15 replies to this topic

[Kuaron]

The current PTS2 economy says:

• There is an initial cost for learning one skill
  
• There is no cost for forgetting it, but you lose your investment
  
• The second time you learn the same skill it costs ½ its initial XP cost and no CBs.

And I really like this solution for most parts.

But people who kept all three variants of each chassis they mastered, Pokemech collectors in particular, are still discontent for obvious reasons.

Therefore I’d like to know if you’d like it better if maybe the initial cost for learning one skill would be higher, like 80k CB + 1k XP (instead of 60k + 800 XP) or 90k + 1200 XP and even a CB expanse for relearning skills, but the cost reduction for already learned skills would be chassis wide.
So if you learned speed tweak on variant A it will only cost ½ on variants B and C of the same chassis you probably have in the hangar anyway and want to master all of them.

The last voting option is for people considering PGI way too greedy altogether, with or without PTS2 changes.

[MuonNeutrino]

I myself like (and have suggested) the idea of a reduction for owning more than one of a mech, but I wouldn't want it if it were accompanied by an increase in the base costs or (ESPECIALLY) a re-implementation of c-bill costs for respeccing. The base costs are already only barely within acceptable ranges (imo); they shouldn't increase solely to give a justification for having a multiple-copy reduction - we need to be careful to avoid screwing over people who *don't* want to buy multiple copies. And the existence of *any* c-bill cost for respeccing is completely anathema to me, because it acts as a tax on playing the game that chokes off income that you need for skilling and buying new mechs.

My own personal preference would just be to lower the current costs to 50,000/700/350 if you own two mechs in that chassis and to 40,000/600/300 if you own three.

[soapyfrog]

The current proposal on PTS is even more expensive than I originally thought since when respecing into different nodes you have to pay the c-bill cost to unlock those. Do new ones also cost 800xp?? Even if just respecing?

So it is much much much worse than I was even fearing and it is already bad.

Skill nodes should be totally free, costing XP only. Respecs should be free.

If they are afraid of the module refund injecting too many cbills back into the game, then simply not refunding modules would actually be LESS punitive for the vast majority of us.

The least bad bad thing they could do is make skill nodes that reflect module benefits cost c-bills and not XP, and other nodes should cost XP not c-bills.

Making me pay XP for respec is the surest way to make me quit the game.

[Fox2232]

If anything, I would share XP between variants. And on top of that I would generate 10% of Mech XP from match as Global XP = able to transfer to any mech.

Those things would promote sales of mechs.

[Kuaron]

soapyfrog, on 22 February 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

The current proposal on PTS is even more expensive than I originally thought since when respecing into different nodes you have to pay the c-bill cost to unlock those. Do new ones also cost 800xp?? Even if just respecing?

Remember the proposal of being able to have >91 nodes learned, but only up to 91 active at any time. So you’d be able to hide those you won’t use with your current built.

What PGI now did in PTS2 is about the same, but with a small XP-obolus for „remembering“ those old/hidden skills.
Which I consider a very good compromise.

[soapyfrog]

Kuaron, on 22 February 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

What PGI now did in PTS2 is about the same, but with a small XP-obolus for „remembering“ those old/hidden skills.
Which I consider a very good compromise.

How is making me lose xp on respec a good compromise? c-bills are c-bills but xp represents my time investment.

Why is a penalty being considered at all for respec? Why is it considered good and necessary that a player be punished and forced to use valuable time to regrind xp just because they want to change something about their skill tree?

A penalty is an automatic discouragement. It means less people will respec, and it means some people will simply stop playing.

No penalty, no discouragement, people respec when they want (which hurts no one and nothing) and no one is driven away from the game.

So: why the penalty?

[Kuaron]

You… are upset about some 400 XP per node?

It gives a skilled Mech some sort of individuality if respecing is not completely free, but you have to think whether you really want it. At the same time you have an XP sink after the Mech is mastered in one built, at this point there is no point not to respec because changing back only costs you XP the Mech has anyway to spare.

[ForceUser]

Soapy, you argue as if you stop gaining XP on a mech after you master it. The problem is that currently the XP on a mech has NO use (apart from converting it to GXP with MC) once you master a mech. Why is it such a huge ball ache for you to use XP that's sitting and accumulating on a mech? XP that will never ever be used for anything ever?

[soapyfrog]

ForceUser, on 22 February 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

Soapy, you argue as if you stop gaining XP on a mech after you master it. The problem is that currently the XP on a mech has NO use (apart from converting it to GXP with MC) once you master a mech. Why is it such a huge ball ache for you to use XP that's sitting and accumulating on a mech? XP that will never ever be used for anything ever?

First of all, who cares if further xp has no use? The purpose of xp is to dangle the carrot of max level in front your face. If you stopped getting xp after you mastered your mech you would literally never think about it, because it was only ever an arbitrary limiter to begin with.

Second of all, If I want to respec a mech that I only just mastered, why should I be penalized in any way for doing so? You already pay a c-bill cost for changing your build. Why should there be anything more than that?

What is the point of the penalty? What game effect is it trying to achieve? What is the effect it has on the player?

What, exactly, is the problem with allowing players to respec for free anytime they want?

[ForceUser]

The point you ask? That's painfully simple. To make people play game. If no one has a reason to play the game, then there is no content for the people who PAY for the game. And then the game dies. Part of that is to keep a sense of progression after you've mastered a mech, something somewhat lacking currently. Say the meta build changes, new weapons get released, new omni pods or even the meta switches to a whole different chassis. All of these things have happened and will happen again. That means you might go back to an old mech you haven't touched in ages and only just mastered but didn't play a single match on it again. You now have to play the mech, perhaps in a tiny bit unoptimized form, to get the XP to respec.

This act of playing something that isn't perfect, but making it perfect through your actions is a central part of getting that progression high. Every single game ever uses this to some degree. Be it gear in WoW, module upgrades in WoT, Captain/Crew skills in dozens of games, etc. etc.

Normally you'd get that progression high when you finally buy your last Skill, be it the module upgrade currently or the 91st point in the new system. But that's a pretty long grind for that pay off, so you add smaller/shorter grinds for equally small pay offs. Games need these long term and short term pay offs and progression highs to keep people playing. It's what makes them (successful) games.

And make no mistake, the difference between the effectiveness of a mech before and after a respec when you change the build on it will be tiny, especially so with the consolidated weapon trees.

Like we're talking 5 skill points in 90% of the cases. Maybe as high as a whole 10 skill points for a gigantic shift in meta.

Yea, truly the grind is inhumane.

Edited by ForceUser, 22 February 2017 - 05:37 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Sorry, I fell for PGI's psychological manipulations hook, line and sinker. I was so bent out of shape by what the original PTS Skills Tree was going to cost me to re-master my 149 mastered mechs that this sop to "more manageable" costs proposed in PTS 2.0 has me full of relief and pseudo-gratitude that PGI has "seen the light" to the extent that I am intellectually incapable of recognizing that the fact that I will stiil be 50 mechs or so short of current mastery and as such am still getting screwed by any reasonably view.

See when you go from 15 to 100 of your 149 mechs being restored, your emotional brain tells you "WHEW THAT"S BETTER!" and totally silences the rational part that is desperately yelling out: "YOU ARE STILL GETTING SCREWED OUT OF FUNCTIONALITY OF 49 OF YOUR MECHS!" Emotion wins in this case.

Well played PGI. Well Played.

[Appuagab]

Keep in mind that we won't need GXP for unlocking modules now, so it's gonna be some kind of stored xp discount for other variants' and mechs' mastering.
C-bills cost for unlocking skills, however, is still a questionable thing. Mech packs seem a less reasonable purchase now without that artificial limitation of the rule of three, especially taking into account that some 'mechs like Crab or Wolfhound are mostly all same across variants, so giving people some benefits of owning not-so-versatile harem of mechs would be nice.
And of course multiple mechs of same variant need some attention too, because it's going to be much more grindy now for passionate lovers of one single mech.

Edited by Appuagab, 22 February 2017 - 05:46 PM.

[soapyfrog]

ForceUser, on 22 February 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

The point you ask? That's painfully simple. To make people play game.

You cant make people play by making the game less fun.

This is going to drive people away.

[Trev Firestorm]

Just say no to new cbill debt/taxes.

[Kuaron]

Trev Firestorm, on 23 February 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

Just say no to new cbill debt/taxes.

I'm sorry I didn't manage to explain the point of the idea in a way you'd have understood.

[Chound]

MuonNeutrino, on 22 February 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

I myself like (and have suggested) the idea of a reduction for owning more than one of a mech, but I wouldn't want it if it were accompanied by an increase in the base costs or (ESPECIALLY) a re-implementation of c-bill costs for respeccing. The base costs are already only barely within acceptable ranges (imo); they shouldn't increase solely to give a justification for having a multiple-copy reduction - we need to be careful to avoid screwing over people who *don't* want to buy multiple copies. And the existence of *any* c-bill cost for respeccing is completely anathema to me, because it acts as a tax on playing the game that chokes off income that you need for skilling and buying new mechs.

My own personal preference would just be to lower the current costs to 50,000/700/350 if you own two mechs in that chassis and to 40,000/600/300 if you own three.

I see these skills as modules like memory cards in a device. ONc card allows the mech to do certain things, You would take one card out and put a new one in. PGI has sealsed the unit where the chips go.. So if you want to have more than one mech with a skill you have to buy a second one. Different variants with different equipment would have different cards to optimize the loadout of each mech. An energy boat, balistic boat with one laser, a missle boat with one laser would use differernt modules. I have a rather unique perspective as in college I had to take courses multiple times. I was taught the same material in the same amount of time. Each time I had to pay the same fees as the first time but sometimes my cost woulld be less because I still had the text book. IF we are talking about teaching a pilot that would be the same thing.