368 replies to this topic

[Gorgo7]

I am looking forward to the engine changes.
It can only help my Awesomes. Imagine a barn weighing 80 tons that corners, accelerates and twists like a boulder. Drive a Battlemasters with a 350 sporting extra heatsinks, twisting, turning, stopping, accelerating, getting guns on target! Oh, how I long for a re-balance!

[Arkhangel]

looks good to me, and honestly, though i'll miss my Bushwacker capable of chasing down Locusts, the engine change is fair...which, if you guys actually read correctly ISN'T touching the speed it gives the mech, it's screwing with the agility. you'll still be able to go fast... provided you're running in a straight line. Cornering, however.... big problem, which is where lights'll get the advantage, especially on obstacle-filled maps like Mining Collective or River City.

for, say, a Linebacker, it's not gonna lose its impressive speed, but it is going to be a bit easier for Mediums and Lights to flank due to not being able to turn around to engage as quickly... which, all told, will basically also be messing around with Clan Assault a lot too...but in fairness.... you guys still carry the heaviest, nastiest firepower in the game anyways, always gotta be a tradeoff for that arsenal, and frankly, you've been kings of the hill for a damn long time too, anyways.

[Ricbro85]

PGI you should remove all Quirks from all the mechs and just use the skill system insted as having quirks on mechs is going to make the mechs too OP.

It will be more fair just to remove them. it will give player more ways to loadout a mech. the warhawk is locked with quirks to use ER-PPCs which limits it loadout. new system with warhawks quirks on top of the new skill tree will make -ER-PPC OP and be locked in to.

Remove the Quirks on Next PTS Build.

[SuperFunkTron]

Is there any specific info on whether mechs built to be more agile (Linebacker, Gargoyle) will be having the same values as mechs of their way or will they be gaining mobility advantages built into their system. I wasn't quite clear if they would be baking those into the mech with a system that lets us know if they are more agile or if it was a move to make all mechs equal to mechs of their weight range.

Ravenlord, on 21 February 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

That's always the go to argument in such discussions, but for anything but the smallest indie devs it is really a non-argument.

It is a go to argument because that is the realistic equivalent, just like the tuning shop example.

Quote

I am however not happy to provide it by more and more grinding or paying with MC for it.
As I said before, too, it being not an excessive grindfest as many many other f2p games is a thing...

I played 3 games in a brand new Supernova variant yesterday and was able to get over 5,000 XP. In those games, I was in the top 3rd each time. If I continue at this rate, I will easily be able to master the mech in 45 games. That may seem like a lot, but that is starting a mech from 0 XP all the way to achieving full mastery with the equivalent of over 18 million c-bills worth of nodes. Now consider that you will be starting with many of your mechs already having a substantial amount of XP available right from the start in the new system. If I recall correctly, the current master level is about 58,000 XP, leaving you with 24,000 left to earn plus the approximate 5.4 million c-bills per mech to FULLY master it. That is less than the cost of 2 modules and maybe 25 games per each mech assuming you've only done the minimum work so far to master all of those mechs and have purchased no modules at all.

That is definitely a headache for Pokemech collectors, but OCD makes most things in life require extra time and effort. But the grind seems more than reasonable. I've got a good 50 -70 mechs that will require extra grinding in the new system, but the amount of grind seems more than reasonable at the new costs. I'll either have to accept the cost of my level of OCD or learn to prioritize or fight my discontent and be ok with the new challenge (spoiler, I am already content with having to remaster mech I don't like because it's a challenge).

[Arkhangel]

Ricbro85, on 22 February 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

PGI you should remove all Quirks from all the mechs and just use the skill system insted as having quirks on mechs is going to make the mechs too OP.

It will be more fair just to remove them. it will give player more ways to loadout a mech. the warhawk is locked with quirks to use ER-PPCs which limits it loadout. new system with warhawks quirks on top of the new skill tree will make -ER-PPC OP and be locked in to.

Remove the Quirks on Next PTS Build.

I actually agree with this. Quirks were never meant to be a long-term thing anyways. They're just another one of the many things IGP forced PGI to do that they haven't gotten rid of yet (I compare this kinda to EVE Online, with all the stuff CCP can't do because of its old legacy code they've been slowly but surely phasing out for years now)

[WarHippy]

SuperFunkTron, on 21 February 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

I think the only thing that is too high here are your expectations of what you should be getting for free. Considering the "modules" alone that you will be getting in the new system justifies some c-bill cost. The fact that these are upgrades is another basis for there being a cost. And when you respec, you are not losing time to anything, you are spending a currency that allows you the ability to continue to adjust upgrades to your mechs.

The costs are out of line. Yes, we had modules before, but they were not a requirement and you could easily swap them around as needed. When it now costs a billion plus to get similar functionality available under the old system for all of your mechs the prices are out of control. XP earned is time spent. If you respec you do not get that XP back and have to pay additional XP to reacquire something already earned then yes you very much are losing time previously spent.

SuperFunkTron, on 21 February 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

Reduced c-bill and XP initial costs with even lower XP respec costs without c-bills is more than fair. The extra c-bills will go toward weapons, equipment and new mechs, while XP will finally have a value once a mech is maxed out.

What reduced c-bills and XP costs? I still don't have enough of either to get back to where I am now on live, and others are in even worse shape than I am. I see little reason to purchase any new mechs as that just adds to the list of things I need to grind out now. I stand by my statement that while this version is a step in the right direction the prices are still way out of line.

SuperFunkTron, on 21 February 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

If you really are as concerned as you seem, don't invest XP into weapons trees until you figure out what you want to keep on that mech. With all the c-bills you save in the new iteration, you could put that toward buying another mech and customizing the new one differently. It's extra work, but if you're playing for free, some benefit has to remain for those who pay to shorten their grind.

Yeah, because tinkering with builds is something people don't want to do in a Mechwarrior/Battletech game. Customization is kind of a big deal in this series. As for c-bills I am not saving anything under this system in fact I will be very much in the hole from the start so I won't be saving anything for buying new mechs or customizing. I think you are also missing out on who has and hasn't been paying for things in this game. I will give you a hint: I didn't acquire hundreds of mechs using c-bills... In fact I can probably count on one hand the number of mechs I have bought with c-bills. My question is what is the benefit I supposedly have received in the form of shorter grind when having all of those mechs under this new system adds to it drastically?

Edited by WarHippy, 22 February 2017 - 09:52 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

WarHippy, on 22 February 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

The costs are out of line. Yes, we had modules before, but they were not a requirement and you could easily swap them around as needed. When it now costs a billion plus to get similar functionality available under the old system for all of your mechs the prices are out of control. XP earned is time spent. If you respec you do not get that XP back and have to pay additional XP to reacquire something already earned then yes you very much are losing time previously spent.

When we look at your stable as a whole, it looks like a very intimidating cost, I agree. 183 mechs are fully outfitted for 1 billion c-bills, so I'm assuming that you have at least that many. We can throw larger and larger numbers of mechs to increase an individual players total costs, but the the byproduct of having more mechs means more upkeep and investment. The reality, however, is not based on how much it will cost to refit your stable, but how much it will cost to refit individual mechs. A single mech requires about 5,460,000 c-bills to max out. That is less than 2 weapon modules or 1 radar deprivation module to get all those benefits plus more. If you don't want all of it, then don't spend the full amount. If you want a "mastered" badge on every mech, then you'll have to spend, so prioritize your investment the way you did when you were mastering mechs previously; focus on those you use most first, then on those that are stable trophies.

Quote

What reduced c-bills and XP costs? I still don't have enough of either to get back to where I am now on live, and others are in even worse shape than I am.

60,000 is less than 100,000 c-bills and 800 XP is less than 1,500 XP. That is a clear reduction. Yes, it is more c-bills than you are paying for now, but there has to be a trade off for the integration of modules into the upgrade tree. This hybridization of the current system with modules makes those advanced modules much more accessible to players with fewer resources. Players who wouldn't touch modules before until they have already bought dozens of mechs can now mitigate some of the mech improvement gap between their mechs and fully upgraded mechs at a fraction of those cost.

"getting back to where you are on the current server" is an apples and oranges comparison. The current server is 2 systems while the PTS is a single, integrated system with different end values for upgrades. How can they be compared equally when the new system offers armor and structure upgrades and the old doesn't? End points of heat, and weapon upgrades will also be handled in a substantially different manner. Zergling has posted his interpretation of a conversion chart multiple times, and though it has its merits, it clearly shows that a 1 to 1 conversion is not available.

Quote

I see little reason to purchase any new mechs as that just adds to the list of things I need to grind out now. I stand by my statement that while this version is a step in the right direction the prices are still way out of line.
Yeah, because tinkering with builds is something people don't want to do in a Mechwarrior/Battletech game. Customization is kind of a big deal in this series. As for c-bills I am not saving anything under this system in fact I will be very much in the hole from the start so I won't be saving anything for buying new mechs or customizing. I think you are also missing out on who has and hasn't been paying for things in this game. I will give you a hint: I didn't acquire hundreds of mechs using c-bills... In fact I can probably count on one hand the number of mechs I have bought with c-bills. My question is what is the benefit I supposedly have received in the form of shorter grind when having all of those mechs under this new system adds to it drastically?

I can't say that I am sympathetic to your point about XP cost for tinkering and respecs. If you are tinkering with a mech's build, you are likely using that mech in game and thus consistenly earning XP for it. If you are short on XP, then it makes sense that you would first purchase upgrades that you are less likely to adjust (armor, structure, mobility,etc) before upgrades that will likely be more adjusted by tinkering (weapons). And on top of that, the description of the new tree explains that there will be some generic weapons trees for things like range and cool down, which further reduces the number of weapon specific nodes that would need to be adjusted when tinkering (ballistic cool down, missle spread/ velocity).

If you are upgrading for the sake of Pokemech and needing to master them all, it is going to be tough and require more time, I grant you that. But Pokemech is hardly the endgame for most players. For those who are playing advanced Pokemech and feel the compulsion to get the "Master badge" for every mech, you've got a new challenge and prestige to go with it.

But as a player who has bought at least half my own stable of 115 mechs, earned c-bills to buy the rest, and invested moderately in modules, I find the practical application of the new system much more engaging and interesting than the current system. I want a more immersive game experience and a chance to start improving my mechs in a way meaningful to what I need them to do. I don't think that the persistent XP cost for tinkering with a mech is a strong argument because it encourages it gives me something to apply mech XP toward once I've maxed it out (other than convert it to GXP), makes me consider the value of what a new build has to offer.

TL,DR: Are we looking to improve game play, customization, and combat roles or are we more concerned about immediately getting "master badges" for free?

[Flekky]

And a watch? I heard about a watch?? Pleeaassse install a watch !!!

[WarHippy]

SuperFunkTron, on 22 February 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

If you are upgrading for the sake of Pokemech and needing to master them all, it is going to be tough and require more time, I grant you that. But Pokemech is hardly the endgame for most players. For those who are playing advanced Pokemech and feel the compulsion to get the "Master badge" for every mech, you've got a new challenge and prestige to go with it.

Seeing as the primary money making system PGI has been using is to sell mechs doesn't it seem a little counterproductive to punish the pokemech players? What incentive do I have to purchase additional mechs when it just adds to the workload created by the new system? This isn't about having a "Master Badge" it is about having the time and money already invested into mechs maintain close to their current functionality without dropping an extra 500,000,000+ C-bills and potentially unlimited amounts of XP if you like to change things around regularly.

Telling me to look just at individual mechs doesn't change the fact that I still have 230+ mechs, and it still doesn't change the fact I will be well behind where I am now. Had this system been around from the beginning you might have a point, but that isn't the case. This is still a much more expensive system than what we had for little if any improvement over what we had.

SuperFunkTron, on 22 February 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

But as a player who has bought at least half my own stable of 115 mechs, earned c-bills to buy the rest, and invested moderately in modules, I find the practical application of the new system much more engaging and interesting than the current system. I want a more immersive game experience and a chance to start improving my mechs in a way meaningful to what I need them to do. I don't think that the persistent XP cost for tinkering with a mech is a strong argument because it encourages it gives me something to apply mech XP toward once I've maxed it out (other than convert it to GXP), makes me consider the value of what a new build has to offer.

Let me know when either system becomes engaging or interesting because as far as I am concerned neither system is engaging or interesting. Both systems are just time hurdles to fully unlock the functionality of your mech. Nothing in the new tree really involves meaningful choice. As for the extra XP personally I would much rather do the conversion to GXP as it saves me time(or did under the old system) all for the price of some MC. With the new system I have less reason to do that since I need to hang onto XP to make changes to the skill tree. Is that really what PGI wants? So far the new system has given me less reasons to buy new mechs and less reasons to buy MC. So what is PGI hoping I will buy now to make up for the mechs and MC?

SuperFunkTron, on 22 February 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

TL,DR: Are we looking to improve game play, customization, and combat roles or are we more concerned about immediately getting "master badges" for free?

We should always be looking to improve game play, customization, and combat roles. However, so far these changes really are not doing any of that. They are just moving some of the same numbers around putting it into a new GUI and attaching a price tag to it.

[Perilthecat]

I sure hope you guys are working on a c-Bill subsidy for our mastered 'mechs. At 5.5 million to spec a 'mech you're still screwing over anyone with a large amount of mastered variants. I have mostly single copies of any weapons modules I used, and at most 4 or so of the absolute necessities like radar dep and seismic, and I'm sick of the excuse that I'll be getting a big refund (I won't). Y'all created the module system to be swappable, don't punish me now for using it in that spirit.

And don't steal away my hard-earned game progress.

Cautiously optimistic that the actual skill tree will be more interesting, instead of the utterly uninspired "hide the good skills behind a bunch of junk skills" like the first PTS.

[Pz_DC]

Some chassis was made for boating(AWS(PPC),CPLT(LRM)etc) so,while its overall good to make skill trees less boat-focused its still need to be some preferences - leave projective speed, spread(missles,lbx) quirks and add tonnage descrese, ammo increase and critical slots deascrese quirks - make every chassis unique!

[Kael Posavatz]

Most of what they said sounds...nice, but what was said back at MechCon sounded nice.


Personally, I found this bit to be interesting.

InnerSphereNews, on 20 February 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

We’d also like to take a moment to reiterate that C-Bill and MC Consumables of the same type will be evenly matched in their fundamental capabilities. A C-Bill UAV and an MC UAV will both possess identical Range and identical Duration, for example. Both will of course benefit from unlocking UAV Skill Nodes, as will all other Consumables benefit from their own associated Skill Nodes.

I'm not sure where that 'of course' came from or why we should have expected it. 10mc/40k cbill items have the same capability in the live server once the c-bill variant has been upgraded. The rational for the 10MC variant is to skip the upgrade process.

If both mc and cbill variant of consumables have the same native ability (which seems to be what this is saying) and are modified at the same rate using the same nodes, I'm not sure what rational exists to buy MC consumables.

[Perilthecat]

And don't think that we've forgotten the mechcon reveal of the skill tree, where everyone flipped out that skill nodes would cost 50k c-bills (looks at new cost, sees its 60k, face palms).

[Felicitatem Parco]

Perilthecat, on 22 February 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

And don't think that we've forgotten the mechcon reveal of the skill tree, where everyone flipped out that skill nodes would cost 50k c-bills (looks at new cost, sees its 60k, face palms).

If you can grind one node per QP match, then it does seem about right...

[SuperFunkTron]

WarHippy, on 22 February 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Seeing as the primary money making system PGI has been using is to sell mechs doesn't it seem a little counterproductive to punish the pokemech players? What incentive do I have to purchase additional mechs when it just adds to the workload created by the new system? This isn't about having a "Master Badge" it is about having the time and money already invested into mechs maintain close to their current functionality without dropping an extra 500,000,000+ C-bills and potentially unlimited amounts of XP if you like to change things around regularly.

I'm confused as to what "punishment" you see coming. Direct compensation of mech XP, GXP, and c-bills spent on modules is as close to accurate of a compensation as possible. Because time itself can not be returned to you, the above resources are currencies that were used to provide some measure of time and provided an applied value. Even if you managed to get modules on sale, you are still being given the benefit of the doubt and getting bonus c-bills. Could you explain where the punishment in the conversion of your current progress to the new system is?

The only perceived "punishment" I can derive from your posts are that you will be losing mastered status since everyone will still have to put the same number of XP and c-bills into the new system. The minimum number of XP required to master a mech currently translates into a huge head start in the new system.

I am also not understanding why you believe that a mech which has only its XP mastered in the current system translates to a mech with 91 nodes in the new system, a system that is using a fundamentally different approach to upgrading mechs. It's apples and oranges.

Quote

Telling me to look just at individual mechs doesn't change the fact that I still have 230+ mechs, and it still doesn't change the fact I will be well behind where I am now. Had this system been around from the beginning you might have a point, but that isn't the case. This is still a much more expensive system than what we had for little if any improvement over what we had.

What difference does it make when the system is implemented if you would still have the exact same out of XP? The amount you acquired for each is still the same. The new system is a combination of c-bill and XP upgrades from the current system and allows access to more of the current, high cost modules for a fraction of the price with the trade off of more XP being required to master a mech. The point about which you are correct is that time to reach the XP needed to master is increased, but it provides a more level field for upgrading mechs along the way. Paying 5.5 million for a maxed out mech with abilities of at least 4 modules is still less than 1/3 of the cost of outfitting a mech with 4 modules in the current system.

Quote

Let me know when either system becomes engaging or interesting because as far as I am concerned neither system is engaging or interesting. Both systems are just time hurdles to fully unlock the functionality of your mech. Nothing in the new tree really involves meaningful choice. As for the extra XP personally I would much rather do the conversion to GXP as it saves me time(or did under the old system) all for the price of some MC. With the new system I have less reason to do that since I need to hang onto XP to make changes to the skill tree. Is that really what PGI wants?

I just told you that I find the new system more interesting and engaging by being able to choose what it is I will be upgrading and specializing my mech for, not to mention the infotech trees. The original post in this thread specifically discussed that they are working to make the next iteration force trade offs as a result of your choices.

In regard to GXP, you will have a huge amount refunded from all the module and pilot upgrades which will only further help you speed along in the upgrading of mechs. Converting excess XP is an option, not a requirement, especially considering that you are earning it every match and its not a scarce resource.

Quote

So far the new system has given me less reasons to buy new mechs and less reasons to buy MC. So what is PGI hoping I will buy now to make up for the mechs and MC?

If you are preoccupied with remastering every mech, instead of buying new ones coming out, that is your priority. It has no bearing on fact that it won't affect my desire to buy new mechs if I am interested in them. I'm not in a rush to Pokemech master badges. Even with the expectations of the new system coming in, I decided to buy the full Supernova pack 2 days ago simply because I felt there was value to it. This show's that you are not the only consumer nor do you hold the key to other people's wallets.

Quote

We should always be looking to improve game play, customization, and combat roles. However, so far these changes really are not doing any of that. They are just moving some of the same numbers around putting it into a new GUI and attaching a price tag to it.

Any alternate system to what we have now could be boiled down to " just moving some of the same numbers around and putting a new GUI" because they have the similar end goal of providing and upgrade system, but provide a very different means to that end. Price tags will obviously be attached as they are currently attached as well. If you don't see how they are trying to improve the new system through testing and changing parameters, then I suggest you read the first post. There is a big difference between a system not providing a means to create mech roles versus someone refusing to acknowledge that the system provides those means.

TL,DR: Time is not a commodity they can return to you, but currencies earned by investing your time are. A complete refund of those currencies is fair compensation.

You are not being punished in the new system, you are transferring your currencies into a new system with different currency demands.

An alternate upgrade system will provide an different experience with the same basic core ideas arranged differently.

Were you this upset when Pokemon expanded beyond the first 151 and did you even master all of the original 151?

[MeIsYou]

Dear development team,

thanks for your efforts to improve the skill tree and listening to the players voice, highly appreciated. But it's not enough yet. You reduced the cost for skill reassignment to 400XP, still changing a build together with the respective skills will require a huge amount of XP...every time. Your proposal builds on a concept of "grinding" which in my opinion is inacceptable. You therefore rob the player of the freedom to experiment (as I highlighted before, see below). I personally love to try new builds, play a round or two and change them again to identify which one works best and especially which one fits me best. My observation is that many other players love that too.
I therefore suggest you remove the XP cost for skill reassignment completely. Thanks for consideration.

MeIsYou, on 12 February 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Dear PGI developer,

I really like the skill tree idea, because it will give you flexibility when costumizing a specific mech. I therefore won't discuss every detail of the skill tree and how it may affect the game. Instead I would like to highlight one issue I just couldn't believe when I saw it:

After spending 9.1M CBills to unlock 91 skillpoints, the player must spend CBills again to reassign skillpoints? This approach takes the flexibility away, which I loved since I started to play the game and which the skill tree could take to the next level.

My suggestions is: leave the skill point costs of 1500 XP and 100k CBills but remove the costs for skill point reassignment (i.e. once unlocked, a skillpoint can be used anywhere in the skilltree without additional costs). This will allow experiments and a flexible mech design.

[Arkhangel]

@Me: you do realize you don't have to re-spec the entire damn tree every time, right?

[Montbard]

Perilthecat, on 22 February 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

And don't think that we've forgotten the mechcon reveal of the skill tree, where everyone flipped out that skill nodes would cost 50k c-bills (looks at new cost, sees its 60k, face palms).

And that was for 75 skill points instead of 91. They just put 100k c-bills on the first pts so people would be glad when they revise it and "listen" to the community on the second pts. It is a great negotiation strategy if your goal is to upset your customers.

[The Flaxen Yeti]

Sounds great! Guess I'll have to buy a Javelin pack in a couple of days... Give the dogs a bone.

[tokumboh]

SuperFunkTron, on 22 February 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

TL,DR: Are we looking to improve game play, customization, and combat roles or are we more concerned about immediately getting "master badges" for free?

PGI main way of earning money is basically players buying mechs basically putting down at least $15-20 or more likely just going for the $35-$50 to get a XP and C bill bonuses right there you will 3-7 mechs to upgrade or else you will find them lacking in battles.

I am not sure that any game improvement happen with these pokemon paying customers.
It is just worth considering that with respect to making 'improvements'. Do I like the direction the skill tree is going yes and no does it hurt people with large stables of mechs undoubtedly. My spreadsheeting of the cost says below 15 mechs the cost to replicate what you have balances out but it becomes huge at around 100 mechs with some people needing a cool billion to upgrade their current mechs. The fact that time limits the grinding you can do I believe the median player plays 100 games a month buying new mechs and mastering them at least to be competitive becomes a challenge. for example you would nmot go on polar highlands or indeed many maps without radar dep so I think the issue is a concern and cannot be just dismissed with the pokemon jibe