103 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Well, GL then

[Monkey Lover]

If you're not willing to grind and somehow must have every mech mastered for some reason buy cbills.

You can get 25 million from the kdk pack with premium time. Buy packs of these and by next year you will have every mech mastered.


Personally I see no reason to master lots of my mechs and I have more than you with my module refund I should be fine.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 23 February 2017 - 05:09 PM.

[Bellum Dominum]

FupDup, on 23 February 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Saying that you save money by not buying as many variants is fairly moot, because obviously fewer mechs equals fewer resources.

The only fair way to compare costs is to compare an equal number of mechs for both live and PTR.

Uh fewer mechs in no way means fewer resources (cbills/xp) as you can only field 1 mech at a time.

[FupDup]

Bellum Dominum, on 23 February 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

Uh fewer mechs in no way means fewer resources (cbills/xp) as you can only field 1 mech at a time.

No, I meant fewer resources as in fewer resources to purchase/outfit them. Buying one Hunchback costs less money than buying three Hunchbacks, right?

[Kali Rinpoche]

Dogstar, I am completely in agreement with you. I've dropped well over 1k in 3 years of playing. I did b/c I can afford to, but also because I wanted to support the game.

IMO opinion the only solution is to grandfather all owned mechs to Free Cbill status. Any new purchases can follow the new system since you only have to buy single mech's now.

[50 50]

Prosperity Park, on 23 February 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

12 million is one Mech's worth of modules.

2 Mech modules + 2 weapon modules, and that's only if you're using the cheapest of the Mech modules.

If you have been module-swapping instead of buying modules for your Mechs, then you have been bypassing the Mastery Economy.

I was assuming that there was some module swapping going on.
That isn't too bad if you only have a handful of mechs but become tedious and annoying the larger your mech bay gets and before the improvements to saving the changes in the mech lab it was not very practical to keep swapping the modules.

[Bellum Dominum]

FupDup, on 23 February 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

No, I meant fewer resources as in fewer resources to purchase/outfit them. Buying one Hunchback costs less money than buying three Hunchbacks, right?

Which was the point you were arguing against....

[Bellum Dominum]

soapyfrog, on 23 February 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

That it is win-loss is completely arbitrary. PGI could make it win win (no c-bill cost for skill nodes, no cost or loss to respec) and they would have no massively unhappy customers and our spending habits would not change.

In fact a system where skill nodes do not cost c-bills and respecs cost nothing and make you lose nothing is simply good for everyone. There are plenty of other ways to c-bill sinks that are opt in and not punitive.

No that is only good for those that don't want to see diversity and to be able to freely join in 'the next meta'.

[FupDup]

Bellum Dominum, on 23 February 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Which was the point you were arguing against....

What I'm arguing against is the logic that "You only need one variant now, so you save so much money!"

No freaking duh, one mech will cost less than three mechs.

The real question is if three mechs in the current live system cost more or less than three mechs in the PTR. That is the only fair way to do it.

[Bellum Dominum]

FupDup, on 23 February 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

What I'm arguing against is the logic that "You only need one variant now, so you save so much money!"

No freaking duh, one mech will cost less than three mechs.

The real question is if three mechs in the current live system cost more or less than three mechs in the PTR. That is the only fair way to do it.

Ah but that is going to be dependent upon an individual basis. IE how many mechs did you buy only to get as much mastered as you needed to in order to master the variant you actually wanted? Which is what the original premise is about. Adding in mechs that a person doesn't want at all in a system where they don't have to buy them to get what they want doesn't make sense and certainly wouldn't be a fair way to judge the new system.

I think we all agree that the old system sucked... having to buy 3 mechs in order to be able to get the variant you actually wanted. SDR-5V, SDR-5D, SDR-5K ... need more realy be said lol. That 5V was so incredibly punishing to have to level up. Heck if we're really going to be 'fair' let us also factor in the 'wtf value' of having to even go on the battlefied in mechs like that My 5D is mastered so I'll never have to do it again but it's just NOT FAIR that any new SDR pilots won't have to feel the pain that is the elusive 5V

[FupDup]

Bellum Dominum, on 23 February 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Ah but that is going to be dependent upon an individual basis. IE how many mechs did you buy only to get as much mastered as you needed to in order to master the variant you actually wanted? Which is what the original premise is about. Adding in mechs that a person doesn't want at all in a system where they don't have to buy them to get what they want doesn't make sense and certainly wouldn't be a fair way to judge the new system.

I think we all agree that the old system sucked... having to buy 3 mechs in order to be able to get the variant you actually wanted. SDR-5V, SDR-5D, SDR-5K ... need more realy be said lol. That 5V was so incredibly punishing to have to level up. Heck if we're really going to be 'fair' let us also factor in the 'wtf value' of having to even go on the battlefied in mechs like that My 5D is mastered so I'll never have to do it again but it's just NOT FAIR that any new SDR pilots won't have to feel the pain that is the elusive 5V

Mech packs still require you to buy a minimum of 3 variants, even after PGI announced the new skill tree and ditching the 3x rule (Javelin and Roughneck packs).

Besides that, there is also the comparison of price per variant rather than just total price. What I mean is that while the total price in the PTR might be lower if you only buy one variant, but the cost efficiency per variant will be much lower because the system was designed to make each individual variant costlier on their own.

Edited by FupDup, 23 February 2017 - 06:15 PM.

[50 50]

So at the moment, to claim that a mech is mastered under the new skill tree it means buying all 91 nodes for that particular mech. That's a total cost of 5,460,000 c-bills.
However, the original mech tree which consists of only 13 skills, 3 of which do not appear to exist under the new system, if multiplied out so each of those skills has 5 levels is the equivalent of 50 nodes.
This is the equivalent of 3,000,000 c-bills.

The additional 41 points we now have access to for each mech is where the modules have been merged into the tree.
That's the equivalent of adding 8 modules to your mechs if you skill it all the way up, possibly more as some of those 'module nodes' under the 1st iteration of the skill tree test only had 1 or 2 levels. You only need another 2,460,000 c-bills if you want to add the module effects. Under the current system in the live client that would be a minimum of 16,000,000 c-bills but to fully module out a mech under live you would probably spend that much just to get the maximum 4 modules.

I expect that many players will not be able to buy all the nodes for all of their mechs with the refund, but if you have spent 16,000,000 on modules for approximately 1/3rd your mechs you would be very close to being able to master all of your mechs as that 16,000,000 will buy enough nodes for 2.93 mechs.

So if you happen to have been very frugal and haven't bought that many modules (4 modules for 1/3rd of your mechs) then ok, you've spent your c-bills elsewhere. Your choice. But you cannot blame anyone else for your decision. Instead look at your existing list of mechs and think that if you will have 3,000,000 c-bills for each to get that first 50 nodes... then you will be back to where you are right now.

So, yes, we save some c-bills thanks to module swapping. We all do it.
If you have somehow managed to survive with 4 modules but have over 100 mechs, you will get no sympathy. That's gone from being frugal and practical to something else. Sell some of the mechs to get the cash. Buy them back later, you'll still have the XP for them. Sell some excess equipment from your inventory. Skill up your favourites as those will be the ones you pilot the most anyway and you will earn the cash to spend on the others while enjoying what you normally do.

That said, 91 skills is going to be too many.
Let's petition to drop that to 40 or 50 at most.

[Bellum Dominum]

FupDup, on 23 February 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Mech packs still require you to buy a minimum of 3 variants, even after PGI announced the new skill tree and ditching the 3x rule (Javelin and Roughneck packs).

Besides that, there is also the comparison of price per variant rather than just total price. What I mean is that while the total price in the PTR might be lower if you only buy one variant, but the cost efficiency per variant will be much lower because the system was designed to make each individual variant costlier on their own.

True however the cost variance in buying a pack versus simply buying each mech singulary has to be included. Don't forget that you get more than simply the mechs in those packs as well. Perhaps these changes will lead to less expensive mech packs? Would that be a bad thing?

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 23 February 2017 - 07:05 PM.

[FupDup]

Bellum Dominum, on 23 February 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

True however the cost variance in buying a pack versus simply buying each mech singulary has to be included. Don't forget that you get more than simply the mechs in those packs as well. Perhaps these changes will lead to less expensive mech packs? Would that be a bad thing?

For the future of mech packs, I would expect PGI to make something where the minimum buy is one variant.

However, I'd also expect the "dollars per mech" ratio to be lower for this single variant than the current three variants for $20. PGI would probably do something like one variant for $10.

We already saw a similar "dollars per mech" efficiency decrease when comparing the new single mech pack model to the old wave of four model (well, at least Battlemech waves of four were more cost-effective, because Omnimech waves of four were 50% more expensive for strange reasons).

[Bellum Dominum]

FupDup, on 23 February 2017 - 07:14 PM, said:

For the future of mech packs, I would expect PGI to make something where the minimum buy is one variant.

However, I'd also expect the "dollars per mech" ratio to be lower for this single variant than the current three variants for $20. PGI would probably do something like one variant for $10.

We already saw a similar "dollars per mech" efficiency decrease when comparing the new single mech pack model to the old wave of four model (well, at least Battlemech waves of four were more cost-effective, because Omnimech waves of four were 50% more expensive for strange reasons).

If I remember correctly IGP was still involved at that time as well (50% more time period).

[SnafuSnafu]

You don't have to elite all your mechs nor would you want to anyways.

Most people fall back to 5-10 mechs they like the rest of them usually do nothing else but look pretty.

You do have a point that it does take a lot of time to master 100+ mechs and you are right to say that it does kinda throw a wrench at the 'gotta catch em all' mentality of some folks such as yourself, but it's not as bad as one makes it seems.

Note that 28 matches per week is really not that much, 6-10 minutes per match is around 168 - 280 minutes, which a lot of folks can do in a day, meaning many folks will progress in a day or less what you would do in a week. That's fine to be honest play as much or as little as you want. Also note that PGI doesn't cater to one's specific 'play hours', but the play hours of the masses, it's nice that you invest 1,000 USD to the game per anum, however doesn't really entitle you to anything.

In my honest opinion it's not that harsh of a grind, it's a more pleasurable and compelling grind (also faster to be honest) than its competitors such as War Thunder and World of Tanks and the new skill system in general makes it much more so.

Edited by SnafuSnafu, 23 February 2017 - 07:46 PM.

[Skribs]

Not everyone has 5 hours to spare every day.

The problem people have is that this a grind that's going to take quite a bit of time to get through, that we feel we've already been through.

[soapyfrog]

Bellum Dominum, on 23 February 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

No that is only good for those that don't want to see diversity and to be able to freely join in 'the next meta'.

That is a baffling statement. Cost + time to respec + plus higher grind = more diversity in your mind? I think you may be trolling at this point.

[SnafuSnafu]

Skribs, on 23 February 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

The problem people have is that this a grind that's going to take quite a bit of time to get through, that we feel we've already been through.

It actually depends, for lights and some mediums the grind is indeed SLIGHTLY worse than what we have today, but for most if not all heavies and assaults it's actually a lot easier.

Clan heavies and assaults for example, which are very expensive costing 9 to 16 + million each will be a lot easier to grind, as now you only need the variant you want + however millions you need to XP it up to max instead of say the 48 million (+ modules) of a mech costing 16 million for a set of three.

Note that Lights in general are cheap and are't all that hard to acquire in the first place, so the added 'difficulty' means fairly little anyways at least in most cases.

Yet another point as to why the reasoning behind this thread is fairly bad.

Also in general for folks who are trying to argue the merit of these changes based on how they spend their money and how it affects their experience of the game; If one wants argue how wallet warriors gets hurt by this patch by all means argue how wallet warriors gets hurt by this patch, but please disconnect the general state of the patch (which is VERY GOOD) with that certain aspect you wish to argue as you will make a more compelling argument with that in mind.

Edited by SnafuSnafu, 23 February 2017 - 09:00 PM.

[Bellum Dominum]

soapyfrog, on 23 February 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

That is a baffling statement. Cost + time to respec + plus higher grind = more diversity in your mind? I think you may be trolling at this point.

Not at all. You want to keep falling back on an argument that fails as it is. Pointed out by more than just myself at this point. Myself I don't think respec should exist at all unless PGI does major changes and then it should be free, but you don't see me actually arguing for that and you want to know why? Because I try to think in terms of the community as a whole instead of my own personal wants, as opposed to most of your own arguments. I've honestly wondered if you were simply trying to troll this update into non-existence but rather than make such an assertion I have treated your arguments as your own actual personal desires instead of trying to devalue your opinion based upon a failed form of argument.

Yes Cost+time to respec+higher grind (notice I left out your redundancy?) = more diversity. for the simple fact that it means that with a new meta not everyone is going to be able to swap to the new meta instantly. Which I truly get the impression and have stated elsewhere is all your argument is about 'I want to be able to have the newest meta the instant it comes into play'.

Let us examine your equation using your own arguments:
Cost = simply having a cost means not everyone is going to be able to afford the new meta the instant it comes into play.
Time to respec = self explanatory as to why this is going to mean diversity. But since you are struggling with the concept.. if it takes time to make those switches then not everyone is going to even want to do that switch for one, for two not everyone gains the same amount of xp/cbills at the same rate therefor not everyone will be using the new meta at the same time.
Higher grind = again self explanatory as to why not everyone is going to be able to swap to new meta but I'll further explain: Player A has 2 hours to play a day. Player B has 4 hours to play a day. If swapping to the new meta will take 6 hrs of play time (aka grind) then on day 2 only one of these two players are going to even be able to be using the new meta.

[I really am anxious to be able to get on and test a from the ground up mastery of a mech. I have a feeling that it is no where near as grindy as your arguments make it out to be. Typically takes me 3 days (without enabling premium time) of what I consider casual play to master a mech under the new system (that includes having to deal with 2 other mechs). If it only takes that amount of time with the new system for me then my own opinion would be that this whole gripe is a load of garbage from the ground up. But we will see once I am able to get in there and give it a go.]

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 23 February 2017 - 09:28 PM.