12 replies to this topic

[Tincan Nightmare]

As the title states, shouldn't it be possible to balance under and over performing mech chassis thru use of the ST, via reduction and addition of available nodes?

If you have Mech A, that is the current meta star and outperforms all others in the game, reduce it's available skill nodes from 91 to 85 or 80. Then take Mech B, the hardly used low hardpoint bad hit box champion, and give it 100 to 110 active nodes. This could replace the constant shifting values of quirks, plus allowing players to determine what sacrifices or bonues they wish to apply themselves versus predetermined nerfs/buffs that they can't control.

I don't say this would fix everything, but it could help narrow the gap between various chassis, even giving some compensation for things like low hardpoints. I would even consider giving JJ equipped mechs (especially omnis with fixed JJ's) a few additional active nodes that could be used only in the JJ tree.

Also, some mechs that require structual, armor, or agility quirks could instead simply have some of those nodes in the respective trees unlocked from the purchase of the mech and always active, without counting towards your total active nodes.

[James The Fox Dixon]

What about reducing or increasing the effect of the nodes themselves?

[Bud Crue]

Maybe, to a degree...a very small degree. Despite what PGI asserts regarding balance being just spiffy because of the skills tree (only after 2 weeks) the difference between the over performers in this game and the under performers is more than a few percentages of velocity, or range, or torso twist speed, or what have you, and that is all 5-10 nodes is going to get you: the ability to give or take a a small percentage of a 1-2 selected attributes (or even less impact on a few more attributes). This honestly won't be noticed by the vast majority of mechs, builds or players thereof.

IMHO, the over performers in this game are over performers because they have high hard points and are capable of mounting multiple long range PPFLD weapons that no other mechs in their respective classes can match. A few nodes on the skills tree won't make much difference to them or their lower tier, weight classmates in terms of balance.

Edited by Bud Crue, 30 May 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Progression models should NEVER be used to balance things because it only balances things once EVERYONE has got things leveled up, and what happens if someone has leveled up a good mech and then suddenly the skill count is reduced for that mech? You have the skill tree compensation issue all over again, sorry but this has to be consistent and uniform across the board.

[Tincan Nightmare]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

What about reducing or increasing the effect of the nodes themselves?

Yes that is also an option.

Bud Crue, on 30 May 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

Maybe, to a degree...a very small degree. Despite what PGI asserts regarding balance being just spiffy because of the skills tree (only after 2 weeks) the difference between the over performers in this game and the under performers is more than a few percentages of velocity, or range, or torso twist speed, or what have you, and that is all 5-10 nodes is going to get you: the ability to give or take a a small percentage of a 1-2 selected attributes (or even less impact on a few more attributes). This honestly won't be noticed by the vast majority of mechs, builds or players thereof.

IMHO, the over performers in this game are over performers because they have high hard points and are capable of mounting multiple long range PPFLD weapons that no other mechs in their respective classes can match. A few nodes on the skills tree won't make much difference to them or their lower tier, weight classmates in terms of balance.

Well it would not give a mech with knuckle dragging hardpoints equality with another mech that has all high hardpoints in terms of exposure, but it could at least give some options such as more cooldown, range, or durability to that mech thru access to more nodes. Especially if the high hardpoint mech has their nodes reduced. It would not be a perfect fix, but it would give some narrowing of the gap.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 May 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Progression models should NEVER be used to balance things because it only balances things once EVERYONE has got things leveled up, and what happens if someone has leveled up a good mech and then suddenly the skill count is reduced for that mech? You have the skill tree compensation issue all over again, sorry but this has to be consistent and uniform across the board.

There is already a progression issue though, between someone with a new mech that they have to level and someone with a fully mastered 91 node mech, that will never change as long as there is any type of skill system. If nodes get reduced for a mech someone has already levelled, give them a free respec and a refund on exp and cbills. If a mech has a large benefit thru simple hardpoint placement, why then should the ST be uniform across the board between it and mechs that suffer from waist mounted hardpoints? They already changed values (though slightly) between IS and Clans for the ST, based on Clan tech benefits.

[Bud Crue]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

It would not be a perfect fix, but it would give some narrowing of the gap.

I just disagree. No gap is being narrowed here. One has an inherent property that cannot be buffed or nerfed. Its lower tier compatriots can be "extra noded" (or whatever term you care to use) to the point that it has god tier additions but that difference in capabilities will remain.

Not to mention the fact that at that point the mechs with the extra nodes start to smell an awful lot like mechs with extra quirks. Variable, player controlled quirks, but quirks nonetheless. And PGI has stated that they see all of the ills of balance being caused exclusively by the power creep that hase been caused by the use of overall quirks. So call them extra quirks or extra "skills" if you want, the result is the same; and it is a result that PGI has stated needs to be eliminated from the game.

[Athom83]

"Underperforming" mechs could get a +x number of maximum nodes that can be equipped. That way, they can be stronger without trowing balance or mechanics far off.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Bud Crue, on 30 May 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

I just disagree. No gap is being narrowed here. One has an inherent property that cannot be buffed or nerfed. Its lower tier compatriots can be "extra noded" (or whatever term you care to use) to the point that it has god tier additions but that difference in capabilities will remain.

Not to mention the fact that at that point the mechs with the extra nodes start to smell an awful lot like mechs with extra quirks. Variable, player controlled quirks, but quirks nonetheless. And PGI has stated that they see all of the ills of balance being caused exclusively by the power creep that hase been caused by the use of overall quirks. So call them extra quirks or extra "skills" if you want, the result is the same; and it is a result that PGI has stated needs to be eliminated from the game.

Well honestly it would be similar to the quirk system, trying to compensate mechs that suffer from design faults like low hardpoints or bad hit boxes, though at least the player can determine how they wish to apply it via the ST versus a permanent fixed quirk. I don't know how PGI can eliminate some compensation for such mechs if they are to be played at all. I think the powercreep came more from over use of quirks, instead of limiting them to mechs that really needed them. At least balancing thru the ST allows players to determine their own quirks instead of PGI just assigning them (or nerfs). If mechs that suffer from bad hit boxes or hardpoints don't receive something, they might as well be pulled from the game entirely as they don't do anyone any good just sitting in a mech bay.

[Bud Crue]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Well honestly it would be similar to the quirk system, trying to compensate mechs that suffer from design faults like low hardpoints or bad hit boxes, though at least the player can determine how they wish to apply it via the ST versus a permanent fixed quirk. I don't know how PGI can eliminate some compensation for such mechs if they are to be played at all. I think the powercreep came more from over use of quirks, instead of limiting them to mechs that really needed them. At least balancing thru the ST allows players to determine their own quirks instead of PGI just assigning them (or nerfs). If mechs that suffer from bad hit boxes or hardpoints don't receive something, they might as well be pulled from the game entirely as they don't do anyone any good just sitting in a mech bay.

Yup. Tell it to PGI. Though I am not playing IS until the re-balance after new tech, I am nevertheless grateful that they left defensive quirks and significantly more offensive quirks than what they had indicated would be eliminated during the PTSs. But still, they put that Q&A out the day before the skills tree dropped where they said "overall quirks" are the problem as they see it. I have no idea how they think they can make a Cataphract the equal of a Night Gyr without quirks, but they have indicated that it is there goal to get rid of them. Maybe they will take your suggestion and replace quirks with bonus nodes/skills. Who knows? But they better come up with something...unless of course the whole Q&A was just BS and they intend on keeping "overall quirks" which in fact seems to be the case given the current sats of a lot of IS mechs (and even a few on the clan side). There is just no telling with these people.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

There is already a progression issue though, between someone with a new mech that they have to level and someone with a fully mastered 91 node mech

Except that is uniform across all mechs. A bad mech should be buffed through quirks so that while unleveled, it should be able to compete with a similarly unleveled meta mech. By trying to do balance through the skill tree all you are doing is exacerbating the badness of a bad mech at the beginning and hopefully leveling it out by the time it gets mastered, aka you are making that progression gap WORSE for less off mechs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 May 2017 - 04:00 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 May 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

Except that is uniform across all mechs. A bad mech should be buffed through quirks so that while unleveled, it should be able to compete with a similarly unleveled meta mech. By trying to do balance through the skill tree all you are doing is exacerbating the badness of a bad mech at the beginning and hopefully leveling it out by the time it gets mastered, aka you are making that progression gap WORSE for less off mechs.

Well its just a difference between balancing thru quirks, or thru the ST then, as either way its obvious certain mechs just need help against the better performing models. The only difference I see, is that if they balance thru the ST, then the player could decide where those bonuses go instead of just working around an enforced quirk (which may also force them into a specific build to suit that quirk). I can see your point that during the leveling process it would take longer to gain those advantages, since the 'bad' mech would require more nodes to fill than the 'good' mech. Maybe they could give 'bad' mechs a certain number of 'free' skill points to spend either at purchase, or better yet after reaching mastery of the standard 91 nodes (so a new player would have a better appreciation on how to spend them).

As another poster stated, a similar option could be to give 'bad' mechs higher benefits from the ST then the 'good' mechs. Ultimately either way would be very similar to quirks, just with the player having more control of which quirks they get thru the ST.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

The only difference I see, is that if they balance thru the ST, then the player could decide where those bonuses go instead of just working around an enforced quirk

Which isn't good since the way they spend it could change the usefulness of that mech (since that point may be spent on less useful skills. A mech's inherent strengths should not be left up to player choice.

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

Maybe they could give 'bad' mechs a certain number of 'free' skill points to spend either at purchase

So what happens when a mech is OP and loses some of those free skill points, how is that handled? If the transition to the new skill tree is any evidence, it will not be smooth and will cause issues. This is why you don't mix balance (which is dynamic and non-uniform) with progression (which should be uniform and fairly static).

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

As another poster stated, a similar option could be to give 'bad' mechs higher benefits from the ST then the 'good' mechs.

Again, this isn't an option because it still means balance is borked without the skill tree. Progression and balance methods do not go together nor should they ever (and it is one of the problems with the current skill tree implementation).