LMP, on 22 May 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:
I read this in another forum.
"Values change depending on the weight class. Light Mechs get more % than Assaults. A Kodiak (100t) gets a maximum of +25% while a 35t mech gets a maximum of +39%. Makes it more worth investing in the survival tree as a lighter mech." [-Exard3k]
What I'd like to see is a discussion about configuring an assault mechs Skill Tree, what should be used and what shouldn't be to get the best bang for the buck. I know that there is probably no one size fits all solution so you can be mech and utilization specific as well as what would work well for all.
Of course where you spend your points will depend on your intended combat role; a primary brawler needs more durability than an ERPPC sniper, for example. Additionally, the skill tree bonuses stack
multiplicatively with +armor/structure bonuses (as opposed to additively, as with torso twisting rates,) so 'mechs with large bonuses to durability will benefit more from the tree, as will 'mechs with good hitboxes.
However - and this is important - many people are misunderstanding the implications of the scaling of these bonuses across the range of tonnages. This used to happen in WoW all the time: sometimes people would think that they got less and less benefit from higher armor class because their damage reduction % rose a little less with each additional armor point. However, this wasn't quite correct, and I suspect a similar misunderstanding here. However, I haven't done the math... So! Since this is a subforum of the New Player section, I shall put my analytical process down on paper for the instruction - or amusement - of all!
The skill tree has ten armor nodes, and ten structure nodes, so let's take some different tonnage points and see what we get.
The Locust gets 26% armor and 41% structure. Since a 20-ton Battlemech has a total (leaving out the head, which many don't max for a Light) of 120 armor and 60 structure. If we multiply these values, we get a total skill tree bonus of 31 armor and 24.6 structure.
And now, the Kodiak! 596 armor and 298 structure. It gains a mere 10/25% bonus to armor/structure, but this still works out to 59.6 armor and 74.5 structure.
Hrm. So a 20-ton Locust gets 52% of the armor and 33% of the structure the Kodiak gets. Of course, it's 20% of the Kodiak's tonnage, too, so this is still an obviously disproportionate amount of armor. Lets factor in some durability quirks. A Locust 1V has a grand total of 16 bonus structure and 24 bonus armor (to various locations.) Meanwhile, the Atlas D-DC has 149 bonus structure from quirks, but no armor. So, going back to our skill tree multipliers of 26/41% and 10/25% respectively, the Locust gets a total durability of 290 (220 base,) while the Atlas' durability comes out to a staggering 1,214 (1,043 base.)
Initial observations:- While structure and armor bonus proportions are certainly larger for the smallest as opposed to the largest 'mechs, the actual values of those bonuses are still absolutely higher for a 100-ton Battlemech than for a 20-tonner.
- Additionally, it's useful to realize that weapon damage bonuses from the skill tree are additive with quirks (5% cooldown quirk +5% cooldown skill = 10% cooldown bonus.) This means that while you're getting tons (haha) of bonus durability, you're getting a max of 12% increased cooldown speed - effectively 12% dps. By comparison, the Locust is getting 32% increased durability, while the D-DC is still getting 16% increase to the best survivability of any Assault in the game.
Now, the next thing to do is actually go through with a spreadsheet and figure out how each tonnage point compares to all the others, but this is too much work for me right now. Happily, however, someone else has
Done It For Me! No, no, GMan -
Thank YOU. In any case, you can see from the spreadsheet that while the total benefit /node of structure skills increases steadily,
armor benefits move along a sort of bell curve, peaking at about 60 tons. This means that if you must choose, it's generally better to go for armor up to about 80-85 tons; the crit protection skills you'll prioritize as intermediate nodes should make up for the relative increase in crit vulnerability (from taking more structure hits before you die.) This is only a general rule, and assumes you have no significant structure/armor quirks - it
also assumes you're trying to pick one or the other; frankly, if I plan to take damage, I go for both.
Conclusion: Remember, I set out to examine the proposition that "survival tree is worth more for lighter 'mechs." I think that's only partially true. Certainly, you get more proportional survivability, but you're also starting from a lower point. That Locust is going to get maybe one extra ERPPC volley to a side torso or leg before he goes down; that's useful, but the Atlas is getting more of the same thing. Thus we're back to WoW; the misunderstanding there was people's assumption that "armor is for getting % damage reduction." It seemed reasonable; after all, that's what the stat
did, when you moused over it on your character sheet. But this assumption was
wrong, because armor's purpose in the game was to
increase the amount of time it took to kill you. That's the purpose of Survival skill nodes in this game, and the diminished
proportional returns are distracting people from the superior absolute returns for time-to-kill at any reasonable amount of weapons fire - just as the diminishing returns of % damage reduction in WoW distracted people from the
linear returns for TtK.
3
