283 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 09 December 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

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.

absolutely. They'll be different from mech to mech, though. This is inevitable. But at least now you choose instead of PGI.

Quote

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.

At top end play, yes, you'll have largely fixed builds ("the best" options). Everyone else though will change things depending on what they want to do.

Do you want more forward vectored jump jets or not? How obvious the choices are is very much up for debate and I guarantee will change just like how other meta's change.

But really, saying you don't want to choose skills.... That's like "I don't want to be able to choose modules" or "I don't want to be able to choose mech builds."

There will always be a best choice, though one hopes there's wiggle room, because customization is fun.

I like customization personally, and am quite hopeful I'll have to make hard choices. Say... I have to give up one of: agility, structure, or weapon mods. Which do I give up?

I love those choices.

[Evil Goof]

Wintersdark, on 09 December 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

.... 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.

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.

lol good luck with that.

I am not sure if I am in the minority and I have multiple Warhammers, and Catapults, but I differ from you that I want the three versions to master and believe it promotes variety. I likely would have never even tried anything other than the 3L.... I also think that this will end some pretty sweet deals as many have said the per mech price is likely not going to be as decent.

As far luck with organising some folks...well it's not my deal. I can see however if you get some of the Units on board such as my old unit which has over 200 members with 60 active and some of the other big ones...I don't know. Just one vote myself and I have stopped spending. It has actually been a bit hard as easy to spend two hundred or more a month but this, the population being so low, and not knowing what the future is for the game will mean I won't spend real money for the forseeable future.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 09 December 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

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.

I just want to point this out, but the rule of three does not have to be attached with this skill tree, they could remove those stupid requirements if they really wanted to for the current model. Just trying to point out that these are two separate independent concepts.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 December 2016 - 09:37 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 December 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

I just want to point this out, but the rule of three does not have to be attached with this skill tree, they could remove those stupid requirements if they really wanted to for the current model. Just trying to point out that these are two separate independent concepts.

That's true. But we've got this system now, and it's part and parcel of the new system. *Shrugs* they're not going to scrap everything and just drop the Rule Of Three, particularly when this stands as an extra (if minor) revenue stream.

I mean, you can daydream about wholly different systems all you like, but it's just daydreaming. And honestly, even if you leave the Rule Of Three changes aside, I'm still happier with what's shown than what we have right now: a stupid fixed list with nonfunctional skills. Yay.

I'm way more interested in customizing my mechs, so while I don't think this is perfect, I think it's way better than what we have.

[vandalhooch]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 December 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

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.

What "everything" are you referring to? Are you saying it would have been better for the game to have weapons cost 10X what they do now? That's what it would take to replace the module C-bill sink with this "everything."

Does that sound new player friendly?

Quote

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.

Of course incentives can backfire. And I would agree with you that the three-mech rule can be pretty onerous at times. But you are deflecting from the point that the three-mech rule had a second purpose beyond increasing player drop rates. It is a huge C-bill sink. How many C-bills do you think were flushed from the economy when Kodiaks became available?

But, this C-bill sink is going away, and I think it should for the reason you expressed. However, it has to be replaced.

Quote

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

You suggested a system where players can pay real money to avoid the costs of respeccing. Doesn't sound like you really get it at all.

Quote

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.

You do know that if you want to re-master all those mechs it will cost you about the same XP you are being refunded? At least that's the takeaway I've gotten from PGI's semi-cryptic statements. Any excess Mech XP you have for those mechs will be available for constant respeccing, though.

BTW: If even you with your hundreds of mechs and near constant respeccing has enough GXP, tell me why there should be a real money method for avoiding the resource costs?

Quote

Nope, that's all you.

Says the guy who jumped in here complaining about the massive costs he'll have to bear to re-master all of his hundreds of mechs while also constantly respeccing his comp mechs. Seriously, I'm basing this off of what you said in your first post.

Now you seem to have "discovered" that the sky isn't really falling because you "forgot" about all the excess Mech XP on your mechs. You know, that resource I referenced in every single one of my responses to you so far. Glad you "remembered" it on your own.

Quote

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.

So public queue drops are for honing your skills or for "fun time' because you seem to have changed your initial claim to match what I said. Funny that.

Quote

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.

They aren't a problem for the game as long as those players are also participating in the public queue matches consistently. Think about it.

If 80% of all current players joined a comp team and entered a league and therefore didn't drop in the public queue anymore, what is the likelihood that any new players to the game would be able to find enough appropriate matches in the public queue? How long do you think the game would last in such a state?

It's a cardinal rule of free-to-play game design: Never split your player base into separate parts of your game. Your proposal does exactly that.

Quote

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.

Says the guy who thinks PGI should have made everything in the game cost way more C-bills instead of implementing the costly modules. Come on, think this through.

Quote

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).

You "forgot" the thing that I've mentioned in every response to you? So is respeccing all your mechs going to be a "grind" or not?

Quote

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.

Gosh, if only there was a way to spend real money to convert some of your "remembered," banked Mech XP on your non-competitive mechs into GXP that you could use for your constant respeccing. I sure wish PGI would get to making that a thing . . .

Quote

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.

It's like your typing hands aren't even connected to your brain. You want to get rid of the hyperinflation fighting C-bill sinks and replace them with a full embrace of massive hyperinflation.

Quote

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).

Go watch the video on reserve currency again. It is very important that you limit the ability of players to convert one currency into the other.

Quote

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

Yeah, I was afraid of that. I didn't recognize it initially and had forgotten completely about him/it. Mea culpa.

Quote

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.

It's an incentive to get players to play the game more. Of course it can feel like a punishment if done improperly, but that's true of every incentive in every game, ever. You are already calling it a punishment and it hasn't even been implemented yet. Does that sound like an objective stance or a "burned out" stance to you?

Quote

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.

Your grammar is a little mangled here but what I'm reading is that you think it's a punishment for players who spent their GXP because PGI didn't tell them that GXP was going to have additional uses in the future? Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

If so, then my response is this . . . tough. The current skill system is weak. The quirk system tends to limit player creativity. Excess Mech XP and GXP have practically no use to long time players beyond the impatient collector who views playing the game as "grinding."

I'd much rather try a new system that gives players more customization opportunities, gives collected rewards a practical use, and incentivizes players to drop in the game more. I'm willing to take the risk that it fails over continuing on with the very vanilla system we have now.

Quote

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).

The fact that it isn't a free-to-play does invalidate it. Blizzard makes their money off their players on day one. Free-to-play games make their money on day 20, 50 or in your case day 700. The only way you get players to day 700 is if there are games to be had and that only happens if you have as large a player pool as possible.

Quote

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).

You are thinking of the old system. Will this new system be the same? How do you know?

Will you drop in your insta-mastered mech as much as a mech you have to progressively improve? Because years of psychology experiments says you won't.

Quote

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

I'm pointing out that you haven't thought through your viewpoint completely. I'm trying to show you the consequences for your suggestion.

Quote

Wrong, never did I associate public queue with grinding, that is a leap in logic YOU made.

You called dropping in public queue matches in order to earn C-bills or XP as "grinding." You've said it repeatedly. Don't try to lie now.

Quote

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).

Then use your banked GXP or converted Mech XP from other mechs to skip "the grind." This doesn't hurt the game like your real money to skip system because you earned that XP from dropping in the public queue. Seriously, before you buy a new mech, earn enough Mech XP in one of your current mechs and spend a little MC to convert it and BAM! You're new mech is instantly mastered. Don't want to spend the MC, then spend much more time earning GXP to instantly master the new mech. Look, real money can be spent to reduce time. You know, that thing you said was so important to free-to-play games. There it is!

As long as you are dropping in the public queue, it doesn't matter which mech you are using. The whole point is that you can not put in a system that allows players to not drop in the public queue because it erodes the player pool.

Quote

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.

The developers earned their money on day one when you bought MW4. They kept the servers going and patches coming for a while because a large player base was likely to attract new players who would also give them money on their day one. Notice that developer support for the game disappeared at the same time that sales of MW4 began to drop!

A free-to-play game can not work that way. A large, consistent player base is necessary just to get money from players on day 60 or 100. You can't get any money as a developer if new players join a game that has few players playing it. They'll leave without having spent a single dime. Stop suggesting mechanics from an upfront cost game will work for a free-to-play game.

Edited by vandalhooch, 10 December 2016 - 12:07 AM.

[L3mming2]

Nightmare1, on 09 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

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







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.

English is not my first language, and i have dyslexia. So yea my grammar and spelling are bad.
But judging by you'r responce you did not realy want to communicate in the first place.
Have a nice day.

[Nightmare1]

L3mming2, on 10 December 2016 - 05:07 AM, said:

English is not my first language, and i have dyslexia. So yea my grammar and spelling are bad.
But judging by you'r responce you did not realy want to communicate in the first place.
Have a nice day.

My apologies then. I am accustomed to dealing with Millennials who place no value on quality communication, so I'm afraid I had assumed the worst immediately. That was wrong of me.

[L3mming2]

Nightmare1, on 10 December 2016 - 05:19 AM, said:

My apologies then. I am accustomed to dealing with Millennials who place no value on quality communication, so I'm afraid I had assumed the worst immediately. That was wrong of me.

no problem, i know that my grammar and spelling are anoing to some.

[cazidin]

Nightmare1, on 10 December 2016 - 05:19 AM, said:

My apologies then. I am accustomed to dealing with Millennials who place no value on quality communication, so I'm afraid I had assumed the worst immediately. That was wrong of me.

IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOU! The Council of Millennials whom now control the internet BANISH you to 5Chan! It's like 4Chan, but worse. Yes that's possible, do you know how many circles there are to hell? It gets worse the further down you go.

[Nightmare1]

cazidin, on 10 December 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOU! The Council of Millennials whom now control the internet BANISH you to 5Chan! It's like 4Chan, but worse. Yes that's possible, do you know how many circles there are to hell? It gets worse the further down you go.

What are 5Chan and 4Chan? Is that another game or something?

[Wintersdark]

Evil Goof, on 09 December 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

I am not sure if I am in the minority and I have multiple Warhammers, and Catapults, but I differ from you that I want the three versions to master and believe it promotes variety. I likely would have never even tried anything other than the 3L.... I also think that this will end some pretty sweet deals as many have said the per mech price is likely not going to be as decent.

You'd be very much alone in that regard. While there's the occassional nutcase who likes the Rule of Three system, from day one of Open Beta back in 2012 there's been a constant storm of hate for it from particularly new players who've been forced to grind THREE mechs to get one "usable", thus requiring 3 mech bays to master one mech. This has been viewed as an unnecessary stumbling block for new players for all that time.

You disagree? That's fine. But keep in mind - you're saying you prefer that new players have to spend three times as many cbills, use 3 of their 4 included mechbays and substantially more XP to level just one mech completely, just so that the game literally forces you to try other mechs that you could have just tried anyways. Basically, that you want to screw new players just because you've got some aversion to trying new things.

Quote

As far luck with organising some folks...well it's not my deal. I can see however if you get some of the Units on board such as my old unit which has over 200 members with 60 active and some of the other big ones...I don't know. Just one vote myself and I have stopped spending. It has actually been a bit hard as easy to spend two hundred or more a month but this, the population being so low, and not knowing what the future is for the game will mean I won't spend real money for the forseeable future.

This is neither a new thing nor has it ever been successful. It's all just words, though, there's nothing more than a random new guy claiming to speak for some group.

What's more, and what's incredibly stupid here, is that you're calling for a boycott based on a new system that we don't even have full details about. Good lord, man. At least wait and see how things work in practice before going all herpderp.

Nightmare1, on 10 December 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

What are 5Chan and 4Chan? Is that another game or something?

In all seriousness, if you don't know what 4chan is, you're better off. Consider: Take the worst dregs of the worst forums on reddit, and make it an order of magnitude worse.

[Trauglodyte]

So, are we never going to get something like "You're a Scout, by design, so here is your Scout tree package"? I swear, I don't know why PGI bothered with this game. They have stripped every bit of lore out of it while giving us absolutely nothing but quick play after quick play.

[Nightmare1]

Wintersdark, on 10 December 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

In all seriousness, if you don't know what 4chan is, you're better off. Consider: Take the worst dregs of the worst forums on reddit, and make it an order of magnitude worse.

Lol, I barely know what reddit is.

Trauglodyte, on 10 December 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

So, are we never going to get something like "You're a Scout, by design, so here is your Scout tree package"? I swear, I don't know why PGI bothered with this game. They have stripped every bit of lore out of it while giving us absolutely nothing but quick play after quick play.

But hey, at least we have FW 4.1, right?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 10 December 2016 - 05:19 AM, said:

My apologies then. I am accustomed to dealing with Millennials who place no value on quality communication, so I'm afraid I had assumed the worst immediately. That was wrong of me.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

What "everything" are you referring to? Are you saying it would have been better for the game to have weapons cost 10X what they do now? That's what it would take to replace the module C-bill sink with this "everything."

Does that sound new player friendly?

Everything = All content, including that which is behind a paywall currently.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Of course incentives can backfire. And I would agree with you that the three-mech rule can be pretty onerous at times. But you are deflecting from the point that the three-mech rule had a second purpose beyond increasing player drop rates. It is a huge C-bill sink. How many C-bills do you think were flushed from the economy when Kodiaks became available?

But, this C-bill sink is going away, and I think it should for the reason you expressed. However, it has to be replaced.

It would be a different story if respec with c-bills just gave you back XP or whatever the exact story is with how respecing works to not lose resources. MC isn't needed to make respecing a c-bill sink (which while I dislike, that is definitely more acceptable than the current scheme).

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

You suggested a system where players can pay real money to avoid the costs of respeccing. Doesn't sound like you really get it at all.

Sounds like you don't get it at all...

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

You do know that if you want to re-master all those mechs it will cost you about the same XP you are being refunded? At least that's the takeaway I've gotten from PGI's semi-cryptic statements. Any excess Mech XP you have for those mechs will be available for constant respeccing, though.

I understand that, which is why it won't be as much of a problem for me.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

BTW: If even you with your hundreds of mechs and near constant respeccing has enough GXP, tell me why there should be a real money method for avoiding the resource costs?

2 reasons:

• People will pay for it
  
• That's the whole point of good F2P schemes, pay for convenience.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Says the guy who jumped in here complaining about the massive costs he'll have to bear to re-master all of his hundreds of mechs while also constantly respeccing his comp mechs. Seriously, I'm basing this off of what you said in your first post.

Now you seem to have "discovered" that the sky isn't really falling because you "forgot" about all the excess Mech XP on your mechs. You know, that resource I referenced in every single one of my responses to you so far. Glad you "remembered" it on your own.

Your full of it, I didn't say anything about myself when I first posted in this thread and I honestly forgot about all the Mech XP I have on various mechs sitting around; granted making spend even more MC to get GXP for this crap if I want to respec a newly balanced mech is frustrating. Still not the point I was trying to make at the beginning.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

So public queue drops are for honing your skills or for "fun time' because you seem to have changed your initial claim to match what I said. Funny that.

Since when can't they be both, what is with your white/black definitions. During practice time they are for honing skills, outside of practice they can be a little bit of both.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

If 80% of all current players joined a comp team and entered a league and therefore didn't drop in the public queue anymore, what is the likelihood that any new players to the game would be able to find enough appropriate matches in the public queue? How long do you think the game would last in such a state?

Comp will never be 80% of the player base so playing that impossible hypothetical will never be a situation to even be concerned with.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

You "forgot" the thing that I've mentioned in every response to you? So is respeccing all your mechs going to be a "grind" or not?

Based on current usage, the fact I have plenty of Mech XP built up, and plenty of premium built up, no. That said it will be more of a nuisance to me for minimal game than it would be before.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Gosh, if only there was a way to spend real money to convert some of your "remembered," banked Mech XP on your non-competitive mechs into GXP that you could use for your constant respeccing. I sure wish PGI would get to making that a thing . . .

Maybe I don't feel I should spent anymore money for something I wouldn't have had to do before?

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

It's like your typing hands aren't even connected to your brain. You want to get rid of the hyperinflation fighting C-bill sinks and replace them with a full embrace of massive hyperinflation.

Naw, I want to change what we are using as c-bill sinks. It's almost as if your eyes aren't even connected to your brain.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Go watch the video on reserve currency again. It is very important that you limit the ability of players to convert one currency into the other.

Except it never discuses trading multiple earned in-game currency, it is always ONE single earned in-game currency. Now, MC should be the equivalent of the reserve currency.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

It's an incentive to get players to play the game more. Of course it can feel like a punishment if done improperly, but that's true of every incentive in every game, ever. You are already calling it a punishment and it hasn't even been implemented yet. Does that sound like an objective stance or a "burned out" stance to you?

So I'm not allowed to make an objective stance based on the information we currently have and the implications of such changes? What sense does that make, the burned out status has nothing to do with this decision, sounds more like a problem of you connecting correlated events with the same cause.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Your grammar is a little mangled here but what I'm reading is that you think it's a punishment for players who spent their GXP because PGI didn't tell them that GXP was going to have additional uses in the future? Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

This has nothing to do with GXP, this has everything to do with respecs costing people time if they didn't know any better when specing in the first place.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

You are thinking of the old system. Will this new system be the same? How do you know?

I doubt they will be trying to make it too different in power levels between mastered mechs on the old and new system. That is a hunch because PGI tends to not deviate too much from the formula. We will see how different things end up in the PSR or whatever they are doing to release this.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Will you drop in your insta-mastered mech as much as a mech you have to progressively improve? Because years of psychology experiments says you won't.

And years of games before this skill-tree progression BS found its way in everything say they will. The fact I play mechs after they are mastered is proof that I will play an insta-mastered mech.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

I'm pointing out that you haven't thought through your viewpoint completely.

How can you when you don't seem to understand it as evident by your continuous use of strawmen?

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

You called dropping in public queue matches in order to earn C-bills or XP as "grinding." You've said it repeatedly. Don't try to lie now.

Yes, when I'm doing it to EARN c-bills, that's a very important qualifier that you continually gloss over. Playing public queue to grind resources and playing public queue just to play are two different things. So no, I'm not lying, you just are ignoring things that I'm typing apparently.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

The fact that it isn't a free-to-play does invalidate it. Blizzard makes their money off their players on day one. Free-to-play games make their money on day 20, 50 or in your case day 700. The only way you get players to day 700 is if there are games to be had and that only happens if you have as large a player pool as possible.

vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

The developers earned their money on day one when you bought MW4.

Again, are you willfully ignorant? Whether a game is F2P or not is irrelevant with regard to getting people to play without progression which is what bringing up games like Warcraft 3, MW4, and TF2 was all about. You keep talking about human psychology BS throughout this discussion yet why is it so different for games where you pay a little upfront.

[Psoriatic rash]

If I've missed what I'm about to bring up I apologize.

My issue with having to pay to keep my nodes....If I've put out RL money to get premium time. Grind out my tree, then, if anything changes ie..weapon balance, skill balance or any of the like and I have/need to respec I MUST use more RL money to keep the 'product' that I've purchased or I lose on my initial investment....yes..this sounds normal...um...no..

So, in that light why would I ever waste money on PT.

I do realize that on a major balancing that PGI is most likely to give free respec's, but...are they going to do that with all the tweaking that constantly happens. My bet is no. Again all of this is food for thought as we've no hard details but wanted to bring this to the table. I've a BIG issue with someone/company attempting to double dip and that's a just a concern for me.

Edited by Psoriatic rash, 26 December 2016 - 12:12 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ughh, how and why is this so difficult for some people to understand, and given that we have no new or relevant information, how the conversation in the dark continues is far beyond me to understand.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 26 December 2016 - 02:18 AM.

[Alik Kerensky]

So if we have been playing since the beginning... elited most of ones 100+ mechs, all module unlocks. we are going to be up a creek without a paddle as the hundreds of thousands of xp will be capped on the new skill tree and even more useless than it already is.

[4EVR]

So, what about those tweets now, huh?

[plodder]

I hope you will seriously consider separating module skills that are hardly used and are the last to be chosen into their own branch instead of mixing them in the must haves like it is now In current beta tree. Hill climb and the rest.
Thanks

I would think it would be fine if some skill nodes cost less or more if they were separated.

Skill columns instead of a industry standard Tree