2 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

change the system from how it is now,
instead of paying to unlock nodes, to you pay to unlock node Points,
as all the Nodes cost the same, this can easily be implemented,


instead of buying each node individually you will Buy Node Points,
for now lets call them Np, you then spend these Points to by nodes,
(Each Node Points costs, 800Exp & 45,000C-Bills)

this would allow for Grandfathered mechs to start with some Starting Nps,
if your mech is mastered(Current System) lets say that mech starts with 80-90Nps,
saving people from having Exp or C-bill problems,
-
Fully Mastered Mech = 70-90 Free Node-Points
Fully Elited Mech = 40-60 Free Node-Points
Fully Basic-ed Mech = 10-30 Free Node-Points


this allows PGI to offer refunds to everyone with out leaving some people out,
the catch is you would lost your used Exp as that would not longer be refunded,

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 13 March 2017 - 07:46 PM.

[K O N D O]

The trouble with your concept is mastery in the old system only gives you 1 additional module space using XP grinded. It doesn't give you the actual modules to put in those module slots.
Module have to be purchased.
In the new Skill Tree, the module equivalents are included in the 91 nodes available. If you give every player that has a mastered mech in the old system all 91 nodes, that is just like giving them all fully moduled mechs as well. If PGI then returned all the funds spent on modules, the economy will be flooded and this would be bad for MWO.

My proposal in the below thread addresses that issue.

https://mwomercs.com...d-and-proposal/

It also allows players to get a mech back to its original skill equivalent without having any negative impact on their CB, XP, and time previously spend leveling a mech.
Even the XP earned to unlock a master slot still remains available in the new tree to use when unlocking nodes 46-91(which is the same as fitting modules.)

Have a look and see what you think.

[Andi Nagasia]

which is why i said 70-90, not 91,