No replies to this topic

[paws2sky]

Hello All

I had a chance to explore the Skill Tree last night and just thought I'd throw in my 2 C-Bills.

UI Design and Usability

It was immediately apparent that the UI was designed for monitors much larger and in a different aspect ratio than my own. When the Skills screen initially opened it looked like it was in some sort of extreme closeup.

Fortunately, the UI designer had the foresight to add a zoom in/out feature. Unfortunately, when zoomed out so the whole tree fit my screen, the type was very very small, almost illegible.

At first glance, these are clearly defined trees so much as clusters of interlinked nodes. The impression it gives is that you can go from one node to any connected node. However, it doesn't seem like you can go around undesired nodes to get to something "lower" on the tree. You can only go forward. It took some tinkering to figure this out and was a bit annoying. If this is working as intended, then please change the lines connecting nodes to arrows to better indicate the flow of the tree. If I recall correctly, I ran into this while chasing some of the heat management nodes.

The indicators for what kind of XP you're spending need to be more obvious. Give me sirens and whistles (no, not literally) (well, maybe if it's an UrbanMech warhorn) when I'm trying to spend XP I don't have. After hapazardly clicking on all 91 nodes that I wanted, I had to go back and reset and do it again because I didn't have enough XP of some kind or another. Bummer.

XP Conversion

It was certainly not intuitive enough for someone who didn't know what they were doing (me) to figure out without re-re-reading the instructions. From my time in technical/customer support - and I imagine that anyone who's done such work will agree - PEOPLE (including me) DON'T READ THE MANUAL.

C-Bill, XP, and Other Costs

After a tweet (I think) mentioning that the values in the MechCon teaser were only placeholders, there were several YouTubers who suggested that there would be an increasing cost for each node or level of node in a tree. Thank you, thank you, thank you, PGI for not doing that. And please, don't change that. Ever.

While I see this having the potential to bite at the thrifty players (most of my unit), F2P players (my kids), and new players a bit, it doesn't seem to be as bad as everyone is saying.

The C-Bill cost to master a mech is 9.1 million. While that seems high, consider these points: In chasing the holy trinity of Radar Derp, Seismic, and Target Info (~15 million C-Bills), you're actually picking numerous other benefits that resemble modules you probably never, ever used because you never had the slots to use them.

Also, consider the cost to unlock and improve those modules. That's probably 30,000+ GXP. That doesn't include weapon modules either, which can get really expensive. Admittedly, you could swap those modules around as needed, but man, that gets annoying. Watching me switch things around one night, my eldest commented that wasn't going to bother. The younger one agreed. So, my kids decided not to buy any modules for their mechs because they didn't want to mess with it. And mind you, they only have 4 or 5 mechs each. They're excited about the skill tree because they can finally do some customizing.

Anyway, upon completion of the tutorial, additional Piloting Challenges, and Cadet Bonus, you end up with 20+ million C-Bills. The actual amount varies based on match rewards, of course. But the great news is that that is enough to buy almost any mech and if you're a savvy shopper (and don't want a Brokdiak or similarlt priced Clan trash), you can get the mech of your choice and have enough left over for full mastery. Then you just need the XP.

The XP cost to acquire full mastery is about what it would have cost to master a trio of variants. Technically, you never need to do more than elite two and master another, but really, I'm going to assume that most people who took it that far when ahead and mastered all three at some point.

If anything though, the XP cost does point to the possibility of reducing the XP to unlock a node.

Suggested XP Cost Reduction (with an example!)

Remember, under the current system, you can rotate through your stable of mechs, getting that sweet double XP bonus on multiple variants in one day. Under the new, single mech system, you only get it once. That's a dramatic drop in XP earned per day. To illustrate, consider this:

Under the current system, So-So Joe earns about 1000 XP per match. Joe is trying to master three variants. He can rotate through and earn a combined 6000 XP in three matches thanks to his 1st win bonuses.

Under the new system, Joe only needs to have one mech variant. Joe wins his first match and earns 2000 XP. Joe now needs to play four more games (instead of two) to reach that 6000 XP mark. The number of games Joe plays increases from 3 to 5.

I had several funny scenarios in mind to descripe Joe's predicament and the ramifications thereof, but I this speaks for itself. You're looking at a 66% increase in matches required to master a mech. See the problem? Casual folks who can only devote a handful of hours per week are not going to get the sense of accomplishment needed to keep them engaged with the game.

This might be good for keeping the server population up in the short term, but eventually people are going to start making choices that involve things that aren't sitting around playing MWO.

I would recommend 1000 XP per node instead of 1500. That's still 91,000 XP for full mastery. This cost reduction takes into account the might bring it more in line with the current leveling experience because that kind of XP can seem like a lifetime for casual players or folks (like me) who can usually only play for short periods of time.

Actual Play

Well, after sorting through everything, making some notes for this post, and skilling up one of my favorite Stalker variants, I hit the battlefield for a very brief match. That was my first 4v4 and wow. Brutal doesn't even describe it.

Despite the fact that we got rolled, it felt like my maxed out mobility, operations, and speed trees gave the old girl an edge than she doesn't have right now on the live servers. She took one hell of a beating and didn't start losing components for a surprisingly long time. Mobility was excellent. Like in the current system though, having to buy the arm mobility for her seemed silly (move up and down faster!!!). The sensor and operational upgrades didn't come into play really because the match was a brawl the instant the two teams met (we literally turned a corner and there they were).

I'm going to try and get into a couple more matches tonight, maybe with a different chassis, just to see how things perform. Wait times are pretty long though due to the low PTS population, so we'll see. Maybe we'll have an uptick over the next few days as more people get the PTS client downloaded.

Predictions Based on Current Implementation

Though this is a good first draft, I do have a few predictions about how this will shake out when it gets out into the wild. I could be totally wrong. Who knows?

Omnimechs will benefit hugely for this system. Omnimech players can focus their energy on one variant while picking up the omnipods to do any configuration they want. Mostly likely, the players that care enough will acquire Clan Heroes/Specials or Champions as they have added benefits to leveling.

Chassis and variant diversity will decline. In the face of the Skill Tree's customization options, any mechs with inferior hard point quantity or geometry will see reduced use. Schmucks like me are gonna play what we like, but there are plenty of folks who only want to play the "best" mechs. I already see this in game now. As you advance through the tiers, people just stop playing certain mechs unless they're trolling or (gasp) trying something new. This is only going to get worse.

Players who tinker with their load outs constantly (myself included) will try to ignore the Ballistic, Energy, and Missile tracks as much as possible. Unless you're in a Black Knight or something that only takes energy, it's probably going to be okay to skip them. In lieu of those tracks, tinkers will focus on the speed, survival, and info nodes which can be used regardless of weapon configuration. Some newer mechs (and many omnis) are essentially unquirked with regard to weapons, so it isn't like they're going to be taking a huge performance hit.

Chassis and variants that can field extremely mixed load outs, like Bushwackers, Stalkers, Thunderbolts, and most omnimechs, will follow the tinker's route and ignore weapon tracks or just focus on one type of weapon. That may, in turn, cause a diminished variety of load outs. Honestly, PPC velocity is one of the only things I would be willing to chase... and that would require me to like PPCs, so... that's not happening.

As previously mentioned, unless XP costs are adjusted, you will see an accelerating long term decline in player population due to lack of engagement and a reduced sense of accomplishment. Why did someone come of with the concept of Achievements? To keep players coming back for more. Take that away and players will drift away.


So... uh, yeah. That's all for now.

-paws

P.S. It's amazing what 2 C-Bills will buy these days, isn't it?