299 replies to this topic

[Gorith]

You realize you should easily be able to afford the 2x mechs if you have enough xp to convert over to master them. then buy almost any other mech chassis after selling them back?

[Scorm]

Is it really that hard to understand that they want you to use MC to either buy the chassis or exchange mech to general xp?

[Hex Dog]

The reason being - as I'll stress for the last time - is that the mechanic is designed in such a way as to reflect a well rounded understanding of how the catapult/hunchback/jenner/atlas/whatever works in a variety of situations.

You can't expect to call yourself a Master when you've only ever owned one model of the mech. Someone who is dedicated to a certain type of mech will have spent time getting to know it in all its faces.

[Rokuzachi]

Scorm, on 18 November 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Is it really that hard to understand that they want you to use MC to either buy the chassis or exchange mech to general xp?

It's not hard to understand. I work on free to play games, so I'm very aware of how they work.

What I'm saying is that the system could be much better designed and still encourage people to use MC.

[Kurayami]

im kinda neutral on this topic. but i really want to see some diversity in skill set.

[Cybermech]

really????
its a game, go play

[Lobo Feroz]

I don't like the idea of needing to buy and level 3 different versions of the same mech. I'd prefer spending the time an c-bills on a completely different chassis.

I'd like to see the ability to earn XP while using trial mechs that can be spent to level the trial mech variant even if it was at something like 20% the rate of a mech that you owned.

[Clay Pigeon]

What's the matter? Can't afford extra mech bays? They're only a $1.50 each, at the most expensive.

[DivineEvil]

Yes.
- It makes no sense.
- It practically forces people to purchase additional MB slots to run with reasonable variety.
- Efficiencies are bad by themselves. I dont really see 3rd Tier module slot being somehow worth 20k+ experience, so usually it's most efficient to buy 3 mechs, ride them for 1st tier, get the 2nd tier access on one variant you liked the most and sell two others for junk. Makes progress curve very short.
- All efficiencies are thrown around tiers randomly and never stacks. Consecutive trees for different specific trait of a mech (DPS, heat management, maneuveability, targeting, protection, etc) with lower numbers, but an ability to stack, would work better.

[Trainwreck]

I voted yes, cause I agree its dumb to have to play a chassis you dont like to get the unlocks for your favorite chassis. A simple solution to the problem would be to allow us to use the mech exp we earn with our favorite mech to unlock the other variants. That way your still working to get the unlocks and they all still cost the same example if you run a K2 you should be able to use the xp earned to unlock the C4 and A1 Cats.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I voted "no" because making people play as 3 different versions of the same Mech makes them become proficient in more than 1 play-style. Not everybody wants to become more proficient at multiple play-styles because they like to do their own thing, but this forced-training makes them become more knowledgeable of their opponents' play-styles...

... because walking in another man's shoes is the best way to learn the weaknesses of his gait.


(call it "Forced improvement," your teammates will be thankful for it ;-)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 18 November 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[Mousepup]

The whole thing with owning multiple battlemechs is pretty silly WRT faithfulness to canon, and works against the goal of reinforcing the sense of ownership and specialness of the player's and character's priceless and rare heirloom, but here I think gameplay is much more important. I like the idea of "forced improvement," though I prefer to think of it as "reward for improvement" as per my "carrot > stick" mentality. I don't like the current implementation, mostly because I think having it be based on, say, one _different_ chassis in same weight class and one in a different weight class (in addition to XP with the target chassis, but blind to hardpoint "variant") would be much better for encouraging players to try more variety and, as noted by others, gain a better understanding of what team mates' jobs are like and what 'mech piloting in general is like rather than just the target chassis' particular characteristics. That way, attaining any in-universe "mastery" for your character requires experience with all four weight classes at the least and likely a lot more roles and equipment than one chassis offers opportunity to understand fully, to develop a masterful breadth of understanding in addition to the depth that comes from intimacy with the target chassis:

Jman5, on 18 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I don't like the way it works now. I hate the fact that I have to pilot a variant I have no intention of using afterward, but it adds a money sink, and makes you branch out to try new mechs.

"Hey remember that variant you hate? Well you're stuck piloting it for 20 games because you want to unlock the third tier for the mech you really want to play. Enjoy!"

Instead of focing players to buy 3 of the same weight class, they should have players buy a mech from each weight class. So speed skills are unlocked when you buy a light mech, defense skills are unlocked with the assault, and then you can add some for the heavy and medium classes.

This would force players to branch out and try different mechs, add a money sink, and would actually make sense. Plus you're actually trying totally different mechs instead of hunchback version 1, 2 and 3.

Also, I fail to see positive feedback overwhelmingly outweighing negative, which is kinda a red flag. (unless I count the "Cry me a river!" posts as praise for the existing system...) Obviously, it feels punishing to some. I dunno, I think I'd be spending resources on the kind of diversification I described incentivising instead of bothering with the variant-collecting hoop-jumpery. It looks like that approach is not punished with crippling deficiencies, so even though I think it could be much better for the community experience to offer carrots for walking in other shoes since it would make for generally better team mates, I'd be quite happy with the system if not for that red flag...

[The Herrick]

Clay Pigeon, on 18 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

What's the matter? Can't afford extra mech bays? They're only a $1.50 each, at the most expensive.

Too bad the game isn't worth $1.50 in it's current state.

[Rokuzachi]

I can't speak for anyone else, but the whole 'force improvement' thing carries no weight with me.

When I play the variants I hate for the sole purpose of improving the one or two that I do like, I really phone it in. If I don't enjoy what I'm piloting, I'm much less inclined to perform as best as I can, especially if the end goal of whatever boost to my favored variant is on the distant horizon. It's just difficult to care in that situation.

[8CH Trooper]

Gorith, on 18 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

While I like the idea of a P2P mechwarrior game to make that work and make equal profit they would need ALOT more content and immersion than what MWO is currently or honestly will become (going by what they have said they wanted to do with the game)

I agree with you, MWO has a long way to go before it has the type of content that we are hoping for. As a pvp shooter it will not generate enough long term interest to get it to the next level.

[Sandpit]

How can anyone be punished playing a free game? lol

[Baliel]

I like that it takes a 3 variant unlock to progress. It allows you to choose between either focusing on one mech and reaping the benefits of fundamentally specializing, or you can spread between multiple mech types and have the flexibility.

I am also not a fan of games that allow you to unlock everything quickly as it gives you nothing to strive for. The time it takes to accumulate xp and cbills to purchase and upgrade seems completely reasonable. How many countless hours have COD players spent grinding to unlock weapons? How many countless hours have WoW players spent going for gear? How much fun would it be if you could get it all in a day?

[AlexEss]

Seeing as the mech tree is supposed of be for being the best bloody pilot of mech X or Y no i do not think it is to much seeing as you can be a good and proper pilot without doing any mastery.

If you want you will have to work for it.

[Mousepup]

Oh, yes, I agree that it should take a lot of experience to be credited for "mastery."  

Why should the carrots be all for "specialising" by using the most similar 'mechs possible and none for "generalising" by using the most dissimilar 'mechs possible, though?  Depth of understanding is important, and worth incentivising, but so is breadth, and I would like to encourage more players to walk in more shoes since we're supposed to be able to support each other competently.

Hex Dog, on 18 November 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Reading and critiquing one author doesn't make you a literary master, comparing and contrasting authors puts you on the path to informed genius, however.

I refrained from quoting this earlier because I just didn't have the presence of mind to think of using this disclaimer that I don't know whether my endorsement is for or against what Hex Dog meant, because I don't know whether one metaphorical author is one variant, "chassis," or weight class, but _I think_ the best balance between depth and breadth is almost never "knowing everything about nothing" nor "knowing nothing about everything."

Edited by Mousepup, 18 November 2012 - 02:45 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I understand the OPs complaint. I think its silly to have to use 3 different nations Variants to master the one you want to use. Do you know how difficult it is to get a K variant Atlas in Davion space.