283 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

In what way does GXP cost you real money?

GXP will cost money for new players at some point because of how slow GXP accrues, if not money then a stupid amount of time to build because of again, how slow it accrues. That said, really the only "resource" that matters should be c-bills.

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

If there is no time requirement for getting all the resources you'll ever need, how exactly is a F2P game supposed to ensure there are always opponents available for everyone to play against?

Where did I suggest otherwise? I'm pretty sure I said this, with the important part bolded:

Quote

Resources have one focus in a F2P PvP game, slowing down the access of content to the point where you are encouraged to spend money to avoid all that (so you have the time vs money trade-off).

Seems to me you have a serious problem with misrepresenting arguments.

Quote

You do realize that this "lack of GXP" problem is not universal, right? Most players are not in your situation. They don't have several hundred mechs. They aren't planning on near constant tinkering with nodes of dozens of them.

Sounds like a large assumption on your part.

Quote

The game must have mechanics in place that encourage as many players as possible (free and paying) to play as often as possible.

Thanks captain obvious, I didn't know that.......
Why do exactly do you think this helps the NPE? Myself and others have tried to point out that this tries to monetize customization in an antagonistic way which could likely turn off new players (kinda like an energy mechanic for facebook games).
Another thing, why do you assume I'm always in lobbies? You don't think I ever play quick play (which currently I don't because the burnout for the MWOWC is still serious)? You don't think leagues actually are a boon to PvP games?

Quote

With the new skill tree, the daily double XP bonus will now have more meaning and some players might be more apt to drop just one or two more times to collect just a little more Mech XP and GXP on chassis they didn't use yet.

I doubt this will increase that much because of how it makes it feel more like a grind. "I gotta grind this mech so I can fix it, yay...."

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

Yep. We should all have to grind for our gold ammo. No more MC or Mech XP or GXP. Gold ammo all the way. If you don't want to grind for it, then just pay for it. Sounds like a great game. Sign me up!

What are you even talking about, where did I ever suggest that exactly? If you are gonna use strawmen at least make it somewhat like something I am suggesting...

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

You know what makes MWO different from those other F2P PvP games you are referencing?

Where did I ever allude to any of the World of Whatever games? Those are bad F2P models too, sounds like you jumped to a serious conclusion there.

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

Says the guy who's all salty because he wasn't patient enough to just play the game and earn rewards.

Look, you took a short cut and now are getting burned for it. I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy for you.

Because all PvP F2P games must operate with the same mechanics, right?

Are you just willfully ignorant or trolling me.

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

I know, we can just get rid of that pesky tonnage limit each mech has. Why should players be punished for making bad choices between speed, armor, ammo, heat and firepower? Let's just make every mech 200 tons, run at 200 kph and carry 5 of every weapon.

Again, misrepresenting the argument. The argument isn't against consequences of choices ever. You should be able to make a bad build, the difference between what we are going to end up with and what we should have though is that currently (and worse under the new system) I have to grind more resources to fix that bad build.

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

I'm going to assume that you aren't against players being punished for making those types of bad choices. You just seem to not want to admit that you made some bad choices of your own. Or more accurately, you don't want to actually be punished for those choices. Once again, no sympathy from me.

Ignoring the strawman, the only consequence needed for bad customization choices is poor performance (which translates to more losses). That's it, nothing else is needed. There is no reason that access to content should be affected by performance, at all, because that has never been the point of F2P resources, it is strictly about balancing that time vs money trade-off.

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

Yes, I see. You don't want there to be consequences for your bad choices.

Lower performance is good enough of a consequence, this is a f**king game....why does there need to be more of a consequence? It boggles my mind why there needs to be a more serious consequence than increasing the chances of losing from using a bad build.

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

BTW: Your lack of addressing all the other points of my post is pretty telling in its own right.

FFS, really? THe reason I picked out that single statement, is that it is the basis for your argument. It is the fundamental reason you have this viewpoint currently. This is ultimately what we arguing about (not to mention just look at long this response post is, keeping up with all other minor points would be long and tiresome).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 December 2016 - 07:03 AM.

[L3mming2]

Nightmare1, on 08 December 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

I didn't need agility quirks on my LCT before the quirkening, and I doubt that I'll need them now, lol.

Basically, you're viewing this from the perspective that people will have a hard time figuring out how to level their Mech to achieve the perfect meta-ness. I look at it from the perspective that now everyone will be able to have an awful lot of variety. MetaMechs, Smurfy, or whatever will take care of the people who can't figure it out on their own. The rest of us will kit out our Mechs to run them how we want them, and then go have fun doing it.

...I don't think that I've ever seen so much knee-jerk panic at a gaming announcement as this one.

... the best way to archive perfect meta-ness is dont pilot a LCT.. but if u want to anny way cos u like the mech it will probably take quite a few respecs to get it optimal for your play stile...
if u have the XP to try ajustment after adjustment till u get it right then its fantastic, ells u better have a load of MC to spare ore u will have to regrind every time u try something differend which might be such a PITA it takes the fun out of playing around with your mech in the mach lab..
it also depends on the price a skill point realy should only cost 1 MC to respec, this would mean 75 mc for a full respec.. but PGI most of the time douse not seem to get the "micro" in micro transactions..

[L3mming2]

vandalhooch, on 08 December 2016 - 09:27 PM, said:

No there isn't. You are upset because you won't have the GXP to make several spec changes to try things out. The reason you don't have the GXP to do that is because you spent your GXP to skip the grind of mastering a mech by playing it.

What more is there? No one else is complaining about not having GXP to respec their mechs because they are sitting on piles of it. I have unlocked every single module, including maxing out the weapon modules, and am still sitting on 1.1 million GXP. I have 163 of 166 mechs fully mastered. I could easily use some GXP to finish off the last three but I haven't. I'm going to be patient and grind them out.

With the new system, GXP becomes a resource to manage. It will add a new facet to the game, albeit a pretty minor one. Events and grab bags that reward GXP now become valuable instead of "missed" opportunities to get something "good." I like that idea.

ROFL XD

u do know that every single point of XP spent on unlocking mech skill trees, and modules is going to be refunded as GXP (confirmed by russ!) when the new skill tree drops.

so u would get back every single GXP point u spend to finish the last 3 as GXP.

he might be inpatient but u dont know how it works XD, and he got to play instantly mastered mechs geting more XP then you in unbasiced ones..

u say that grinding out mechs is good for player retention cos it makes you feel like u accomplisch sommething. i feel like i accomplich something when i try out a new build and it kicks a*s... for me the real fun only starts after i get thru the annoying task of mastering the mech... and the new system will make me go thru that annoying task over and over again every time i want to try out something new.. well that or trow monney at it every single time..

this is a PvP game i get my feeling of accomplichment out of out building/ outplaying other ppl.
if it was PvE yes then grinding something out gives u a challange and a goal, cause beating a bot (over and over again) is not realy that satisfactory...

[L3mming2]

Dahrsis, on 09 December 2016 - 12:30 AM, said:

I still fail to see why the Skilltree change is something negative, based on the information we have atm (Full XP/C-Bill compensation, some Mechs retain Quirks because of unfavorable Hull/Hardpoint placement).

The new player who buys his first Mech starts out stronger than ever before. Because he has to buy only ONE mech which he then, via normal play, levels up completly. It means for him he can grab his favorite Chassis, level it full and has a strong solid base to go on from then on out. He probably has even enough C-Bills to spent to do another one in a different weight class too.
Two Mechs to buy to be competetive instead of six is a big deal for a new player. At least in my book.

For the old players out there. I have only a line up of 50 Mechs. Not all are Mastered, but every single one of them has the setup (Engine/Weapons/Modules) finished which i think is the best for me playing that variant.
When the new Skilltree hits, nothing will change for me. Except that i do not have any MG Cooldown % anywhere near them (i hope). And nothing should change for you. If you have 10, 100 or 300 Mechs. Nothing changes.

The only ones to suffer (in this case a very loose term) are people who either cant decide on a load out for the life of them, or people who need to fiddle around with the loadout on a regular basis. Yes, you may have the shorter straw and maybe you are pressed into even playing the game suboptimal with a 90% leveld build to regain those 5000xp and 250.000 C-Bills it takes to change to your new setup. Tho you would have done that anyway to test it, wouldn´t you?

What people miss here i think is that it is far more friendly to new players and that it gives you the option of having a Mech with quirks closer to your playstyle without any excess quirks you never use (MG Cooldown, yeah...).

The only thing i am corncerned about is the handling of chassis which are subpar atm and rely on heavy quirking to make them useful (This goes for IS and Clan and we all know what they are). I hope THAT part is handled well.

the quirks are not going away, they are just renamed as "base stats" in the new system, confirmed by russ tweet..

[vandalhooch]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 December 2016 - 07:02 AM, said:

GXP will cost money for new players at some point because of how slow GXP accrues, if not money then a stupid amount of time to build because of again, how slow it accrues. That said, really the only "resource" that matters should be c-bills.

But you also get Mech XP. GXP is only a substitute for Mech XP. For those mechs that you regularly play, GXP is irrelevant. New players won't have to worry about GXP because they will have a limited number of mechs and will just be earning and using Mech XP on them. It's only later when their stable grows much larger that GXP will become relevant and by then, if they weren't impatient two-year-olds, they'll have a healthy stockpile of it.

If C-bills was the only resource then you run into the problem of inflation. You didn't watch the video I linked to, did you?

Quote

Where did I suggest otherwise? I'm pretty sure I said this, with the important part bolded:

Seems to me you have a serious problem with misrepresenting arguments.

No. You just haven't thought out the implications for the game overall with your suggestions. You want a system that will allow players to skip the "play a lot of matches in many different mechs." That would reduce the size of the player pool and large player pools is what keeps free-to-play games viable.

Quote

Sounds like a large assumption on your part.

Possibly. But you seem to be the only one in this thread bemoaning the fact that you don't have any GXP to spend.

Quote

Thanks captain obvious, I didn't know that.......
Why do exactly do you think this helps the NPE? Myself and others have tried to point out that this tries to monetize customization in an antagonistic way which could likely turn off new players (kinda like an energy mechanic for facebook games).
Another thing, why do you assume I'm always in lobbies? You don't think I ever play quick play (which currently I don't because the burnout for the MWOWC is still serious)? You don't think leagues actually are a boon to PvP games?

It isn't a monetization. Mech XP is earned through playing. It incentivizes players to play all their mechs. How is that antagonistic? You think it's antagonistic because you have hundreds of mechs and you want to constantly respec a lot of them. That's a problem for you and a very small number of other players. It most definitely is not a problem for a new player.

Let's see, you admit you don't play Quick Play and are burned out on the game. You already spent all of your GXP in order to take short cuts. Sounds like you made your own mess. Not getting any sympathy from me.

As to the value of leagues to the game, I think player run leagues are a great thing for this game to have. The constant need to respec your comp mechs will require that those players play in the public queue more often in order to earn the necessary Mech XP and GXP. More players consistently dropping in the public queue is great for the game overall.

Quote

I doubt this will increase that much because of how it makes it feel more like a grind. "I gotta grind this mech so I can fix it, yay...."

So, playing the game is grinding in your mind? You sure you even want to play this game? It's only a grind to you because you have hundreds of mechs and want to constantly respec many of them. That's particular to your situation, not most players. If you only own five or six mechs then it isn't likely to seem like a grind because you were going to play those five or six mechs anyway.

Besides, you wouldn't feel like you have to grind all those mechs if you had been patient and not burned through all your GXP in the first place. Your entire view on this new mechanic can be boiled down to that one fact.

Quote

What are you even talking about, where did I ever suggest that exactly? If you are gonna use strawmen at least make it somewhat like something I am suggesting...

You want a single in-game resource that is totally purchasable for real money. I picked an example of such a mechanic from another free-to-play, PvP game. It happens to be reviled by most players. Maybe you should reconsider what it is you want for this game.

Quote

Where did I ever allude to any of the World of Whatever games? Those are bad F2P models too, sounds like you jumped to a serious conclusion there.

Let's see. You keep alluding to free-to-play, PvP games and yet never actually reference any one in particular. You forced me to draw a conclusion so I went with the most popular free-to-play, PvP games on Earth. If you don't want me to draw the wrong conclusion about what you are talking about, then put in more exact details as to what you are saying.

Quote

Are you just willfully ignorant or trolling me.

1 - Pointing out that your argument is pretty vague as to what you want and seems to be bad for the viability of a game like this overall.

2 - I am slightly trolling you as to your complete lack of GXP. If you hadn't spent all of it, you would be free to respec any of your comp mechs at will and you would likely have not joined this thread. Really, all of this back and forth between us is your fault. (Yes, I'm trolling you just a little bit.)

Quote

Again, misrepresenting the argument. The argument isn't against consequences of choices ever. You should be able to make a bad build, the difference between what we are going to end up with and what we should have though is that currently (and worse under the new system) I have to grind more resources to fix that bad build.

You have to because your situation is 1- pretty uncommon and 2- entirely due to you making choices. You seem to want there to be consequences for choices but are railing against the fact that the new system is putting in consequences for choices you have already made. You contradict yourself or trying to protect your ego from acknowledging that you actually did make some bad choices. Either way, I'm not interested in the game being designed around your ego.

Quote

Ignoring the strawman, the only consequence needed for bad customization choices is poor performance (which translates to more losses). That's it, nothing else is needed. There is no reason that access to content should be affected by performance, at all, because that has never been the point of F2P resources, it is strictly about balancing that time vs money trade-off.

No it isn't. Because if resources that can be purchased for real money remove you from or reduce your presence in the player pool too, then it's bad for a free-to-play game.

Quote

Lower performance is good enough of a consequence, this is a f**king game....why does there need to be more of a consequence? It boggles my mind why there needs to be a more serious consequence than increasing the chances of losing from using a bad build.

Once again, this punishment that you seem to think is in addition to the in-match punishment is only particular to you because of your atypical situation. New players who make mistakes in assigning nodes on their new mech will only recognize that fact after they have played several matches in it. They will then be able to take the Mech XP and C-bills earned in those matches to respec their build. Will that slow down their reaching full mastery? Yes.

You keep talking about new player experience but you keep seeing the new system through your own situation.

Quote

FFS, really? THe reason I picked out that single statement, is that it is the basis for your argument. It is the fundamental reason you have this viewpoint currently. This is ultimately what we arguing about (not to mention just look at long this response post is, keeping up with all other minor points would be long and tiresome).

I'm ok with dropping the rest because many of those points will naturally come back into the discussion. I said it was telling because your suggestion implies that you really haven't thought through it's complete ramifications as to the viability of the game overall. Your suggestion of real money to skip earning XP through playing mechs in public queue would be great for people in your situation but not for the game as a whole.

[L3mming2]

Haakon Magnusson, on 09 December 2016 - 04:38 AM, said:

PTS? they have said it would be in PTS, well that's good. I don't follow tweets so I wouldn't know (As always, I keep hoping that PGI would use their forums as a forum to communicate) though with US having Trump now I might have to start, the comedy could continue to be good.

And they did imply that all quirks would be gone unless they have said something else in some other media, other than the announcement. Some of the bad ones might be saved by quirks on top of skill tree but I get the feeling they want quirks gone.

they stay, they are called part of the base stats of the mech now... russ made a tweet about it..

[vandalhooch]

L3mming2, on 09 December 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

ROFL XD

u do know that every single point of XP spent on unlocking mech skill trees, and modules is going to be refunded as GXP (confirmed by russ!) when the new skill tree drops.

Yes I do. Tell that to Quicksilver.

His problem is that he wants to constantly respec such a large number of mechs that he thinks he's likely to burn through all of that GXP. He's not planning on dropping in public queue to replenish his Mech XP and GXP and wants PGI to put in a real money means to avoid having to.

Quote

so u would get back every single GXP point u spend to finish the last 3 as GXP.

he might be inpatient but u dont know how it works XD, and he got to play instantly mastered mechs geting more XP then you in unbasiced ones..

And now he's paying the price for that impatience. It's not a price most players will have to pay. It's a price specific to his own situation. Thus, I have little sympathy for him.

Quote

u say that grinding out mechs is good for player retention cos it makes you feel like u accomplisch sommething. i feel like i accomplich something when i try out a new build and it kicks a*s... for me the real fun only starts after i get thru the annoying task of mastering the mech... and the new system will make me go thru that annoying task over and over again every time i want to try out something new.. well that or trow monney at it every single time..

No it won't. Are you planning on removing every single node every time you make a change? Switching from an energy focused build to a missile brawler will not require you to re-earn your seismic sensor, armor, and mobility bonuses.

You do know that you'll be able to respec individual nodes (and their daughters), right?

Quote

this is a PvP game i get my feeling of accomplichment out of out building/ outplaying other ppl.
if it was PvE yes then grinding something out gives u a challange and a goal, cause beating a bot (over and over again) is not realy that satisfactory...

Without a mechanic to incentivize you to play as many games as possible you will likely drop one or two fewer times per play session. In aggregate that reduces the player pool significantly and reduces the viability of any free-to-play game. The new system has a chance to be better for the game overall.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 December 2016 - 04:33 AM, said:

so your are hypothesizing a worst case, but where is your best case? At this point you are leaning on one side without the relevant information. So get back to the middle.

I don't see a "best case", since the only "best case" is that some useless efficiencies like "Pinpoint" and the arm tweak (for mechs like the Spider-5V) are probably going to be removed.

The middle case is simply "it's a lateral move".

Historically though, the "worst case" I've laid out is likely closer to reality than ANY best case scenario since more often than not, the deployment almost always fall short, like FW Phase 3 as the most notable one of all.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 December 2016 - 10:53 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:34 AM, said:

And now he's paying the price for that impatience. It's not a price most players will have to pay. It's a price specific to his own situation. Thus, I have little sympathy for him.

I don't have that much GXP.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

If C-bills was the only resource then you run into the problem of inflation. You didn't watch the video I linked to, did you?

That is for MMOs where progression of power is consistent, this is progression of a different manor (different but equal playstyles is what is sold here, or at least that is the ideal). The irony is that the video also brings up permanent purchasable upgrades and the concept of taxations that are burdensome to the player. This is system is exactly that, an attempt that fails to try and manage inflated Mech XP. Looking at a game like TF2 however, where scrap is used to craft a lot of items; due to the hefty requirements of things like cosmetics (instead of using real world money), it gives usage to those with billions of C-Bills stacked up (if we were to copy that sort of system). The problem with this game has been there since the beginning, the pay model and how everything worked and connected together was never thoroughly thoughout, it was haphazard and antagonistic to some of the games core features, and obviously had trouble pushing MC or they wouldn't have tried to resort to selling things outside that system in an effort to get more revenue.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

You want a system that will allow players to skip the "play a lot of matches in many different mechs."

....What? The system I'm proposing allows for that in a more free maner than this system allows for.....

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

It isn't a monetization. Mech XP is earned through playing. It incentivizes players to play all their mechs.

The incentives to play other mechs should be to experience different play styles, not because I need XP. If the only reason someone is playing other mechs if for XP, then that is telling that the core experience is lackluster and needs improvement (which it does).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

The constant need to respec your comp mechs will require that those players play in the public queue more often in order to earn the necessary Mech XP and GXP.

This isn't necessary to get comp players into public queue, this fear that "OMG free customization means they'll always be in private lobby" is one that is bogus. The reason you go into pub queue is to get better as a team, not to grind (though it will be if having to constantly respec becomes problematic).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

So, playing the game is grinding in your mind?

Playing the game with a build I don't necessarily like just to get the resources to change is what is grinding. Currently once I get a mech mastered, I can change it around all I want without having to regrind it (to a degree, the lack of an inventory can cause issues from time to time and require me to grind).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

You want a single in-game resource that is totally purchasable for real money. I picked an example of such a mechanic from another free-to-play, PvP game. It happens to be reviled by most players. Maybe you should reconsider what it is you want for this game.

Because it is paying for power, I wonder why people hate it so much.....maybe don't cherry pick next time?
If Mech XP, GXP, and C-Bills were all combined into one resources, c-bills that you earned based on the time you played in the game instead of performance, and you could pay money for things to skip the need for using c-bills, that is the ideal system. You don't have to worrry about managing various resources (or their inflation, not that it is a huge concern if your pay scheme is setup correctly).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

1 - Pointing out that your argument is pretty vague as to what you want and seems to be bad for the viability of a game like this overall.

If it is so vague, how exactly can you tell what is viable or not for the game exactly?
I've made clear what I want, Solahama's system for cost of the new skill tree versus the one PGI proposed.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

2 - I am slightly trolling you as to your complete lack of GXP. If you hadn't spent all of it, you would be free to respec any of your comp mechs at will and you would likely have not joined this thread.

Ima stop you right here, I will have the GXP to respec comp mechs, that won't actually be a problem (now some of my lesser played mechs are a different story, like the Myth Lynx). I could have 1,000,000 GXP right now and would still find fault with this system because I disagree with the principle of taxing respecing because it is harmful to actually changing builds. Taxing something discourages its use whether it is intended or not. So to go back to the idea Solahama had, where we are just creating a method to skip grinding without taxing rebuilds too harshly (c-bill amount still questionable), why exactly is that less problematic? Because we aren't punishing people enough for creating bad builds or making "bad" choices? Because somehow taking away "progression" will take people out of the player pool magically? Please, bad pay schemes have a better chance of taking players out of the pool than taking away "sense of progression" for those who are willing to shell out cash to skip just that.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

You have to because your situation is 1- pretty uncommon and 2- entirely due to you making choices.

My situation is irrelevant, I will say this again this is directly connected to the NPE.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

No it isn't. Because if resources that can be purchased for real money remove you from or reduce your presence in the player pool too, then it's bad for a free-to-play game.

Your suggestion of real money to skip earning XP through playing mechs in public queue would be great for people in your situation but not for the game as a whole.

Where are you getting that it reduces my precense in the player pool from? Do you think allowing me to customize freely suddenly means I'm going to play less? Sorry, but if grinding is the only thing keeping me playing, then there is a problem with the core game not being enjoyable enough, not with the fact I don't like grinding. I played MW4 more than I play MWO in part because of the fact I never had to deal with any stupid grinding, I could customize as freely as I wanted with no limit to how many times I can recustomize with a small timeframe regardless of any "resource".

[L3mming2]

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 10:34 AM, said:

Yes I do. Tell that to Quicksilver.

His problem is that he wants to constantly respec such a large number of mechs that he thinks he's likely to burn through all of that GXP. He's not planning on dropping in public queue to replenish his Mech XP and GXP and wants PGI to put in a real money means to avoid having to.



And now he's paying the price for that impatience. It's not a price most players will have to pay. It's a price specific to his own situation. Thus, I have little sympathy for him.



No it won't. Are you planning on removing every single node every time you make a change? Switching from an energy focused build to a missile brawler will not require you to re-earn your seismic sensor, armor, and mobility bonuses.

You do know that you'll be able to respec individual nodes (and their daughters), right?



Without a mechanic to incentivize you to play as many games as possible you will likely drop one or two fewer times per play session. In aggregate that reduces the player pool significantly and reduces the viability of any free-to-play game. The new system has a chance to be better for the game overall.

i know, but lets say every skill point costs 1000xp (i hope its not more cos then it would realy suck) a single weapon tree is 20 sp so just swaping weapons would be 20 000 xp thats arround 20 average games, so just swapping between a med laser jener to a SPL build would cost u depending how well you do between 3 and 5 h... and thats in a senario where u dont change anny other skills. because when u swap from a brawler to a long range build u will probably want to change a load more then just the weapon quirks (atleast i hope so ore the new skill tree will be cr*p but for a totaly different reason)

for me the best way of making me cut my session short is making me frustrated, and one of the best ways to do that is by having to play a light without the speed tweek/ double basics for agility, geting nailed e few maches in a row cos your doge and evesions are just not as good as they should be, geting u a misrable mach score, no closer to finaly be released from the handicap, and able to circle and doge like u should...

IMO mastering havys is just a bit anoing but not realy a issue, but mastering a fast light is horrible..

[vandalhooch]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 December 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

That is for MMOs where progression of power is consistent, this is progression of a different manor (different but equal playstyles is what is sold here, or at least that is the ideal).

Inflation is inherent in any game that rewards players with currency just for playing the game. Think about the current system of modules. Why are they so exorbitantly expensive for what is at most a minor buff? It's to remove C-bills from the game. If they don't consistently remove C-bills from the game then they lose "earning C-bills" as an incentive for players to continue dropping in public queue. That is the driving force for resource decisions in a free-to-play game, getting players to drop in the game as often and as long as possible. Allowing players to amass huge quantities of C-bills means that when a new mech goes up for C-bill purchase, a price tag of 8 million C-bills is nothing to them. They don't have to "work" for it by dropping continuously in the game. Number of drops per player over time decreases and the free-to-play viability decreases.

So, you need to remove those excess C-bills by jacking up the prices on purchasable items. In an MMO with power progression you do that by making the more powerful items cost more but we can't do that in MWO because mechs aren't in power Tiers. So this game requires that we use the other systems to remove C-bills, what you referred to as taxes. R and R was the initial system for such a method of removing C-bills but it failed because it didn't affect all builds and all players equally. Remember how long time veteran's weren't affected by the R and R and thus were likely to have advantages over new players? That's a sign of hyperinflation. Even games that don't have power progressions like MMORPG's are still subject to hyperinflation.

The three-mech rule was another tool to remove C-bills from the economy and ensure that players increased their drop rate in game (free-to-play viability). Now, the three-mech rule and modules are going away. There has to be a means for removing C-bills from the economy or we will see player drop rates decrease as they won't "need" to drop as often to collect all of their mechs. All of these taxes are their to increase drop rates. Your proposal is to have a way to bypass the taxes and thus decrease drop rates. That's not good for any free-to-play game.

Quote

The irony is that the video also brings up permanent purchasable upgrades and the concept of taxations that are burdensome to the player. This is system is exactly that, an attempt that fails to try and manage inflated Mech XP.

You didn't pay close enough attention. The video said that those system are necessary but if improperly done can be seen as burdensome. You have to have C-bill sinks in the game. You have to. You have no way of knowing that the new system will be seen as burdensome by the player base. You are just assuming it will be because of (once again) your particular situation which is not indicative of the majority of players. Your proposal is to remove C-bill and Mech XP/GXP sinks all together.

Quote

Looking at a game like TF2 however, where scrap is used to craft a lot of items; due to the hefty requirements of things like cosmetics (instead of using real world money), it gives usage to those with billions of C-Bills stacked up (if we were to copy that sort of system).

That's an example of a kind of reserve currency at work.

Quote

The problem with this game has been there since the beginning, the pay model and how everything worked and connected together was never thoroughly thoughout, it was haphazard and antagonistic to some of the games core features, and obviously had trouble pushing MC or they wouldn't have tried to resort to selling things outside that system in an effort to get more revenue.

The lack of a player-to-player market does two things: it reduces the rate of hyperinflation (good) but it reduces the usefulness of reserve currencies like MC (bad).

Quote

....What? The system I'm proposing allows for that in a more free maner than this system allows for.....

No. It doesn't. It solves your particular problem, a lack of GXP reserves. Your system would reduce player drop rates overall as paying players would have no incentive to drop a few extra times because of a "need" to earn Mech XP or GXP. Any system that reduces average player drop rates is bad for a free-to-play game. Premium time is an example of this. It does in effect reduce player drop rates but PGI recoups that hit to the player pool through acquisition of real money. And premium time still requires players to drop in order to take advantage of it. Your proposal removes that requirement.

Quote

The incentives to play other mechs should be to experience different play styles, not because I need XP.

Yes. Let's build a system around how you think humans should behave instead of around how they actually behave. Might want to brush up on some basic game theory and human psychology.

Quote

If the only reason someone is playing other mechs if for XP, then that is telling that the core experience is lackluster and needs improvement (which it does).

The only reason? Once again, this is you projecting your particular situation onto everyone else.

Quote

This isn't necessary to get comp players into public queue, this fear that "OMG free customization means they'll always be in private lobby" is one that is bogus. The reason you go into pub queue is to get better as a team, not to grind (though it will be if having to constantly respec becomes problematic).

Once again. Design a system based on how humans actually behave and not how you think they behave. The comp players don't have to be "always in a private lobby" in order to hurt the viability of a free-to-play game. But, every moment they are in a private lob does decrease the viability of the game overall. If you are going to allow private lobbies then you need a way to ensure that the users of the lobbies still consistently drop in the public queue as well.

BTW: Your claim that comp teams drop in public queue in order to get "better as a team" is laughable. It that were true, then tell me why so many teams schedule private lobby scrimmages. Those scrimmages remove players from the public queue and reduce the viability of the free-to-play system. I have unit mates that have expressed a desire to never have to drop in public queue ever again. The only reason they ever do is because they have to "grind out" their latest mech purchases. Without a public queue REQUIREMENT, the free-to-play system falls apart.

Quote

Playing the game with a build I don't necessarily like just to get the resources to change is what is grinding.

Once again, you are projecting your situation on everyone else. You don't have the resources to repeatedly change all of your mechs because you spent all your GXP already. This is your problem, not everyone's.

A new player will have the resources to change the build because in the course of learning that it's a bad build they will be earning those resources. Their path to "complete mastery" will be delayed but they won't be "grinding."

Here's how I see your situation. You personally have two conflicting goals. On one side you have your collector mentality of owning as many mechs as possible and having all of them completely mastered. On the other side you have your competitive player owning the best mechs and being able to quickly modify them to suit the ever shifting landscape of competitive play.

Those two selves are in conflict. Your drive to own many mastered mechs led to you using up your GXP and Mech XP reserves that are also needed for constant respeccing of comp mechs. That's you, not everyone. You want PGI to put in place a system that will resolve this conflict despite the fact that such a system will be bad for the free-to-play viability of the game overall.

I'm in favor of a system that benefits everyone else over you and your specific situation.

Quote

Currently once I get a mech mastered, I can change it around all I want without having to regrind it (to a degree, the lack of an inventory can cause issues from time to time and require me to grind).

And that will be possible in the new system as well, as long as you don't want to constantly respec the mech over and over again without playing it in the public queue between switches. If you do want to do that, then you will need a GXP reserve earned through playing other mechs in the public queue. Either way, you will need to play consistently in the public queue which is good for the free-to-play model.

Quote

Because it is paying for power, I wonder why people hate it so much.....maybe don't cherry pick next time?

Maybe don't suggest a system for MWO that runs counter to the viability of its free-to-play model?

Quote

If Mech XP, GXP, and C-Bills were all combined into one resources, c-bills that you earned based on the time you played in the game instead of performance, and you could pay money for things to skip the need for using c-bills, that is the ideal system.

And that right there is why your idea is terrible for MWO. You want a way for players to use real money to avoid having to drop in the public queue. A free-to-play game is only viable when it maximizes the number of players (free and paying) in the public queue. Your system works counter to the viability of a free-to-play model. It's a terrible, terrible idea.

Quote

You don't have to worrry about managing various resources (or their inflation, not that it is a huge concern if your pay scheme is setup correctly).

Inflation is always a huge concern. Always.

Quote

If it is so vague, how exactly can you tell what is viable or not for the game exactly?
I've made clear what I want, Solahama's system for cost of the new skill tree versus the one PGI proposed.

That is the first time I recall you even using the word Solahama. That isn't a free-to-play game. It's one person posting in a single Internet forum. The only way you could have been any more vague is if you referred to him by his nickname instead of his forum name.

Quote

Ima stop you right here, I will have the GXP to respec comp mechs, that won't actually be a problem (now some of my lesser played mechs are a different story, like the Myth Lynx). I could have 1,000,000 GXP right now and would still find fault with this system because I disagree with the principle of taxing respecing because it is harmful to actually changing builds.

No it isn't because it incentivizes players playing in the public queue more.

Quote

Taxing something discourages its use whether it is intended or not.

"Taxing" is absolutely necessary to avoid hyperinflation.

Quote

So to go back to the idea Solahama had, where we are just creating a method to skip grinding without taxing rebuilds too harshly (c-bill amount still questionable), why exactly is that less problematic?

1 - Never heard of the guy.

2 - Don't know what his idea is.

3 - All I know about it is what you suggested in this thread.

4 - Your suggestion was terrible for the viability of a free-to-play game.

Quote

Because we aren't punishing people enough for creating bad builds or making "bad" choices?

Allowing players to play more in order to correct mistakes isn't punishment. You seem to think that playing the game is a punishment. That's on you and your "burned out" mind set. If the new system did not allow a player to respec at all, that would be a punishment.

Quote

Because somehow taking away "progression" will take people out of the player pool magically?

It isn't magic. It's human psychology. It's the basic core of game design. Here's a hint, humans do not act like the rational beings you keep describing.

Quote

Please, bad pay schemes have a better chance of taking players out of the pool than taking away "sense of progression" for those who are willing to shell out cash to skip just that.

Skip it in order to get where exactly? Really, I want to know where it is in the game you are in such a hurry to get to.

Quote

My situation is irrelevant, I will say this again this is directly connected to the NPE.

No it isn't. You keep describing playing public queue matches as "grinding" and "punishment." Playing public queue matches for a new player is "playing the game." This system encourages new players to play the game more. You see that as punishment. That's specific to your situation.

Quote

Where are you getting that it reduces my precense in the player pool from? Do you think allowing me to customize freely suddenly means I'm going to play less?

Yes. Because you aren't nearly the rational agent you think yourself to be.

Quote

Sorry, but if grinding is the only thing keeping me playing, then there is a problem with the core game not being enjoyable enough, not with the fact I don't like grinding.

The fact that you call playing in the public queue "grinding" absolutely means that you will be less inclined to drop in the public queue if you get free respecs.

Quote

I played MW4 more than I play MWO in part because of the fact I never had to deal with any stupid grinding, I could customize as freely as I wanted with no limit to how many times I can recustomize with a small timeframe regardless of any "resource".

Yeah. Remind me again how MW4 was a free-to-play game. I seem to have forgotten that part.

Edited by vandalhooch, 09 December 2016 - 12:43 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 09 December 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

I don't see a "best case", since the only "best case" is that some useless efficiencies like "Pinpoint" and the arm tweak (for mechs like the Spider-5V) are probably going to be removed.

The middle case is simply "it's a lateral move".

Historically though, the "worst case" I've laid out is likely closer to reality than ANY best case scenario since more often than not, the deployment almost always fall short, like FW Phase 3 as the most notable one of all.

Best case:

There are wholly new skills, and choice of quirks for your mech (this is the case), allowing you to build mechs entirely differently in ways that are not currently possible. Because you cannot get all the skills, skills useless to your build can be bypassed and one would assume non-functional skills don't exist at all anymore. So, you're not stuck building your mech the way PGI felt you should (quirks).

Best case: More flexibility, choices - do you want more JJ thrust? Or do you want more structure? More weapon cooldown, or more agility? There's multiple trees, too, limiting depth allowing low-grind partial respecs so you don't need to remove, say, Speed Tweak when you respec your weapons. (These are all known things, btw)

[Wintersdark]

Keep in mind, folks:

Skills have different costs, and while some skills are critical to a build even in public queue play, many more advanced ones are much less important.

For example, do you ALWAYS have the correct weapon modules installed on a mech you're playing in the public queue? i know I don't, even though I have at least one of everything so I COULD have the right weapon modules installed if I took the time to find, remove, and reinstall every time I changed mechs. But I don't.

Because the pubqueue isn't that competitive, even at higher tiers. I can't think of the last time I lost a match because I didn't have a cooldown module equipped, for example. It just doesn't matter that much, which is why I use mechs other than the very best T1 mechs in pubqueue play as well.

So, as you can be quite functional and useful with a mech without any modules right now, you'll be able to be functional and useful with a partial build as well (say, speed tweak, maneuverability, maybe some structure, but none into weapons yet).

So, a partial respec because you're moving from a ML build to a SPL build (assuming all the weapon skills are weapon specific and not "energy") you're not going to be utterly useless between removing the ML skills and adding the SPL skills.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 09 December 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Best case:

There are wholly new skills, and choice of quirks for your mech (this is the case), allowing you to build mechs entirely differently in ways that are not currently possible.  Because you cannot get all the skills, skills useless to your build can be bypassed and one would assume non-functional skills don't exist at all anymore.  So, you're not stuck building your mech the way PGI felt you should (quirks).

That's not necessarily true.

So let's use the Atlas as an example. If there's a durability quirk that I have to get for it (because, it's totally not not going compete with a Kodiak-3 w/o quirks), that's going to be mandatory for it. It's the equivalent of getting Speed Tweak for a Light. There will be certain obvious things that will be required to get a mech working optimally. Partly this is min-maxing, but also a function of how mechs work in this game.

Quote

Best case: More flexibility, choices - do you want more JJ thrust?  Or do you want more structure?  More weapon cooldown, or more agility?  There's multiple trees, too, limiting depth allowing low-grind partial respecs so you don't need to remove, say, Speed Tweak when you respec your weapons.  (These are all known things, btw)

That's not really useful either.

For instance, a Summoner will never really need additional JJ thrust - it's got it all locked in. So with the Arctic Cheetah. There's very little need to get more JJ thrust on that. On the most common Timberwolf PPC+Gauss w/JJ builds, this would be effectively required.

Basically, you're still making the decision making process so binary, it's not even funny.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 December 2016 - 02:50 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Think about the current system of modules. Why are they so exorbitantly expensive for what is at most a minor buff?

Because instead of allowing everything to be purchased through c-bills (at incredibly inflated costs) they decided to do that with c-bills. Their problem has been the inflexibility of the various resources to be used in place of each other.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

The three-mech rule was another tool to remove C-bills from the economy and ensure that players increased their drop rate in game (free-to-play viability).

It was a forced grind that was used under the misguided idea that progression is needed for player retention when in fact it can run counter to that if viewed as too long to prospective players.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

You have to have C-bill sinks in the game. You have to.

Never did I disagree with that. One of the many leaps you make on my behalf throughout this discussion.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

No. It doesn't. It solves your particular problem, a lack of GXP reserves.

I will say this again, it won't be my problem, I guarantee you. I may only have 20,000 GXP on hand, but between all my mechs (most of them are mastered) that won't be a problem with this change.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

The only reason? Once again, this is you projecting your particular situation onto everyone else.

Once again, you are projecting your situation on everyone else. You don't have the resources to repeatedly change all of your mechs because you spent all your GXP already. This is your problem, not everyone's.

Nope, that's all you.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

BTW: Your claim that comp teams drop in public queue in order to get "better as a team" is laughable. It that were true, then tell me why so many teams schedule private lobby scrimmages.

Scrims are great, but you can't always line them up between other teams and inner scrims aren't always useful. Sure if you have 16+ players that are willing to commit scrims are great to do during practice, but for warming up and after drop fun time guess where we all play.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Those scrimmages remove players from the public queue and reduce the viability of the free-to-play system.

Generally any practice time is going to be during prime time for whatever region that team is in so if there were ever a time to be outside of the queue, it is during that time. That said, the benefit of that is stronger teams to help drive the player leagues. You can't have competitive player leagues without some way for these teams to scrim/practice, so if competitive player leagues are considered an overall plus for the game, then these teams practicing outside of the queue must not be that much of a problem.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

A new player will have the resources to change the build because in the course of learning that it's a bad build they will be earning those resources. Their path to "complete mastery" will be delayed but they won't be "grinding."

They will be grinding anytime they have learned but are unable to adjust the build. This happened many times when I was a free player (which I stopped being 2 years ago, and was since CB). So that happened more than you seem to lead on.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Here's how I see your situation. You personally have two conflicting goals. On one side you have your collector mentality of owning as many mechs as possible and having all of them completely mastered. On the other side you have your competitive player owning the best mechs and being able to quickly modify them to suit the ever shifting landscape of competitive play.

Those two selves are in conflict. Your drive to own many mastered mechs led to you using up your GXP and Mech XP reserves that are also needed for constant respeccing of comp mechs.

While you are correct about the two selves, the difference is in how you actually see my perdicament. As far as I understand I will be just fine because of how much XP I have built up (forgot about counting how much I have built up on various mechs).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

And that will be possible in the new system as well, as long as you don't want to constantly respec the mech over and over again without playing it in the public queue between switches.

That special condition is something you just seem to gloss over like it is some minor task when it isn't, especially if you are constantly respecing.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Inflation is always a huge concern. Always.

"Taxing" is absolutely necessary to avoid hyperinflation.

Taxing may be a way to avoid hyperinflation, but it is far from the only or best way to avoid it. Especially one that taxes a large aspect of the game rather than something that is seen as a focus. Or better yet, allow cosmetics/heroes for purchase for c-bills at very inflated prices much like crafting hats is in TF2. That is part of the reason inflation is a concern with multiple resources like it is, is because you can translate between some of them (C-Bills can't translate to XP and vice versa, which would be a much better way to tax things).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

That is the first time I recall you even using the word Solahama. That isn't a free-to-play game. It's one person posting in a single Internet forum. The only way you could have been any more vague is if you referred to him by his nickname instead of his forum name.

1 - Never heard of the guy.

2 - Don't know what his idea is.

Funny considering you read, quoted, and responded to the post where I put forth his suggestion (I even mentioned his name).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Allowing players to play more in order to correct mistakes isn't punishment. You seem to think that playing the game is a punishment. That's on you and your "burned out" mind set.

If the new system did not allow a player to respec at all, that would be a punishment.

You do a lot of these leaps, no it has nothing to do with my burned out mindset (come Marauder IIC I plan to get back into things). Just because it isn't permanent doesn't mean it is punishing players, that's quite the white/black view of the situation. The point is that if they had made known better when first specializing they would've had more resources is definitely a sign of some sort of punishment, sure it isn't as severe or ridiculous as not letting them respec, but it is punishment nonetheless.

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Your system would reduce player drop rates overall as paying players would have no incentive to drop a few extra times because of a "need" to earn Mech XP or GXP. Any system that reduces average player drop rates is bad for a free-to-play game. Premium time is an example of this. It does in effect reduce player drop rates but PGI recoups that hit to the player pool through acquisition of real money. And premium time still requires players to drop in order to take advantage of it. Your proposal removes that requirement.

Yes. Let's build a system around how you think humans should behave instead of around how they actually behave. Might want to brush up on some basic game theory and human psychology.

And that right there is why your idea is terrible for MWO. You want a way for players to use real money to avoid having to drop in the public queue.

Once again. Design a system based on how humans actually behave and not how you think they behave. The comp players don't have to be "always in a private lobby" in order to hurt the viability of a free-to-play game. But, every moment they are in a private lob does decrease the viability of the game overall. If you are going to allow private lobbies then you need a way to ensure that the users of the lobbies still consistently drop in the public queue as well.

It isn't magic. It's human psychology. It's the basic core of game design.

It's a core of SINGLE PLAYER game design, that is an important distinction to make. Now, don't get me wrong, there is a level of progression a player makes in PvP games, but it isn't some artificial progression through equipment or some BS, it is by learning and being a better player. That's why games that don't have these stupid tier systems have ranked modes or put support behind comp scenes typically. Overwatch still seems to retain players despite having no character progression, only cosmetic unlocks and is solely a PvP game (the fact it isn't a F2P doesn't magically invalidate that fact either).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Skip it in order to get where exactly? Really, I want to know where it is in the game you are in such a hurry to get to.

A fully leveled mech to actually enjoy playing it, playing unbasiced mechs is painful if it isn't a mech that is incredibly powerful to begin with (which aren't a whole lot of them).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Yes. Because you aren't nearly the rational agent you think yourself to be.

I'm not the one who keeps misrepresenting someone's viewpoint...

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

No it isn't. You keep describing playing public queue matches as "grinding" and "punishment."
The fact that you call playing in the public queue "grinding" absolutely means that you will be less inclined to drop in the public queue if you get free respecs.

Wrong, never did I associate public queue with grinding, that is a leap in logic YOU made.
I play public queue to play whatever mech suits my fancy (comp, joke, or whatever), it is when I have to grind to get that mech to peak performance or to experiment (whether it be leveling or trying to get that large XL engine) with that it becomes a grind because I don't want to necessarily play it that way, it is an impedance to that experimentation (again, one of the best facets of this game thanks to the customization).

vandalhooch, on 09 December 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Yeah. Remind me again how MW4 was a free-to-play game. I seem to have forgotten that part.

You missed the point, I played MW4 for years like people played Warcraft 3 for years and just like how TF2 is still going. The point is leveling up mechs isn't a necessary component to keep people playing, this idea that progression is necessary to keep people playing in QP is absurd.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Wintersdark, on 09 December 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Keep in mind, folks:

Skills have different costs, and while some skills are critical to a build even in public queue play, many more advanced ones are much less important.

For example, do you ALWAYS have the correct weapon modules installed on a mech you're playing in the public queue? i know I don't, even though I have at least one of everything so I COULD have the right weapon modules installed if I took the time to find, remove, and reinstall every time I changed mechs. But I don't.

Because the pubqueue isn't that competitive, even at higher tiers. I can't think of the last time I lost a match because I didn't have a cooldown module equipped, for example. It just doesn't matter that much, which is why I use mechs other than the very best T1 mechs in pubqueue play as well.

So, as you can be quite functional and useful with a mech without any modules right now, you'll be able to be functional and useful with a partial build as well (say, speed tweak, maneuverability, maybe some structure, but none into weapons yet).

So, a partial respec because you're moving from a ML build to a SPL build (assuming all the weapon skills are weapon specific and not "energy") you're not going to be utterly useless between removing the ML skills and adding the SPL skills.

Honestly I agree with this. Generally I have found that the weapons modules don't have a huge effect on the competitiveness of a mech. I generally like the range bonuses but gaining 60m on my cLPL or 27m on my IS ML isn't really going to make all that much difference. Sure at longer ranges beyond the optimal range I might get a point or two more damage in per each hit but overall 20-30 damage over the course of a match isn't generally going to make or break me and with just a slight adjustment to my playstyle where I would tend to move just a bit closer to engage due to the shorter ranges anyway, I might not even lose 20-30 damage.

What will make a huge difference is what is already contained in the skill tree. Speed Tweak, Heat reduction, Heat Capacity, acceleration and deceleration, turn speed, fire arc extensions and faster targeting, faster recover from shutdown, etc. Also of the modules about the only required module is Radar Deprivation so that makes a huge difference.

I figured it up the other night and based off the video to get what I consider the critical skills, you would have to invest the following:

20 SP into speed and mobility skills (Gives you Speed Tweak, Anchor Turn, Kinetic Burst and Hard Brake)

16 SP into heat management related skills (Gives you Cool Run, Heat Containment and Quick Ignition)

10 SP into armor and structure skills. (Gives you maximum bonus to armor and structure which I imagine everyone is going to want)

So a total of 46 pretty much REQUIRED points per mech. which leaves you with 29 point in which specialize your mech. Keep in mind these 46 will still leave you missing the equalivant of Twist X, Twist Speed, Arm Reflex and Fast Fire so still a net reduction to what we have currently without modules.

Also I expect most people will want Radar Deprivation and Advance Seismic and that looks like it will cost you around 15 SP invested into sensor related skills.

This leaves 14 SP for specialization which you could use for either weapons skills, torso or arm agility skills, jump jet skills or a few other options. That is not a whole lot of SP left over to actually do any real specialization, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't end up with mechs that are overall less powerful that what the current skill and module system allows.

Of course this is all subject to change but so far this is how it is looking. Also even though I feel the skills I listed are pretty critical skills, I am sure someone, somewhere will llok at something like Speed Tweak and feel it isn't all that important because they can pretty much achieve the same thing with a bigger engine in their mech. Hell I might even decide that myself and honestly I guess that is what is kind of cool about the system. If you don't find a 7.5% upgrade to your speed is all that important, that is 5, maybe 10 points you can invest somewhere else and unlike the old system, it is your option to do this.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 09 December 2016 - 03:33 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Deathlike, on 08 December 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

You have to considering how much time it will take for the newer player to get all that XP (and new players are less likely to accumulate the C-bills or XP at a decent rate), and while we take our current skill tree for granted (at least a little)... extra grinding is really that... extra grinding.

So...basically...just like any other noob in any other game, lol.

L3mming2, on 09 December 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

... the best way to archive perfect meta-ness is dont pilot a LCT.. but if u want to anny way cos u like the mech it will probably take quite a few respecs to get it optimal for your play stile...
if u have the XP to try ajustment after adjustment till u get it right then its fantastic, ells u better have a load of MC to spare ore u will have to regrind every time u try something differend which might be such a PITA it takes the fun out of playing around with your mech in the mach lab..
it also depends on the price a skill point realy should only cost 1 MC to respec, this would mean 75 mc for a full respec.. but PGI most of the time douse not seem to get the "micro" in micro transactions..

Seriously, that cesspool of a post is so terrible that it's not even worth trying to interpret. If you want me to read what you have to say and take you seriously, then take the time to actually communicate.

Edited by Nightmare1, 09 December 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[Evil Goof]

Personally I still think the focus should be if pgi is really going to try and implement this nonsense, the points should be able to be unlocked up to 75 or whatever the number is and then once 'mastered' should be repurposable at will for zero cost.

If I have a Raven 3L set up for sniping and then for FP on Boreal I need to quickly set it up to be a narcer, I should be able to quickly do so. As well at no cost because I have already bought the mech and invested the time into mastering.

The idea of locking a mech into a role infuriates me. When I saw the video at Mechcon and it got to the part where it said 'but be careful what you choose', I just about blew a gasket. Again the game is grindy enough already. I actually like buying three variants because it forces me to try out new stuff. Now I sell the 4x and 2x and just make sure to grind out two 3l's???? How does this even make sense to PGI itself and their business model????

Now I am a self admitted whale who has spent a good deal of money on this game. I have 140+ mechs over two accounts. I want to buy the reinforcements for the Linbacker (already have standard and hero but want to be able to do full splat), The Huntsman (standard, hero and reinforcements), Maraurder iic (Ultimate), The Warrant, Lacerator, Breaker, and planned on caving and getting Cyclops standard pack and hero. Another issue set me off and now this... PGI can be assured that there are many like me who are not going pony up money if they are now moving to nickle and dime me to death and get me to spend money to preserve xp on mechs....especially since I have invested real money on top of my time.

My unit has already been approached on TeamSpeak about doing a financial strike of sorts and I think that is the only thing we can do to show that this isn't right.

[Wintersdark]

Evil Goof, on 09 December 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

Personally I still think the focus should be if pgi is really going to try and implement this nonsense, the points should be able to be unlocked up to 75 or whatever the number is and then once 'mastered' should be repurposable at will for zero cost.

If I have a Raven 3L set up for sniping and then for FP on Boreal I need to quickly set it up to be a narcer, I should be able to quickly do so. As well at no cost because I have already bought the mech and invested the time into mastering.

.... Or just buy a second Raven, and spec it accordingly?

You COULD respec yours for free, and need according to Drake's post above roughly 14 skill points max to change so that's not going to be a lot of XP or...... *Gasp* don't bother changing the weapon skills for that one match.

Quote

The idea of locking a mech into a role infuriates me. When I saw the video at Mechcon and it got to the part where it said 'but be careful what you choose', I just about blew a gasket. Again the game is grindy enough already. I actually like buying three variants because it forces me to try out new stuff. Now I sell the 4x and 2x and just make sure to grind out two 3l's???? How does this even make sense to PGI itself and their business model????

I'd rather level 2 3L's if I like them than a 3L, a 2X, and a 4X. Less grindy! If I want to level a 2X or 4X, I'll do that.

Mr. New player is way better off not having to buy mechs he doesn't want just to level the one he does.

Quote

My unit has already been approached on TeamSpeak about doing a financial strike of sorts and I think that is the only thing we can do to show that this isn't right.

lol good luck with that.