0
Comments:
A list of recommendations will be at the end of my comments.
Please do not push this patch out to the live servers. The settings, costs, arrangement of nodes within each web (they do not at all resemble tree branches), and the mismatched equal-valuation of very different webs are going to alienate the body of paying customers. While a framework has indeed been created allowing mech performance bonuses to be unlocked piecemeal after quantified participation, the balance and tipping points of the system as it stands, are too far from optimal for public consumption.
Within the current ocean of entertainment options vying for limited attention, grinding for “unnecessary” or “mandatory” node activations becomes a pain point that can be exploited by competitors. While it seems like hiding highly-desired nodes behind nodes of lesser desirability is de-facto pricing discrimination, as a player, it feels like you are challenging me to prove how much I want to continue a painful activity for no benefit to me. It would better serve the customer pool to produce a “role-tour” as part of the “new recruit onboarding process”.
The “fun” of any fun activity is in the choices made, and the options available (be they many or few). In this customization system, if you treat node-webs that are not valued equally by players as having equal value, you will find your mis-valuations immediately arbitraged (exploited) by those looking for any advantage in a competitive environment. Multiple playtest commenters have proposals for grouping node-trees into tiers of ”choose only X of these Y options” according to the effects those choices have on gameplay.
Lastly, on node-webs vs node-trees - for groupings of closely related nodes, many other game designers have arrived at pitchfork-shaped decision trees to provide for “narrow-but-deep”, “wide-but-shallow”, and many other "in-between" choice strategies. Webs are best used when representing remixing (copying, transformation, and recombination of aspects) of whole products, ideas, etc. Unless you have a tech-research minigame coming to MWO, webs are not a good fit for a mech performance bonus system.
Recommendations:
* Move away from labeling the mech performance bonus system with anything related to “skill”, or “pilot skill”. It unnecessarily conflates customers’ personal identities with existing mech performance bonuses, and causes excess outrage upon removal. Several playtest commenters have proposed more immersive labels such as “mech customization”, “performance enhancements”, “efficiency bonus unlocks” and so on.
* Arrange the branches so that there are consequential trade-offs being made between them. Playtest commenter “Fantastic Tuesday” has made some headway in gathering other playtest commenters’ ideas in this vein.
* Arrange the nodes in a branch so that there are consequential trade-offs between the “narrow-but-deep”, and “wide-but-shallow” approaches.
* Adjust node value progressions (e.g, from 4/4/4/4/4 to 6/5/4/3/2), in order to support those with a “wide-but-shallow” approach.
* Adjust the activate-able nodes pool to be expanded (up to each mech’s limit/tier-limit) as one time purchases, and priced only in XP or GXP.
* Adjust node and branch activation/deactivation to be priced only in CBills. I notice that Hero Mech and Premium Time purchases can alleviate some of the inconvenience of grinding CBills.
* Adjust node and branch activation/deactivation costs so that misallocations, when noticed, can be un-customized back with earnings from about 3 lost matches.
Edited by singh44s, 11 February 2017 - 08:54 PM.
Although you didn't cover all the problems of the new system, the way I see them.
