44 replies to this topic

[Talorien]

Let us be clear why this is a false analogy:

- In the module system we could pay for a module once and shift it for free
- Free respecs let us redistribute *what's already paid for through unlocks* on that mech, NOT 'respec for free as though shifting modules'
- Those unlocks *cannot* be transferred to other mechs unlike with modules. You have to unlock 91 skill nodes on *every mech* to get the full skills

---

Let us also be clear what 'no free respecs' would basically look like in the current system:

- Pay 3 million (or whatever the cost is for 1/3rd of the skill tree) to *junk the weapons modules you've already bought* on this mech and replace them with new ones

This is what 'no free respecs' looks like if applied to Engines in the current mechlab:

- Pay X million to junk the Engine you've *already bought* and replace it with the new one
- If you want to change again, you have to *junk the new engine*

Either would lead to howls of rage, and mass quitting. Yet #1 is basically what the new system proposes.

---

There's is a reason many in the playerbase are dead set against expensive respecs (or, at most, very cheaply priced respecs).

It's because the game would effectively be saying:

- *Junk all the time you invested in the first spec and have nothing to show for it* OR
- Be stuck with that spec (in a game that features *changeable weapons loadouts*) because you didn't make a perfect choice with 20/20 hindsight

I get it that this is a free to play game and it needs to survive based on CBill/XP/time sinks. But expensive respecs are not the way to achieve that.

(I would happily support the game by buying large chunks of monthly premium, btw.)

Edited by Talorien, 15 February 2017 - 07:42 AM.

[and zero]

Yup, here we have Russ once again displaying that he does not understand his own game and/or has very little respect for our intelligence. Such a blatantly bullcrap analogy

[xe N on]

Experimenting in the mechlab with differnt builds is one of the core aspects of the game. Respec for Cbill/Mc is locking this up behind a grind or pay wall.

This change will make the game less fun. I really doubt that I will further play MWO under this system.

[MechaBattler]

He understands exactly what's he's doing. He wants to make more money from respecs.

That's literally what is. I understand it and I can respect it.

And I don't know if there's really enough customization to experiment with. Unless they add more unique skills. I mean who is going to respec the entire tree? There are elements of the trees you're gonna take no matter what, because the rest of the trees aren't really worth it. So you would only spend c-bills to tweak small changes in your build.

[50 50]

To me it's like getting your mech rewired and optimized.
Have to pay those techs in my mech lab for their effort or they riot and paint my mechs in 'shoot me here' colours and decals.
Ratbags that they are.
This is not a democracy. I'll have to have a few public floggings to get the message through again.

[MuonNeutrino]

MechaBattler, on 15 February 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

And I don't know if there's really enough customization to experiment with. Unless they add more unique skills. I mean who is going to respec the entire tree? There are elements of the trees you're gonna take no matter what, because the rest of the trees aren't really worth it. So you would only spend c-bills to tweak small changes in your build.

Yeah, but saying "pay respecs aren't a problem, because the trees are so poorly balanced that there's no interesting choices to drive respecing anything but the weapon skills" isn't a particularly ringing endorsement of the system. It's like saying that it doesn't matter that all the tires on your car have holes because the engine doesn't work anyway.

[MechaBattler]

I really don't think their intent was customization as we imagine it. I think that's just window dressing for raising time to kill.

When I think of cost of respec, I don't imagine redoing the whole thing. Depending on how they handle the weapon tree in the update. The weapon trees are the only ones I see swapping spec for. The rest I'm pretty much set on what I'm gonna get.

If they add more skills then maybe I will swap around. But Russ implied a lower cost and that seems enough to me.

[Chound]

Talorien, on 15 February 2017 - 07:40 AM, said:

Let us be clear why this is a false analogy:

- In the module system we could pay for a module once and shift it for free
- Free respecs let us redistribute *what's already paid for through unlocks* on that mech, NOT 'respec for free as though shifting modules'
- Those unlocks *cannot* be transferred to other mechs unlike with modules. You have to unlock 91 skill nodes on *every mech* to get the full skills

---

Let us also be clear what 'no free respecs' would basically look like in the current system:

- Pay 3 million (or whatever the cost is for 1/3rd of the skill tree) to *junk the weapons modules you've already bought* on this mech and replace them with new ones

This is what 'no free respecs' looks like if applied to Engines in the current mechlab:

- Pay X million to junk the Engine you've *already bought* and replace it with the new one
- If you want to change again, you have to *junk the new engine*

Either would lead to howls of rage, and mass quitting. Yet #1 is basically what the new system proposes.

---

There's is a reason many in the playerbase are dead set against expensive respecs (or, at most, very cheaply priced respecs).

It's because the game would effectively be saying:

- *Junk all the time you invested in the first spec and have nothing to show for it* OR
- Be stuck with that spec (in a game that features *changeable weapons loadouts*) because you didn't make a perfect choice with 20/20 hindsight

I get it that this is a free to play game and it needs to survive based on CBill/XP/time sinks. But expensive respecs are not the way to achieve that.

(I would happily support the game by buying large chunks of monthly premium, btw.)

If the game is to survive they would need empasis on the MC and mech pacs purchased with real money. They can't pay their people with C-bills. There were suggestions that once you buy a skill it's yours to keep. If you do a limited respec in the futture like switch a LBX autocanan to and ultra autocannon they would remove the lbxx autocannnon skill would be kept in inventory, if you already had an ultra autocannon skill you would take it out of inventory and put it in a different mech. This is what some people do with modules. They buy one module and they shift it from one mech to another and PGI loses out. He wants some type of payment for changing the skills

[Chound]

MuonNeutrino, on 15 February 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

Yeah, but saying "pay respecs aren't a problem, because the trees are so poorly balanced that there's no interesting choices to drive respecing anything but the weapon skills" isn't a particularly ringing endorsement of the system. It's like saying that it doesn't matter that all the tires on your car have holes because the engine doesn't work anyway.

Bad example. If your engine isn't working you don't need tires at all. More like "If my fuel tank is empty I'll buy another car."

[MacClearly]

He also seems to forget that for the company to convince us to open our wallets they need to provide value. The idea of paying for mechs over and over is really nuts considering I have paid through the nose for pixels as is. If Russ insists that I have to continually pay for changing and messing around with my mechs, he is going to see me go from a whale who has $2500 bucks in the game so far, to someone who refuses to spend any more money.

Already this idea of the skill tree and its implementation has stopped me from jumping on the deals with MC which is something I would normally do. Am also seriously considering cancelling my Javelin pre-order to voice my displeasure with the attitude that I should have to continually pay for mechs I have either grinded and bought with space buck or like the vast majority of mechs I own over two accounts, have paid actual money for...

[DAYLEET]

The good news is i wont survive through the 9million cbills cost for each of my current mech so i shouldnt worry about respect.

[Talorien]

MacClearly, on 15 February 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

He also seems to forget that for the company to convince us to open our wallets they need to provide value.

The skill tree proposal as-is is basically saying:

• Remove current functionality (current skills and modules)
  
• Replace it with half for free (module and XP refunds) and half you have to pay for again
  
• If you change your mind (respecs) you have to pay all over again, meaning existing game value (weapon customisation) is removed

In other words, the proposal is basically saying 'remove 100 units of gameplay value, replace it with 50 units, you have to pay to regain the other 50 units that you already had before, and if you change your mind you have to repay for everything for each mech.'

It's a very poor value proposition, which is why I think it will lose loyal customers in droves and also be a barrier to gaining new ones.

[Malrock]

50 50, on 15 February 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

To me it's like getting your mech rewired and optimized.
Have to pay those techs in my mech lab for their effort or they riot and paint my mechs in 'shoot me here' colours and decals.
Ratbags that they are.
This is not a democracy. I'll have to have a few public floggings to get the message through again.

Nah techs are on a monthly salary, they just gotta do their job, just like the rest of the lance... they don't get paid extra to do their job.

[Chound]

xe N on, on 15 February 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

Experimenting in the mechlab with differnt builds is one of the core aspects of the game. Respec for Cbill/Mc is locking this up behind a grind or pay wall.

This change will make the game less fun. I really doubt that I will further play MWO under this system.

not really. this is for a fully mastered mech. but you can still use it partially mastered or unmastered. you can still load and use weapons without the skills, we do it all the time. you skill everyting except the firepower section. You don't get any of the skills in that catagory till you find a config you're happy with. You have already used these weapons with one or more skills missing unless yo have a large amount of xp lying around. There is no reward for mastering your mech in the new system we know about. In the old system, a fully mastered mech had a speed tweek and I'm not sure what else. One important thingis the XP should go into a pool not be tied to a mech. You can't skill or put modules in a trial mech but they get XP assigned to it..

[Greyhart]

what if respec cost was just XP?

Would give a reason to play mastered mechs

[ingramli]

Greyhart, on 16 February 2017 - 03:29 AM, said:

what if respec cost was just XP?

Would give a reason to play mastered mechs

not an option for pgi. Many players have their mech mastered and having millions of xp on it which has no use at all. If xp is the currency for respec, it would be practically free for many players. It would defeat their purpose: they want people PAY for the game. Considering the fact that xp cannot be “bought”, it is not an option.

[Bud Crue]

MechaBattler, on 15 February 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

I really don't think their intent was customization as we imagine it. I think that's just window dressing for raising time to kill.

When I think of cost of respec, I don't imagine redoing the whole thing. Depending on how they handle the weapon tree in the update. The weapon trees are the only ones I see swapping spec for. The rest I'm pretty much set on what I'm gonna get.

If they add more skills then maybe I will swap around. But Russ implied a lower cost and that seems enough to me.

In re TTK: if that was the issue they could have just given us the defensive tree across the board as a base line quirk. So while you may be right, it is also the fact that they want us to pay for that "window dressing"...window dressing that is an inherent flaw in the way they designed their own game.

As to respec costs: we are paying for their incompetence at balancing their own game and that really bothers me the most.

Yes, we certainly won't need to respec the whole tree every time we choose to respec. A nominal fee for changing things around a bit would not bother me normally. See, in a balanced game I would rarely choose to change anything once it is in my eyes "perfect" (the nature of a collector). But in this game I will in fact be forced to do so every time PGI mucks with balance or decides to have a game of darts with quirks. This occurred at least three times over the last year where because PGI mucked with something I felt obligated to change load outs and configurations of a good number of my 149 mechs.

Lets say I only had to tweek a mere 20 mechs each time...that's 20 x 2 mil respec fee x 3 occurrences = 120 million c-bills that PGI is making me spend because they can't figure out how to balance their own game.

Under the current system, their incompetence costs me nothing. Under the new system 2 million per mech -every time- they try one of their ham-fisted balance changes. That's crap.

I have no problem paying for customization as a feature. I have a huge problem being effectively forced into paying to change my mechs to a new configuration because PGI can't figure out their own game.

Edited by Bud Crue, 16 February 2017 - 03:58 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Agree with the OP. This will not make me spend a penny more on the game, it will just make the game less entertaining.

Less entertaining == bigger risk I get more entertainment from some other game.

Simple as that.

I have no problem buying stuff, but I won't buy respecs.

[Ruar]

When I started playing I tried a lot of different builds. I was constantly in the mechlab testing different ideas and spending a lot of c-bills for equipment to try out. I thought it was already frustrating trying to test new builds with just the cost of equipment, however adding in a cost to respec the skill tree will make it so I don't want to try anything new at all.

I would be ok with a cost on respec if there was a way we could test new builds for free. I don't mean going into an online mech builder and putting things together to see what fits. I mean going into the testing grounds and finding out that the 2xERPPC build runs so hot it's not worth trying. Testing how annoying it is to fight with 3x AC2s. Learning how to use SRMs while managing their heat.

Right now the players are punished for trying out new builds but at the least you have all of the equipment you purchased for those builds.

Adding in cost to respec means you'll just be throwing c-bills away if a build doesn't work. Sometimes the difference in what works or doesn't is an extra 50m of range, something you can't find out without digging into the skill tree to maximize the build.

[soapyfrog]

Greyhart, on 16 February 2017 - 03:29 AM, said:

what if respec cost was just XP?

Would give a reason to play mastered mechs

I will not regrind mechs I have already mastered. Why would anyone think that would be ok?

There already is a reason to play mastered mechs. I mastered them explicitly so that I could use them at their full potential whenever I want.