MacClearly, on 16 February 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:
I am really stuck on Russ's attitude to reskill costs. It bothers me a great deal that something I have already bought then spent the time to grind, isn't free for me to tinker about. The MC option there also feels like a bit of a stab.
Of all the possibilities this system could have or might still be able to bring, it takes away as well with not being able to share modules and having to get what you don't want to get what you do want. Maybe all of the discussion and proposed changes will do something to convince PGI to add value to the skill tree. I am a big fan of Kanajashi's idea of diminishing return for nodes to encourage not having to be all in on weapons for instance.
This still brings me back to why is the system we have so bad? Why is this being worked on instead of new content? Can't see this being a selling point for potential new players or something that will be remotely enticing to bring old players back....
The current system:
- Forces you to buy 3 mechs (while most people will not need/want all three)
- Forces you to play with the ones you don't want to skill up the ones you DO want.
- Eventually all mechs have (or can) achieve the same skillset. Right now the only true distinction between mechs are their hardpoints. Modules provide only very limited improvements to mechs (given the cost they are like a one-stage diminishing return in of themselves) and the current quirk system doesn't introduce variation; it is effectively a bandaid to make mechs with bad hardpoints somewhat more viable (or less bad if you like). In fact in my view the most distinguishing feature between IS and Clans is the Clans ability to change hardpoints through Omnimechs. Unfortunately the current implementation neuters the difference (understandably) for balance reasons.
Any such system will speed up the decay and ultimate death of any game. It is the same reason why many FPS have a relatively short lifespan and have to be reiterated with a new coat of paint. On the other side there are games with virtually infinite replay value, like Transport Tycoon with an active community despite being 20 years! old without a true new release. Often these are games that involve 'building' aspects and in some way provide (near) infinite variation. For example I expect Minecraft to be around many years from now. Maybe with shinier bricks. But there is always something new to build.
Not so with Mechwarrior in general. The core of any MW game is Mech Building and Mech Combat. The combat part is comparable in many ways to an FPS, but the mech building is what gives it longevity. This is what makes MW games last longer than FPS games. But even then, the only reason MW4 survived as long as it did was because Mektek infused it with new mechs and maps and weapons. But we all knew it was eventually going to die because the replay value kept decreasing. New content without new depth or variation can only do so much.
To keep a game interesting you NEED to create increasing depth and variation, preferably virtually infinite variation (although you can overdo it, ref. No Mans Sky). A game is interesting when it keeps surprising you, keeps letting you reinvent yourself (or the game) and keeps giving you new goals (Yet Another Mech to skill up is NOT a new goal by the way, it's more of the same). Content should be added, but ideally the game should be mostly player driven. EVE Online is a good example of that, but I digress.
The new skill system is a step in the right direction, in that it has the potential to provide more significant variation. While I agree a system of diminishing returns for higher nodes is better, I would also argue that we could do with MORE nodes and that the changes a single node brings should be more significant across the board.
As to why Russ is so hung up on the reskill cost, I can't speak for him but I suspect the answer is simply: Busines Model. This fundamental change to the game is a risk for PGI. In order to fairly implemtn this change, the investment players made ($ or timewise) in modules and skillpoints spent has to be refunded. The result is that many players will end up with a massive amount of C-bills and/or XP and GXP. Those who swapped modules and never bought mechs will have relatively with mechs with much XP on them, but few C-bills. Those who have large numbers of mechs and modules for each of them will have many C-bills but too little XP to skill them up. This poses both categories with the problem that they can't skill up most of their mechs for one reason or the other.
At the same time however, the players who invested much money (= whales), rather than time/grind, will have so many C-bills they may be able to buy 1, 2 or maybe even 3 years worth of new released mechs in C-bills (provided they have the patience to wait for a C-bill release). This will for the most part kill the incentive for whales to invest.
And in the current F2P business model that is BAD. F2P games are F2P in as much that you either choose to invest money OR spend time to achieve the same goals for much more grind. Eventually most people will choose to invest more or less money through microtransactions. But this change has the potential to take away that incentive, particularly with those 'whales' who already invested heavily. And that could mean a significant decrease in income, which leads to less people being employed, which leads to less new stuff, etc. etc. A vicious circle.
PGI has to make money to pay their employees. That will be their main cost factor, more so than hardware they need or fanfests they organize. It's as simple as that. The only question here is to find the balance between maintaining a reasonable income for PGI (=incentive to invest), refunding investment of players and keeping the effort and/or money investment for the different types of players somewhat balanced. But an incentive to invest MUST remain for a company to survive.
Putting a cost on reskill is the most obvious and easiest, but perhaps not the best way to do this. The values in the current skill system implementation don't meet those criteria; Heavy investors (of money) are stuck with lots of mechs and lots of C-bills to invest but insufficient skill points to do so. While those people who lived a frugal life have few mechs with plenty of XP, but lack the C-bills to (re)skill them. So we're all stuck.
They need to find a balance for the different players while at the same time not letting the massive refund remove the incentive that the whales need to keep investing money. Because make no mistake, F2P games need whales. The whales allow companies to survive and allow other players to play the game relatively cheaply. Come to think of it, it's almost a form of socialism if you look at it that way
. But take away the incentive from the whales to invest and we ALL suffer.
And in my experience, that incentive is not (just) new content. It is increasing variation, depth of game, allowing for personal choices (good or bad). Call it 'fun'. And the new skill system adds to that in a positive way, provided they get the values right. But without a sink with incentive to invest money, any F2P game is going to die.
Edited by Grimlock Magnus, 16 February 2017 - 11:48 AM.
1
