13 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

I've had a bit of an epiphany today while arguing about the skill tree costs. As I've pointed out there's no reason for me to buy any more mechs for the next couple of years so PGI are going to lose out on sales. I'm not the only person in this boat so if PGI has miscalculated about how many of us there are they're about to hit a serious drop in income.

I've realised that the overall cost of the new skill tree is fair if you compare it on a mech by mech basis for mastered mechs. A mastered Marauder, or any other mech, with a full set of modules, is slightly cheaper in the new system, so that's good.

However it doesn't work out anything like as cheap if you don't already have those modules.
This is because the new skill tree effectively spreads the cost of a typical set of modules out amongst approx 60 nodes. Each node is cheaper than a module but you need a bunch of them to get to the node that gives you the module-like effect.

Currently as you get XP on a mech you buy the basic skills, then elite, then master, none of which costs you any c-bills and which gives you a 'boosted' percentage on a bunch of mech stats.

At the same time you have a choice of wether or not to equip modules (assuming you have unlocked them of course) and how much to spend on those modules.

With the new system you don't get a choice of wether or not to pay for modules: each skill node is a fraction of the way towards a module.

This is why the new system is so bad for people with lots of mechs but few modules; we are forced to pay to get back to the basic/elite/mastered 'boosted' stats from before. However:

• PGI must have a c-bill sink for those players that are module rich and mech poor or their 'economy' is f*cked.
  
• PGI needs to satisfy players with lots of mechs but few modules or they will stop buying mechs and PGI is f*cked.
  
• PGI needs to encourage new players or we are all f*cked.

There's really only one solution to this:

the cost of skill nodes must start at almost nothing and ramp up as you buy more.

The total cost to buy the maximum amount of skill points should be similar to the price of a couple of modules or there is not enough of a c-bill sink for rich players.

But skill node costs must start low or free for poor players (collector whales and newbies) so they are not forced to make a bad decision between buying skills or buying parts for their mechs, and so that collectors are not discouraged from buying more mechs.

My solution (similar to others):

• The equivalent of current 'basic' skills should be free or a nominal amount (first 20-30 nodes, or bottom layer of 3-5 nodes)
  
• The equivalent of 'elite' skills should cost maybe 500k to a million in total (next 20-30 nodes or middle layer)
  
• The equivalent of a mastered mech should have a total cost of several million (remaining nodes or top layer)

As a principle all the players should not be set back from where they are but giving all skill nodes the same cost screws over some players but not others. Ramping up the costs is fair for both extremes of player, rich and poor.

Edited by Dogstar, 25 February 2017 - 12:17 PM.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

I've thought the same, that what we originally had in skills with no C-bill cost should have some representation in the new skill trees as well. I consider myself module-poor and mech-rich, having about a 1:10 ratio of modules to mechs, most of which are at least elited if not mastered. Those getting refunds on their modules will be getting 100% of those costs back, yet those of us that bought lots of mechs, even those inferior ones we didn't want but had to buy to round out the 3 mechs required to level up the ones we wanted to keep, aren't getting a 100% refund on those unwanted mechs that are no longer needed to skill up in the new system. I'd like to see a combination of graduated costs for skill nodes along with 100% C-bill refunds on the 2nd and/or 3rd mechs in a chassis that are no longer needed or wanted due to the singular nature of the new skill tree.

[Rizn Nuke]

I know this is shameless self-advertisement, but I have made a thread discussing exactly the prices you mention
https://mwomercs.com...r-just-smarter/
In short: the problem can be solved with math.

[Dogstar]

@Rizn

Exactly, it's not a complicated issue to set variable prices for nodes ad it resolves a huge problem.The trouble is getting players to support it vocally an PGI to listen

[Rizn Nuke]

Dogstar, on 26 February 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

@Rizn

Exactly, it's not a complicated issue to set variable prices for nodes ad it resolves a huge problem.The trouble is getting players to support it vocally an PGI to listen

I see ...

[soapyfrog]

Dogstar, on 25 February 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

The total cost to buy the maximum amount of skill points should be similar to the price of a couple of modules or there is not enough of a c-bill sink for rich players.

This is where I disagree. If it cost just 1 million cbills to unlock every skill node on a mech, it would be affordable but it would still heavily cut into my savings.

The current costs are much higher than that, as 91 x 60,000 works out to about 5.46 million, putting buying my skill points back WELL beyond what i can hope to afford. Moreover, you have to add in the cost of any skill nodes you want to unlock in the future as part of a respec as those ALSO cost 60,000 a pop, which could make a mech cost much much more over it's lifetime.

I think that if there is any c-bill cost to unlocking skill nodes it should be low, and the total for ALL skill nodes (however many there are 200 or something) should be below 2 million c-bills per mech. Respecs should carry NO surcharge, cbill or XP.

Prices like that would still be expensive, but affordable for all players, and basically non punitive (while still representing a flat increase to the price of all mechs).

Will some players still have a ton of cbills left over? Probably, but given how little I would have left under such a system I think that the people who have earned such vast reserves of cbills deserve to enjoy them.

[Kali Rinpoche]

Again I agree with you Dogstar.

[Skribs]

Why does there need to be a C-Bill sink, anyway? It's not like we can trade anything with anyone. Are there that many players who have a lot of premium time banked?

The way I see it, if you're like me and you want a lot of Mechs, you don't need a C-Bill sink because you sink them into new Mechs, until such time as you "catch up" to PGI. At that point, you might not spend money on premium time, but you'll buy Mech Packs, which gives PGI money.

If you haven't been collecting Mechs, then you will not need the C-Bill sink for very long, because you'll quickly fill out your Mechs, especially if you already have modules.

If you have a lot of banked premium time, you're not going to buy more to level Mechs, you'll use what is banked.

If the majority of the Mechs you buy are with real money, then your money is spent there, not on premium.

Any way you slice it, I don't see why a C-Bill sink is necessary.

[Kelenas]

There needs to be a cbill sink because they will be rfeuding millions upon millions from modules. They can just say screw the cost and the refund but people who bought loads of modules will cry out. I like the idea of a scaling system, with maybe around or slightly lower than the adjusted costs.

Edited by Kelenas, 26 February 2017 - 07:14 PM.

[Skribs]

Kelenas, on 26 February 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

There needs to be a cbill sink because they will be rfeuding millions upon millions from modules. They can just say screw the cost and the refund but people who bought loads of modules will cry out. I like the idea of a scaling system, with maybe around or slightly lower than the adjusted costs.

Let me rephrase: Is it really a problem if people have too many C-Bills?

[Bellum Dominum]

Skribs, on 26 February 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Let me rephrase: Is it really a problem if people have too many C-Bills?

So you don't want cbills to have any value?

[soapyfrog]

Bellum Dominum, on 27 February 2017 - 12:02 AM, said:

So you don't want cbills to have any value?

Cbills have value and will continue to continue to have value even if some players have large amounts.

I think maybe the crux of this that you don't want other people to have more stuff than you. You resent whales who have spent large amounts of money because, to YOU, it is an open display if comparative wealth.

You want to see whales punished hard. That is why you argue in favour of this system.

But you should move beyond your own petty feeling because this is going to gut the game. People will stop spending money. People will stop playing.... and there is no magical influx of new players over the horizon.

Free respecs is good for everyone including you and PGI. Reducing skill tree total costs so that new players don't have to pay a mandatory cost no one has ever had to pay before as they level and so that the new costs more accurately reflect the value of the module refund is good for everyone. Stop trying to hurt everyone with your Ahab-like vendetta against whales.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

soapyfrog, on 27 February 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

Free respecs is good for everyone including you and PGI.

It definitely makes people more willing to buy duplicates since you can respec it however and whenever you want.

[Dogstar]

As a comparison imagine if it cost you to level up in WoW.

So each time you got he XP you would have to travel back to a trainer and spend a nominal 1 gold to level up.

But it usually takes you until 10th level to earn enough that first gold piece - I remember being overjoyed the first time I had a whole gold piece!

So you end up grinding mobs again and again in the starting zone to earn that gold piece to get to level two, and then you repeat the process again for the next level.

Now if Blizzard had designed WoW that way they would never have got 12 million players paying £10 a month, it would have flopped terribly.

This is what applying a flat cost for all skill nodes is like. It's really unfair on the little guys.