43 replies to this topic

[Grus]

Rampage, on 13 February 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Yes, some great comments and observations. However, you have to be careful with some ideas. The idea about pairing up certain weapon attributes to force you to make a choice could actual hurt diversity. He gave one example of a laser quirk being paired up with weapon spread. Depending on what the laser quirk is that could really hurt someone who is running SRMs and MLs to the point that they would say, "OK, I guess I just have to boat SRMs then but this Mech cannot carry enough SRMs due to hardpoints so it is no good and I will have to take that Mech that can boat SRMs."

Now, pairing up SRM attributes and forcing you to choose only one of the two might work because you could not completely optimize your SRMs so you might need to take an additional weapon like a ML.

There are just so many pitfalls if you do not analyze everything from as many angles as possible.

Hurt diversity? Someone hasn't been in a FP game in a while... all I see as a Ghost Bear is warhammers, grasshoppers, wolfhound and pirates bains.... and the all have Lazer vomit. So with this skill tree *from what I see* is this will promote boating one weapon type rather than using other weapon systems.

[DAYLEET]

LordLeto, on 14 February 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

rule of three bad, new player good now.

The rule of three was bad, most people agree on this. More so that a new players had to unlock 4 mech of a weight class first to be eligible to only unlock 3 afterward(how many of you remembers that?). So just remove it already!

The rule of three was only much more expensive if new players tried to start with heavy or assault. They want that iconic TBR now? Whip out the wallet, thats how f2p games works. Idealy, you should do you time in lighter weight class as you learn the game.

The rule of three with lights and medium was marginally more expensive but that system also had the benefit of having a lesser burden as you played and accumulated mech. It also taught you the game with different weapon and loadout while having you learn a single chassis(thats important imo) and netted you with 2 more mech to customize and play with. This new, each mech has its own skills system, is way more expensive the more you play. In the long run, the cbills burden of playing becomes bigger.

Mechbays are cheap at 1.75usd, lets not pretend that limiting yourself and having to sell mech is anything but a concious choice. Why dont we just make everything cheaper? It's not like there's an ingame economy to balance. The more mech people buy the more cash pgi makes, am i wrong? Cash comes in many form, not just mech pack.

Cheaper cost is a fallacy. You can buy a Cyclops for 8million cbills, thats cheaper than the cost to master a Locust that cost 3millions. You will need to pay that 9mil for every mech. Past the first 4 mechbays the benefits of not having the rule of three goes out the window cbills-wise and the more you play the more expensive the game gets. Unless you play nothing but Clan heavies/assault you are going to lose money from day one compared to the system of three rule.

If everything wasnt so damn expensive cbills-wise, maybe we wouldnt be having this problem in the first place. Removing the rule of three is a good idea but not if it comes with an extra 9mil cost.

You can find lots of ways to make the new players integration and retention better. But why make it harder for everyone else in the long run?

[Chound]

Rampage, on 13 February 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Yes, some great comments and observations. However, you have to be careful with some ideas. The idea about pairing up certain weapon attributes to force you to make a choice could actual hurt diversity. He gave one example of a laser quirk being paired up with weapon spread. Depending on what the laser quirk is that could really hurt someone who is running SRMs and MLs to the point that they would say, "OK, I guess I just have to boat SRMs then but this Mech cannot carry enough SRMs due to hardpoints so it is no good and I will have to take that Mech that can boat SRMs." Now, pairing up SRM attributes and forcing you to choose only one of the two might work because you could not completely optimize your SRMs so you might need to take an additional weapon like a ML. There are just so many pitfalls if you do not analyze everything from as many angles as possible.

as a new one appealing part is I'd be able to start mastering a mech NOW not wait till I've bought three mechs of the same type. Right now all I've been doing is upgrading pilot skills for GXP because the mech upgrades are too expensive. One problem with both systems is the use of trial mechs. I earn XP and gxp with them but Why master a mech that I won't be able to keep. I would need to convert any xp earned by trial mechs into gxp and use them for pilot skills. with the new system I would be able to buy with either XP or GXP and I wouldn't have to pay to obtain all the skills for Things I don't want. I believe under the current system after you have the three mechs you can unlock skills but you would need to unlock ALL the skills not just the ones you need. This is a first try so these are issues they need to work on. I know what kind of changes I want to see in the structure of the tree. It's a matter of what PGI is willing to do. some of our changes would need to go into an April or June patch. I'm surprised some of these issues weren't brought up in alpha testing.

[MacClearly]

Yeah I especially like the idea of diminishing returns down the tree to make it easier to make your mech decent quicker. I also would take care of encouraging pure boating.