33 replies to this topic

[SFC174]

In November I started up a F2P alt and have been slowing accumulating mechs and skilling them up. In doing so I have come face to face with the skill tree again, only on the F2P account I don't have a bunch of excess skill points to screw around with. So I'm forced to actually focus on the hot mess that the current tree is.

In doing so, I come back to many of the debates that occurred when the ST was originally announced and in hindsight I'm convinced that PGI missed a great opportunity here in terms of customization (and I say this as a person who didn't want the skill tree in the first place, who thinks its not good for new players, but accepts that we're stuck with it for now).

IMO, what is lacking in the ST right now are real, meaningful _tradeoffs_ in choosing your skill path. Yes, you can dump a bunch of points on firepower at the expense of operations, etc. But I want tradeoffs within the categories.

For example, I think it's rather pointless to allow a player to spec into range, rate of fire (cooldown/duration) and heat reduction all at the same time. If I choose to spec into range, my weapon should give up something in another area. It could run hotter, or maybe it has a longer cooldown (since we don't have an aim time or cone of fire on most weapons). I'm not particularly worried about whether the physics make sense, I just want the tradeoff so that you have to choose - there shouldn't be a way to "have it all".

I would also like to see tradeoffs between survivability and mobility. Adding armor and structure enhancements could make you slightly less mobile. Adding speed and turning rate might require a small armor reduction.

The tradeoffs could take the form of exclusionary branches. Once you go down the range branch you are limited on what cooldown or heat nodes you can take (for example). Or they could take the place of negative quirks that come with the positive. Spec into +10% range and you might also get a 3% increase in cooldown and heat. You could choose to spec into some skills to offset that, but it might not be worth the return. Or you could even make it so that only a certain number of points may be allocated within a category (say 20 pts max in firepower) and the best return comes further down the tree so if you really want max range getting to the last 2-3 nodes with the biggest benefit will use up all your points. Anyway, skill trees have been done well in many other games so we don't even need to reinvent the wheel. Just pick the best trees in the gaming world and apply here.

I don't expect any changes in the near term. They might not even occur in the context of MWO (maybe in a future version of the game). But if you have thoughts, comments, criticisms please chime in. I think these sorts of changes would make the game vastly more interesting by allowing you to encounter more diverse builds and play the rock/paper/scissors lottery more frequently. But maybe there are some downsides I'm missing (besides the NPE which sucks anyways).

[FupDup]

PGI tried this with the first iteration of weapon modules. Nobody used them. I would expect to see similar results here unless the penalties were lower than the advantages in magnitude.

[SFC174]

FupDup, on 06 January 2019 - 11:08 AM, said:

PGI tried this with the first iteration of weapon modules. Nobody used them. I would expect to see similar results here unless the penalties were lower than the advantages in magnitude.

Certainly, I don't think things should be 1:1 if there were negatives to go with the positives. Personally I favor just locking out parts of the tree once you proceed far enough down a certain path, along with limiting the number of points available per category to force choices. Thanks for commenting.

[FupDup]

SFC174, on 06 January 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

Certainly, I don't think things should be 1:1 if there were negatives to go with the positives. Personally I favor just locking out parts of the tree once you proceed far enough down a certain path, along with limiting the number of points available per category to force choices. Thanks for commenting.

Also keep in mind that certain quirks are inherently better than others even if the numbers are the same. For example -10% missile cooldown is hard to notice but -10% energy heat is one of the best quirks available.

If a range node gave me +1% range and +1% increased heat, it would be detrimental to equip that node. On the other hand going in the opposite direction (less range and less heat) could be a strong upgrade on some extreme-range weapons like the ERLL and ERPPC.

I'd rather that PGI just tried harder to make certain trees/nodes strong enough to justify taking so that the "opportunity cost" would actually be a thing. Right now I spec 17/20 Ops, 32/35 Surv, and 42 Firepower on virtually all of my mechs from lights to assaults with a few exceptions (main difference being prioritization of ammo nodes or velocity or laser duration depending on build).

Edited by FupDup, 06 January 2019 - 11:17 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Using pure opportunity cost to counterbalance skill tree selections leaves vanilla 'Mechs straight-up inferior and that is bad for gameplay and the NPE. Skill selections should skew stats on a build to make it better in some role at the direct expense of others.

[Koniving]

I would love a system that had drawbacks for any choices made. My "weapon variant creation system" is full of those, for example if you want greater range, you put more of the weapons weight into the barrel length, which draws away from some other aspect such as its onboard cooling system, the autoloader's allocated weight (less weight focusing here means a slower rate of fire), etc. (We're not here for my system, which is actually being designed as a mod for HBS's Battletech).

-----------

This said, if we "lock out" parts of the skill tree, this fundamentally requires that skill tree travel include "going up" as well as going down.

Even better if the skill tree had at least 2 or 3 separate starting points, which one could start from just one or all of them. Naturally the juiciest stuff should be toward the middle, and possibly have destructible bridges which "cut off" certain things if you acquire certain other things.

PGI's basic idea of 91 points (in a previous example it was 76 but there was fewer things to get as well) is their idea of limiting you.
Sadly because firepower is such a high value, its...basically required unless the mech is natively so immobile that you'd rather mech-stack it on a snail than operate it on your own power.

Y E O N N E, on 06 January 2019 - 11:23 AM, said:

Using pure opportunity cost to counterbalance skill tree selections leaves vanilla 'Mechs straight-up inferior and that is bad for gameplay and the NPE. Skill selections should skew stats on a build to make it better in some role at the direct expense of others.

I agree, but such is the nature of MWO's current skill tree setup.
In general its the nature of any "progression" system.

[Y E O N N E]

I still think a "Perks and Drawbacks" system would be most ideal for MWO. Every 'Mech would have a default value that adding skills will count toward; positive attribute modifiers count up toward the cap, negative attribute modifiers subtract away from it. You have to juggle positives and negatives to get big changes toward a role, simply adding positives toward the cap won't be enough to achieve solid differentiation. Progression can be rendered by placing an expanding limit on the total number of attributes you can assign that goes up with level.

Bam, now fresh 'Mechs are not inherently worse and we still have the required F2P grind.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

how about veterans receive 1 extra skill point per year playing then it would at least have some sort of progression as opposed to the cookie cutter system..

[FupDup]

Gorantir, on 06 January 2019 - 06:48 PM, said:

how about veterans receive 1 extra skill point per year playing then it would at least have some sort of progression as opposed to the cookie cutter system..

Noe. The current system of putting people at a temporary disadvantage when they start a mech on a new account is already kinda iffy as it is. Making it a permanent disadvantage that can never ever be caught up with is going to get an lolno from me.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Look, we are playing an FPS game with some customization in how the mech operates. Do you want to turn it into some RPG with shooty, stompy robots?

[Koniving]

FRAGTAST1C, on 06 January 2019 - 07:07 PM, said:

Look, we are playing an FPS game with some customization in how the mech operates. Do you want to turn it into some RPG with shooty, stompy robots?

They already did that with the skill tree.
What these guys are talking about is trying to undo that.
Anyone that's filled out the skill tree, regardless of how, is already level 50 versus level 1.

[Koniving]

HBS Battletech's weapon variant concept was supposed to be a setup of weapons with different properties, but instead went the RPG route of "this is blatantly better than that." "The leveled up version of AC/2+ is AC/2++" and "Oh boy that's an AC/2+++!"

MWO's basically the same thing.
Filled out the firepower tree? Welp you just filled out all the weapons to be vastly superior to any players that haven't filled it out.
So picture playing HBS BT where the other team's 4 mechs get all weapons at +++ and you only have the regular weapons, with pilots of poor accuracy as that's what it amounts to.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Koniving, on 06 January 2019 - 07:09 PM, said:

They already did that with the skill tree.
What these guys are talking about is trying to undo that.
Anyone that's filled out the skill tree, regardless of how, is already level 50 versus level 1.

No, actually the OP is referring to consequences associated with a choice, like an RPG. The way it is right now is not great, but it just dictates how one chooses to set up the way their mech operates with a limited number of options (skill points). The OP's way would mean that you'd spend time making a mech work in a very limited manner based on tighter restriction.

Koniving, on 06 January 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

So picture playing HBS BT where the other team's 4 mechs get all weapons at +++ and you only have the regular weapons, with pilots of poor accuracy as that's what it amounts to.

Yes, and with added restriction based on the OP, it'd be worse. It wouldn't be a vehicle-sim based FPS, it'd be a garbage hybrid of vehicle-sim based FPS with meaningless RPG mechanics combined with a horrendous matchmaking system.

Edited by FRAGTAST1C, 06 January 2019 - 07:18 PM.

[Koniving]

FRAGTAST1C, on 06 January 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

No, actually the OP is referring to consequences associated with a choice, like an RPG. The way it is right now is not great, but it just dictates how one chooses to set up the way their mech operates with a limited number of options (skill points). The OP's way would mean that you'd spend time making a mech work in a very limited manner based on tighter restriction.

RPG level up systems do not include consequences.

You're thinking of a story board, not an RPG combat system.

Story-driven choices with consequences are in many kinds of games and typically are not usually found in actual RPGs.

(Some recent open world RPGs not-withstanding of course, they are not the norm just a trend.)

[FRAGTAST1C]

Koniving, on 06 January 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

RPG level up systems do not include consequences.

Seriously, just stop. You'll end up like the Deepak Chopra of MWO soon if you don't.

[Koniving]

For example, in every FF before (and after) FFX, (not including 15) you leveled up linearly and you simply go from being weak and easy to kill to stronger and stronger, until any enemy that took a struggle like early game bosses are slain in a single hit.

That's an RPG level up system.

You're thinking narrative choices (present in almost everything, including Ace Combat which is a jet fighter game.)

FRAGTAST1C, on 06 January 2019 - 07:20 PM, said:

Seriously, just stop. You'll end up like the Deepak Chopra of MWO soon if you don't.

I'm explaining the difference between an actual RPG system and what you're thinking of.
Its not my fault you don't know what you're actually talking about.

Anyway what they're talking about is instead of a level up system where you just improve with no consequence, they want to introduce "If I get better range... I can't have better heat."

That'd be like playing Final Fantasy 7 and if you improve your physical attacks, now magic spells cost 1.3x more points.

You're thinking narrative choices, like in Metal Gear Solid V.. Shoot Quiet or don't shoot Quiet. That is not an RPG system.

Edited by Koniving, 06 January 2019 - 07:25 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Koniving, on 06 January 2019 - 07:22 PM, said:

I'm explaining the difference between an actual RPG system and what you're thinking of.
Its not my fault you don't know what you're actually talking about.

Read the OP and then talk about what my intended reply to it was.

[Koniving]

FRAGTAST1C, on 06 January 2019 - 07:29 PM, said:

Read the OP and then talk about what my intended reply to it was.

I get that, but to say it'd be like an RPG is incorrect.
In fact by an RPG's inherent nature, choices do not actually matter. And in RPG combat systems you simply level up and get better without drawbacks.


(this is not an RPG...or an RPG combat system.)


(This an RPG and RPG combat system... notice; level up with no consequences regardless of choice; bring everything to 100 and be better than everything.)

I know what you meant though. Moving on.

Edited by Koniving, 06 January 2019 - 07:40 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Koniving, on 06 January 2019 - 07:37 PM, said:

I get that, but to say it'd be like an RPG is incorrect.
In fact by an RPG's inherent nature, choices do not actually matter. And in RPG combat systems you simply level up and get better without drawbacks.


(This an RPG and RPG combat system... notice; level up with no consequences regardless of choice; bring everything to 100 and be better than everything.)

I know what you meant though. Moving on.

Haha, Skyrim... RPG hahahaha oohh, that was funny. Pffff... Hahahahahahahaha Skyrim.... hahahaaaaaaaaa*wheeze*

[SFC174]

FRAGTAST1C, on 06 January 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

No, actually the OP is referring to consequences associated with a choice, like an RPG. The way it is right now is not great, but it just dictates how one chooses to set up the way their mech operates with a limited number of options (skill points). The OP's way would mean that you'd spend time making a mech work in a very limited manner based on tighter restriction.

Yes, and with added restriction based on the OP, it'd be worse. It wouldn't be a vehicle-sim based FPS, it'd be a garbage hybrid of vehicle-sim based FPS with meaningless RPG mechanics combined with a horrendous matchmaking system.

I think you're missing the intent here. If you want to compare to other vehicle based sim/shooters look at World or Tanks/Warships. Both offer crew/captain skills as well as vehicle module/equipment choices. I wouldn't mind having both in MWO, but really we're more of a vehicle module/equipment game as it is right now.

In Wargaming's titles, you get limited choices as to what you want to improve on your vehicle. In some cases its simply that if you choose module X, you can no longer choose module Y. So you might have to choose between radar or a smoke screen (sensor range vs. detectability). In other cases a module (such as WoW new legendary modules) offer a really big improvement in one area, but sacrifice in other areas. You might gain range and reload on your guns, but your turret traverse speed is nerfed.

If you have a mech that is already quirked in a particular way, you might choose skills that enhance that quirk but begin to cost you in some other areas. Or you might leave the quirked skills alone and enhance the mech in other areas to create a more well rounded setup. When facing that mech in game, the enemy won't be sure which way you've chosen to build it until they engage with you, and as a pilot you'll have to play to your mech's strengths (which we already do). There will still be meta builds and min/maxing, but it would open up a lot more interesting opportunities IMO.

The Skill Tree as it stands now is tedious and dull and, as others have pointed out, can be pretty much spec'd the same way on most mechs with minor tweaks and be reasonably effective. There aren't really any tradeoffs for most builds which means its pretty much just an XP grind. I think it can be better.