While overall the changes are a massive improvement and movement in the right direction, there is still a LOT of work to be done. However, most of it simply revolves around two facets: Fixing node placement in the trees and STILL the skill tree Economy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, think on this: Look at the fact that you're now
FORCING mechs to take non-relevant weapon specific nodes in order to get all of the passive nodes that they might want.
That's just plain WRONG!!!! We know that you know you're doing it, because you even disabled the "if you don't have these weapons you can't take these nodes" feature. What if all a person wants is weapon range and heat generation nodes and nothing weapon-specific? They can't do that; and again, that's just plain wrong!
In a similar vein, look at the auxiliary tree as another prime example. Why MUST a person invest in improving artillery consumables in order to improve their NARC system? That makes absolutely zero sense.
Suggestion: Split the nodes into purely defined zones/lines that distinctly benefit the linking systems. Make each tree have numerous "starting points" that allow you to advance down a line of investment based on what the pilot wants. Either that, or just allow people to directly pick and choose what they wish . . . after all, we could pick and choose the order we wanted to acquire skills in the old system, why can't we do something similar in this system?
Here are some examples for handling this, focusing on the Firepower and Auxiliary Trees:
- In the Firepower Tree put in starting points (each going straight down their own line) for Range, Cooldown, Heat Generation, Velocity, Laser Duration, Missile Spread, etc. etc. These can then even interconnect in a honeycomb fashion if desired, but lines should be placed next to something sensible; and they should not act as a senseless barrier between two non-relevant lines of nodes.
- If PGI feels that "investment" of a certain amount of nodes is required to get to something specific, like Gauss Charge, for example, then place them at the bottom of one of these main lines. Using Gauss Charge as the continued example, you could place it at the bottom of the Velocity line. Jam Chance could be at the end of the cooldown line, spread nodes could also fall under velocity, duration nodes could be double-linked at the bottom of both Heat Gen and Cooldown, and ammunition nodes could also fall at the bottom of the cooldown line.
- In the Auxiliary Tree you can create a similar situation where you have a line for extra slots, UAV nodes, Artillery nodes, Coolshot nodes, NARC, etc. If need-be for levels of investment, as an example, do something like put the UAV duration under the UAV range nodes and the extra UAV all the way at the bottom of the UAV line.
- This same premise can be carried through all the other trees (Mobility, Survival, Jump Jets, Sensors, and Operations) to equal effect with zero issues.
- If certain nodes feel like distinct "winners" and "losers", then PGI should consider altering the values of these nodes until they feel valuable enough to compete with everything else. We shouldn't have certain nodes forced down our throat if they have neither nothing to do with our build nor are obviously sub-par nodes that are mere obstructions to get to more desirable nodes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another line of thought I still think the economy needs work. I realize that mastered mechs in this system aren't going to be mastered mechs from the old system. However, we're still not even getting what we had when trying to remaster mechs . . . we don't even get to start remotely close to where we left off. Veteran players in particular with large rosters of mechs stand to lose a great deal through this change.
Under the old system I could earn 57250 experience and have a mech in its "mastered" state with ZERO c-bill investment. The c-bill side of things came from modules, which were a more end-game facet and supposed to be more grind based. However, these were also swappable and most people only kept enough modules to fill out a FW deck (if that) and aren't getting back the billions of c-bills required just to get their mechs where they were before. Regardless, I'm now also being charged c-bills just to get back skills that I could have on mechs by default through just experience.
On the flip side of things, this is a F2P game, and PGI needs methods of monetization. The first iteration was horrifically costly, but it still gave PGI some monetization options. This current method oddly guts PGI monetization options and yet it still doesn't even give players the ability to get back what they had under the old system without massive c-bill costs.
SUGGESTION . . . Different Node Unlock Methods:
- One option is a large but strictly XP investment . . . say 1600 XP per node, for example.
- Another option is what's currently listed of 60k c-bills and 800xp.
- The final option is MC replacing the c-bills (going off of ~400-425MC to 1 mil c-bills in MC mech purchases) for ~24-25 MC and 800xp.
- Respec is handled the same as it is now.
This creates various advancement methods that cater to different kinds of players. Not only that, but it also gives PGI more monetization options for people who wish to use a few MC to save c-bills for other things OR who have hoards of GXP that they've converted and are willing to build up mechs through pure GXP conversions.
EDIT: Again, posting this here and in the appropriate feedback section of the forums to ensure it is noticed.
Edited by Sereglach, 01 March 2017 - 08:09 PM.
11
NlGHTBlRD, on 01 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:
