16 replies to this topic

[Rizn Nuke]

First off: It's important to remember that the new Skill Tree is intended to replace both the old Mech unlocks (mastery) as well as modules, hence the C-Bill costs for the Skill Points (SP)

However, in the old system, mastery did not cost any C-Bills. If you include these costs now you will severely punish new players, as well as players with few modules as they most likely won't have the money to even "re-master" half their mechs (re-master being a mech on the same level as a previously mastered mech).

This is why PGI needs to go away from the idea that all SP should cost the same amount. Have the costs increase with every SP unlocked.

This would mean that players could celebrate quick successes after getting a new mech, which could lead to more mechs being bought (even more so than in the current system!)

I have come up (because math is awesome #nerd) with a little formula:
C-Bill costs for unlocking Skill Point X=(1,075 ^ (X - 1)) * 1000 ; then rounded to the nearest 50

Some cornerstones of this formula (X; cost of Skill Point X; total costs to reach X):
01: 1.000 - 1.000
10: 1.900 - 14.200
20: 3.950 - 43.350,
30: 8.150 - 103.450
40: 16.800 - 227.250
50: 34.600 - 482.550
55: 49.650 - 698.600
60: 71.300 - 1.008.750
70: 146.950 - 2.093.100
80: 302.900 - 4.328.000
90: 624.250 - 8.934.250
91: 671.050 - 9.605.300

A mastered Mech in the old system is about 55 SP in the new system which would only cost 700.000 C-Bills. this means that owning a single weapon module in the old system would allow you to "re-master" 4 of your mechs.

Why does my formula go up to 9.6M C-Bills? Because unlocking 91 SP basically gives you a fully mastered mech with 3-4 modules worth of abilities, saving you up to 10M C-Bills.

A system like this might have the potential to solve almost all problems players have with the proposed Skill Tree regarding its costs. New players quickly experience successes with new mechs and veterans quickly get their mechs back to former glory and even beyond.

Please discuss what you think of this.

Edited by Rizn Nuke, 24 February 2017 - 05:27 AM.

[Rizn Nuke]

A little example of this system:
A player (well, me) has 40 Mechs and ~100M C-Bills worth of modules (7 seismic, 19 weapon modules)

bringing 40 Mechs back to mastery: 40 * 700.000 = 28.000.000 C-Bills
The remaining 62.000.000 C-Bills can be used to purchase the remaining SP:
62.000.000 / (9.600.000 - 700.000) = 7 fully equipped mechs (with e.g. seismic, radar dep + 2 weapon modules)

Edited by Rizn Nuke, 24 February 2017 - 05:27 AM.

[soapyfrog]

I think reflecting the cost of modules like that in skill system is wrongheaded because almost no one has a set of modules for even a significant fraction of their mechs, so one has had to bear such costs (and in fact if they had proposed to make modules as expensive as they are AND non-transferable, there would have been a similar player revolt).

If they want to charge some c-bills for those skill nodes that represent bonuses previously gained from modules, more or less, fine. But it should be pretty cheap; like less than 1 million c-bills total for ALL NODES per mech. This would STILL cost me more for all my mechs than I am getting back in module refunds, but I think for most people it would be at least a bearable cost.

Edited by soapyfrog, 24 February 2017 - 09:15 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

I do like the idea of a progressive skill tree cost as this has been said a few times.

Down side I see is most people will not master the mechs because of the cost. PGI would have to increase the cost of the mastered mechs to make up for this.

I personally would only buy 50-60 points for 90% of my mechs.

[Trev Firestorm]

Definitely better sounding than the current proposal, though I would prefer specific nodes holding specific costs, after all not all nodes are equal, fall damage isn't as good as radar derp or even any heat node. Just attach cbills to nodes that represent major modules and leave the rest to xp as it should be.

[Rizn Nuke]

Monkey Lover, on 24 February 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

I do like the idea of a progressive skill tree cost as this has been said a few times.

Down side I see is most people will not master the mechs because of the cost. PGI would have to increase the cost of the mastered mechs to make up for this.

I personally would only buy 50-60 points for 90% of my mechs.

Why would you consider that as a downside? It would basically mirror the behavior of people not buying modules for 2/3 of their mechs.

Trev Firestorm, on 24 February 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

Definitely better sounding than the current proposal, though I would prefer specific nodes holding specific costs, after all not all nodes are equal, fall damage isn't as good as radar derp or even any heat node. Just attach cbills to nodes that represent major modules and leave the rest to xp as it should be.

Yes, that would be the other alternative I could see. However this would mean someone has to decide for us what is to be deemed more valuable and what not.

Edited by Rizn Nuke, 24 February 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[Appuagab]

Basic tweaks of mobility, firepower and durability — XP only.
Special features like advanced zoom or seismic sensor — additional reasonable c-bills fee. Somewhere around 600k maybe, idk. Surely not 6-9kk per mastered mech.
Stop trying to tie mastering price to current modules prices. Every player has different approach to buying modules. Some play only MWO, pimp every single mechs and still have enough c-bills. Some don't waste c-bills on more than a couple of radarderps and adv zooms. Because module system as it is now is total trash in all possible ways and should just be gone without any attempts to keep the grinding aspect of it for the only purpose of not making players too happy with refunds. Spending C-Bills along with XP on skills is total nonsense and the fact that some things were implemented in totally terrible way before doesn't mean that we can't just jump from awful to good.

Edited by Appuagab, 24 February 2017 - 04:45 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Rizn Nuke, on 24 February 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

Why would you consider that as a downside? It would basically mirror the behavior of people not buying modules for 2/3 of their mechs.

.

I don't this see this as a bad thing as I would save tons but Pgi would. They have to setup an enconomy that promotes people to spend money. The over all cbills spent on the skill tree will be lower with a system like this. The only way to offset this would be to I crease the cost of fully mastered mechs. Basically Rob Peter to pay Paul

Edited by Monkey Lover, 25 February 2017 - 12:27 PM.

[Dogstar]

I thoroughly support this idea.

[Honiara]

I think that the OP has a very good idea here, this is to me a win-win

1. New players get some of the performance of a mastered 'mech for free, this promotes play and some immediate customization options, and immediately reduces the gap between a new 'mech and a mastered 'mech
2. Gives a c-bill sink similar to the current module system for players who wish to spend additional c-bills to make their 'mech better
3. For those who cannot afford the c-bills to re-master a mech as they have been swapping modules in the existing module system for years, get a lot of the tree while working towards more c-bills.


On a side note, i'm sorry to say but everyone who is complaining on the cost of the new skill tree has been gaming the old system. If you had been purchasing modules for even a third of your 'mechs (approx 18,000,000 per 'mech) you would now be able to re-master all of your existing garage for the refund on your existing modules.

[soapyfrog]

Honiara, on 27 February 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

On a side note, i'm sorry to say but everyone who is complaining on the cost of the new skill tree has been gaming the old system. If you had been purchasing modules for even a third of your 'mechs (approx 18,000,000 per 'mech) you would now be able to re-master all of your existing garage for the refund on your existing modules.

********. If modules had been nontransferable when they introduced them there would have been a total player revolt. The price of modules was set super high.

[Rizn Nuke]

soapyfrog, on 27 February 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

********. If modules had been nontransferable when they introduced them there would have been a total player revolt. The price of modules was set super high.

I don't get your point. They WERE transferable and thus came at a high price. Now they won't be transferable and they reduce the cost by at least 50%.

[soapyfrog]

Rizn Nuke, on 27 February 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

I don't get your point. They WERE transferable and thus came at a high price. Now they won't be transferable and they reduce the cost by at least 50%.

And the reduced cost is clearly too much still because I and many others are being bankrupted by it. Modules cost way more than they should even for transferable items.

Moreover since it becomes a mandatory cost for all, I think it should be quite a lot cheaper since it is hitting new players immediately. I think there are already a lot of c-bill surcharges on mech ownership: buying endo, double heat sinks in many cases, usually a new engine, I don't see the point of gouging the player yet more. If they insist on charging for skill nodes, let it be a million c-bills or less total for max skill points. You already pay xp for those things which represents your time and effort, the c-bill surcharge should be low or non-existent.

[Rizn Nuke]

Anyway. If the mastering process is to be changed and all modules are to be refunded, a system must be found which a) brings players with few modules back up again quickly and b ) prevents players with lots of modules to basically get the same advantages as before while also drowning in C-Bills from the refund.

And in my opinion the system I suggest can help with that.

Edited by Rizn Nuke, 28 February 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[soapyfrog]

If someone has actually spent enough to have modules for all their mechs, they deserve to be drowning in c-bills. Why take that away from them? Again it makes no sense to "prevent" them from doing anything. They have clearly invested the time and effort, and done something which was absolutely not necessary at all. Let them keep what they have earned!

We must be talking about a fraction of 1% of all players.

[ForceUser]

soapyfrog, on 28 February 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

If someone has actually spent enough to have modules for all their mechs, they deserve to be drowning in c-bills. Why take that away from them? Again it makes no sense to "prevent" them from doing anything. They have clearly invested the time and effort, and done something which was absolutely not necessary at all. Let them keep what they have earned!

We must be talking about a fraction of 1% of all players.

I agree everyone should get back what they earned in terms of cbills and XP. That is the most fair thing when the cost of something changes. Everyone should get back what they earned, anything more or less is unfair to a huge part of the player base. Note that people earn cbills and XP after a match, not modules and masteries. The distinction is a little pedantic, but necessary in this case.

[Rizn Nuke]

soapyfrog, on 28 February 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

If someone has actually spent enough to have modules for all their mechs, they deserve to be drowning in c-bills. Why take that away from them? Again it makes no sense to "prevent" them from doing anything. They have clearly invested the time and effort, and done something which was absolutely not necessary at all. Let them keep what they have earned!

We must be talking about a fraction of 1% of all players.

If they DID purchase modules for all their mechs they WILL be drowning in C-Bills, both in my system as well as the one currently planned.

If you only bought a few modules (like I did) the planned system has flaws. In my system you will roughly reach the same level again.

If you never bought any modules, the planned system is completely broken. In my system... well you will be able to reach the same level a lot faster than with the planned system.

Edited by Rizn Nuke, 28 February 2017 - 04:12 PM.