Jump to content

Why Wasn't The Skill Tree Player-Centric?


10 replies to this topic

#1 arcana75

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,161 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:36 PM

Ok so I'm new so I don't know how it turned out, but I do know it was previously a mech mastery system of basic to master and you could rank up mech expertise thereby unlocking skills like better range or whatnot (similar to the current system), and you needed to own and play 3 variants minimum to be able to "master" the mech series. At the same time mechs could install Player Modules that further improved mech performance based on certain builds.

Now it's a skill tree per mech, with each mech requiring the player to "level up", and having to do the same for any variant of the same mech.

But as a gamer so used to RPG-style player-centric progression, and such a system being more common when it comes to skills and players, why didn't PGI adopt such a system?

The new skill tree could be retained, but it applied to the player. Based on a player-centric system, we would have General skills, and Mech Specific skills. As we play, we would earn just XP, no real need to separate the XP types, then the player would decide to use that XP either on player nodes for more general application (eg +2% speed on Mediums), or mech nodes for more specific application (eg +5% speed on Hunchbacks), or even more specificity (eg +10% speed on 1 particular Hunchbank variant. Similar systems would apply across, eg +2%/5%/10% bullet speed for all Autocannons/All Normal AC/AC2.

This would simulate both growth of a player as a Mechwarrior, as well as growth in expertise using specific mechs and would be more lore-friendly. Eg Kai Allard might be a superior mechwarrior, but his fame came from using his Yen Lo Wang. Put him in another mech say a Firestarter and he might not perform as well, depending on the amount of skillpoints he put in his player-specific skilltree versus his Yen Lo Wang skilltree.

Right now, there is no representation of a player's progression, save for his player rating which is a representation of the player's overall skill than progression in general. There is alot of representation of mech expertise via the current skilltree.

What do you guys think?

Edited by arcana75, 23 September 2017 - 08:41 PM.


#2 Bombast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,709 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:41 PM

It's both more complicated than what we have now (Impressive), and broken (Favors older players to a ridiculous degree).

#3 Bersigil

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:09 PM

...and it would be detrimental to players that want to min-max while playing a variety of mechs

#4 The Unstoppable Puggernaut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 24 September 2017 - 01:29 AM

I know exactly what you mean but this system is actually near perfect. Imagine you have 50 cars (or however many mechs). You have millions of pounds. Are you going to try modifying yourself or your car collection?

The cars need modifying not the person. The person needs to know how to drive rally cars, race cars, classics with no electronics. That's what makes the driver better in all formats.

The only things missing from ST which PGI dont seem to listen, is a savable templates profile to reduce click by death. Also colour code the upgrades so you know which paths to use quickly. Finally one click to the area you want and then show it the path you want to unlock (like google maps directions divert).

#5 Exilyth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,100 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 24 September 2017 - 02:37 AM

Once you level up your pilot to the max, what incentive would there be to play mechs other than the FOTM meta?

#6 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 24 September 2017 - 03:19 AM

View Postarcana75, on 23 September 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

But as a gamer so used to RPG-style player-centric progression, and such a system being more common when it comes to skills and players, why didn't PGI adopt such a system?

Quite simply, they wanted to extend the time taken to level (aka 'the grind') as a way of encouraging players to stick with the game longer. The longer you stay, the more chance that you will buy more Mechs and more stuff.

It's that simple.

A better question is: "Why is levelling Mechs (ie a piece of machinery) described as a 'skill'? Why isn't it described as 'optimising or enhancing the Mech'?"

And the answer to that is: The same reason we have 'supply caches' and 'keys' instead of 'salvage' and 'techs'. PGI's senior game designers aren't up to anything beyond cutting and pasting generic design concepts from other games, even when they could be taking the tiny step of cutting and pasting from the rich BattleTech lore in what they proclaim to be "A BattleTech Game".

It really is just plain sad.

#7 arcana75

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,161 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 03:52 AM

Naturally we know this discussion won't end anywhere but it's still worth a discussion.

View PostThe Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 24 September 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

I know exactly what you mean but this system is actually near perfect. Imagine you have 50 cars (or however many mechs). You have millions of pounds. Are you going to try modifying yourself or your car collection?

The cars need modifying not the person. The person needs to know how to drive rally cars, race cars, classics with no electronics. That's what makes the driver better in all formats.

The only things missing from ST which PGI dont seem to listen, is a savable templates profile to reduce click by death. Also colour code the upgrades so you know which paths to use quickly. Finally one click to the area you want and then show it the path you want to unlock (like google maps directions divert).

The thing about your analogy is that, if I am good at driving say a Mercedes C180, then one day I decided to buy and drive a BMW X1, I don't suddenly become a beginner driver. I retained some of my driving skills going from car to car. I understand that we as humans we are retaining our skills as mechwarriors as we play different mechs but I'm talking about MWO gamefication of this concept. So following your analogy, a driver would retain driving skills but takes some time to adjust to the nuances of the BMW X1 over the Merc C180. The driver skills would be the mechwarrior skilltree. The car specific skills will be the mech skills, hence 2 different skill trees. Also a BMW X1 is likely to handle quite similarly to a BMW X3, so we have a shorter learning curve to transition between the X1 and X3, hence a mech-general skilltree versus a mech-specific skilltree.

So we end up with 3 skill trees as per my OP.

View PostExilyth, on 24 September 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Once you level up your pilot to the max, what incentive would there be to play mechs other than the FOTM meta?

You can max your mechwarrior skilltree, but you will have the mech-general and mech-specific skilltrees. As I said in my OP, we can keep the current skilltree which is essentially a mech-specific skilltree since every mech we buy variant or not will have this empty skilltree to start with. However what I'm prescribing is a mechwarrior skilltree. This means as we as players continue playing, MWO has a game system that quantifies your player progression, and still keep the mech skilltrees. So you get to keep your incentive to play mechs, FOTM or not.

Although it is kinda odd that the main incentive to play a mech is that you have space to level up into, when it shouldn't be. When you max out your mechwarrior skilltree, you'd have attained Max Level as it were as a player. Level 255, General, Master, whatever you want to call the rank/level system. You could even max out your say Light Mech general skilltree, but you still have the Medium, Heavy and Assault skilltrees. And lastly you still have all the empty mech-specific skilltrees from new mechs you buy.

View PostAppogee, on 24 September 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Quite simply, they wanted to extend the time taken to level (aka 'the grind') as a way of encouraging players to stick with the game longer. The longer you stay, the more chance that you will buy more Mechs and more stuff.

It's that simple.

A better question is: "Why is levelling Mechs (ie a piece of machinery) described as a 'skill'? Why isn't it described as 'optimising or enhancing the Mech'?"

And the answer to that is: The same reason we have 'supply caches' and 'keys' instead of 'salvage' and 'techs'. PGI's senior game designers aren't up to anything beyond cutting and pasting generic design concepts from other games, even when they could be taking the tiny step of cutting and pasting from the rich BattleTech lore in what they proclaim to be "A BattleTech Game".

It really is just plain sad.

I completely understand PGI's motivations. But my proposal of having player and mech skilltrees actually extends player grind even more.

Edited by arcana75, 24 September 2017 - 03:57 AM.


#8 Asym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:48 AM

OP, bottom line up front:

The New Skillt Tree wasn't about making the game better; the new skill tree was about one thing and one thing only: changing cash flow dynamics....

If PGI wanted to make the gameplay better, easier, all they had to do was eliminate the three (3) mech mastering rule to one (1) and we'd be a lot better off and PGI would be a lot poorer.....

The change was a facade......it was and is only about cash flow and a neat way to degrade the entire communities warfare capabilities (in the form of massive nerf's) forcing them to re-invest in new technolgies or new mech platforms... A "bait and switch" gambit to improve cash flow.... Example: take a newer mech like the Night Gyr (what Jan 2017) let it prove itself, then, massively degrade the mech to the point of it being just about useless.......many players went to other mechs and that's what PGI wanted..... I'm not. I'm playing my Night Gyr's, since I purchased them as a new player and I refuse to purchase anything else till PGI returns what they "redistributed" in the subsequent nerfs and balance passes... Yes, that hurts my team but, too bad, get use to disappointement.........
Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated. Many players received advantages from the new skill tree as part of the redistribution nased on balance and they are the new skill trees supporters ! The rest of us, well, mnay left the game immediately and our numbers are dwindling..... I play 80% less now and have zero interest in spending another cent...... Time will tell....

#9 Nameless King

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The King
  • The King
  • 692 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 07:54 AM

They now need to add a pilot skill tree along side the mech skill trees to add more flavor and customization.

Oh and random Maps and Modes

Edited by King Alen, 25 September 2017 - 05:12 AM.


#10 arcana75

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,161 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 07:42 PM

View PostKing Alen, on 24 September 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

They now need to add a pilot skill tree along side the mechs skill trees to add more flavor and customization.

Exactly!

#11 Athom83

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 2,529 posts
  • LocationTFS Aurora, 1000km up.

Posted 24 September 2017 - 08:43 PM

View PostAsym, on 24 September 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

The change was a facade......

Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users