I have nothing nice to say about that, so I will refrain.

Players would definitely use the nodes if you engineer them such that a big boost to one capability begets small nerfs to at least two other capabilities. Like, if my intent with the 'Mech is to snipe from extreme range, do I really care that much if I lose a little bit of turn rate and rate top speed in exchange for a significant amount of extra range or projectile velocity? No, because I don't need it, but it does mean I dedicate myself more to that particular role with each increase to that attribute. They had the right idea with the original modules, but they only ever penalized heat and they didn't really offer enough extra range to be useful. Combine with the endless stream of 'Mechs, and there's no reason to spend C-bills on them.

Quote

Edit: With modules being removed, the skill tree HAD TO include a C-bill cost. The people complaining about "paying for skills" that were free before are running around with blinders on. They need to step back and examine the development of the game in the big picture.

Agreed, though that is a separate thing. I really don't care about the respec costs debacle, since the costs are much more reasonable now. I don't really understand the need to have a currency sink at all, that just seems like work for the sake of work. But, it's whatever to me. C-bills are transitory and they have no value except to get spent.

[MrJeffers]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

<snip>
Problems?

Big problem. Are you new to the Internet and PGI design criteria? You can just take your reasoned, well thought out, logical solutions and GTFO.

Edited by MrJeffers, 29 April 2017 - 09:05 PM.

[vandalhooch]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 April 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

Perhaps it did sail long ago. I have nothing nice to say about that, so I will refrain.

Players would definitely use the nodes if you engineer them such that a big boost to one capability begets small nerfs to at least two other capabilities. Like, if my intent with the 'Mech is to snipe from extreme range, do I really care that much if I lose a little bit of turn rate and rate top speed in exchange for a significant amount of extra range or projectile velocity? No, because I don't need it, but it does mean I dedicate myself more to that particular role with each increase to that attribute. They had the right idea with the original modules, but they only ever penalized heat and they didn't really offer enough extra range to be useful. Combine with the endless stream of 'Mechs, and there's no reason to spend C-bills on them.

The problem with your style of trade offs, is that a brawler wants small pulse range increased but the turn cut turns him off. There is no way to decide which nerf to match with which buff that doesn't end up favoring one play style over another. It will just generate anger and resentment between the different players.

Opportunity costs are much less likely to create those types of complaints and arguments.

Quote

Agreed, though that is a separate thing. I really don't care about the respec costs debacle, since the costs are much more reasonable now. I don't really understand the need to have a currency sink at all, that just seems like work for the sake of work. But, it's whatever to me. C-bills are transitory and they have no value except to get spent.

Currency sinks are necessary parts of all MMO economies, even ones without player to player trades.

Without something else to spend C-bills on besides mechs, long time players end up owning every mech with nothing to work towards. That creates the perception that the game has less content. The module swapping mechanic created that perception and you can see it echoed in lots of complaints about "new content" in the forums. If PGI had locked modules to specific mechs when purchased, allowing you to freely skip between them, then you would see far fewer players complaining about having 300 mechs and nothing to do. The only other way to fight that perception is to slowly inflate the C-bill costs of new mechs over time but that creates negative perceptions to the new player.

C-bill sinks are needed to help shape player perceptions of the game but you need to make the sinks feel like the player is getting something worth their time/resources in exchange. The new skill system is a correction to the mistake made by allowing module swapping in the first place. There are also subtle suggestions to get players to purchase more than one copy of any single variant. Look at the PTS announcement and tell me why PGI decided to use a player owning three widowmakers as their example of how MXP is transferable. Note, it's not transferable within chassis, only variants. C-bill and XP sinks.

Wonder why the timeline jump races so far ahead to add so many weapon/defense systems at one time? C-bill sinks.

MrJeffers, on 29 April 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:

Big problem. Are you new to the Internet and PGI design criteria? You can just take your reasoned, well thought out, logical solutions and GTFO.

Not expecting PGI to take this thread and run with it. Just getting it out there as an alternative when/if the new skill system crashes and burns. If enough players are discussing an alternative similar to this when alternatives are sought out, it might work it's way into future implementations.

Also, it was driving me crazy rattling around in my head and not sharing it. That torment is gone now.

Edited by vandalhooch, 29 April 2017 - 09:44 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

The problem with your style of trade offs, is that a brawler wants small pulse range increased but the turn cut turns him off. There is no way to decide which nerf to match with which buff that doesn't end up favoring one play style over another. It will just generate anger and resentment between the different players.

This is a non-issue; the naturally short range on a small pulse means that going for extra range is a pointless exercise in the first place. As a brawler, you would be going for shorter cool-downs or heat reduction.

Ignoring for a second that I was just tossing out an example, there is, in fact, a way to decide what counters what. Easy. Take lasers, for example:

What's the immediate mechanical counter to more damage? Longer duration (keeps the damage over burn the same). More range? Longer cool-down (makes the weapon clumsy to use up close regardless of skill level). Now think about what the secondary counters are. Repeat this exercise for every weapon type.

At any rate, unless we're bundling skills into role packages that neatly arrange the perks and drawbacks, it's up to the players to decide which set of boosts best benefit the payload they've chosen. Is that not the entire raison d'être for the skill tree in the first place? Another way we can side-step the problem is by assigning every 'Mech a limit to govern attributes placed onto the 'Mech, where players can pick negative ones to give themselves room to install more positive ones. If you want to make it even more interesting, certain attributes could synergize positively or negatively with others to create larger buffs or debuffs. Heavy Gear 2 had such a system and it worked brilliantly in its PvP mode.

Quote

Opportunity costs are much less likely to create those types of complaints and arguments.

From a mechanical perspective, why do we care? If it is mechanically sound, opinion doesn't matter and the pieces will fall into place like they should through enlightenement via experience.

Quote

Currency sinks are necessary parts of all MMO economies, even ones without player to player trades.

This is not an MMO. This game has more in common with Counter-Strike and even Quake than it does any MMO, and I don't recall those having any sort of in-game economy. Quake even went F2P.

Quote

Without something else to spend C-bills on besides mechs, long time players end up owning every mech with nothing to work towards.

That would be a problem if PGI stopped releasing 'Mechs, but they won't. That's why nobody is spending on modules (and often engines) in the first place, there's always a new 'Mech to buy and master with C-bills. Players know this, and that's why having a respec cost is seen as a burden; it's already taking them long enough to amass C-bills to buy 'Mechs and equipment, now they have to buy the nodes. All of these things are absolutely essential to creating a level playing field for themselves and that is a major problem. In-game currency for well-designed PvP games is never used for buying a global advantage unless that's the point of the game (i.e. DotA 2, but I'd argue that DotA 2 gold isn't analogous to C-bills at all, it's more akin to a strategic resource in an RTS of your choice).

I really don't buy this whole C-bill sinks business. Unless you play an ungodly amount, it's the players who were around before the income was dramatically nerfed that are sitting on vast troves. I've been playing since February 2014, with 8,436 matches. It's not ungodly, but it's pretty solid. Do you know how many C-bills I have in my account right now? A hair under 5 million, out of a cumulative earnings of almost 1.1 billion. I bet you I'm pretty close to where most players are sitting. PGI cannot and should not bother trying to reign in or keep up with the legacy holders and current busybodies. That's a fool's errand.

Quote

Wonder why the timeline jump races so far ahead to add so many weapon/defense systems at one time? C-bill sinks.

I think that has more to do with a desire to make the balance game easier and to drum up excitement than it does creating C-bill sinks.

Quote

Not expecting PGI to take this thread and run with it. Just getting it out there as an alternative when/if the new skill system crashes and burns. If enough players are discussing an alternative similar to this when alternatives are sought out, it might work it's way into future implementations.

Also, it was driving me crazy rattling around in my head and not sharing it. That torment is gone now.

That's fine, and thank you for sharing. I'm also more or less just venting my frustration at the entire ordeal because I think it's all one huge missed opportunity to do something more. I worry that the Civil War update will similarly miss the mark.