3 replies to this topic

[Pinkie Pie]

First of all, I would like to say the skill tree is a step in the right direction. The benefits it has over the previous incarnation being actual options in performance since you cannot select them all. Admittedly, there was a little of that before, but only in so much as you couldn't equip every module at once. With that out of the way, it really looks like we were given a little too many skill points to make meaningful choices, but honest experimentation will be needed to determine for certain.

Now, onto my first concern, the gap. This refers to both the gap in cost between an elite'd mech before and a mech with enough skills selected to roughly equal that(~58), as well as the new expanded gap between a fully 91 point mastered mech and one at 0.

Irrespective of modules, an elite skilled mech represented the extent of improvement over the baseline performance. Before, this only took time playing matches, during which you would be earning cbills as well to outfit that mech or others with weapons and equipment, single=>double heatsinks, or save for the next mech. With the new skill tree, first, those same performance improvements take more XP to get, meaning it takes longer to reach that point, and second, the nearly 6million cbills required to achieve that.

And unless I'm mistaken, players are not getting cbills back for mechs they've elited, only modules purchased. The only people this doesn't effect, are those that owned 3-4 modules per mech they had elite skilled. Everyone else is paying a tax in cbills for what they previously had.

Granted, I am not opposed to change, or the reality that skills may not grant the same or even reduced bonuses from before as needed for balance, but rather the excessive “buy in” needed for ANY improvement. Before it was restricted to module costs, which were bonuses independent of the skill tree before, save for mastery granting you the ability to take an additional module.

The other sour spot is that the gap between a skilled mech and a fresh one is bigger than before. In general, this will make any fighting against an enemy mech even of the same chassis feel grossly unbalanced if one of the two has full mastery and the other has none. This is exacerbated by the increased investment it takes to get to full mastery.

Suggestions:
Now it's just shouting into the void if there wasn't some attempt made to address these issues in a reasonable constructive way.

As to the first gap, in cbills cost, I understand the 9million to fully outfit matches the cost of 2-3 modules equipped on that mech, but it moves the cost into a linear application rather than an optional one in 3million cbill chunks. Personally, I don't think skills should have any cbill cost associated, but working under the idea that they must I would suggest this: In an effort to hurt new players and experimenters less, I would say backloading the cbill costs is appropriate. What that means is the first 31 or so skills unlocked don't cost cbills, the next 30 cost what they do now, and the last 30 cost double.

As a corrollary to this, I am of the opinion that refunding skill points should leave them as skill points to be reallocated to that mech without cost. This promotes customization, and just like before, when you wanted to switch one module for another you didn't need to sell that module back at a loss and buy the new one, you could just have both, and switch between them on that one mech as necessary.

As to the gap in performance between a mastered mech and one without, having to work within the system given and just change numbers I would say to reduce XP costs to unlock nodes, thus letting mechs close the gap faster. This could also be achieved in similar backloading to the cbill cost, with the early node choices taking less XP, and growing more expensive at the end.

[Malrock]

I like the idea of the first bunch not costing, but you need to make it the first 60 (58?) because that is what is necessary to get back what people had prior to this change. I also agree on the points being refunded so that you can just re-spend the points as you desire. Also to make this work you need to give people extra exp from their current mechs so that they have enough to get the first 60 points with out having to grind more or just reduce the cost of the first 60 exp wise. Then you can make the last 30 more expensive as they were the ones that actually replace the modules.

[Tiantara]

- Maybe even better make 45% of spend c-bill return after reskilling mech? Like "sold back component" and get back some c-bill. So that make experimenting less hurting and easier to do. Also, another variant of changing is - make c-bill cost for changing skill less when gamer have premium time and same when he don't have it.

[Pinkie Pie]

Malrock, on 09 February 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

I like the idea of the first bunch not costing, but you need to make it the first 60 (58?) because that is what is necessary to get back what people had prior to this change. I also agree on the points being refunded so that you can just re-spend the points as you desire. Also to make this work you need to give people extra exp from their current mechs so that they have enough to get the first 60 points with out having to grind more or just reduce the cost of the first 60 exp wise. Then you can make the last 30 more expensive as they were the ones that actually replace the modules.

In an ideal situation, yes, I would prefer it where it wouldn't cost any to at least get to where the skills were before with the costs distributed after that point. I merely offered the 31/30/30 as the simplest breakdown of that idea. The same for having experience equalling the previous being similar as well.