299 replies to this topic

[Tarrasque]

Personally, I think it makes sense.

You don't become the best Catapult pilot ever by piloting one model. You become a master of them by running different types and loadouts.

In order to have the skills granted (and they are nothing to shake a stick at), you need to have seen combat in all 3 chassis and been successful (or perservered).

How doesn't that make sense?

[Weiland]

SmilingElf, on 18 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

At that point, I'd wonder why they made them in the first place? (Other than to fill out the 3 variant requirement to progress.) Personally, I would rather see a growth tree that allows us to customize the mech we're driving, rather than just having to grind xp to have the mech reach its full intended potential.

That's a thought. Instead of being given generic tweaks, players could earn points (up to a set limit, perhaps) that could be put into whatever parts of their mech they'd want to physically fine-tune. It could be any number of things.

[Scytale]

Weiland, on 18 November 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

When you tweak something, you're fine-tuning it to perform supra-optimally. Hence why the name Speed Tweak makes sense in correlation with your example.

Thanks =) Works for me!

[SmilingElf]

Daemian, on 18 November 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

every game needs some sort of grind or players get bored and just quit. It's just gamer fact.

No, it's not. Many of us enjoy the competitive aspect of the game, and the time it takes us to get from start to playing at full resources is a pain. If that time was at least spent in a controlled environment where we can learn and develop as players, fine. As it is, the grind in this game is purely a disadvantage imposed on anyone starting a new mech line, for no better reason than because grind is assumed to be a core requirement.

[Harmatia]

SmilingElf, on 18 November 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

No, it's not. Many of us enjoy the competitive aspect of the game, and the time it takes us to get from start to playing at full resources is a pain. If that time was at least spent in a controlled environment where we can learn and develop as players, fine. As it is, the grind in this game is purely a disadvantage imposed on anyone starting a new mech line, for no better reason than because grind is assumed to be a core requirement.

Myself and many others do not see this as a problem. Care to enlighten all those reading how you think we might be different?

[SmilingElf]

HarryMannbach, on 18 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

So much negativity... PGI has done a pretty damn fine job of reviving an awesome series, and has made the core game experience FREE. Why does it come as a shock to people that there need to be ways for them to make money and keep supporting the product? The costs of developing a modern game and running the infrastructure to support it are not insubstantial. I don't think they are doing anything inhuman by trying to have methods of bringing in continued income.

In a Nirvana-like state, the F2P model would generate revenue by players who enjoy the game buying in to support a game they enjoy. Here's the thing: games actually succeed at this.

However, many F2P games use other methods of generating revenue stream instead. One of the more common ones for many years was the Pay-to-Win variant you see people reference on the forums, where the top tier functional resources were only available for real money. (Currently not an actual issue in MWO now that the YLW's generic variant has been added.)

The issue is that with this model, PGI has created a system where a player can only ever keep one mech at a time without buying into the game. While the cost is negligible, this 'hidden cost' of playing bothers a lot of people. Hitting a wall to advancement as part of a forced revenue stream is going to generate a lot of negative feelings.

[Mazgazine1]

I find the current system just extremely confusing, and it also forces you buy versions of mechs you DONT want.. It also forces you to buy versions of a mech that may be way more expensive then it should be (only 3 raven variants and one has an XL engine, making them cost twice as much as the other tooo... WHY?)...

We need a real skill tree, where it branches, even if it was still per mech, the skill trees should represent different roles, instead of an incredibly over powered enhancement to your current mechs..

[Orthodontist]

The whole upgrade/pilot lab/module system feels terrible, as a player, to use and explore. It needs some MAJOR, MAJOR changes for it snag my attention.

Right now, the thing that keeps me logging into this game is piloting and getting a feel for the various mechs. Once that runs out, I'll be dropping this I'm sure.

There isn't any non-gear related mechanic or depth to this game among other issues. This is one of the top 5. Buying the same chassis to upgrade the very same stats...

They should use a tree like talent system, with limits on how many points you can earn per the lifetime of a mech. The bonsuses/unlockables would be shared among the mechs. If you want to go deeper in the tree, then you beeline down a single branch with your limited points.

But who knows...its supposed to be an RPGish sort of system, right? So bring on the RPG elements.

[Steel Talon]

3-variant systam is dumb, It forces u to play variants u dont like for some reasons jut to elite your favourites

[Rizzelbizzeg]

I was originally on the side of "yes" but after reading through most of the thread have changed my mind to "no". Not to repeat what's been said a lot, but it makes sense that to master your mech you need to actually work and learn to master it. Outside of prodigies, in the real world to become the master of something it takes hard work and doing things that aren't fun. Did Bruce Lee become the drunken master by just drinking? No, he had to do those hard-as-balls hanging situps filling the jug of water above him one scoop at a time. He sure didn't seem like he was having fun, but he was better off for it.

If that bothers you so much, just play that mech you like, spend a FEW real dollars and get to master. I can go to a website, pay $15 and get a certificate stating I'm a Jedi master, or I can get zapped in the bum by that little robot while blindfolded and learn some real Jedi skillz.

TL;DR... deal with it

[SmilingElf]

Harmatia, on 18 November 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Myself and many others do not see this as a problem. Care to enlighten all those reading how you think we might be different?

First of all, I'm glad you said 'many' and not 'most.' Priorities are different for different people, and in a fairly even distribution. I play primarily for the customization and competition. Someone else plays for the progression and completion. Neither of these is bad, but, by definition, since we are not the same, we are different.

The issue I have with the system is that, rather than feeling like a reward, it is structured as a barrier. Rather than giving me a perk, so to speak, it feels like I'm buying off a series of imposed penalties. And to do so costs me resources I would rather be spending on the next cool thing.

Here's an example: My Founder's cat has enough xp on it to just about max out the Elite tree. Around the time I'd maxed out novice, I had enough cbills to make one of three choices. An XL engine, a new chasis, or another variant of the Catapult. Fortunately, I DID buy into the Founder's program, and splurged with MC to purchase all 3. That said, I'm close to maxing novice on my second catapult, and am no where near having enough cbills to buy the third chasis. Instead, the money went into arming and customizing the second Cat.

That last part, I think, is the crux of the issue. The efficiencies tree does not feel like something part of the system of development or advancement. It feels like something tacked on purely for the purpose of having something to grind at beyond cbills. Yes, I realize that the game is ACTUALLY in beta, (as opposed to the 'open betas' we frequently see for marketing purposes) and because of that fact they are still fine tuning things. My take on what the OP was asking, is whether or not we think the effiencies tree is something they need to revisit and do more work on.

And my answer is YES.

I would like to see a system that rewards time spent on different chasis and variants. I just don't think the system we currently have is what that system needs to be.

[Scytale]

SmilingElf, on 18 November 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

First of all, I'm glad you said 'many' and not 'most.' Priorities are different for different people, and in a fairly even distribution. I play primarily for the customization and competition. Someone else plays for the progression and completion. Neither of these is bad, but, by definition, since we are not the same, we are different. The issue I have with the system is that, rather than feeling like a reward, it is structured as a barrier. Rather than giving me a perk, so to speak, it feels like I'm buying off a series of imposed penalties. And to do so costs me resources I would rather be spending on the next cool thing. Here's an example: My Founder's cat has enough xp on it to just about max out the Elite tree. Around the time I'd maxed out novice, I had enough cbills to make one of three choices. An XL engine, a new chasis, or another variant of the Catapult. Fortunately, I DID buy into the Founder's program, and splurged with MC to purchase all 3. That said, I'm close to maxing novice on my second catapult, and am no where near having enough cbills to buy the third chasis. Instead, the money went into arming and customizing the second Cat. That last part, I think, is the crux of the issue. The efficiencies tree does not feel like something part of the system of development or advancement. It feels like something tacked on purely for the purpose of having something to grind at beyond cbills. Yes, I realize that the game is ACTUALLY in beta, (as opposed to the 'open betas' we frequently see for marketing purposes) and because of that fact they are still fine tuning things. My take on what the OP was asking, is whether or not we think the effiencies tree is something they need to revisit and do more work on. And my answer is YES. I would like to see a system that rewards time spent on different chasis and variants. I just don't think the system we currently have is what that system needs to be.

Despite myself, this is a very well-thought out post. I can see its applicability - you posted as one who was working on the catapult; I posted as a commando-user, where the mechs are much, much cheaper, so that C-Bills are not so much of a barrier.

But how could we reward the use of different chassis without having to spend the money to buy them? I'm genuinely interested; that's not a rhetorical question~

[Vechs]

I understand why they did it. To push Mechbay sales and to push MC sales.

Personally, I hate it.

It's not enjoyable to grind on a variant I don't like, just so I can complete one I actually enjoy playing.

Why can't I just buy a variety of mechs I actually like? There are plenty of them.

I'd rather they just triple the XP costs, and then get rid of the requirement to own other variants. Same time spent, but this time it's on variants you enjoy.

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

cant be arsed to read the whole topic so I will just give my opinion to OP.

To master a chassis, you need to know every nook and crany of said machine, all its weak points and all its different setups, i find it plenty "in character" that i need to pilot several different variants before i can claim im a master of a chassis.

just my 2 cents.

[Drunkninja]

I'm excited to play out every mech with their variants. I love Battletech/Mechwarrior and will pay whatever it takes to get to experience it. So much so that I'd like to see a longer grind.

[Harmatia]

SmilingElf, on 18 November 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

First of all, I'm glad you said 'many' and not 'most.' Priorities are different for different people, and in a fairly even distribution. I play primarily for the customization and competition. Someone else plays for the progression and completion. Neither of these is bad, but, by definition, since we are not the same, we are different. The issue I have with the system is that, rather than feeling like a reward, it is structured as a barrier. Rather than giving me a perk, so to speak, it feels like I'm buying off a series of imposed penalties. And to do so costs me resources I would rather be spending on the next cool thing. Here's an example: My Founder's cat has enough xp on it to just about max out the Elite tree. Around the time I'd maxed out novice, I had enough cbills to make one of three choices. An XL engine, a new chasis, or another variant of the Catapult. Fortunately, I DID buy into the Founder's program, and splurged with MC to purchase all 3. That said, I'm close to maxing novice on my second catapult, and am no where near having enough cbills to buy the third chasis. Instead, the money went into arming and customizing the second Cat. That last part, I think, is the crux of the issue. The efficiencies tree does not feel like something part of the system of development or advancement. It feels like something tacked on purely for the purpose of having something to grind at beyond cbills. Yes, I realize that the game is ACTUALLY in beta, (as opposed to the 'open betas' we frequently see for marketing purposes) and because of that fact they are still fine tuning things. My take on what the OP was asking, is whether or not we think the effiencies tree is something they need to revisit and do more work on. And my answer is YES. I would like to see a system that rewards time spent on different chasis and variants. I just don't think the system we currently have is what that system needs to be.

Personally I pilot Hunchback's, that's all I have sitting in my mech bay. I have a 4G (my founder's mech), a 4P and a 4J. I also like the other variants, the 4H and the 4SP, but I prefer the three I selected. Actually I might swap my 4G for a 4SP, but I like the founder bonusesm, so I deal. None of the 5 variants are awful to me. I would gladly pilot a 4H or 4SP if two of my preferences were not available. Maybe that's not true for all mechs, but I found that to be pretty accurate with the Hunchback line.

As a compromise, maybe what PGI could do is eliminate the requirement of 3 variants to progress passed "basic", but not give the 2x bonus when upgrade from "basic" to "master". It would give those willing to heavily invest in one design of mech a little something extra.

[SuperPuppy]

Yes.

Whether or not you like the idea, it's a bad design decision that's used to hide the blatant lack of content.

If the end goal is to keep players from maxing out their mechs too quickly, then the best design route would've been to add more things to unlock per mech, not give them stupid things to unlock on their way there.

[Trufast]

I'm also a hunchback pilot, and have unlocked elite. At first I thought it was fine, I really enjoyed the 4G and the 4SP. Upgraded them, added stuff, removed stuff, played a lot. When it came to the 3rd variant, I just couldn't find one I liked. Ended up using the 4J and in the end building it like my 4SP. I did the grind, and certainly feel I deserve the elite stuff, so that's something. But I didn't enjoy the grind on the 4J. 3-4 hours of playing MWO that I did not find fun, and I'm not sure that's healthy for a game. If I wanted master right now, that would be even more time spent not having fun. And yes, I know I can buy my way out, but I rather want to spend my money on skins and new mechs and mechbays. Grinding on a mech you like is fun tho.

One solution would be that it would cost more xp, have the same xp for all the variants, and add an ip/mc cost to unlock elite and master. Moneysink, check. And then you can choose yourself if you want to specialize in one/two/three or whatever variants. Same amount of grind but more options on how to do it. We all want to have fun, and we will all benefit from everybody having fun in this game.

(also, having people playing a JR7-F is bad for the team)

[Aym]

Ptom, on 18 November 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Considering that you may only store up to 4 mechs, players will be pigeonholed into using only one type of mech rather than being allowed to free-roam with any mech of their choice. Some people like to switch it up a little now and then, but are prevented from doing that since he/she feels no progress in upgrading that mech since they would need 2 more of the same mech (lots of c-bills) to achieve any progression.

Well you can upgrade any single chassis quite a bit before you start to experience any sort of restrictions based on the current XP system. Although no one thinks the current XP system is at all good or compelling, having to utilize three chassis is not a punishment.
Also, you can have WAY more than 4 mechs, just spend a little money. And I do mean a little, I think 6 or 7 dollars get's you 4 extra mechbays with some MC to spare.

Edited by Aym, 18 November 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Eboli]

I voted No. If you want the benefits of playing a certain mech than you need to put in the time to get the experience with them.

Why should a player playing a new mech expect to be given the same skill/tech upgrades against a player who has done the grind and worked for such upgrades. Spend the time and earn it.

That's my 2c worth.