41 replies to this topic

[Excalibaard]

More detailed feature suggestions/review/bug report here: https://mwomercs.com...-2-weeks-later/

I want to gain a little ground on a few main ideas on how to improve the current skill tree. I do not want/expect mechs to go up/beyond their previous performance and that is not the point of this thread.

1. Redefine Operations and Jumpjets.
Operations is bogged down with skills that people don't want. Speed Retention and Gyro's are nigh useless, as legged mechs die 99% of cases soon after, 30kph or 50kph. Gyro's: cockpit shake isn't the problem, is the vision obscuring explosions. Jumpjets is a tiny tree that has too little effect per nodes invested.
I suggest to combine Operations and Jumpjets into a single tree that covers all non-weapon, non-consumable equipment. That's Heat Sinks, AP, TAG, NARC, ECM, AMS, TC, CC, JJ. This gives people access to Cool Run/Heat Containment without wasted nodes >if they add some non-firepower related tonnage to their mech. Speed Retention and Gyro's (which no one uses if they don't have to) can die in a ditch and be implemented in mech base characteristics.

2. The problem isn't LRMs.
A lot of the forums are now upset about LRM prevalence. I think these are just a symptom that will die quickly. The origin of this problem lies in something else: ECM and Radar Derp gain too large a benefit from their nodes and are too weak without. Especially with someone skilling Target Decay, they can rain 5 seconds of damage on you if you haven't skilled into this, which would make any weapon system stupidly strong. 100% radar derp was before the patch a mandatory module and made LRMs in high-tier useless because everyone had money to run the module. Running behind a hill for 0.2 sec with 100% derp causes LRM boats to completely start over on their locks, making it significantly more powerful than if it was reduced ~60%. 60% still has a good effect where you have to hide for a shorter time than when unskilled, but no instant lock loss as 100% would do. ECM without skills is nigh useless, except that locks take longer for LRMs.
I'd like to see LRMs become a more reliable weapon, instead of the case right now where it's extremely strong or completely useless, based on whether your enemies took the 'insurance policy' of bringing Radar Derp, ECM, or AMS. Reduce the effect of the Radar Derp and ECM nodes, but increase ECM's base effectiveness. Radar derp shouldn't be able to reach 100%, but could have a lower base target decay as compensation for the loss. This should mean that the difference between investing in these nodes or not is more in line with the rest of the skill tree, making LRMs a more consistent weapon. This in turn enables LRMs and/or Target Decay to be balanced easier (for example changing lock time or base target decay duration) in all tiers and skill configurations in play as the most extreme cases are brought together.
TL;DR: Make Radar Derp/ECM worth less per node, but keep the average effect similar.

3. Lack of meaningful reward feeling
With incremental nodes, a lot of incentive to grind out unskilled mechs is gone. There are no milestones like there was with basicing/eliting/mastering a mech (mastering was also a pretty lackluster reward for the time invested though, most of my mechs were elited). Add onto that that people must invest their hard-earned C-Bills in nodes, which they'd rather spend on new weapons/a mech, gives even less incentive to skill out lesser played mechs.
There should be a system that ignites a spark/drive to play these 'unskilled' mechs more. For example: nodes are unlocked for an entire chassis, and only cost (more) xp to 'respec' for other variants of the same chassis. This rewards people who buy a mech pack, or like a mech so much they want multiple variants. Though if the mech has very different variants, they'll also need to unlock more than 91 nodes. Another would be to introduce more impactful nodes, and reducing the skill tree size. In order to avoid an entirely new economic system, each of these 'super'-nodes can cost multiple skill points based on their strength. They may even give multiple stats at once, like a general 'Tier 1 Mobility Kit' that enhances Kinetic Burst and Hard Brake, or a 'Tier 1 Flexibility Kit' that enhances Torso Yaw & Pitch.

In the linked post there are also suggestions to improve the node system with as little changes to the system as possible, but I think these three main things are most important to me atm.

Thanks for your attention and please comment your own thoughts.

Edited by Excalibaard, 13 June 2017 - 04:54 AM.

[Scyther]

I don't fully agree with the specific points (eg. 75% Radar Dep max) but these ideas are definitely pointing in the right direction.

[Excalibaard]

Take note that once 100% radar dep is removed/reduced, that's not the end. LRMs/Decay/whatever turns out to be the strongest part of LRMs that makes Radar Derp so good, can be toned down in response, for example LRM velocity can be reduced to 140, or tracking without artemis is made weaker.

Edited by Excalibaard, 31 May 2017 - 04:55 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Good read.

#3 I would love to have "Elite" Nodes that provide additional effects or just additional x% if you already are deep in a tree.
These should be exclusive (only one Elite skill allowed)

e.g. if you spend 30 points in Weapons to unlock 10% range, you can skill into Elite skill for additional 10% range, but you can not select the 10% heat Elite skill also.
But this is then turning into "Tiers".

[Mister Glitchdragon]

Excalibaard, on 31 May 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

3. Lack of meaningful reward feeling

Most skill tree QQ would evaporate if PGI would issue a little gold star for each mech with 91 skill points allotted in their tree (doesn't matter where).

That way, the Pokemon crew can get their star and display their collectibles, never to be played again, just like before the ST.

[Excalibaard]

Mister Glitchdragon, on 31 May 2017 - 05:10 AM, said:

Most skill tree QQ would evaporate if PGI would issue a little gold star for each mech with 91 skill points allotted in their tree (doesn't matter where).

That way, the Pokemon crew can get their star and display their collectibles, never to be played again, just like before the ST.

I disagree. Each mech already gets a little orange star for 91 points, and it has no effect. Every game based on grind has some way of introducing procedural progression with a feeling of reward. Crafting Legendaries in GW2, legendary loot at high level in ARPGs, Unlocking master-tier spells in RPG #234645342, buying cosmetic items with platinum from selling high-tier mods on the market in WarFrame. These items are purely cosmetic, give more powerful stats, or are somewhere in between.
MWO is also a game mostly built on having giant robots, and grinding them out. But what MWO lacks at the moment is that feeling of reward for grinding them out. Combined with a steep curve of skill, makes it a very niche game that does a poor job of attracting potential new battletech fans, or sustaining the attention of many. I personally think this is also one of the reasons why the forum is more hostile than for other games I've seen so far: dissatisfaction.

Whatever the ultimate reward is - maybe purely cosmetic like a 'mastery pattern' for mechs that are mastered, and an overarching system for 'mastering # mechs' with special decals o.s. using the achievement system - currently the reward feeling or incentive is at an all-time low in MWO.

Edited by Excalibaard, 31 May 2017 - 05:26 AM.

[El Bandito]

Excalibaard, on 31 May 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

ECM without skills is nigh useless, except that locks take a little longer for LRMs.

I think you are understating this effect here. It doubles the lock on time, which means a lot. In my lurming days, ECM's lock delaying had frequently made the difference between hitting the target or hitting dirt, whenever the mech was revealed by UAV.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 May 2017 - 07:13 AM.

[Excalibaard]

El Bandito, on 31 May 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

I think you are understating this effect here. It doubles the lock on time, which means a lot. In my lurming days, ECM's lock delaying had frequently made the difference between hitting the target or hitting dirt, whenever the mech was revealed by UAV.

Double lock time is more than I thought, yes. Then again, ECM changing from a neat trick against LRMs into an easily missed stealth mechanic is too strong. The stealthyness should be more apparent in the unspecced equipment I think. Maybe these values were chosen for the arrival of Stealth Armor coming soon, but PGI didn't say anything about that.

Edited by Excalibaard, 07 June 2017 - 01:46 AM.

[DrSaphron]

In whole the rise of the skill tree, engine decoupling, and evisceration of preexisting quirks has been a LOT to process as of late. The skill tree doesn't need to be as huge and overtly complicated as it is, engines need to be RE coupled, and some (not all) quirks need to be put back on certain very specific mechs or removed from others.

A prime example of this "perfect nerf bat" can be seen on the PHX-2. Before all the sweeping changes the GO-TO loadout was 6 med pulse lasers, a few extra heat sinks, and a BIG DUMB ENGINE! Now with the whole rework it is A LOT slower, less agile, and runs waaay too hot, not to mention the crippled ECM. Now it's an over sized 45 ton moving body bag, unable to dance out of the way of incoming fire, dish out damage, or really be combat effective at all. This is a stark contrast from when they first launched with laughably under armored arms that would fall off with very little provocation. When the PHX first dropped I could pull off around 800 damage and 6 dead mechs, RELIABLY! Now I struggle to break 300 damage and 2 dead mechs simply because it is so incredibly slow in every possible way.

[HGAK47]

Interesting take OP, I dont fully support you especially on the ECM and Radar derp side of things however I too do feel that the jump jet tree is by far one of the most weak ways to spend SP.

The heat gen in the JJ section might be worthy for some mechs but aside from that its a little weak. Especially the forward thrust ones, they grant practically nothing for the SP. (like 4m/s to 8m/s forward movement for like 5 SP, whoopie!)

As for the skill tree its had its ups and downs for sure. Overall im quite happy with how things turned out but there are major balance concerns now with some mechs.
I would really like to see PGI in the next weeks to release info on the underperforming mechs. Also mechs that were always very starved for hard points (Spider 5V, Locust with single energy mount etc...) have been hit quite hard with quirk reductions.

Other mechs have suffered from engine decoupling that I believe were not intended. (Some of the lights and medium mechs with large engines feel very sluggish, Spirit Bear masc concerns etc..)

Overall - fairly good I just hope PGI are prepared to address some balance issues moving forward.

[Sezmo]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 07 June 2017 - 05:54 PM.
unconstructive, inappropriate language

[Asym]

I'm in the camp with many of you that are experiencing a degraded mech future...

I primarily operate Night Gyr's and without a lot of data, find the entire serires to only be about 80% of what they were. No matter what I do in the skill tree. I asked PGI for a response and they replied: paraphrased: "it's our game and we will and can change what we want..." OK.....

91 points is insufficient. It would take 120 ST points to have the serires as it was before the ST patch.

It's just no fun anymore and as many have said; the grind makes no sense and has no real purpose....

I was asked to play MWO in Feb of this year and resisted: too many negative reviews. But, I relented because I loved the MW games. The team that invited me all left after the ST change because PGI has the intention of changing the baseline funding and gameplay model. To do that, PGI is actually changing the gameplay dynamics.... Do I have any proof? No. What matters is that I believe they were right and I'm the only one left..... What I spent to get into this game has been devalued and the game play is changing from a 3D battlespace to a 2D battlespace where teams, mission objectives and fluid/agile teams will no longer matter. What will matter is the mele/Solaris/brawling that will occur on every map in the last 6 minutes where the Assaults and remaining Lights get to bash each other into tiny bits........

The May ST was the start of the de-evolution of the gameplay and micro-purchase-funding change.

Just my opinion.

[DGTLDaemon]

My biggest gripe with the current implementation of the Skill Tree is the huge imbalance between the Survival and Mobility trees. Survival allows you to boost armor and structure over and above their previous values. So if you are happy with how hardy your mech already is, you don't need to invest a single point into it - you'll have exactly the same armor and structure as before the Skill Tree. At the same time, baseline mobility was nerfed across the board, meaning you have to invest in Mobility simply to bring you mechs back to their previous level. So while Survival offers the players an optional opportunity, Mobility essentially imposes a skill point tax. Which defeats the original idea behind the Skill Tree - letting the players customize and enhance their mechs the way they want.

[Jiang Wei]

I do not have an issue with the current state of lrms/ecm/derp. And most of my mechs do not use any of them. You get punished by any kind of weapons when you put yourself in a bad place. LRMs are just more annoying because of the bitchingbetty and temporary stream of loud explosions. Its psychological. I have one lrm mech myself. The effects I see are more psychological than anything. I can stop an enemy charge if I do it just right, I can cause people to make tactical errors. I can suppress enemy LRM's. But with this power comes vulnerability. If an enemy manages to close the distance I am screwed. If i do not have line of sight my LRMs do almost no damage, though they still have that psychological effect. If the enemy is moving fast my LRMs do little damage as many will miss. If the enemy has alot of ams's I do almost no damage. If the enemy has ecm I dont get very many consistent locks without help from my team.

LRMs are not overpowered and niether are LRM counters underpowered. However... it can feel that way sometimes if you are getting hit by several LRM boats at once. But how is that any different than exposing yourself to a fire line? You get punished for making mistakes by any weapons your enemy has. But you expect that. You are used to that.

The real issue is the way LRM's are implemented. It doesnt matter where you aim the LRMs. MW4 LRMs were better. You had to have line of sight always unless a target was narc'd and your LRM's could hit a targeted location. If I wanted to destroy an arm i could target the an arm and most of the missles would hit that area. But it took skill to accomplish it. If I didnt aim at a mech when I had tone and fired then the LRM's would spray all over or miss entirely. MW4 LRM's took actual skill to use effectively, but when they were... they were devastating. ECM didnt let you target enemies, you could still get missle locks, it just took longer to get tone. They were the perfect LRM's. I dont think this game engine could even copy that system if they wanted to.

[Burke IV]

From what i can see LRMs can be completely shut down if you choose to equip the right stuff. Nerf AMS, imagine if 3 mechs on a team could create a magic shield that blcoked all PPC shots, thats what over powered AMS is like to a missile boat and worse AMS has a tiny tonnage. A light mech using like, 5 tons of equipment can almost totally block, what 10 15 20? tons of LRMs+ammo on larger mechs. Does that sound balanced? how can anybody whine about LRMS.

[Dread Render]

Excalibaard, on 31 May 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

1. The problem isn't LRMs
...Blah Blah I feel good about me Blah...
...higher skilled people realizing they can hide behind buildings...

Do you believe your own Lies?
Dude you are an LRM user. Every Time, Every game.
You Love your LRM's and you love being way back behind the lines and watching your missals fly like the 4th of July.
"higher skilled people realizing they can hide behind buildings"
WHAT buildings?!?!? Almost EVERY map is for You LRM wallflowers. Not for Brawlers.
Brawlers have been asking for a City map With Buildings since day one.
How many do we have? NONE.!!! So SAHADDDAPPPPP and stop acting like people don't know better.... because we do.
The only real brawler map we is HPG, and that's why its so popular!!! Its the Only one we have.
You self deceiving liberal crybabies make me sick! Your not happy even when you get your way.

[Excalibaard]

Jiang Wei, on 07 June 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I do not have an issue with the current state of lrms/ecm/derp. And most of my mechs do not use any of them. You get punished by any kind of weapons when you put yourself in a bad place. LRMs are just more annoying because of the bitchingbetty and temporary stream of loud explosions. Its psychological. I have one lrm mech myself. The effects I see are more psychological than anything. I can stop an enemy charge if I do it just right, I can cause people to make tactical errors. I can suppress enemy LRM's. But with this power comes vulnerability. If an enemy manages to close the distance I am screwed. If i do not have line of sight my LRMs do almost no damage, though they still have that psychological effect. If the enemy is moving fast my LRMs do little damage as many will miss. If the enemy has alot of ams's I do almost no damage. If the enemy has ecm I dont get very many consistent locks without help from my team.

LRMs are not overpowered and niether are LRM counters underpowered. However... it can feel that way sometimes if you are getting hit by several LRM boats at once. But how is that any different than exposing yourself to a fire line? You get punished for making mistakes by any weapons your enemy has. But you expect that. You are used to that.

The real issue is the way LRM's are implemented. It doesnt matter where you aim the LRMs. MW4 LRMs were better. You had to have line of sight always unless a target was narc'd and your LRM's could hit a targeted location. If I wanted to destroy an arm i could target the an arm and most of the missles would hit that area. But it took skill to accomplish it. If I didnt aim at a mech when I had tone and fired then the LRM's would spray all over or miss entirely. MW4 LRM's took actual skill to use effectively, but when they were... they were devastating. ECM didnt let you target enemies, you could still get missle locks, it just took longer to get tone. They were the perfect LRM's. I dont think this game engine could even copy that system if they wanted to.

I think we're thinking along the same lines here actually. The problem with AMS is that you can't expect when you're going to run into LRMs or not, same with ECM and Derp though they have use outside of LRM locks. It can easily amount into a 20+ SP or 1.5+ ton insurance policy. LRMs are currently too widespread from being useless to extremely powerful suppression, depending on matchmaker 'RNG': which map you get and which mechs you run into. Which should be balanced more towards a middle-of-the-road kind of thing. All other weapons from lasers to autocannons do not have this huge chance-based split. That's basically the only thing I'd like to see fixed with LRMs, by changing the utilities that make them so variable.

Also, this post is not only about LRMs, it's a global addressing of the skill tree.

Edited by Excalibaard, 07 June 2017 - 09:15 AM.

[Excalibaard]

DrSaphron, on 07 June 2017 - 02:01 AM, said:

In whole the rise of the skill tree, engine decoupling, and evisceration of preexisting quirks has been a LOT to process as of late. The skill tree doesn't need to be as huge and overtly complicated as it is, engines need to be RE coupled, and some (not all) quirks need to be put back on certain very specific mechs or removed from others.

A prime example of this "perfect nerf bat" can be seen on the PHX-2. Before all the sweeping changes the GO-TO loadout was 6 med pulse lasers, a few extra heat sinks, and a BIG DUMB ENGINE! Now with the whole rework it is A LOT slower, less agile, and runs waaay too hot, not to mention the crippled ECM. Now it's an over sized 45 ton moving body bag, unable to dance out of the way of incoming fire, dish out damage, or really be combat effective at all. This is a stark contrast from when they first launched with laughably under armored arms that would fall off with very little provocation. When the PHX first dropped I could pull off around 800 damage and 6 dead mechs, RELIABLY! Now I struggle to break 300 damage and 2 dead mechs simply because it is so incredibly slow in every possible way.

DGTLDaemon, on 07 June 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

My biggest gripe with the current implementation of the Skill Tree is the huge imbalance between the Survival and Mobility trees. Survival allows you to boost armor and structure over and above their previous values. So if you are happy with how hardy your mech already is, you don't need to invest a single point into it - you'll have exactly the same armor and structure as before the Skill Tree. At the same time, baseline mobility was nerfed across the board, meaning you have to invest in Mobility simply to bring you mechs back to their previous level. So while Survival offers the players an optional opportunity, Mobility essentially imposes a skill point tax. Which defeats the original idea behind the Skill Tree - letting the players customize and enhance their mechs the way they want.

Engine decoupling is not the subject of this post, but I'll bite.

I like the decoupling. The fact that you can't do what you used to do anymore is kind of the point of a systematic overhaul. The baseline for mechs has changed for everybody and shouldn't be compared to performances when there was a completely different baseline. The value of an extremely high engine is reduced which paves the way for slightly slower builds to be viable.

Survival vs mobility balance is a bit odd, survival seems to be the better choice to go deep in in all cases, mobility is only worth it for the 'tonnage worth' of max speed you get from the speed tweak, and the torso speed/anchor turn along the way.

[DGTLDaemon]

Excalibaard, on 07 June 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

I like the decoupling. The fact that you can't do what you used to do anymore is kind of the point of a systematic overhaul. The baseline for mechs has changed for everybody and shouldn't be compared to performances when there was a completely different baseline. The value of an extremely high engine is reduced which paves the way for slightly slower builds to be viable.

You got me wrong I wasn't referring to loss of value of large engines. What I was trying to say is: if you want to have the same armor as before, you don't need to do anything, but if you want to have the same mobility as before, you have to invest skill points. If PGI reduced mobility across the board to accommodate for the skill tree, why didn't they also reduce the armor/structure values? Why does the skill tree allow you to have more armor than before, but at the same time force you to invest skill points in mobility simply to bring your mech to a playable level?

Edited by DGTLDaemon, 07 June 2017 - 09:42 AM.

[Excalibaard]

DGTLDaemon, on 07 June 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

You got me wrong I wasn't referring to loss of value of large engines. What I was trying to say is: if you want to have the same armor as before, you don't need to do anything, but if you want to have the same mobility as before, you have to invest skill points. If PGI reduced mobility across the board to accommodate for the skill tree, why didn't they also reduce the armor/structure values?

Because they want to increase the Time To Kill. Armor values are twice that of the original tabletop game already since beta, but mechs still die super quickly, the game is unforgiving for new players that have trouble piloting.

IMO the problem is that one out of position mech can be shot at by 12 mechs instead of 8 or 4, but I think there was something about the servers that made 12v12 optimal for PGI.