Hagen von Tronje, on 13 February 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:
weak and selfish point........much work and thought..
you really mean thought?
Give me a moment for a good laugh.
I'm a founder. In those years i have by now 97 Mechs, 90 of them mastered.
That is not much. I'm 52 years old, 3 children, a dog and a full time job. What do you think how much hours I can play a day or a week?
Do you really think i can stand another 3 or 4 years to get back to that point? Do you really think that it is a fair thing?
And what do you think how many player like me are here at MWO?
No, i do not think that they had really invested any thought in the benefit of their players....or maybe only in case of the wallet of them.
If you are arguing about the expense this is something I agreed with as soon as I played the PTS. The first point I made about it was that the system needs to allow for new players and those who don't play a lot to not get left behind and far weaker in comparison to those who have been playing much longer. I'm pretty sure its a general principle among most free to play games that it takes more time to to level up if you do play it for free, and significantly less when someone pays. That's the same model we have now. If your only concern i that you are losing mastered mechs and they cost too much, you've got a sympathetic ear, but look at post #644 for some insight as my basis for believing that a mastered mech from the live server does not equate to the PTS. Yes, it will suck if you are OCD about having all masters. It will suck losing all those pretty orange badges next to your mech. But is that the only thing your upset about or is there something else about the entire system? Maybe a game play point that we actually disagree on?
Hastur Azargo, on 14 February 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:
And as I said earlier in this topic, this new system benefits most people who play more, which is why certain players who simply play a lot, albeit without much success, come to this topic and make arguments like "I'm fine with the changes, f*** everyone else", and then act like they presented a totally valid argument and demand their point to be respected. It's almost like we should just stop voicing our concerns because someone doesn't feel affected by the changes.
As mentioned just above, F2P games generally reward amount of investment, be it time or money. Many games from the traditional system also rewarded people for playing more by providing more power and ability unlocks as people played more. This seems to be an offensive concept. Almost as offensive as things like objective analysis and logic driven discussion. Despite my agreement that costs are high, and my distaste to for losing elite status, I have accepted that there is a trade off of switching to a new system with vastly different mechanics. I too have spent years here, have over 100 mechs at elite status, and would like to go in to the new system with some advantage. The difference between us is rather than stomp at pout and hurl insults at those who try to explain the objective and logical benefits of what the new system offers and accomplishes, I decided that taking a hit with "master status" is a relatively small price to pay, especially due to the fact that a mastered mech now does not equate to a mastered mech in the new system. This is hardly an opinion, even if you want to continue to assert that it is. There is plenty of analysis provided in this thread alone, not to mention the huge original post explaining how different the new structure is. We both know that the new costs are steep, that we can't master all of our mechs right away and that it stings, but they come with some compensation that looks to translate reasonably well whether you choose to accept it or not.
@hastur, no one asked you to stop voicing concerns. What was asked was to consider the new system in its own context rather than trying to force a square peg through a round hole, but you seem fixated on proving that you are right by exclaiming cost is too high. If there is more to your stance, then offer counterpoints that support your claim. My favorite quote from your last post is this one: "certain players... come to this topic and make arguments like "I'm fine with the changes, f*** everyone else", and then act like they presented a totally valid argument and demand their point to be respected."! I remember my sisters' friends in highs chool using the same kind of logic. They were usually referring to another girl who upset them, "F*** that B****, what she know? She don't even know me! She thinks she's all that 'cuz she uses all those stupid facts like they're real or something." I'll give that its effective, especially since it gathers those who are feeling similar, strong emotion, but its funny when logical counterpoints or factually based points are continually avoided as responses to the opposing claim.
I think Appogee put it best:
Appogee, on 13 February 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:
I appreciate your detailed thoughtful response. It's clear you and I have been looking at the new Skill Tree through completely different lenses.
I have the perspective of someone who has played this game with the objective mostly of leveling Mechs, optimising them, and gaining diverse experience of different chassis. From that perspective, the new Skill Tree is a big backward step because Mechs take much longer to level and are less optimised at the end.
On the other hand, you have the perspective of how the the skill tree, in a broader context, drives a different gameplay experience.
We are both 'right' from our own different perspectives.
In fact, I appreciate your perspective on how the skill tree and quirk changes make the game feel and play differently to current. When I look at the changes that way, I'm less depressed about the changes to come. I just need to reorient my approach to the game.
If all your concern goal is to master all your mechs, then you guys are right, those of us ok with stripping you of your achievements are ********. For those who are more concerned about game play mechanics and broadening the scope of the game rather than rushing to max out all of our mech upgrades, this is a huge step forward.
30
). I've got a stable of over a hundred mechs with the vast majority of the maxed out. I am well aware the "lost time" that will result, but as I said before. Claiming that the current game has big replay value and that it will be lost in the new PTS specifically because you will not maintain all of your mastered mechs is a weak and selfish point to make when taking into account how much work and thought went into the new system. The current game is shallow, glorifies damage output, has no room for role development, and cruses incentive to diversify mech choices.
