2 replies to this topic

[BenWhiskeyjack]

I did this in about 2 hours, so there's room for improvement. We all see and applaud where PGI wants to go, but their method needs some work. I would propose the following scheme that is similar in principle, but I think addresses some of the concerns we see with the PGI proposal. (I would be willing to wait another few months for them to make this implementation happen)

I think there's similar proposals floating around, but none seemed detailed or quite where I thought it should go, so I made my own.

Design principles they missed:

• don't lose current capabilities and don't require re-grind on current mechs
  
  • I second many other's opinions that I will not continue to play if I have to spend time regrinding mechs that I've already invested time in.
• Allow a little growth
  
• need to allow experimentation to enable diversity
  
• cbill use should be minimal-ish - replicate the use today for pilot/weapon modules
  
• true diversity doesn't require certain skills be picked by players

To achieve all this, the skills should be separate and have some improvement per level spent - i.e. kinetic burst should improve acceleration 5% per point, and should not be matrixed in with deceleration and other such items which I may not want.

I made a full spreadsheet to show this in google docs - it's not pretty, but hopefully it provides the illustration of what I'm getting at.


The values in the sheet are based on what PGI had or what we can get to today - they could be reworked for balancing as needed. I simplified the weapon nodes as what they had seemed overly much, but I think they could remain broken out like PGI does today if they wanted. I also changed some of the grouping to enable the plan below.

The plan would go something like this:

• set a max # of skills per area - these could be adjusted, I picked these values to make the fully spec'ed mech similar to what we have today
  
  • mech ops = 10
    
  • defensive = 5
    
  • mobility/jump jets = 30
    
  • sensors/firepower/auxilary = 40 (these essentially represent modules in today's game)

As far as the skill costs and such:

• Keep the cost of a node at 1500 XP (1-2 good matches needed per node)
  
• Mech XP directly converts and mechs should get XP for sensor/firepower/auxilary skills based on if the mech is at elite or master status - give a flat amount for 30 or 40 skill nodes.
  
  • This means that a fully mastered mech gets enough XP for 33 nodes, plus the full skills for the max sensor/aux/weapon skills. 33 nodes *1500 = 49500 XP which is what you would spend to master a mech today.
    
  • on my sheet i highlighted yellow the skills that you get today as you basic/elite/master a mech - that was the driver for this
    
  • the flat amount for the elite/master status is based on the fact that today we pay XP once for module skills. under the new system, I have to pay per mech. this option technically gives folks a lot more XP, but only if they have mastered/elited the mech...best comprimise I could come up with at this point.
• Mech ops, defensive and mobilty/JJ skills are 0 CBill cost. Sensor/aux/weapon skills are 50000 bills per node
  
  • this keeps things similar to today, where the modules cost, but movement skills do not. it should enable newbies/casuals to get involved as well as those that play frequently
    
  • This does assume we don't care about folks with lots of modules - they will end up with a cbill windfall. but since there's not an actual economy in this game anyway, I don't think that matters too much. if PGI wanted, they could cap the cbills available from module sales or something else random. either way the design goal is to ensure that this is open for more casual players - both those that play now and new players
• 
  Respec costs
  
  • 
    any CBills and XP are refunded
    
  • 
    There is a cost of 2500-xxxx per node to do a respec.
    
  • 
    The above is to allow for experimentation - I would think that one good, non-premium time match reward (~150000 cbills) should allow for a full respec (150000 / 65 max nodes = 2300 cbills/node, rounded to 2500 just because).
    
  • 
    PGI could play with the assumptions above, but the logic should always be based on matches required to do a full respec
• 
  GXP ultimately goes away with this system - it could be used by players who have it until it's gone
  
• 
  HXP would still be needed for those with multiple of the same variant

If you like this idea, please comment and improve on it...maybe PGI will take note of this or other similar proposals. If you think it's a terrible idea, you can just go to another thread.

[Fox2232]

I'll make it brief:
Quote: "Design principles they missed:"
- Yes, we pointed it all out already few times.

Quote: "The plan would go something like this:"
- This is where you turn good idea into bad one. Limiting is exactly against variability people want and PGI tries to give.
- And on top of that 40 points shared between weapons and other = Boating enforced

Quote: "As far as the skill costs and such:"
- one half is OKish. The XP cost needs no change, but initial unlock price has to stay high.

Quote: "Respec costs"
- Main issue is refunding and respecing costs 25k + 100k now. That has to be like 5k in total. Any lower and it is like FREE RESPEC because in most cases player just switches weapons (around 20 points moved only). Radical changes like 60 points will be rare and still doable in 1 great or 2 normal matches.

Your proposition will put MWO servers offline in 6 months due to insufficient cash flow, or they would have to scratch it and rework it.

Simple, clean, and keeps what PGI needs while giving players what they want.

[BenWhiskeyjack]

To your points:

--putting a max # of skill points in a tree enforces some level of choices. You're already going to be limited on that if you only have 91 points. (17 skill branches * 10+ nodes in each = 170 nodes). Plus you're forced to take crap you don't need or want to get full benefits. If all I want out of mobility is speed, why shouldn't we be allowed to take that? (balance issues should be addressed by the values PGI puts in the tree). And in any case, boating weapons is already enforced by the hard-points. Most mechs have 1 or 2 sets of hard points that get used since building a bracket mech that hits all ranges or weapon types is ultimately sub-optimal.

Costs - we agree that respeccing needs to be much cheaper. But your point about the MWO business model doesn't fly unless you're assuming that PGI is essentially forcing you to buy the in-game currency to continue playing. There's no reason for a high initial cost on these skills. MWO's business model so far has been mech packs. They're now saying that we don't need 3 variants, but that doesn't mean they have to change the prices on those - if the first variant you get always costs 75% of the package price, that retains their cash flow similar to what it is today - if that's truly their concern. You can call me non-sensical, but I'm ok with dropping cash for new mechs every other month, but not dropping cash for in-game cash.

I'm open to other ideas on all this, but your points on just changing the cost doesn't really address everything that's wrong with the current PGI iteration.