6 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Let me clarify the title.

Right now you grind your way through all the mech efficiencies to get to the top and an extra module plus a heap of bonuses for your mech. Most mechs feel quite clunky before you fully upgrade, and quite frankly are way better - you feel at a disadvantage taking a new mech out.

This is in place so the system has some grind to it. This is essential in an F2P game, i have no issue with that at all. It is nice unlocking stuff and upgrading, that is part of the fun, though hard to balance.

What I propose is to keep the same system, but modify the system slightly so you do not lose the incentive to grind all the way to the top, but to reduce the huge differential between a new mech and a buffed mech.

Not only this, but this idea will give pilots an even more interesting time when planning their mech build and **** in more role warfare aspects.

So what is it?

Keep everything the same in terms of how to unlock the efficiencies, but instead of getting ALL of the efficiencies, you can only choose a limited number per tier to be turned on.

What does this mean?

Suddenly you must choose. Do you want greater cooling capacity, or do you want to be more agile? Do you want to be faster, or do you want greater aiming capacity?

You are in a game of trade offs and choices that will blend well with the kind of mech you want, but does not just make your mech better in every way. Tactical choices, not just upgrades.

There are some issues with this approach.

Not all efficiencies are created equal. Some cost more XP to unlock than other obviously showing they are superior. This might be addressed by simply buffing or toning down each til they are roughly equal. The other option which is more complex might be to have some sort of efficiency meter so you could choose more of the cheaper ones or less of the more expensive ones - but that is not elegant design.

What about the grind?

People would still grind because there are advantages to grinding. You need to grind to get to master a chassis, that system still stays in place. You eventually HAVE to get all the efficiencies, but you do not get to use them all all the time. People will still grind because they have to if they want to **** out thier main ride just as we do now.

In short grinding is not effected and the business model/time sink stays in place.

Optional Extras:

Things I would love to see but I do not think PGI would ever consider.

1. Make each chassis have different efficiencies, or at least partially different efficiencies. Or at least change the XP requirements for different chassis to reflect their intended role.

2. Make efficiencies a REAL trade off. Each one comes with a negative. So if you want speed tweak, you must lose some mech agility. If you wan better dissapation, you might lose your total heat cap, or vice versa. You want greater agility? Prepare to lose some speed or something else. If you had two efficiencies that seem to equalise though, the total bonus would be slightly greater than the negative so it is still useful.

What say you community?

[Mechteric]

You should probably make the poll single choice instead of multiple choice since picking two answers would conflict with each other.

Also it appears what you are suggesting is that of a restrictive skill tree, and in the latest ask the devs post they answered with:

Quote

BFett: In Dev Blog 3 it states that "Each BattleMech chassis has its own pool of XP and custom Tech Tree. At certain branch points in the BattleMech Tech Tree, a Pilot Point is awarded to the player." When can we expect to see pilot points in the game, and if they are not being implemented then what can we expect to see for more customized play?
A: I have answered this question a few times. We moved away from trees, in favor of the current system, which affords the player more choice.

http://mwomercs.com/...red/page__st__0


Now the part of their answer "more choice" I think is only half correct since all skills can be had, so the only choice you have is in which order you get them. But at least with their current design you don't have to worry about making the wrong decision as you would have in a tree design where you could only go down one path or another. Its better in that your mech's loadout define its role, rather than which skills you decided to go down. Especially better because many mechs can carry vastly different loadouts in a single variant, so if you were binded to one path on a tree you would be restrained from choosing a different one (e.g. PPC/LRM awesome versus Laser/SRM awesome).

[Deathlike]

The game as currently constituted could probably need it. However, you can imagine the people griping about some of this because if you remove some of the efficiencies that they are used to (like coolrun and heat containment) but something that is less noticeable until you don't have it (like kinetic speed/hard brake).. it would be far less pleasant.

Overall, some of the underlying issues are tied to the entire efficiencies tree in general, so this would require serious reworking.

[Neolisk]

Right now efficiencies give an unfair advantage to people who played a lot against those who just started. Fully upgraded mech will beat a non-upgraded hands down. In most cases, even 1v2 or 1v3. This is not right. I think that efficiencies should not provide such a big advantage. Increase LRM dmg by 10% - maybe, but increase torso twist so that it's just not enough to chase a light without it - no. In any case, it would help to have a level metric, which for the current setup will determine the number of upgrades puchased (very simple to implement). Level 10 player should never play against Level 1. Even if it's your second mech, and you excelled in your old chassis.

[Deathlike]

Efficiencies in general are very dramatic IMO and really need to be revamped wholly, one way or another.

I've said this before, and I guess I'll repeat it.

The best way (at the moment IMO) efficiencies should work better at their base.. being increased by 33%. Then they can be further increased by 50%. The numbers will work out to be in the same in the end, so those having the basic efficiencies would not be handicapped too much if they do not bother to fully elite the mech.

1 * 1.33 = 1.33 * 1.5 = ~2

[Asmudius Heng]

CapperDeluxe, on 20 May 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

You should probably make the poll single choice instead of multiple choice since picking two answers would conflict with each other.

Also it appears what you are suggesting is that of a restrictive skill tree, and in the latest ask the devs post they answered with:


http://mwomercs.com/...red/page__st__0


Now the part of their answer "more choice" I think is only half correct since all skills can be had, so the only choice you have is in which order you get them. But at least with their current design you don't have to worry about making the wrong decision as you would have in a tree design where you could only go down one path or another. Its better in that your mech's loadout define its role, rather than which skills you decided to go down. Especially better because many mechs can carry vastly different loadouts in a single variant, so if you were binded to one path on a tree you would be restrained from choosing a different one (e.g. PPC/LRM awesome versus Laser/SRM awesome).

Perhaps i did not explain myself well enough - I am also opposed to skill trees for the same reasons you outlined. What I am suggesting is more similar to how they do modules at the moment. You level your mech up to gain access to efficiencies, but then you can only turn ON a limited number of these efficiencies at a time. It would be free to swicth your efficiencies around match to match also so you are never stuck at all.

This way the more you level your mech the more options you have, but not more straight up POWER.

This way you can choose the efficiencies that would benefit the role you build your mech for, but not every mech becomes THAT much better than its base design.

This encourages tactical choices without locking anyone into a 'tree', while still encouraging people to grind out to the top.

[Asmudius Heng]

Deathlike, on 20 May 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

The game as currently constituted could probably need it. However, you can imagine the people griping about some of this because if you remove some of the efficiencies that they are used to (like coolrun and heat containment) but something that is less noticeable until you don't have it (like kinetic speed/hard brake).. it would be far less pleasant.

Overall, some of the underlying issues are tied to the entire efficiencies tree in general, so this would require serious reworking.

I agree somewhat, the efficiencies are poorly thought out and thats is why I offered this compromise basically.

However people bitching about change - well that will always happen. Happens every patch when they change weapons, I don't see how it would cause any more rage changing this as everyone gets the same hit of change. They need to do this before they launch also because I be things become set in stone after that.

I would hope more people would like this change as it give another level of thought to building your mech - I see this as your techs tweaking your machine, but like most things in engineering, you cannot get straight up bonuses for everything, there are trade offs.

Deathlike, on 20 May 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Efficiencies in general are very dramatic IMO and really need to be revamped wholly, one way or another.

I've said this before, and I guess I'll repeat it.

The best way (at the moment IMO) efficiencies should work better at their base.. being increased by 33%. Then they can be further increased by 50%. The numbers will work out to be in the same in the end, so those having the basic efficiencies would not be handicapped too much if they do not bother to fully elite the mech.

1 * 1.33 = 1.33 * 1.5 = ~2

The issue with changing how the power works is you are still adding power. PGI seem to like the idea of options with modules so this is a way to curb power - but give people a reason to grind as it gives more options for customisation. That is where MWO can find a good F2P compromise I believe where people grind for many options to customise rather than straight up power which is death to F2P games.