Hastur Azargo, on 13 February 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:
This system benefits people that only have a handful of mechs. It deincentivizes collecting and destroys half the long-term investments. It encourages only getting the best mechs and locking them into the best builds, punishing experimentation and deviations from meta.
This is where I think choices will be less clear cut. With so much potential for role diversification potential for each mech, the question will rather become, "which mechs provide the best set of tools for how I want to play a role?" It will be hugely experimental early on while everyone is trying to figure it out, but I believe that allowing upgrade customization will yield a large variety of mechs able to cope with the roles they specialize in. Sure there will be certain mechs that just scout better courtesy of speed and ECM, but I think that the system will create an unexpected number of builds that are sufficiently effective while being tailored to the players preferences. Essentially, there would be enough meta builds that meta would be more of a broad concept than actual defined builds. I do agree that punishing respec is a very risky idea, however it makes sense in terms of logistics. If you are performing physical upgrades and modifications, then it requires manpower and resources to do them, just like getting a vehicle modded at a tuning shop. I do see it as a detriment to experimentation, but it is also a realistically based cost. How they solve it, I'm not sure. I see either reduced costs or larger c-bill pay outs as being the least disruptive, but maybe they have another idea that will provide a good middle ground.
Hastur Azargo, on 13 February 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:
you'll be looking at a system that heavily discourages buying new mechs, much less in $20 triplets, as every new mech out there isn't a shiny new toy, but a massive chore.
This is a highly subjective area with too any different possibilities to predict how people will prioritize new mechs and upgrades. Realistically, I think that new players will end up somewhere in the middle rather than the extremes. They will likely buy a mech, partially upgrade it, and then buy the next mech they are interested in. Just as more advanced players do, they probably won't stick with just 1 mech and mercilessly grind it from beginning to end before moving on to the next. They'd likely get it "good enough" before paying for the next mech, which is what happened with modules in the old system. I didn't touch models until almost a year and half after I started playing because of their ridiculous cost, but if I could've done some small cost upgrades along the way, I would have surely upgraded a mech a little at a time until it was sufficient to my needs while saving up for the next.
I don't believe the idea of rushing to max out a mech is really the most efficient way to handle mechs and by extension it's destructive to step into the new system thinking that that more than 50 nodes are needed to provide a solid start and some role definition in the new system. This is a deduction from my previously posted analysis with the goal of making mechs effective enough to compete comfortably rather than trying to recreate the old system in the new. I've been contemplating opening a second account so that I could have access to IS faction play (for those days where the Clans just aren't getting me off). Under the current system It seemed more like a chore with having to do all the xp grinding for so many chassis, especially since I've already done it for so many IS mechs. The new system makes it seem much more manageable and even worth pickig up as a side hobby because I can make mech improvements with smaller amounts of c-bills while still saving for the next mech and still save a substantial amount of time compared to the current system.
Hastur Azargo, on 13 February 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:
...With this new system playing metamechs will be heavily encouraged, plus with nerf to ECM and buffs to LRMs I dare envision another coming of LURMageddon, which will inevitably cause player frustration and exodus, necessitating PGI's response. I just don't understand why PGI can't see these problems before they hit the demographic counter.
In regards to ECM:
ECM• Base Range of Detection Scrambling reduced to 30% (from 75%).
• The remaining 45% is now unlocked through the Skill Tree (22.5% per Node).
[color="#3073f3"]ECM Design Notes: In this PTS we're attempting to address the low investment/high reward characteristics of ECM equipment in its new context under the Skill Tree. With the above reduction to its base range, utilizing ECM to its full effect will require focused advancement within the Skill Tree.[/color]
On LRMs, a look at the new trees show how critical scouting and info tech will become in order for LRMs to be used effectively. Unfortunately they don't have clear information regarding lock times and if there will be a buff/reduction or how scouting dynamics will affect allies beyond enemy location so we can't really dig into that yet. Infotech and auxiliary boosts will make scout mechs more important as spotters for blind firing or force LRM mechs to more actively find their own targets to maximize their LRM efficiency. The easier access to radar deprivation will also act as an element to help reduce missile effectiveness. These things combined with ECM (though it will take a little more investment to make it helpful to a team instead of just an individual) will likely balance each other out, or simply need some tweaking after its we get more data about its actual play.
Hastur Azargo, on 13 February 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:
P.S. Here's an interesting exchange between Russ and and a concerned player:
As you can see, Russ, for some reason, seems to think that people would have rather invested millions of c-bills into duplicate modules, rather than swapping them around. I remember when previously people complained about module cost, Russ (or someone else from PGI) said that modules are so costly because they are intended to be end-game items, and not available easily which kinda implied that people wouldn't buy duplicates, and instead be "diligent" enough and swap the modules around. This goes to show that PGI didn't take into account a lot of things when they initially planned this (which is understandable), so I hope they'll make changes based on our feedback. It's either that, or I'll take a break until this new system is fixed after it has done its damage.
This can be taken in different ways. The way you received it is one, but I understood it differently. I understood it as diligent module swappers were able to save money and maximize the utility of fewere modules, while lazier players (me included) saved c-bills to buy them once I finished my higher priority purchases.
What it really comes down to in the end will be priorities. Regardless of what resources each player has, certain things will be more important than others. While many will be concerned about what they are losing in the switch to the new system and that their "maxed" mechs will no longer be "maxed", many others will be indulging in a very different upgrade system trying to figure out what they do and don't need to upgrade to make a mech as efficient in its role as possible. My stable is about 115 mechs which is sizeable, but I am way more excited about having enough resources to max out 5-8 mechs to figure out what actually pays off in different roles and situations than being upset about not having my generically upgraded mechs from a generic arena shooter that tried to make up for tonnage differences and making tiny mechs put out comparable damage to assaults. The idea of scout mechs who scout better, thankier brawlers, harassers with better mobility, and assaults that require positioning and forethought being escorted by support mechs is just way more expansive, tactical, and though provoking than continuing the pure damage flop contest we have now. Sure, what we have is alright, but with the PTS introducing a whole new approach that is much more "Battletech", even if it will require some growing pains, tweaking, and learning to cope with a whole new atmosphere and game play style. We're upgrading from Hawken and Titanfall into something that will be painfully complicated enough to call itself Battletech!
30
).
