19 replies to this topic

[Chouzin]

Things such as heat are now .33%___ This basically makes optimization useless! Petition to buff the tree_

[DarkPulse]

I think a good deal of the players (especially the long-timers) feel that the nerfs are too sharp compared to earlier betas.

Pretty sure devs have gotten the message by now.

[defekt]

Yup, vertical progression systems blow goats with reckless abandon.  Loud and clear I expect.  

[D3thpool]

In the earlier cbes i would feel a difference in game putting points in the defense tree or offense.
Now i dont really feel any change at all during play.

So,yes buff please (atleast a little)

[Silk_Sk]

I've posted a thread that directly compares the trees of CB1 and CB2. I thought the numbers were small before but holy fuzzy bunny these were some huge nerfs.

http://community.pla...ee-comparision/

[D20Face]

I still think it needs nerfed.

[Hipnox]

The problem with the tech tree is that it gives buffs to experienced players mechs, which is unfair to new players mechs. It is unfair by concept.

The tech tree (or at least a large portion of it) should be enabled for all mechs from the get go. Have each mech start with 10 points and add 1 more for each level or something.

Right now you have this problem:

Option a > Buff tech tree:

• Results in balancing and "fairness" issues. High lvl mechs get too much of an advantage over low level ones. Unfair to new players.
  
• Widens the gap between an old mech and a new one. Discourages buying new mechs.
  
• Need more grinding to be competitive (see above item)

Option b> Nerf tech tree or leave it as it is:

• No real feel of progression. bonuses too small to be felt in game.

Both are bad

[Silk_Sk]

Hipnox, on November 22 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

The problem with the tech tree is that it gives buffs to experienced players mechs, which is unfair to new players mechs. It is unfair by concept.

The tech tree (or at least a large portion of it) should be enabled for all mechs from the get go. Have each mech start with 10 points and add 1 more for each level or something.

That's actually a fantastic idea. We need to get the devs to see that. I'd also appreciate them giving back the buffs from CB2.

Edited by Silk_Sk, November 22 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[defekt]

I suppose discussions along these lines divide the interested parties into one of two camps: supporters of vertical progression and supporters of horizontal progression.  Currently CB3 is an awkward mix of both which doesn't really work thus we see an Optimization tree that doesn't yet know it wants to be.  Chances are that CB3 is merely a snapshot of a system in transition so it is going to be a bit confused, but just in case that isn't what's going on I'd say that the game needs to stop trying to please everyone, choose which camp it wants to belong to and invest in it fully with no awkward half-measures.  I know which camp I'd prefer the game to sign up to but I'm just one voice amongst many.

[Coot]

They've said that the whole progression system is being re-done, so I assume they just lowered all the stats as a placeholder to make it so lvl20s don't dominate as what was happening in CB2.

Last betas % and +attributes gave certain mechs (infiltrators) a night and day performance boost.

[defekt]

Coot, on November 22 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

They've said that the whole progression system is being re-done, so I assume they just lowered all the stats as a placeholder to make it so lvl20s don't dominate as what was happening in CB2.

This is the thought that I'm clinging to as well.

[Crimson_Corsair]

Coot, on November 22 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

They've said that the whole progression system is being re-done, so I assume they just lowered all the stats as a placeholder to make it so lvl20s don't dominate as what was happening in CB2.

Last betas % and +attributes gave certain mechs (infiltrators) a night and day performance boost.

If that is the case, just get rid of it and put in a "placeholder" graphic. maybe something that hints at changes to come.

I say keep optimizations as they are (or were in earlier versions), but get them out of the leveling mechanic. It gives some leeway in modifying playstyle.
For mech leveling the sidegrades come into play, further adjusting what you did in the tree or changing game mechanics to further suit your style.

Either that or get rid of them altogether.

[Snoof]

I think as part of "progression" each individual mech should have level requirements for EVERYTHING, as in internals, support items etc. This requires people to more effort into it rather than popping cash into the game, while at the same time it gives them the ability to use the bits n pieces once unlocked because you put money into the game instead of earning it, how about every hardcore UT veteran's favorite, the survival mode, bots are there, can easily be told to "just kill those guys", and to go along with some crazy fun map design, have em pour in from left, right and center upon a bunch of people and you know it is bound make things a heck lot more fun, the rewards from these would have to be mediocre in comparison to pvp matches, unless players reach wave 1000 or something like that, there is no limit as to what the devs can do, all it takes is careful planning, a good example of survival mode is siege maps but instead of having 2 base spawns and an AA, replace all those with same EU sites, or perhaps missile launcher sites, make them heal the mechs under it at a fair rate, spreading between all mechs under it, which forces the "healthy" mechs to come out of their safety zone to allow hastened healing to more injured teammates, and allow the points of interest to cool the weapons rapidly, then make it so that only one site is active for about 30 seconds, before the group has to move to a completely different site, all while getting stomped on by bots.

[Immie]

IMO, unless optimizations are completely overhauled, they should be brought up to double or triple the values they were in CB1/2, and made available to all mechs from the start, without any progression.

Keep in mind, even after all that, you'd still be unable to get more than a 10-20% boost to the stats you were putting points into. Right now, they're so trivial they may as well not exist, except for that small unnecessary edge they give to high level players.

Edited by Immie, November 28 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[DM30]

I'd also say that allowing some tree customization right from the get go would be a good idea, but I do feel that there needs to be some sort of a progression to keep players engaged more.

An idea that randomly popped into my head would be to have a set number of tech points that never changes to use in the tree right off the bat (with the values set to something that actually has something of an effect), and then have it that levelling up the mech unlocks new, specialized options in the tree to put points into. So, for example, say that "increase all weapon damage" skill would be locked until a certain level, but then upon unlocking it you get an actual significant boost in damage (maybe 10%, just throwing numbers out there, don't take it as a serious value) at the cost of a chunk of your armour strength and/or movement speed.

I dunno, didn't put too much thought into the idea, but as it is the skill trees definitely still need work.

Edited by DM30, November 28 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[Crayyon]

Way I see it, the whole problem with the optimizations tree (aside from the values currently being weak) is the way points are unlocked. As it is, high lvl mechs have a straight up advantage over lower lvl mechs (compounded with lvled up weapons), but optimizations should really be more about customizing your mech to your play style, not simply becoming more powerful.

I like the idea of starting a mech out with 10 points and rewarding more per level, but I would suggest going even a bit further. Have each mech start with a full predetermined build, specific to each mech or each chassis size, and then as you lvl up you gain more freedom to alter that build as you like.

Not really sure of how well this would work, but just throwing it out there. The way optimizations were handled in alpha 2 was a big part of what drew me into this game (for those that remember)

[z121231211]

I think it should be buffed to be noticeable, but have everyone start with 15 Points and work their way to 25. Then just have the difference between maxing a tree and putting 15 points in a tree be like 3%-5% or something. So it'd be like it is now, where the difference between a level 20 mech and a level 0 mech is about 3%-6% increases, but still feel like there's a point to them.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Vertical progression that makes a person more powerful just because they have played longer is bad. I'm no fan of tiny useless buffs that mind as well not be there, but it's better than vertical progression.
And besides, this is temporary while they are trying to work on a more horizontal optimization system, that gives variety, not power.

[defekt]

To echo the point, an Optimization tree that stacked buffs would be fine only if everyone started with a full set of points to allocate therein.

It’s far too late in the day to theorycraft about this but I’m going to do it anyway, because I like theorycrafting.  If you’re not interested in theorycrafting then save yourself some blood pressure and don’t bother to read on.

Picture it, a three category Optimization tree as it is now with the exception that each category had no branches, you put points in at the top and they all trickle down vertically.  Players all begin with the maximum set of points, but as is the case with the current tree those points are only enough to reach the bottom in one category.  Factor in mech level by opening up branches on either side of each core category stack but do not award more points.  With a bit of careful tree construction this would mean that experience opens up more options without merely granting more power.

For example, lets take the top few rows of an illustrative, mini-Mobility category as seen at mech level 0:-
Tier 1:....[+1m/s Dodge (0/3)].........[+0.5m/s Walk (3/3)]......[+0.5m/s Acceleration (0/3)]
Tier2:.....[+10m Radar (0/2)]...........[-5m Signature (2/2)].....[+20 EU (0/2)]  
Tier3:.....[+1 Fuel Regen (0/1)].......[+3 Fuel (1/1)]................[+2m/s Boost (0/1)]

At level 0 the player has points enough to reach the bottom of this table but crucially, at mech level 0, only the green column is available.  As the player gains mech levels (s)he is given the option to unlock one red buff and reallocate his points within that tier if (s)he so chooses.  For example, let’s say that after some mech levels have been gained, and some new Optimizations have been unlocked, the above table might look something more like this:-
Tier 1:.....[+1m/s Dodge (0/3)].........[+0.5m/s Walk (1/3)].......[+0.5m/s Acceleration (2/3)]
Tier2:......[+10m Radar (1/2)]...........[-5m Signature (1/2)]......[+20 EU (0/2)]  
Tier3:......[+1 Fuel Regen (0/1)].......[+3 Fuel (1/1)].................[+2m/s Boost (0/1)]

Edit: come on, you knew this would happen.

Edited by defekt, November 29 2012 - 05:06 AM.

[LunaticCalm]

Yup, hawken is in a weird mix of vertical and horizontal progression. The devs need to either decide to go vertical, which requires the matchmaker to take mech level into account (not sure how that works with peoples ability to switch mechs at will in game),  or horizontal, which allows the matchmaker to be open but requires that all progression mechanisms (weapon levels,  optimization trees, etc.) be all converted to tradeoffs instead of improvements.