1 reply to this topic

[nehebkau]

Ok PGI, like the idea but some of your implementations would make me leave.

First, I have 4 of the same mech, Thunderbolt 4SS. I run and build them exactly the same. With the new system I will have to spend cbills and exp to give them the exact same skills (on each mech.) While this isn't a big issue now, as I have the historic EXP and cbills from modules, in the future this would prohibit doing the same thing.

For example, you come out with the new mech "Stompinator" I really like the Stompinator-K variant. I level one of them to max and want to run another of the same variant in my drop-deck outfitted the same way. Now, I have to skill-up that mech even though I have already mastered a K variant of the Stompinator already.

You should change the system so that all mechs of the same variant have the same experience (not shared, but the same amount of exp). Meaning, if you get experience on one of the Stompinator-Ks that are in your dropdeck, then all your Stompinator-Ks get experience added to them. That way If I level my Stompinator-K-Autocannon variant, the experience on my Stompinatory-K Flamer version goes up as well.

Likewise, if I buy a new Stompinator-K, because I want a LRM variant, when I buy it new it is automatically given the experience that I have accumulated in my other Stompinators.

I will not waste my time leveling 2 of the same mech variant so that I can have an pulse laser and a PPC version of the same mech. Leveling mechs sucks. I refuse to grind another 75000 exp so that I can use a mech I have already mastered with different weapons.
< ^--------- this is the most important one to me>

Second, the skill trees are all positives and no negatives. Everyone is going to same basic quirks, most of their weapon tree, Most of the defensive tree (excluding ams), Most of the lower chassis, Most of the mech operations and a lot of the sensors tree. There is no drawbacks for doing so and therefore you are going to end up with all the same cookie-cutter skill tree progressions. Give it 10 days for meta-skill tree to develop and done. If you are truly interested in making variety you need to add negatives to the positives... +2% range, fine give +.05% heat. +3% armor then - 1% speed. +3% heat containment then -.5% ROF.

I know you tried to limit this by making a pilot take crap they don't want to get to the things that they want but your decisions on how that works are more frustrating than logical. Take a look at auxiliary, which looks thrown together -- need capture assist to get the full (and VERY meager NARC bonus?)

Finally, there are no consumable skill trees. Consumables are powerful and there should be some cost associated with using them -- You still need the pilot skill tree tab for consumables.

[Skribs]

There doesn't really need to be a "negative" with the skills. They just need to all be attractive.

Personally, on some Mechs I would prefer to have the torso twisting capabilities from the torso tree over the mobility in the mobility tree. On balanced Mechs (i.e. my Dragons usually have 1 ballistic, 1-2 missiles, and 2-4 lasers) I would skip weapon trees because each point is running at 1/3 effectiveness.

For me, it comes down to time and money: speccing should cost 0 C-Bills. Respecs should be free. Mechs should take 50k-75k XP to level. Otherwise they're just slowing me down.