257 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Heffay, on 26 April 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

We players are going to be cashing in. At least the ones who can do math, and assuming the whiners who can't don't ruin it for everyone like the last batch of whiners did.

I wouldn't lump this group of whiners with the last group because at least the previous group hand some ground to stand on.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 26 April 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

Exactly right...think it through people!
PGI is creating the equal and opposite issue for the "module-rich, with less mechs" as they did for the "mech-rich, with less modules". The first refund proposal was going to cause and insane C-bill grind to allow this latter group to skill up the mechs to the level of the former group. This version looks like it will cause an insane c-bill grind get the number of Mechs the "mech-rich" group already has (gained by forgoing buying modules). Either way one group has to grind hard to get to where the other group is already at. PGI just flipped who has to do the grinding.

The difference is the first group was losing mastery they already had to a c-bill grind wall, the second group isn't losing anything, and both will still have things to grind. The first group won't have nearly as many GSP to use for new mechs and experimentation so they will have to buy more skill points a lot sooner. The second group has to buy new mechs, but they don't have to worry about buy skills for them or and testing.

Widowmaker1981, on 26 April 2017 - 11:28 PM, said:

I bought modules to use, yes.

However i did so with the expectation that if they were ever removed, i would be refunded (because of the rage not doing so would cause). Thats part of why i bought so many.

People who didnt buy modules, and instead bought more mechs, levelled them to master and moved on to the next mech are getting a great deal of free stuff, effectively getting all the modules i paid for, for free. Im not complaining about that, because whats on other peoples accounts doesnt bother me. However, compared to those people, i feel im being penalised, because the offered refund for my modules is, effectively, useless to me. Having checked the ledger, im getting ~36,000 GSP, which is enough to level 395 mechs. Since all the mechs i play already have mastery (and excess XP) they will be fully leveled anyway, so to actually make use of the GSP, i need to buy 395!! more mechs. That is very obviously never happening. Even taking into account using the GSP for some re-speccing, its still way more than 300 new mechs.

I wish I had your problem because I detest leveling mechs. I would much rather have the knowledge that I will likely never need to worry about it again.

Widowmaker1981, on 26 April 2017 - 11:28 PM, said:

edit: and a large part of the reason i could afford so many modules, is that i bought mech packs and as such did not have to spend cbills on mechs. So i feel im being penalised for supporting PGI with money.

I don't know what to tell you. I have ~230 mechs of which I bought maybe 2 with c-bills and I don't feel penalized in the slightest, however I did feel that way under the previous system.

Lily from animove, on 27 April 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

cool, 67 different ways for this moule? I have over 100 mechs, how many mechs can I use my module (radar derp) on, vs that skill points invested into full radar derp on mechs? I can use it on ANY mech at any given time unless I want it on all 4 in a dropdeck for Invasion.

actually

16 skill points needd for ONE mech full radar derp, so While previously 100+ mechs could use that ability freely "respecable", I now can get 4,1 mechs with the same effect.

Okay, but the modules and module swapping are going away. In addition any mech you have already mastered is going to give you the full 91 points so you can reacquire radar derp on all 100+ of your mechs. The extra GSP from the old mods allow you to purchase it for mechs that you didn't have mastered and likely many new mechs going forward. Instead of swapping you are just going to be able to unlock with all of the various forms of refunded skill points.

Lily from animove, on 27 April 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

Now thats going from premium steak all you can eat to the crappy low quality non all you can eat dinner.
Sure a premum steak may be better than a all you can eat normal steak day, but the change doesn't gets us premum skills, it's just the same effects. therefore it is a comparison between equal steaks one just more expensive than the all you can eat.

so those 67skillpoints sound only good on paper. Given you belong to those people that even would need more GXP.

I respectfully disagree.

Lily from animove, on 27 April 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

I don't rate peoples Intelligence, but I can point out ther very obvious basic flaws. The they can either look ahead of this or they get the insight their own "intelligence" isn't that good. But ultimately not my problem as I have not to use their intelligence for my Life. It just comes very unhandy if their Intelligence does try to affect parts of my Life (like MWO) where they try to create opinions or points of views for others people's feedback that PGI may consider, especially when this opinion is based on simply incorrect facts leading to broken logic.

Like I said we all have an over inflated opinion of ourselves.

PhoenixFire55, on 27 April 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Yeah, but the thing was that % was still fixed and it was a maximum of what I and others could potentially get without sacrificing anything at all in return. Under the new system it is completely different. So please, don't ever tell us how we are being fully compensated because that simply is a lie.

Like I said to Lily the old system is going away. How they choose to compensate us is up to them, and this new attempt is pretty damn generous all things considered. I have my concerns with the new skill tree and what looks to be happening with balance, but the compensation isn't one of them.

[Jables McBarty]

Dodger79, on 26 April 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

You are right that modules weren't bought as trade bonds. But what you are missing here besides naming it several times: we have bought them. When they are now taken away i want a refund in the currency i bought them for and not some coupons i have no need for.

You bought them.

You used them.

Now you want full refund????

Lily from animove, on 26 April 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

it's not the same bonuses I paid for, as said I bought tomatoes not carrots, but you are not able to see the difference obviously. Guess telling you is like teaching a blind person about colors.

The module was a bonus to be swapped around at any time for no costs, the new bonus you can buy is a one shot bonus for a single emch. Thats like comparing all you can eat with a single steak. if you hve a limited need for food, you won't see the difference but others may see the possibilities for an all you can eat. But I would surely not pay for an all you can eat that includes just a single steak.

bad unobjective comparison is unobjective. So I guess Bishop and his argument about intelligence is right, some people cannot simply compare facts because they can't even gather comparable facts anymore. Analytical thinking is truly a sparce feature here in the forum.

(at risk of crossing threads here) You bought tomatoes not carrots but you've eaten them and digested them and now you are trying to return fecal matter to the grocer and demand a full refund.

---

People keep saying "I get X GSP, which lets me buy 91 skill nodes on Y number of 'mechs."

Why is nobody doing the calculation where X GSP Gets you 242 skill nodes on Z number of 'mechs?

Yeah, you won't unlock all of the nodes on all of the 'mechs, but you are getting a LOT of free customization and tinkering.

A lot.


EDIT: Forum spliced my posts...

Edited by Jables McBarty, 27 April 2017 - 09:01 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Lily from animove, on 27 April 2017 - 07:57 AM, said:

Why Hmm lets see why

Funnily, point two is exactly acting like a progression wall. (see ecm/radar Derp) So no I DO NOT UNDERSTAND this approach as it odes not accomplish what PGI put her ein it's own goal.

Yes they achieved Mech capabilities not under the previous system PARTIALLY, all thats new is the HP/Structure tree and JJ's. the remaining stuff is just the old modules and skills in a remixed order.

"mech specialisation"
Also only partially achieved. Given that so many nodes have those "High value nodes" hidden behind trash nodes That many of the builds don't even need for their specific "specialisation" does actually not create specialisation. it's leanign towards a tactic with some random crap ontop because a dev thought the random needed unlock on that way fit's in there.

moving away form the "module based system" was kinda schieved, yet they just renamed modules you had to buy with C-bills and GXP into "Skills" you ahve to buy Xp and C-bills. This makes in fact only the "module slots" beeing removed but technically we now have a gotten like 91 possible moduel slots where we cna slap various stages of modules into. So it's just renamed and re-GUId. Becaue every tiny skill tree picture is like a on/off module slot within my set of 91 possible modules.
I wouldn't call that an achieved goal.

There is said progression wall they wanted to remove. lets say it's partially fulfilled as it is now a bit lowered in more smaller walls. But they haven't gotten rid of it because of exactly this idea.

The serious commitment is which trash I don't need should I still buy.to climb over the progression wall.
Some skill trees even have parts which are rather linear. But thats just less visible by the wayhwo they decided to align the skill tree nodes. (very sneaky). Commitment and specialisation doesn't even exist, try to commit yourself it a long range specialised lser sniper and you find yourself having to buy ballistic related skills to max out range for your lasers. This happens because the layout has weapon independend nodes hidden with in specific weapons nodes except allowing an approach for these nodes form bith of the weapons sides. (look where range 4, 5, 7 and 10 is hidden) range 2,8,9 are well palced for non linear approaches, but the other ones arent they are badly deeply hidden for a minor bonis that means commitment is not going to make you specialised instead rather gimping yourself.
Yeah don't understand that as well.

Not sure about this, but "specialisation" in mybrian doesn't trigger "buy stuff to unlock relevant things you dont need" But these are PGI's weird set goals that even contradict themselves.

true, at least for somr skills, not very much true for others like ecm, or radar derp or when having to unlock unneeded nodes before the next relevant progression you want appears in the tree.. But the clustering in many made a somewhat more smooth progression. Yet not as good as PGi thinks it even is in reaching that goal.

So yes it is hard for me beeing a ninny to understand how PGI actually not have achieved any of these goals and even setup goals that in it's execution and idea contrdict each other.

I guess after they set up the skilltree they made like 2 "test" specialisations they thought would be fitting, like the used example of heat and cooldown, and thought, yep fine seems to work. While they have not even considered how many true specialisations are possible. Which aren't many since most mean 30% waste skills adding to your "specialisation"

I only ever said that it was "the point". The goal, so to speak, of killing the min/maxing mentality in this community.

Nowhere did I ever say that PGI actually came anywhere close to actually achieving said goals. They've come nowhere near achieving any of the goals they've ever set for this game aside from actually making the game.

Making the game is literally the only goal they've ever succeeded with.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Anyone got a quote where the goal was to kill min/maxing?

I remember comments about wanting players to face tough cboices that encourage deliberate considerations of their gameplay, as opposed to mechs being universally imporved across the same generic spectrum. Theoretically that does alot to opening up builds to nest with playstyles. But much like some people's misunxerstanding of the word meta, its not going to stop people from min/maxing.

People will always min/max in competitive games and argue what the most effective meta is etc. The skill cann9t prevent that. It can introduce more considerations of pros and cons. That is it.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I wouldn't lump this group of whiners with the last group because at least the previous group hand some ground to stand on.
The difference is the first group was losing mastery they already had to a c-bill grind wall, the second group isn't losing anything, and both will still have things to grind. The first group won't have nearly as many GSP to use for new mechs and experimentation so they will have to buy more skill points a lot sooner. The second group has to buy new mechs, but they don't have to worry about buy skills for them or and testing.
.

I understand you can't see the issue. For a while (in the first refund proposal) I couldn't see the problem people like you were facing.

You guys were losing mastery.... and wouldn't have the c-bills for a while to regain it....however skill tree provide far more than what what was available under the old (current) mastery system. If you didn't have the modules their was no way to get range, radar dep on all your mechs at the same time. Now, with skill tree you can get those functions on all your mechs without spending the bazillion c-bills those who prioritized modules over mechs. You can day 1 level all your mechs to the same level as those who invested c-bills in modules do. Except by not refunding the c-bills paid we cannot acquire the number of mechs players like you did by forgoing modules, without an insane grind. No one who has played their stable of mechs will have to grind c-bills to level mechs under this system. You and I both can put 91 nodes on anything we played regularly in the past. However, the camp you are in has a bunch of extra mechs we could have bought if we had not prioritized modules. So players that spent an equal number of c-bills we will all virtually have the same number of nodes day 1....however, one side of this playerbase will have more mechs though because other side spent c-bills on stuff that got rolled into skill tree. That is an undeniable advantage day 1. Over time the advantage evens out as we can just focus c-bills on getting those mechs your side already has. But for some it will take years to get what they could have gotten if they had ignored modules.

Imagine if PGI had arranged skill tree in such a way where players without modules could only unlock the skills that equated to "mastery" under the current system. That you needed another form of currency to get what modules provided. That would be fair...as you have all the same mastery you did before...right? No progress lost. If they did that and gave the module folks the currency to unlock the "module-nodes" we would both have advantages (to imeditately have either more mechs or more ability to fully use skill tree). Both sides would have immediate benefits and disadvantages...but I think PGI should instead make it fair by giving more to get us both to "equal"...not less

[Almond Brown]

Lily from animove, on 26 April 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

it's not the same bonuses I paid for, as said I bought tomatoes not carrots, but you are not able to see the difference obviously. Guess telling you is like teaching a blind person about colors.

The module was a bonus to be swapped around at any time for no costs, the new bonus you can buy is a one shot bonus for a single emch. Thats like comparing all you can eat with a single steak. if you hve a limited need for food, you won't see the difference but others may see the possibilities for an all you can eat. But I would surely not pay for an all you can eat that includes just a single steak.

bad unobjective comparison is unobjective. So I guess Bishop and his argument about intelligence is right, some people cannot simply compare facts because they can't even gather comparable facts anymore. Analytical thinking is truly a sparce feature here in the forum.

Sorry to barge in but have you actually taken the Skill points from the conversion and generated a Mech you have already Mastered and compared the final version to actually prove your Tomatoes are not still Tomatoes that have just ripened from Green to Red, with time?

If you have not done the comparison, what are you using as a gauge to say they do give you back your Tomatoes?

P.S. A change of +/- 2-3% should not be seen as a Tomato becoming a Carrot either...

Edited by Almond Brown, 27 April 2017 - 10:36 AM.

[VanillaG]

Jables McBarty, on 27 April 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

People keep saying "I get X GSP, which lets me buy 91 skill nodes on Y number of 'mechs."

Why is nobody doing the calculation where X GSP Gets you 242 skill nodes on Z number of 'mechs?

Yeah, you won't unlock all of the nodes on all of the 'mechs, but you are getting a LOT of free customization and tinkering.

A lot.

That huge pile of GSP for tinkering has diminishing marginal value. In the first couple of weeks after this patch you will see a large number of mechs with a large number of skill nodes unlocked. Once people get a feel for the amounts of each node types that need to be unlocked you are going to see far fewer skill trees with unlocked nodes that are not active.

I don't think most people have an issue with the concept of GSP, most people have an issue for the AMOUNT they are getting as part of the refund process. Splitting the refund between BOTH CBills and GSP frees the player to use some of the HXP to unlock SP with those CBills and has the affect of making GSP more valuable because you have less of it.

[PhoenixFire55]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

Like I said to Lily the old system is going away. How they choose to compensate us is up to them, and this new attempt is pretty damn generous all things considered. I have my concerns with the new skill tree and what looks to be happening with balance, but the compensation isn't one of them.

As I've already said, feel free to defend their scam all you want, it doesn't change what it is.

[Heffay]

PhoenixFire55, on 27 April 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

As I've already said, feel free to defend their scam all you want, it doesn't change what it is.

lol

Post your ledger. Let's see how much more you're going to benefit under the new system.

[Vxheous]

Dogstar, on 27 April 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

So somehow player A didn't do anything with the c-bills and XP accumulated during that month? Do **** off.

There are loads of scenarios around the possible choices but it all boils down to the point that you want to be paid twice for doing something once.

Grind for c-bills > spend c-bills > get c-bills refunded > spend c-bills

Grind for c-bills -> spend c-bills on mechs and minimum modules -> get refunded > all mechs are treated by refund as fully mastered/moduled for 91 pts (even when bulk of them don't have modules)

Grind for c-bills -> spend c-bills on less mechs and fulll modules -> get refunded > less mechs than option A are also treated as fully mastered/moduled for 91 pts (which they were previously) + GSP currency which most players don't need.

Option 1 has far more useful mechs at the same spending. Option 2 has GSP which give them a leg up for further spending. I don't want to further spend, I want my account to be equal to someone that's spent the bulk of their c-bills on mechs instead of modules when we've both put the same amount of resources into our accounts.

Doesn't matter how many times I spell out the in-equality of the refund, you're going to think that it's greed, and I'm going to think otherwise.

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 27 April 2017 - 12:39 PM.

[WarHippy]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 27 April 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

I understand you can't see the issue. For a while (in the first refund proposal) I couldn't see the problem people like you were facing.

You guys were losing mastery.... and wouldn't have the c-bills for a while to regain it....however skill tree provide far more than what what was available under the old (current) mastery system. If you didn't have the modules their was no way to get range, radar dep on all your mechs at the same time. Now, with skill tree you can get those functions on all your mechs without spending the bazillion c-bills those who prioritized modules over mechs. You can day 1 level all your mechs to the same level as those who invested c-bills in modules do. Except by not refunding the c-bills paid we cannot acquire the number of mechs players like you did by forgoing modules, without an insane grind. No one who has played their stable of mechs will have to grind c-bills to level mechs under this system. You and I both can put 91 nodes on anything we played regularly in the past. However, the camp you are in has a bunch of extra mechs we could have bought if we had not prioritized modules. So players that spent an equal number of c-bills we will all virtually have the same number of nodes day 1....however, one side of this playerbase will have more mechs though because other side spent c-bills on stuff that got rolled into skill tree. That is an undeniable advantage day 1. Over time the advantage evens out as we can just focus c-bills on getting those mechs your side already has. But for some it will take years to get what they could have gotten if they had ignored modules.

Yes, and it will take a long time for "my side" to level up future mechs and changes that your side won't have to worry about day 1 and beyond. In the end neither side is going to get exactly what they want. Even what you describe below switches it to the other group having to spend years unlocking those extra skills.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 27 April 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Imagine if PGI had arranged skill tree in such a way where players without modules could only unlock the skills that equated to "mastery" under the current system. That you needed another form of currency to get what modules provided. That would be fair...as you have all the same mastery you did before...right? No progress lost. If they did that and gave the module folks the currency to unlock the "module-nodes" we would both have advantages (to imeditately have either more mechs or more ability to fully use skill tree). Both sides would have immediate benefits and disadvantages...but I think PGI should instead make it fair by giving more to get us both to "equal"...not less

It will take time, but as you said in the above section it evens out. The thing is PGI doesn't want a glut of c-bills floating around. They want you to spend real money on mechs so they can keep the lights on. Modules were added as a means to siphon c-bills away so you couldn't as easily buy mechs with c-bills so you would be more apt to spend real money to get them. They are giving c-bills back on recent modules purchases because they know people went on spending sprees. If you have a large chunk of players all sitting on over a billion c-bills(one person even claimed 11 billion) they can just buy every mech and upgrade they want going forward potentially for years without spending a cent. If PGI has to pick between both systems that both eventually even out they are going to pick the one that is best for the health of the game, and unfortunately the one that allows a large chunk of players to run around like Mech Zuckerberg's isn't likely to be the one they pick.

[WarHippy]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 27 April 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

Option 1 has far more useful mechs at the same spending. Option 2 has GSP which give them a leg up for further spending. I don't want to further spend, I want my account to be equal to someone that's spent the bulk of their c-bills on mechs instead of modules when we've both put the same amount of resources into our accounts.

I feel like a lot of you assume the people with a lot of mechs bought them with c-bills, and that is a false assumption. I much prefer option 2 over option 1 and I have 200+ mechs and all of them except 2 or 3(and one of those was because I regretted selling a mech I had) were bought with real money not c-bills. In the end your account is going to be equal to the account of someone else. Having a massive windfall so you don't have to spend real money for a long period of time just isn't going to happen.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Yes, and it will take a long time for "my side" to level up future mechs and changes that your side won't have to worry about day 1 and beyond. In the end neither side is going to get exactly what they want. Even what you describe below switches it to the other group having to spend years unlocking those extra skills.

It will take time, but as you said in the above section it evens out. The thing is PGI doesn't want a glut of c-bills floating around. They want you to spend real money on mechs so they can keep the lights on. Modules were added as a means to siphon c-bills away so you couldn't as easily buy mechs with c-bills so you would be more apt to spend real money to get them. They are giving c-bills back on recent modules purchases because they know people went on spending sprees. If you have a large chunk of players all sitting on over a billion c-bills(one person even claimed 11 billion) they can just buy every mech and upgrade they want going forward potentially for years without spending a cent. If PGI has to pick between both systems that both eventually even out they are going to pick the one that is best for the health of the game, and unfortunately the one that allows a large chunk of players to run around like Mech Zuckerberg's isn't likely to be the one they pick.

Thought exercise:
Assuming 2 players earned the same number of c-bills over the years. 1 bought only mechs (say 200) and the other bought half the mechs the first player did and spent the rest on modules.

This refund goes through as is.
Player 1 has 200 mechs which he can likely skill up to 91 nodes day 1 of the change. He will need cbills for future mechs and future skills...but he has 200, fully noded mechs day 1
Player 2 has 100 mechs, which he can skill up to 91 nodes day 1. He can maybe buy 15 more right away and skill those up. But he will have to wait and grind for mechs beyond that (just like player 1)...but he can gain mechs faster than player 1 for a few years. As he doesn't have to dedicate c-bills to skills. But he has 115 mechs with 91'nodes day 1

Eventually Player 2 catches player 1 in terms of mechs and eventually player 2 runs out of GSP and can only gain mechs at the same speed as player 1...it just takes a lot of time.

The inequity is not 5 years from now. That works itself out. It's today that's the problem. They both earned the same number of c-bills...but Player 1 imediately has 200 mechs with 91 nodes on them and player 2 imediately 115 with 91 nodes...

If people can't understand that that might not sound fair...you need a lesson get putting yourself in the other guys shoes.

Personally, I come out reasonably ok with my refund. Like 1 or 1 1/2 years worth of GSP. Some guys will need 4 years or 6 years to catch up to where they would have been today if they had ignored modules. I am advocating more for some of the guys who have absurd GSP numbers.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

I feel like a lot of you assume the people with a lot of mechs bought them with c-bills, and that is a false assumption. I much prefer option 2 over option 1 and I have 200+ mechs and all of them except 2 or 3(and one of those was because I regretted selling a mech I had) were bought with real money not c-bills. In the end your account is going to be equal to the account of someone else. Having a massive windfall so you don't have to spend real money for a long period of time just isn't going to happen.

I think you and perhaps PGI are misjudging the player base. I would be far far far more likely to spend $ on mech packs and mech bays if I had cbills to buy new mechs to fill those bays and also had cbills to full kit out any mechs I purchased. Also, I have 257 mechs that are going to need civil war upgrades. If I have cbills, I'm going to dump those into doing that. If I don't, then I'm going to grind cbills to do it, making me far less likely to purchase new mechs until I've upgraded my current stable.

[Heffay]

Jaybles, on 27 April 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

If I have cbills, I'm going to dump those into doing that.

If you don't have , you're going to play the game until you do.

Or quit. Either way. But I'm guessing you'll keep playing because you find the game fun. At least fun enough to buy 257 mechs.

[Shifty McSwift]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 27 April 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

Thought exercise:
Assuming 2 players earned the same number of c-bills over the years. 1 bought only mechs (say 200) and the other bought half the mechs the first player did and spent the rest on modules.

This refund goes through as is.
Player 1 has 200 mechs which he can likely skill up to 91 nodes day 1 of the change. He will need cbills for future mechs and future skills...but he has 200, fully noded mechs day 1
Player 2 has 100 mechs, which he can skill up to 91 nodes day 1. He can maybe buy 15 more right away and skill those up. But he will have to wait and grind for mechs beyond that (just like player 1)...but he can gain mechs faster than player 1 for a few years. As he doesn't have to dedicate c-bills to skills. But he has 115 mechs with 91'nodes day 1

Eventually Player 2 catches player 1 in terms of mechs and eventually player 2 runs out of GSP and can only gain mechs at the same speed as player 1...it just takes a lot of time.

The inequity is not 5 years from now. That works itself out. It's today that's the problem. They both earned the same number of c-bills...but Player 1 imediately has 200 mechs with 91 nodes on them and player 2 imediately 115 with 91 nodes...

If people can't understand that that might not sound fair...you need a lesson get putting yourself in the other guys shoes.

Personally, I come out reasonably ok with my refund. Like 1 or 1 1/2 years worth of GSP. Some guys will need 4 years or 6 years to catch up to where they would have been today if they had ignored modules. I am advocating more for some of the guys who have absurd GSP numbers.

Yeah but again how many cases of people buying 200 mechs and 0 modules actually exist? The worst cases of disparity would be nowhere near that.

Granted there is a disparity that exists there, and it probably isn't how I would do it exactly.

[Heffay]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 April 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

Yeah but again how many cases of people buying 200 mechs and 0 modules actually exist? The worst cases of disparity would be nowhere near that.

Granted there is a disparity that exists there, and it probably isn't how I would do it exactly.

I just want to take a break from this forum war to let you know you have a fantastic name.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

If you don't have , you're going to play the game until you do.

Or quit. Either way. But I'm guessing you'll keep playing because you find the game fun. At least fun enough to buy 257 mechs.

Well, me quitting, or me grinding cbills to buy stuff for gundams I already own still ends in the same thing for PGI. No more revenue from me.

[Heffay]

Jaybles, on 27 April 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

Well, me quitting, or me grinding cbills to buy stuff for gundams I already own still ends in the same thing for PGI. No more revenue from me.

Uh huh. Right.

[B0oN]

As I stated in another thread :
Owner of 189 mechs, 100+ fully moduled, about 50 partially moduled, some without engine/weapons/modules .
I thought that I was going to have a bit of a problem thanks to all the "unbiased" forumposts .

Went to PTS today and found out that with the reimbursement I got I was able to fully node out about 487 mechs (44.400 GSP alone) .
Should give me some wiggle room to fiddle about with skillsets .
Also the skilltree has some very interesting possibilities as I´ve found out .

Don´t be scared, it´s just a fresh breeze in this stale-aired stable .

P.s: With what I tried out today I found that most of my builds will stay as they are right now .