200 replies to this topic

[bobthebomb]

i'd like something like that.

• one choice for each level
  
• asymmetric bonus : each variant get different option
  
• underplayed chassis could be improved here (same for useless variant)
  
• re-spe with mc or grind a new mech for different build (maybe too hard)

i hope this image appear

[FrostPaw]

On the subject of "no choices" for skill trees.

After 13 years of mmo gaming I have discovered that gamers mostly do not want choice if that choice could potentially differentiate them from others. I see this because as soon as you get choice, people demand the ability to respec that choice, thus proving they want what everyone else has, otherwise they cry.

Conclusion, choice is an illusion people like to think they have while maintaining an equal chance in all areas. Thus no meaningful choice can exist. People think choices are great, only if they choose what everyone else thinks is best.

Nobody wants to be different anymore, they just want to be the best flavor of the month to limit possible causes of failure.

[MrCleanSweep]

You have to admit its not a totally bad XP system just annoyingly general in regards to your mech skills. I agree with Noth that the Module system is what really makes the mechs distinct, hopefully theyll add much more module choice specifically weapons based modules :)Youll have to grind anyways so this is good for grinding lols no OP advantages cept pilot skill or bugs.Remember the skill system as is isnt permanent but also remember that its a Free to Play game thus they cant fix everything right away or make changes fast and they also gotta make money too

[Draco Argentum]

Ultrabeast, on 12 November 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I like it. I've posted a few times saying the same thing. The skill trees now are kind of bleh, don't really do anything. It would be great to have the choice between different trees, like let's say you have a brawler atlas and can choose offense, defense, or support tree:

That sort of thing. But without fixed trees. A tree is more work to create than a simple menu of options given the same number of builds available. Players also tend to demand that the last ability in a tree be more powerful, further reducing viable builds. Just letting people pick from a small menu of quite distinct abilities should be more varied and more satisfying.

Although thats really a discussion for the other thread.

MustrumRidcully, on 12 November 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I am really favoring the approach of efficiencies also as some kin of module - slottable skills really give the most variety and never allows you to say "I am maxxed out": There is always something to tinker with.

Quite possibly one of the greatest strength from Startrek Online - the Bridge Officer powers. Even if you could max the skill tree and have the best gear, you are still switching around BOFFs.

This is the feel I'm going for. You should be able to tinker with your picks and doing so should be worth doing depending on what the rest of your team is doing.

[Elder Thorn]

i'd just like to add, that i am undecided on the poll.

The Problem i see is, that some people are allready running out of options and things to progress towards and might lose interest in the game, when there isn't enough new stuff to try out, or CW to take part in.
Yes, yes, i know, its beta, not release and we should expect CW upon release, just saying what i am spectating and experiencing atm

So there should be more stuff available to do with the XP

Edited by Elder Thorn, 12 November 2012 - 11:31 PM.

[twibs]

I think this actually might be a game where choices would be different, due to the nature of the hardpoint system.

You can make your mech close up brawler, so then speed would be quite obvious. More long range fighter would opt for more heat skills.

The current system is just so unintuitive.

[Protection]

bobthebomb, on 12 November 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

i'd like something like that.

• one choice for each level
  
• asymmetric bonus : each variant get different option
  
• underplayed chassis could be improved here (same for useless variant)
  
• re-spe with mc or grind a new mech for different build (maybe too hard)

i hope this image appear

I like any solution that offers players more choices and more diversity.

I also want the Pilot XP stuff to be a little more engaging: chassis specific bonuses seem like a step in the right direction. Things like weapon convergence or arm speed is really hard to notice and appreciate. If we spend several thousand experience on a skill, it should be something we see and appreciate.

[WhiteCatInsurgency]

No no no no no no no no... NO.......... NOO

Skill trees will just lead to cookie cutter builds, waste dev time and give new people something extra to learn that offers them no advantage just equal ground. NO.

Options in mechwarrior come from custimisation .. not freekin skill trees. GET OUT! Stop wasting everyones time.

[Protection]

WhiteCatInsurgency, on 13 November 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

No no no no no no no no... NO.......... NOO

Skill trees will just lead to cookie cutter builds, waste dev time and give new people something extra to learn that offers them no advantage just equal ground. NO.

Options in mechwarrior come from custimisation .. not freekin skill trees. GET OUT! Stop wasting everyones time.

Cookie cutter builds like the 6 Slas Jenner and the Gausscat?

What we have now are cookie cutter builds. Mechs like the Raven and Centurion and Dragon are avoided like the plague in competitive games, and most teams that have tried something outside the "accepted competitive builds" have met with disaster.

If anything, skill trees would start putting some diversity into competitive lineups. Players might have some options in their builds. You are never going to get rid of cookie cutters - what we want is a large selection of cookie cutters to choose from.

(and considering we won both closed beta tournaments, I think that's a pretty solid ground to be considered a definitive source on that)

[Cole Allard]

Ok...ok..you will all hate me for this.This sound snobbish....but I agree on the XP Tree as it is now.

I have like two answer to this that I cant really decide on:

1.) as a roleplayer...in the Battletech universe...owning 1 Battlemech is something more then special. You would give this mech to your son, he to his son and so on. Owning like 12 Mechs is...not seen? A one man merc-unit? So...the roleplayer in me agrees this XP Tree is an obvious Timesink.

2) as a player that has no problem in contributing a handfull $ each month for fluff, I need to tell you that you dont have to pilot any mech you dont want to pilot...you can change GXP with MC. Yes you will have to own the mech, what is a day or two of work and then you simply take the XP from your mech and put it on the one you dont wanna pilot...done.

IF you now want to master a Mech with it variants...as a 100% F2P player...yes, mastering a mech should be difficult...and I mean Difficult like in "hell of a grind and I dont see the light at the end of the tunnel".

[Protection]

Cole Allard, on 13 November 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Ok...ok..you will all hate me for this.This sound snobbish....but I agree on the XP Tree as it is now.

I have like two answer to this that I cant really decide on:

1.) as a roleplayer...in the Battletech universe...owning 1 Battlemech is something more then special. You would give this mech to your son, he to his son and so on. Owning like 12 Mechs is...not seen? A one man merc-unit? So...the roleplayer in me agrees this XP Tree is an obvious Timesink.

Pretty sure there are already dozens of players with 12+ Mastered mechs who haven't spent any MC except for the mech bays.

So that argument is out.

Quote

2) as a player that has no problem in contributing a handfull $ each month for fluff, I need to tell you that you dont have to pilot any mech you dont want to pilot...you can change GXP with MC. Yes you will have to own the mech, what is a day or two of work and then you simply take the XP from your mech and put it on the one you dont wanna pilot...done.

IF you now want to master a Mech with it variants...as a 100% F2P player...yes, mastering a mech should be difficult...and I mean Difficult like in "hell of a grind and I dont see the light at the end of the tunnel".

I'm actually not even sure you are understanding the argument. No one is arguing for a more difficult grind, or arguing against MC XP conversion.

The argument is that the tree is boring, flat, linear, and filled with mostly generic, boring, barely noticeable nonspecific upgrades. We want something more dynamic and that offers players more choices and more options.

[WhiteCatInsurgency]

Protection, on 13 November 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

Cookie cutter builds like the 6 Slas Jenner and the Gausscat?

What we have now are cookie cutter builds. Mechs like the Raven and Centurion and Dragon are avoided like the plague in competitive games, and most teams that have tried something outside the "accepted competitive builds" have met with disaster.

If anything, skill trees would start putting some diversity into competitive lineups. Players might have some options in their builds. You are never going to get rid of cookie cutters - what we want is a large selection of cookie cutters to choose from.

(and considering we won both closed beta tournaments, I think that's a pretty solid ground to be considered a definitive source on that)

Flavour of the month mech builds are not the same as cookie cutter skill builds. I'll be generous and say they are for a second they are the same, at which point it only makes balancing and preventing such a build from being fixed even harder. Due to having not only the mech and its components but also skill trees to rework. This really isnt hard to get as to why its a bad road to go down.

Its also alot easier to add more things to the game when you dont have to worry yet again about skill builds and their effects on the introduced item. All it does is slow down progress and balancing.

[Protection]

WhiteCatInsurgency, on 13 November 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Flavour of the month mech builds are not the same as cookie cutter skill builds. I'll be generous and say they are for a second they are the same, at which point it only makes balancing and preventing such a build from being fixed even harder. Due to having not only the mech and its components but also skill trees to rework. This really isnt hard to get as to why its a bad road to go down.

Its also alot easier to add more things to the game when you dont have to worry yet again about skill builds and their effects on the introduced item. All it does is slow down progress and balancing.

I guess we feel differently on that. I feel like well balanced, divergent choices would open up more avenues to make a wider selection of builds viable, not fewer.

[SPARTAN 104]

you should have been here when the 2 Heat skills in the 1st tree were 5k a piece. Those were good times. >.>

[MustrumRidcully]

Protection, on 13 November 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

I guess we feel differently on that. I feel like well balanced, divergent choices would open up more avenues to make a wider selection of builds viable, not fewer.

Exactly. Balanced, divergent choices is where it's at.

Not every build needs to be viable, but every ability must be viable for some builds. Yes, it's hard to create abilitis and equipment that is sufficiently balanced to achieve t hat, but if you don't, you are just having abilities in your system that no one utilizes if he knows what he's doing.

[InfiniteChaos]

I sort of look at the possibilities for the XP system in a different way. When they release the meta game and have the full 3048-3049 system map and concurrent technology game going, use the XP for the new tech in the Battletech universe. Say for instance if an Atlas or Catapult pilot grinds up Gaus Rifles, then allow them to unlock a light Gaus Rifle, then a Heavy Gaus Rifle, then the mini Gaus Rifle. If a pilot grinds up with the LB 10-X AC, then they should get to eventually unlock HAG 40. On the lighter mechs, then a slightly different route could be used. For instance, if somebody is constantly using ECM effectively (getting XP based on battlefield tactics) then they could use that XP for advancing their ECM module(s).

Start looking at XP at a slightly different way. You already differentiate the XP a pilot gets when in a match from the damage they did, to spotting, to component destruction, salvage, etc...
Apply those separate XP's into the various fields:

Damage XP: Current Weapon Proficiencies -> to unlock advanced weapons (i.e. If their using PPC, then they wouldnt get any XP in Gaus Rifles)
Spotting XP: To unlock commander modules & abilities
Capture XP: To unlock capture abilities (reduce time, add C-Bill to win, etc...)
Salvage XP: To unlock reduced re-arm & repair costs

What this will do:
Allow people to open tech trees to specialize their mech for a certain play style or a particular purpose.
Give people a goal to work towards instead of simply accumulating xp to apply in an endless pool.
Allow more customization of their mech (i.e. you wouldn't see too many players apply gaus rifle specialties on a commando...... or would you once you opened a mini Gaus? )


A tech tree for a specific chassis should NOT carry over to another chassis. If they want to get a HAG 40 on their Atlas after getting it on their catapult, then they would have to start from scratch.

Edited by InfiniteChaos, 13 November 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[Sam Slade]

There appears to be no argument against a 'skills tree' leading to cookie cuter building. This is, in and of itself, a justifiable reason to forgo a skills tree or any measure of selective advancement. This is not a WoW character level up grind, you don't need to 'level cap' to be competitive. PvP in games like WoW has little to do with skill and tactics and a lot to do having the best gear for your 'cookie cutter' build(this has been the case since Neverwinter Nights).

Introducing a selective advancement model will require a whole new area be 'weapon balanced' and will undermine the true area of customization; the mech lab. Comparisons to Hawken are immediately defunct due to Hawkens manifest lack of a mech lab as most people understand it. Hawken's mech lab can be compared quite easily to WoW character advancement as they are very very similar in principal: the result is Hawken already being math-mapped into 'best viable build' territory.

As to a select few mechs being competitive... this(see quote) is misleading

Protection, on 13 November 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

What we have now are cookie cutter builds. Mechs like the Raven and Centurion and Dragon are avoided like the plague in competitive games, and most teams that have tried something outside the "accepted competitive builds" have met with disaster.

If anything, skill trees would start putting some diversity into competitive lineups. Players might have some options in their builds. You are never going to get rid of cookie cutters - what we want is a large selection of cookie cutters to choose from.

(and considering we won both closed beta tournaments, I think that's a pretty solid ground to be considered a definitive source on that)

In that bit of competitive play there really wasn't anything in the way of ewar, there was no Artemis and a large portion of the player base didn't take part. But more importantly; the mechs you named is 'duds' are mechs that are used and used in organized Unit vs Unit play to great effect. In a word it comes back to tactics and how your style of play relates to the tactical options each chassis offers. The Dragon may be a dud to you but to others it may fill a niche role perfectly.

TLDR: Selective advancement is a proven path to stagnation, keep the real variance in the mech lab and in the minds of tactical players... not in the "I grinded for two weeks to get uber-boss loot camp".

Edited by Sam Slade, 13 November 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I myself find the XP system appalling.

Some numbers to chew on:

1 FULL tier basic: 14,250 XP. Do this 3 times for Elite: 42,750 XP. They are joking right? Even with my Founders perks, this is an obscene amount of XP. Worse yet when you add:

1 FULL tier ELITE: 21,500 XP. Do this 3 times for MASTER: 64,500. Got to be a joke, just has to be.

1 MASTER: 21,500..... really? Up from 10k during CLOSED Beta. This does not even factor in, PILOT tree xp, which is PURE GXP, which, if you want it in a hurry, is MC, which, is $$. Not saying this is a blatent grab for money, but, looks that way.

Worse yet? ALL mech XP boxes, are the SAME no matter the mech. So, you have 2 things going on here. Those who are fighting in all stock skill mechs, and those who are in group 2, fighting in all perked out mechs. No variety.

Thirdrail, on 12 November 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

I don't want skill trees, because that will inevitably lead to the "right" and "wrong" way to choose skills, like every other game with skill trees. They were smart to avoid that in a tactical game, in my opinion.

I hate that every mech has the same skill buckets. Couldn't there be variance between light, medium, heavy, and assault, at least?

Modules are the worst. 15000 gxp for a 15% capture speed bonus (wow, let me log out and organize a parade!) so that you can then spend SIX MILLION on the device itself. Really? That goofy little thing I spent a hundred hours earning needs to cost more than most medium mechs? And it's not like it's even a blanket effect. That buys you one module, which you then have to move around from mech to mech because it's a single object. I could see it if the bonus was something like +50% capture speed, but +15% doesn't really change the way anything plays out in the game. With these incredibly tiny maps, any fast mech can still get from one base to the other in far less time than it will take you to cap a base. That is ridiculously expensive, in terms of both GXP and money, for what it's doing. For six million, it should come with an autographed picture of Lee Majors for your cockpit.

its all the WRONG way to build mechs, simply because, sadly, you gotta get ALL the boxes 3 TIMES to move up a tier.

[BlackSquirrel]

Keep this up here. It's been said for months and months no word back... I understand new content and project deadlines or deliverable but the XP system is also content.

AND!! In the grand scheme of things a lot less work than say a map/mechs. Hell the community its self has come up with many ways of doing it differently. Slightly irksome to keep having this ignored.

Tress should also unlock other variants... COUGH COUGH THE BETTER ONES!!!

Edited by BlackSquirrel, 13 November 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[Lonestar1771]

It's shameful. I have like 74,000 chassis xp for my founders Atlas because I don't feel the need to improve past the basic "inefficiencies". They all go unnoticed and un-felt and seem tacked on like an after thought. Why waste money and time piloting other variants when you can do just fine with out the efficiencies. We want ROLE WARFARE with separate ROLES that offer DIFFERENT skills and bonuses. Nothing about the current system is fun, engaging or worthwhile.