SuperFunkTron, on 23 February 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:
It's good to know that you'll skip addressing calculations comparing cost effectiveness of the new and old systems and ignore points made about how it levels the playing field for new players.
I didn't decide on the definition, Merriam Webster did, and a logical deduction can be made that PGI has at least similar sentiment since they are not just transferring a Master Badges over directly. You can argue with the dictionary and eventually PGI's choice of words, but as of the notes we have for the 2nd PTS iteration, it looks that they do not see XP only mastery as being an equivalent to mastery in the PTS. Consideration for players who invested in maximizing mechs by purchasing modules instead of buying more mechs is just as important as considering players who bought many mechs but few modules. Yes, those are personal choices, but those who bought mechs instead of modules just spent their in come differently than those who added modules to max out their mechs. Telling them that the 21 million c-bills per mech they spent is no more valuable than the than mechs that have full XP trees would be a case of clear devaluation of time and effort, a 1:1 refund of the c-bills you spent and get reimbursed by no mathematical means provides a basis for devaluation, especially in the context that modules will be a fraction of the price in the new system.
I understand that you are upset that you won't have all the c-bills to Master mechs that you only XP mastered before, but if you use things like math to make a numbers comparison, a dictionary to define "mastered", logic to understand why PGI is only reimbursing you what you put in as opposed to transferring a status that doesn't directly translate into the new system, all the while decreasing upgrade disparity through reducing the c-bill cost to truly master a mech by no less than 70%, it is clear that you are focused on the loss of a universal Badging system that you invested a small amount of c-bills into. Telling the guys with 200 modules that their c-bill investment was a waste because those who wanted to transfer Master Badges is the only devaluation that could happen.
Could you explain precisely what is not being fully compensated? C-bills, XP, and GXP you spent are coming back 100%. Could you explain why a mech that is not 100% mastered should receive 100% upgrades by default? What do you tell the guys who paid for the modules? We're running in circles because of the omission of facts here.
The cumulative improvement offered by modules is not insignificant, even if one chooses not to use them. Modules like Seismic sensor and radar deprivation provide invaluable benefits and only take up 2 of 5 slots.
If you guys are so concerned about not having any c-bills to upgrade when the new system comes in, just start earning and saving them now. Assuming you have zero modules, you'll get 5 modules at about 25% of the price included with those upgrades with wit only a 25% increase to XP. That means that in the new system each XP point is providing you an a value of approximately 1,000 cbills to FULLY upgrade your mech, allowing you to use the extra 16 million per mech toward upgrading other mechs. I am far from a mathematician, but its not hard to demonstrate these values.
Telling us its not fair without providing logic or fact behind it doesn't provide any real sympathy or understanding for your perspective.
Edit: To reinforce the power of logical deduction and looking at a combination of adjustments as opposed to isolated conversions, Russ just posted this yesterday on twitter:
Russ Bullock@russ_bullock
@HighlighterFTW keep in mind mastered in new system does not = old system
All I can say at this point is reading comprehension is clearly not something you excel at. Take your dictionary example
(Edit: Merriam Webster provides this definition: "acquire complete knowledge or skill in". Complete is the operating word here, so using our logic skills, we can apply that to the new system. A COMPLETE acquisition of upgrades (maxed out, fully upgraded, all modules slots maximized) for a mech would be a very clear way to define what "mastered" is.)
Acquiring complete knowledge or skill does not require "upgrades" to said item, nor does it require a financial contribution in order to gain that knowledge or skill. Only time spent and practice are required to attain knowledge and skill. Like I have said several times here YOU do not get to decide on the definition. With your "logic" being mastered is dynamic in that it is mastered only when modules are attached to it and not mastered when they are removed. Doesn't seem like knowledge or skill was was truly acquired if all it takes to lose it is for something arbitrary to be removed.
That being said I don't care that the new system requires more work to be "mastered" I just have a problem with being locked out of what was already earned.
SuperFunkTron, on 23 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:
The in game currencies that designate value for time invested (c-bills spent on modules, XP, and GXP) are being returned to you at 100%. I think you might be referring to a status not translating directly into the new system the way you want as the issue. Even if we tried to force a direct equivalence, having only XP mastery does not equate to XP mastery plus full module upgrades. if the new system denotes a mech being mastered at 91 nodes, but only XP mastery from the current system translates into 50 nodes of value, how do you justify demanding a fully mastered mech in the new system?
The modules are not really the concern it is those ~50 points in the new system that we can't purchase. The refund of XP is useless without the C-bills to use it. That is why people are frustrated with this system. They are effectively having time spent nullified.
SuperFunkTron, on 23 February 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:
This is where those who don't agree with you are at. If I chose to max out my mechs by purchasing more modules at a huge cost rather than buying new mechs, why should the guy who didn't buy modules get the same value returned to him as I did? This is not an attack at you but rather the pragmatic issue at hand. Do you have an alternate solution as to what to offer all of those players who invested heavily in c-bills and would have their investment devalued by over valuing the XP only investment of those who mastered but did not max out a mech?
Blame PGI for that. They are the ones that created module swapping as a feature and emphasized mech purchses as their way to make money. It isn't pragmatic to punish customers that followed the rules and in a lot of cases paid a great deal of money at the same time.
SuperFunkTron, on 23 February 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:
Do you have another idea that would allow for new players to max out a mech so as to even the playing field with those who invested a large amount of c-bills in modules?
If you have a clear plan that does not devalue the c-bill investment of those who invested heavily in modules, allows players with lesser resources to even out their mechs with more resources, and somehow provides allows players with large stables to comparably upgrade their mechs (only about half of the upcoming node limit), all while being fair, I would like to know it and will even start to lobby for it mercilessly.
Until you provide that concept, the current full reimbursement of resources invested in upgrades is as fair as it gets when switching to a system that doesn't allow for direct translation.
As has been mentioned before here and in other places the only real solution is to have skill nodes that involve modules be the only ones that cost c-bill while all other skill nodes only cost XP. That way anyone that bought all of their modules for every mech will still be able to rebuy those skills for all of their mechs, and anyone that only swapped will at least be able to purchase for some of their mechs while not being locked out of all of the other skills that cost XP for their mechs.
Wintersdark, on 23 February 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:
When all is said and done...
I'd prefer to be able to get my mechs where they were, because as a pokemech collector and whale of 5 years I have a HELL of a lot of mechs, and they're nearly all mastered currently but absolutely will not be in the new system.
HOWEVER.
Everything I've spent is being fully refunded. I will be losing "skills" on mechs that I have right now (as there's no way I'll be able to afford to buy them all anew) I'm not broken hearted about that. I'll absolutely have enough to get a few dozen mechs remastered thanks to the module refunds (of which I don't have zounds, as I've never really cared much about modules).
*shrugs* The rest I'll get skilled up over time. At least I've got essentially an unlimited pool of XP sitting around, so cbills are the only stumbling block.
I don't even really know a good solution, though, for those of us with LOTS of mastered mechs, few modules, and no cbills on hand. I understand why they want cbills involved in the skillup cost with the new system though, and at least it's a one-time cbill cost per mech. Ah well. I can live with it.
I am curious, though, what the cbill cost to get my mechs to their current efficiency will be, counting pilot skills but no modules and no new skills. When the new PTS launches, the first thing I'm going to do is figure out an "equivilancy" cost to the current system, because that's pretty relevant. What you call mastery or whatever doesn't matter; just how much it costs to get to where you where.
That way, we can at least push for a cbill bonus equal to the cost to get back currently earned functionality, ignoring labels.
That is pretty much exactly what I have been talking about here. Refunds of XP etc. are meaningless if we are not able to then use that XP because of the new added cost of purchasing skill nodes. I don't really care about the modules or some nonsense title of "mastered" like SuperFunkTron seems to think I am obsessed with. I just want the time and energy spent on this game to not be rendered void. Although, I do also take issue with any cost for respecs as I find that counterproductive and distasteful. There is a reason a lot of games that had costs for respecs did away with those systems.
Edited by WarHippy, 24 February 2017 - 09:20 AM.
11
