5 replies to this topic

[Big Tin Man]

So far, here's the best ideas that have been put forward so far (I'll save my comments for below):

1. Give the first 40-60 nodes for XP only, ramp up the cost on the back end to sink roughly 9 million cbills. This helps new players immensely, allows for cheap re-specs while you're figuring out a mech, and is more in line with the old progression model of "Basic, Elite, Buy Modules, Master" for the timing of your costs in a mech.

2. Make the skills diminishing returns to discourage weapon boating and encourage mixed builds. I.E. first unlock 5%, second 3%, third through fifth 1%.

3. Limit the number of unlocks per tree to force choices and diversity. I.E. you can't unlock any single entire tree, maybe only 2/3 of it or so. Depending on how idea #2 rolls out, this may not be necessary.

4. Make a separate pool of unlocks for the consumable tree, no PTW MC consumables.

5. ELIMINATE IRRELEVANT UNLOCKS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PROGRESS THE TREE. I.E. Arm movement for mechs without arms, torso twist range for urbie, etc.

6. Make choices more difficult (Fantastic Tuesday video discussion). I.E. you can choose acceleration or leg structure, but not both. Heat containment or rapid cooldown, but not both. etc. Would talk more work and thought to implement before the Feb patch.
Make choices more difficult (Fantastic Tuesday video discussion). I.E. you can choose acceleration or leg structure, but not both.


Commentary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current PTS doesn't do it. It fails to encourage anything other than min/maxing 1 weapon system, which leads to boating. The early linear c-bill requirement hurts new players disproportionately. If the first several suggestions here were implemented, this would rapidly transform to a much more palatable system.

I'd love to see the hard choices as discussed by FT come to reality, but that just isn't practical to think that could be developed, tested and implemented in 2 weeks without being a cluster. The first 4 ideas together are quite possible to put together, and depending on how the system is coded, the 5th could possibly make it as well.

Any other ideas out there that I missed? Expansion on these ideas?

[Fox2232]

1) No, wrong.
2) Yes
3) No, removes true diversity by forcing limits
4) no
5) Yes
6) In a Way - Yes and in a Way - No => Making some skills more powerful at cost of adding some minor disadvantage to them

[Gas Guzzler]

Hard no to number 6. I should be able to focus on agility and durability if I want, but honestly the benefits shouldn't be as large as they are, especially some of the agility ones.

3 I am also against. Should be able to focus on a skill tree instead of being forced to put skills into things you don't care about.

2 I am indifferent on.

How can you just say "These (my) ideas are the best PGI!"? These are your opinions.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 10 February 2017 - 12:38 PM.

[ProfessorD]

If PGI insists that this new system must sink CBills, #1 is a fine compromise. They really shouldn't insist on sinking CBills like this, though.

#2 is solid, as long as the skill trees are rearranged to take out all the pointless stuff you don't want mixed in the middle.

I think recommendation #2, combined with #5, make #3 unnecessary.

#6 only makes sense if you gain much more ability to specialize than the current PTS skill tree allows. Currently, the quirks provided by most of the weapon trees are totally weak and there exists no playstyle in which the upper torso tree is worth it. If you're going to get hard right-or-left choices in the skill tree, progressing far down one path or the other should result in serious specialization. You need to *feel* the difference in-game and be glad you chose to specialize at the end.

Edited by ProfessorD, 10 February 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[Big Tin Man]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Hard no to number 6. I should be able to focus on agility and durability if I want, but honestly the benefits shouldn't be as large as they are, especially some of the agility ones.

As I stated, this would take a lot more thought to roll out in a good manner. The stuff I put up was just an example, but a good side having a downside is the general idea. How that takes shape is much more complex.

Gas Guzzler, on 10 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

3 I am also against. Should be able to focus on a skill tree instead of being forced to put skills into things you don't care about.

2 I am indifferent on.

If #2 is rolled out effectively, #3 is likely not necessary to increase weapons diversity.

Gas Guzzler, on 10 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

How can you just say "These (my) ideas are the best PGI!"? These are your opinions.

Clickbait titles 101

ProfessorD, on 10 February 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

If PGI insists that this new system must sink CBills, #1 is a fine compromise. They really shouldn't insist on sinking CBills like this, though.

Starting from scratch, the old system was a much larger C-bill sink. Starting with a stable of 168 mechs, the new system is horrific (but I never would have purchased 60% of those mechs if it wasn't for the rule of 3).

ProfessorD, on 10 February 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

#2 is solid, as long as the skill trees are rearranged to take out all the pointless stuff you don't want mixed in the middle.

I think recommendation #2, combined with #5, make #3 unnecessary.

Agreed, though I am afraid PGI will take the easy way out and only do #3.

ProfessorD, on 10 February 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

#6 only makes sense if you gain much more ability to specialize than the current PTS skill tree allows. Currently, the quirks provided by most of the weapon trees are totally weak and there exists no playstyle in which the upper torso tree is worth it. If you're going to get hard right-or-left choices in the skill tree, progressing far down one path or the other should result in serious specialization. You need to *feel* the difference in-game and be glad you chose to specialize at the end.

Again, this would take way more thought than a Feb rollout would allow.

[Baulven]

Honestly most of the skills should be xp only. Only the module esquire options should cost money. Granted they could always adjust the cbill earned per match and make it less problematic, but then mechs become easier to get and the pay to avoid grind becomes less appealing.