5 replies to this topic

[Talorien]

I understand PGI has adjusted costs down and needs an XP sink for business reasons. I am ok with the new unlock costs.

However, I still think buyback cost for previously unlocked nodes needs to be reduced from 400 XP to 0.

Because:

1) There is already a significant respec cost - you have to pay the full cost to unlock the new parts of the tree you want to respec to, with no refund for the old nodes.

2) For many players the game is about customizing builds and Mechs. It's fine to have to grind to unlock the skill tree to try a new build ('if I play a few games I can try this cool new build').

It's not so fine to have to regrind to go back to build #1. At this point it's just tedium ('I have to play these games just to get back to my old build').

3) Paying for new unlocks feels like progress but paying for 're-unlocks' feels like regress

4) It's frustrating to go back and forth between builds and pay for the same thing multiple times (we've all experienced putting in artemis, taking it out, and putting it in again, not a good game experience)

5) With no 're-unlock' cost, some completist players will just grind to unlock multiple builds on the favourite mechs. Which achieves what PGI was setting out to do in the first place (have a reasonable grind) without alienating players.

[oldradagast]

Agreed.

Punishing people for respecs will just mean people will play only play meta mechs with meta builds.

It also opens the door to sleazy tricks, like vastly changing the skill maze every few months to force people to regrind into different specs with the dishonest hope that everyone will "just buy lots of premium time" to get the forced grind done faster.

I really don't like where this is going since taking things away from people and forcing more grinding to get back to where you were seems to be a key part of the new business model.

Edited by oldradagast, 05 March 2017 - 07:19 AM.

[Skribs]

While we are at it, paying every time to go back and forth between upgrades needs to go (though I understand a 1-time cost). I don't want to pay 1.25 million just to play a different build on my Stalker for a few rounds where I'll earn 400k total.

[soapyfrog]

All they need to do is make skill points carry the cost to acquire and skill nodes be free.

Without even changing the base cost structure they would eliminate any respec costs, and make it a simpler system overall.

[Lucky Rookie]

Respec cost other than zero is a slap in the face for the fans of this game. Simple as that. I can't support this enough.

[Talorien]

soapyfrog, on 05 March 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

All they need to do is make skill points carry the cost to acquire and skill nodes be free.

Without even changing the base cost structure they would eliminate any respec costs, and make it a simpler system overall.

Soapy, I 100% get where you're coming from (I argued for similar after the earlier PTS).

It's evident though PGI doesn't want to go that route and wants some costs for respeccing.

Paying to unlock new nodes but respeccing free to old ones is a compromise I can accept. There are various game design reasons to not remove progress from players.

According to good game design theory, players are motivated to play out of desire to build/collect/progress, desire to explore, desire to customise and desire to compete. Removing the 400 XP rebuy cost aligns with all three motivations.

Keeping it on the other hand would violate all 4 sources of player motivation.