Jump to content

They Way Historical Xp Are Working Is Simply Wrong, Even A Mockery Of Players...


32 replies to this topic

#21 bayoucowboy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 186 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:34 AM

View PostTaxxian, on 10 February 2017 - 07:11 AM, said:

@The Basilisk

You are absolutely right, but that does not change the fact that we should be able to choose which Atlas we want to level, PGI forced the decision upon us and is now punishing us for compliing (is that a word?^^).

It would make me happy to play Mechs again that fell out of favour... but it should be my decision... I play for years and made millions of XP but I will hardly have a fully leveld Mech after the patch.

Why is that so? When we train for MWOWM / MRBC / BWO / StarLeague we do it in a Lobby, because the Matchmaker does not give us anything anywhere close to those conditions. And the excess XP I had on some Mechs? PGI basically made me convert it to GXP with "Conversion Events" and Bonuses...


PGI didn't "make" you convert it to GXP, but I understand the concerns. As a 3 year player with a ton (over 150) (ok, so not as many as Terciel) of mechs, it does seem unfair that some of my mechs which used to be "mastered - module slot" will not now be "mastered - 91 unlock" because of the removal of "portable" module bonuses. I think we get the GXP back from the module unlocks - which helps some.

But as a "casual", I like the variance in build/quirks that this change may bring. Time to take off the dust covers from my Atlas! Posted Image

Edited by bayoucowboy, 10 February 2017 - 07:35 AM.


#22 Taxxian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • LocationLeipzig

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:50 AM

No they did not make me, they waved a bright glowing arrow right in front of my eyes telling me to "CONVERT NOW" the get those "INCREDIBLE BONUSES"...

So technically they did not really MAKE ME, thats true Posted Image

#23 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:52 AM

"Great ideas but I don't think it'll work. Maybe in a later hotfix."-Russ, without even having asked his programmers.

#24 Taxxian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • LocationLeipzig

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:53 AM

@ cazidin

Can you link us the source please?


PS: A am a programmer... I tell you thats about 1 hour of work including the SQL script for the conversion...

Edited by Taxxian, 10 February 2017 - 07:54 AM.


#25 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:58 AM

View PostTaxxian, on 10 February 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

@ cazidin

Can you link us the source please?


PS: A am a programmer... I tell you thats about 1 hour of work including the SQL script for the conversion...


My apologies, Taxxian. That wasn't a direct quote from Russ, it's meant more as a mockery of what he's said in the past because he very often neglects his programmers or makes them seem totally inept. I, personally, don't think that they are - but some of them may be working with frankencode, unfortunately, and that adds time to sort through.

But, since you're a programmer, how long would it take for someone to look through the code and optimize it?

#26 Taxxian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • LocationLeipzig

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:02 AM

Months^^

Optimizing code is one of the hardest things to do properly especially if someone else wrote it, normally you simply write it anew... And every new project you start is a little better from the start...

#27 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:07 AM

View PostTaxxian, on 10 February 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

Months^^

Optimizing code is one of the hardest things to do properly especially if someone else wrote it, normally you simply write it anew... And every new project you start is a little better from the start...


Months for an individual, or months for a group? I knew it took a while but I'm honestly curious. I've studied programming a bit and I know that it's a lengthy process that challenges one's OCD.

#28 Waipa

    Rookie

  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:15 AM

+1

#29 Jemmer

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 57 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:48 AM

@ TercieI - good lord! 395? you are going to be respeccing for weeks when this drops!

Edited by Jemmer, 10 February 2017 - 08:49 AM.


#30 Curley GumboKiller Bradley

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 59 posts
  • LocationCold State

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:17 AM

+1 for historical xp - chassis !

Edited by Curley GumboKiller Bradley, 10 February 2017 - 11:18 AM.


#31 _Reaper_

    Rookie

  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 1 posts
  • LocationIdaho, USA

Posted 11 February 2017 - 12:08 AM

+1 for historical xp - chassis. All of the xp I spent on the other variants is gone unless I re-buy them again?! I only spent the xp on those variants to master out the one I wanted to keep! Historical xp should be available from all of the variants of a chassis you historically spent xp on so that you can start the new system with the 'mech you worked so hard for. Once the historical xp is spent, then grinding again for the other variants could be done if you wanted to.

Edited by _Reaper_, 11 February 2017 - 12:09 AM.


#32 Dodger79

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,552 posts
  • LocationHamburg, Germany

Posted 11 February 2017 - 01:09 AM

View PostProsperity Park, on 09 February 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

I think the Historical XP works perfectly. So you have Mechs that you didn't want just to level the ones you want; you get to level those ones you "didn't want" in ways that you could not do before. They now have a new reason to exist in your hangar.

I do not believe I should get all the XP I earned across all my Blackjacks dumped into a single pool that can be used across all blackjacks. I think the XP I put into the Arrow should be applicable to the Arrow. The XP I put into the BJ3 should go to the BJ3. It makes perfect sense to me.

With that i could live, having all earned XP on a specific variant being sticked to this variant (also if can fully understand the point of the OP that we HAD to play the unwanted variants and earn XP on them in order to being able to master the one variant we want).

BUT: i have mastered my MAD IICs with GXP, completely. I've spent real money to convert XP into GXP for being able to do so. And now these former GXP are fixed HXP i cannot use on other variants. THAT IS BULLSH*T! I could convert the HXP into XP and then the XP into GXP, but that would cost me real money again, and that really is a rip off. I am talking about real money here, not virtual spacebucks and PGI wants me to pay again for a service i already paid for.

#33 Taxxian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • LocationLeipzig

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:58 AM

@Dodger79 That is true, but it is possible, even likely, that PGI simply does not know how much GXP you spent on which chassis, I dont know what their database looks like but after spending those GXP look exactly like normal XP.

If they do not have a Database with all played games for every Mech over teh last 4/5 years including XP reward, they simply can not give all GXP back with 100% certainty

@cazidin
That depends on how well structured their code is and on their architecture... so we cannot know^^





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users