257 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

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

Benefit? ... I have 200+ mechs, these 200+ mechs share about two dozen weapon modules and less than a dozen mech modules among them. Under the new system I will have to purchase the equivalent of those for each of said 200+ mechs, and purchasing these improvements will prevent me from purchasing other ones ... The supposed "compensation" doesn't even begin to compare.

But again, as I've said, feel free to defend this blatant scam all you want.

[Dodger79]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 28 April 2017 - 02:11 AM, said:

we all knew that a new skill system was comming eventually and that likely that new system would replace the old one entirely.

if you take the time to listen to what russ had to say about the issue you would know hes very concerned with finding a solution that is amicable to the majority of the playerbase but also openly admits that PGI cannot please everyone and he is very right to point that out.

now im not saying the new system is perfect, far from it. but it is a far better solution to what we have currently, one that is static and entirely devoid of choices and if you look at the numbers you are being compensated (and in some ways, overcompensated) for all xp and modules you currently own in one way or another.

remember modules are being rolled into the skill system so even if you had to play module roullette you will still be better off with the new system because you wont have to swap modules and your old xp can be used to unlock modules for all of your mechs.

PGI could improve the system yes but so far what they are planning is a massive step forward for everyone.

The joke is: as PGI is giving 91 free skill points for your already mastered Mechs they assume that every mastered Mech in your is fully equipped with modules. Even if you do not own a single one. This means that a mastered Mech from sb who owns no or only very few modules is treated exactly the same as a mastered _and_ fully equipped Mech. So, where in this iteration of refund model is the advantage of having bought modules? This achievement/progress is completely taken away and shifted to future Mech-purchases. But will PGI really release another 200-400 Mechs to make it worth sth?

In the first refund model the problem was that players lost mastery of Mechs because suddenly all skills cost CB instead of just XP.

To address this legitimate concern they could have just added the GSP-system for the achieved skill level of the Mechs (means: 72 GSP for mastery instead of 91) but still refund the modules as proposed and promised. This way no player would have lost progress/mastery AND excessive module buyers would not be screwed.

Edited by Dodger79, 28 April 2017 - 02:50 AM.

[Xetelian]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 28 April 2017 - 02:11 AM, said:

we all knew that a new skill system was comming eventually and that likely that new system would replace the old one entirely.

if you take the time to listen to what russ had to say about the issue you would know hes very concerned with finding a solution that is amicable to the majority of the playerbase but also openly admits that PGI cannot please everyone and he is very right to point that out.

now im not saying the new system is perfect, far from it. but it is a far better solution to what we have currently, one that is static and entirely devoid of choices and if you look at the numbers you are being compensated (and in some ways, overcompensated) for all xp and modules you currently own in one way or another.

remember modules are being rolled into the skill system so even if you had to play module roullette you will still be better off with the new system because you wont have to swap modules and your old xp can be used to unlock modules for all of your mechs.

PGI could improve the system yes but so far what they are planning is a massive step forward for everyone.

Doing to NOW and doing it RIGHT are two entirely different mindsets. Everyone wants to play with their new toy, the skill tree system but what are we losing in the long run?



We were told at MechCon that we'd get all our cBills back, then we were told only purchases after last Dec. which makes their previous statement a lie. Lying to the customer is a big no no in any industry.

[Templar Dane]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

Ah so someone who's been here all of 11 days is that read in on things. Got it.

That guy that's been here for 11 days has a lot more games recorded than you on the leaderboard.......

http://imgur.com/a/QLZ6v

[Lupis Volk]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 28 April 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

bishop has been here since before open beta, or even the leaderboards for that matter. I wouldnt dismiss his opinion so quickly.

Yeah, i hold more weight in Bish's words than many "tier one" players on the forum.

Man this forum sure is reminding me of why i left the World of Tanks forum. Stats dedicating who can speak and be heard.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Lupis Volk, on 28 April 2017 - 04:04 AM, said:

Yeah, i hold more weight in Bish's words than many "tier one" players on the forum.

Man this forum sure is reminding me of why i left the World of Tanks forum. Stats dedicating who can speak and be heard.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about forum posts dictating who can speak and be heard as well. Guess some of you have different rules for when to be dismissive of people's opinions.

Fact is, when people have a credible point of view, they dont need to mention post count or "git gud" stats right? But you give Bish a pass for soing that exact same thing until someone flips the script on him for it. Funny that.

[Curccu]

Templar Dane, on 28 April 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

That guy that's been here for 11 days has a lot more games recorded than you on the leaderboard.......

http://imgur.com/a/QLZ6v

more recorded games on the leaderboard or season 10 leaderboard and what if you compare total number of games since closed beta?
and those stats are not very impressive

[Ultimax]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 April 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

Benefit? ... I have 200+ mechs, these 200+ mechs share about two dozen weapon modules and less than a dozen mech modules among them. Under the new system I will have to purchase the equivalent of those for each of said 200+ mechs, and purchasing these improvements will prevent me from purchasing other ones ... The supposed "compensation" doesn't even begin to compare.

But again, as I've said, feel free to defend this blatant scam all you want.

This is only the case if those 200 mechs are not mastered.

If your mechs are all mastered, you can re-master them in the new system for free as part of the transition - and it will not cost a single GSP from your module refund payout.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Curccu, on 28 April 2017 - 04:26 AM, said:

more recorded games on the leaderboard or season 10 leaderboard and what if you compare total number of games since closed beta?
and those stats are not very impressive

They are both pretty uninspired, but neither should be considered a barrier to entry, just like post count shouldnt be.

[lpmagic]

It is real simple here.

All they had to do was, give us the ability to master pre-mastered mechs, and or equivalency on elited mechs on down through partially basic'd what have you. And, refund the c-bill amount we spent on, no longer necessary modules. There is NO depreciation on digital concepts, that is just not correct.

This would have been the simplest answer they could have given, instead it has become more convoluted......

so, actually, I'm not complaining really, I have enough c-bills, I have a couple hundred plus mastered mechs (and a further 100+ anywhere between basic'd and mastered lol), I will have enough GSP to master approximately 120 mechs into the future, more than I will likely ever buy (I dunno though, It really depends on the direction the game takes from this point forward)

all of this about people complaining and screeching about stuff, I get it, but, this is MUCH better than the last iteration, at least speaking in whalesong speech.

I would love it if the just gave us the ability to master, elite, basic, the mechs to the degree we already have and to pay us for our original module purchases, really, that would be great. obviously, they see something they are not sharing with us, that makes them believe that, that would be a particularly bad idea, I don't know what that is, but, it is there none the less.

Once again, I will be fine, I might sell some mods prior, I might not, I have plenty of c-bills for the future, I will have plenty of GSP, so, I have room to maneuver, I am not going to say I'm happy that my theories aren't being followed 100% but then again, they seem to know something, or feel something, that I just don't know, I'm good, as long as they don't go backwards again

STAHP freaking out everyone

is it perfect, He (doubletoothpicks) no

is it better than the last one...BY MILES......

it is not as equitable as it COULD be.....

edit: and before someone freaks out and says naner naner you haven't played long enough.....I am an original founder, and have been involved in the community (mostly outside of these forums) and have consistently played since the inception, comp, and non-comp, and everywhere in between. so, hush, Just because my badges or tier aren't showing does not mean my opinion means nothing, Happy to throw all the badges up etc if it keeps people from being jerks, but, meh....

Edited by lpmagic, 28 April 2017 - 06:43 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Ultimax, on 28 April 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

This is only the case if those 200 mechs are not mastered.

If your mechs are all mastered, you can re-master them in the new system for free as part of the transition - and it will not cost a single GSP from your module refund payout.

You can't "master" a mech under a new system since the amount of skill nodes you can open is limited, i.e. I will no longer be able to use benefits I payed for (which were provided by modules under the old system) without sacrificing smth else, nor am I getting what I've spent back. That is scam, but then again, a founder knows about PGI and scam all too well, its not a surprise at all.

Not even going to start about how you have to pay again and again each time you decide to re-spec. Their agenda is so fkn obvious its not even funny.

[Bishop Steiner]

Templar Dane, on 28 April 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

That guy that's been here for 11 days has a lot more games recorded than you on the leaderboard.......

http://imgur.com/a/QLZ6v

Pretty sure he hasn't spent the last 3 weeks burying his mother and settling her estate either. But hey, what do I know?

Next ******* and pointless statement you'd care to make?

[Bishop Steiner]

Curccu, on 28 April 2017 - 04:26 AM, said:

more recorded games on the leaderboard or season 10 leaderboard and what if you compare total number of games since closed beta?
and those stats are not very impressive

I'm surprised actually that mine aren't about the same...about 20 of those 40 matches have been in the roughneck, (the rest leveling Assassins) I actually expected mine to be a lot worse. Though I spend about as much time worrying about leaderboards as I do worrying about the opinion of people who think they hold some mystical import. Which would be, essentially, none.

Also doesn't help, as CK16, Pariah and others can attest, that I have spent most of the last 6+ months without a functional computer, or using a loaner potato laptop, so playing MWO in massive quantities hasn't exactly been a top priority of late.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 April 2017 - 11:16 AM.

[WarHippy]

Ace Selin, on 27 April 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

Everyone of my mechs will be 91 nodes mastered (bar 6), ill have so much GXP i could likely use that to level all future mechs plus ill get worthless GSP (enough to Master another 600 odd mechs). The GSP is worthless to me, likely ill never use it. PGI is taking something i value (modules) and giving me nothing in return. Had i known these changes were coming from the start i would not have spent cbills buying hundreds of modules, i would have saved it for mechs like you cheapskates did (and swapped modules) and been much better off for it. So yes people with lots of modules are getting shafted.

I'm not sure why you would use GXP to level future mechs when you have GSP. GSP covers the costs of both c-bills and xp for nodes. You also didn't have to buy all of those modules and could have followed what the in game tips suggested which was to move them around. I guess if following the tool tips makes someone a cheapskate then that makes the people who wasted extra c-bills lazy and/or illiterate? Either way if you are going to have enough GSP to level 600 odd mechs sell some of your modules now that way you get a nice chunk of c-bills and can still have enough GSP that you won't have to spend c-bills on skill points for a long while going forward.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

No. In the old system neither group was screwed. All players were faced with needing more XP and C-bills to master their mechs. The "cheapskates" felt like they were screwed because they were facing some grinding to get the necessary C-bills.The non-cheapskates had already done the grinding in the form of their modules because they were being compensated at the same rate they earned the C-bills.

That is patently false. In the old system you were locked out of all the skills you previously had unless you paid a significant amount of c-bills. Ignoring the nodes dealing with modules all of the other skill nodes that made up for the current tree now had a c-bill cost attached to them when the current tree did not have those costs. Depending on how many mechs you had it could cost hundreds of millions of extra c-bill just to be back at a similar level you were on live. Unlike GSP all the refunded XP in the old system was actually useless.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

In the new system, the cheapskates get all their "mastered" mechs converted to levels as if they have modules even though almost none of them do. The non-cheapskates get their mechs converted to levels matching their current fully-moduled status. However, all the extra grinding that non-cheapskates have done is not being compensated at the same rate as it was earned.

There is a case to be made for people without modules to only receive HSP up to 60 give or take so they still have to buy the module nodes. For that matter if you received a c-bill refund instead of GSP I would expect you only get those ~60 HSP as well so that you have to repurchase those other nodes. You don't get to have your full refund of c-bills and the benefits of the module nodes. I would prefer if all nodes didn't have a c-bill cost except the module related nodes. That being said GSP has a value, and any extra GSP you are sitting on mean you don't have to spend any c-bills or xp on new nodes for a long time to come. You are being compensated just not in a way you get to exploit.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

The "screwing" of the old system was only a perceived effect that couldn't be measured because it didn't exist. The "screwing" of the new system can be measured directly in C-bills.

It was very measurable in the old system and even PGI of all people was able to see it after it was explained.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

No, they were losing mastery they had not really ground out due to their choice of shortcutting (moving modules). When faced with the true grind that they had chosen to skip, they freaked and said the other group was being favored. They just simply ignored the fact that the other group had chosen to do the complete grind first before moving on to the next mech.

That "shortcutting" was a feature of the system that PGI made a point of showcasing. It isn't the players fault they followed the rules set by PGI. That being said the problem with the old system was with added cost of the non-module related nodes that locked people in both camps out of those nodes unless they spent a lot of extra c-bills. The heavy module buyers just didn't feel it as acutely even though they were being screwed over as well.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Which means the first group gets to keep the C-bill sinks they purchased in the current system (more mechs) and the second group doesn't. Why do all of you cheapskate apologists not answer my simple question:

I can't speak for others, but those mechs were not a c-bill sink for me since I paid real money for them. I hate to break it to you but GSP essentially is modules just in another form so you very much are getting to keep your c-bill sink only now it covers a lot of mechs beyond your current stable because PGI was very generous with the GSP reimbursement.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Why not have PGI confiscate all of your mechs that have ever used modules but currently are not fully kitted out with them (meaning you haven't actually paid for all the advantages you had) and give you GSP (you get your C-bill value back!) in exchange? Don't want the GSP? Then sell your mechs back at a 50% discount like I'm going to with my modules.

I'm not sure why others haven't answered this question. Maybe because its a stupid question and they didn't see a need to answer it?

I will however answer your question, and ask one of my own. How many of those modules did you buy with real money? With a few small debatable caveats the answer is none. Mechs however are a different scenario entirely because mechs in a lot of cases for a lot of people are bought with real money. Mechs are how PGI makes money so it would make little sense to do what you are describing. Modules on the other hand are intended to be a c-bill sink for the players so it would make little sense in the new tree to give you the benefits of those modules and a full refund of c-bills. It was short sighted of PGI to allow people to swap modules when they were clearly meant to be a c-bill sink which is why in the new skill tree swapping isn't an option anymore.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Grinding the C-bills to buy those mechs will give us all the XP we will ever need to insta-master them. In fact, the grind we have already done, and you haven't, has already given most of us all the XP we will ever need. GSP will never be useful for future mechs.

Except it will. Going forward you won't have to spend c-bills to buy skill points which allows you to spend your earnings on new mechs and equipment. The other group going forward will still have to buy mechs and equipment, but in addition skill points as well. There will be a disparity at first but it evens out in the long run. I would rather be in your shoes.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

If we have 1+ billion in modules do you honestly think we have failed to get enough XP to master all of our mechs? Unlike the cheapskates, we played each of our mechs much longer, to pay for the modules, than the shortcutters who spent their C-bills on additional mechs as soon as they could. We aren't sitting on hundreds of unmastered mechs, if we have any unmastered mechs at all, it's because we chose not to spend the GXP, which we also have in abundance, to insta-master them.

As I have repeated many times I didn't spend c-bills on the vast majority of my mechs. If anyone is a cheapskate it is the players that are trying to game the system to have fully mastered mechs and enough c-bills that they can buy every mech they want going forward without spending a cent.(note I have no issue with free players as they are important to the game as well) Its actually pretty funny how many unfounded assumptions you make.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Or, some of us, can't honestly admit when we are benefiting from the sacrifice of our fellows.

If you say so buttercup.

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

It only looks generous to you because you aren't being required to ever make up all the grind you skipped.

I didn't skip any grind. In fact I bought more modules than the majority of swappers because I was too damn lazy to do it. I can still see that it is very generous.

Edited by WarHippy, 28 April 2017 - 11:22 AM.

[vandalhooch]

WarHippy, on 28 April 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

-snipped response to Ace-

That is patently false. In the old system you were locked out of all the skills you previously had unless you paid a significant amount of c-bills.

Yes. But the key point is that BOTH GROUPS WERE BEING TREATED THE SAME. One group had not yet ground out the C-bills for those additional points because they spent their C-bills on more mechs. The other group had already ground out the C-bills for the additional points.

Quote

Ignoring the nodes dealing with modules all of the other skill nodes that made up for the current tree now had a c-bill cost attached to them when the current tree did not have those costs. Depending on how many mechs you had it could cost hundreds of millions of extra c-bill just to be back at a similar level you were on live.

You chose to spend all of your earned C-bills on purchasing all those mechs. I chose to spend my C-bills on modules. You ended up with a large number of mechs because you chose to skip buying modules for each of them. That was your choice. The first iteration was not going to take away one C-bill of resources you had already earned. Not one. Is that true for me in this second iteration?

You and others didn't like the fact that your short cut turned out to have a downside. Fair enough. You didn't know this was coming down the pipeline. So the second iteration removes that short cut penalty by giving you a bonus:

you = master-modules gets turned into master+modules (91 HSP)

me = master+modules gets turned into master+modules (91 HSP)

Boom. No make up grinding for you. For me, who had already done all the grinding to actually earn all 91 HSP, I get compensated with a massive, massive amount of GSP in exchange for all my C-bill modules. Because of the way C-bills and GXP are earned, the vast majority of those GSP are utterly, completely worthless to me.

You played hours to earn C-bills for mechs that are still worth their same value after the switch.
I played hours to earn C-bills for modules that are NOT worth their same value after the switch.

We are not being treated the same at all.

Quote

Unlike GSP all the refunded XP in the old system was actually useless.

Tell me how I'm going to spend 60 or 70 thousand GSP on mechs I don't own because I don't have the C-bills for them? Earning the C-bills to buy those mechs will give me all the XP I'll need for skill point purchases. The vast majority of those GSP will never, ever be used.

XP in the first iteration was being pooled into a GXP system. That was completely useful to purchase skill points on new mechs because I would also have the C-bills for them due to my module returns.

Quote

There is a case to be made for people without modules to only receive HSP up to 60 give or take so they still have to buy the module nodes. For that matter if you received a c-bill refund instead of GSP I would expect you only get those ~60 HSP as well so that you have to repurchase those other nodes.

That's functionally, exactly what the first iteration was!

Quote

You don't get to have your full refund of c-bills and the benefits of the module nodes.

No one. Absolutely no one that I've seen is asking for that.

Quote

I would prefer if all nodes didn't have a c-bill cost except the module related nodes. That being said GSP has a value, and any extra GSP you are sitting on mean you don't have to spend any c-bills or xp on new nodes for a long time to come.

When that long time finally arrives, due to the mechanics of the game, I will have already earned alternative resources capable of doing the same thing (GXP and C-bills). The GSP at that point are completely useless. Don't get me wrong, the first few thousand GSP will be very useful but there is a diminishing return to having fifty or sixty thousand of them.

Quote

You are being compensated just not in a way you get to exploit.

Exploit? I earned those C-bills the same way you earned your C-bills for your mechs/upgrades/engines/weapons. I'm being required to sell mine back at a discount. Are you being required to sell yours back?

Quote

It was very measurable in the old system and even PGI of all people was able to see it after it was explained.
That "shortcutting" was a feature of the system that PGI made a point of showcasing. It isn't the players fault they followed the rules set by PGI. That being said the problem with the old system was with added cost of the non-module related nodes that locked people in both camps out of those nodes unless they spent a lot of extra c-bills. The heavy module buyers just didn't feel it as acutely even though they were being screwed over as well.

In other words, the first iteration treated everyone exactly the same. That's our point right now. The current system doesn't.

Personally, I'm fine with the unfair treatment in order to get the system implemented. I'm just sick of blockheads being unable to see that it really is less fair than the first iteration.

Quote

I can't speak for others, but those mechs were not a c-bill sink for me since I paid real money for them. I hate to break it to you but GSP essentially is modules just in another form so you very much are getting to keep your c-bill sink only now it covers a lot of mechs beyond your current stable because PGI was very generous with the GSP reimbursement.
I'm not sure why others haven't answered this question. Maybe because its a stupid question and they didn't see a need to answer it?

How exactly did you pay for all the engines/upgrades/weapons on your real-money mechs? Are you being required to sell all of those C-bill purchases at a 50% discount?

Quote

I will however answer your question, and ask one of my own. How many of those modules did you buy with real money?

Almost none. A few modules from early mech pack purchases, but I stopped buying mechpacks before PGI started including more modules in them.

Quote

With a few small debatable caveats the answer is none. Mechs however are a different scenario entirely because mechs in a lot of cases for a lot of people are bought with real money. Mechs are how PGI makes money so it would make little sense to do what you are describing.

Yes. I know that. My point with the suggestion is to get the first iteration whiners to admit that the current system isn't really treating both groups the same. That's all I want. An admission that they will receive more benefit from the change than I will. But, it seems their egos just won't let them admit that. They have to resort to convoluted rationalizations or outright ignoring of the evidence in order to keep telling themselves that they are not being treated special because they whined like toddlers earlier.

Quote

Modules on the other hand are intended to be a c-bill sink for the players so it would make little sense in the new tree to give you the benefits of those modules and a full refund of c-bills. It was short sighted of PGI to allow people to swap modules when they were clearly meant to be a c-bill sink which is why in the new skill tree swapping isn't an option anymore.

The argument for a full refund is to make up for the fact that swappers are receiving the benefit of owning huge numbers of modules despite the fact that they didn't actually earn them. We did earn them and now they give us no benefit.

Both groups are not being treated the same.

Quote

Except it will. Going forward you won't have to spend c-bills to buy skill points which allows you to spend your earnings on new mechs and equipment.

At fifty thousand GSP and an "average" use of 120 per mech for future respeccing, I still need to grind out the C-bills to buy and equip 416 mechs. This game going to be around that long? Am I ever going to use the last of those GSP?

Quote

The other group going forward will still have to buy mechs and equipment, but in addition skill points as well. There will be a disparity at first but it evens out in the long run. I would rather be in your shoes.

The other group hasn't already ground out the C-bills for those future mechs and points. I have. Fifty percent of that grind is going to disappear. To make things fair for both groups either give me all of the C-bills I have already earned or take away 50% of the C-bills you have, in the form of mechs/engines/upgrades/weapons.

I admit the second option is very problematic. The first is a very simple solution.

The third option is for the swappers to just shut up about the "fairness" of this iteration and let me pay the 50% tax so we can move on.

Quote

As I have repeated many times I didn't spend c-bills on the vast majority of my mechs.

Your engines/upgrades/equipment/weapons were free? How did you swing that?

Quote

If anyone is a cheapskate it is the players that are trying to game the system to have fully mastered mechs and enough c-bills that they can buy every mech they want going forward without spending a cent.

If I had chosen the swapper tactic, I WOULD ALREADY OWN EVERY MECH! I already earned the C-bills to own those mechs. Being compensated for the full price of my modules is not giving me an advantage.

You did not buy modules for every mech but all of them will have 91 HSP in the new system. It is you that is receiving something you didn't pay for. Not me.

Quote

(note I have no issue with free players as they are important to the game as well) Its actually pretty funny how many unfounded assumptions you make.

If you say so buttercup.

I didn't skip any grind. In fact I bought more modules than the majority of swappers because I was too damn lazy to do it. I can still see that it is very generous.

Then you need to "maths" better. It is more generous to swappers than it is to you or me. Fine. It's unfair. Just stop trying to claim that it isn't.

[WarHippy]

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Yes. But the key point is that BOTH GROUPS WERE BEING TREATED THE SAME. One group had not yet ground out the C-bills for those additional points because they spent their C-bills on more mechs. The other group had already ground out the C-bills for the additional points.

They were both treated terribly in the first iteration you got me there. Again I didn't spend the c-bills on more mechs.(Which as I pointed out to someone else the number of mechs is pretty irrelevant because the rule of 3 is going away and most of the "extra" mechs I have are garbage.) Its just so unfair I have more useless mechs than you am I right?

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

You chose to spend all of your earned C-bills on purchasing all those mechs. I chose to spend my C-bills on modules. You ended up with a large number of mechs because you chose to skip buying modules for each of them. That was your choice. The first iteration was not going to take away one C-bill of resources you had already earned. Not one. Is that true for me in this second iteration?

Again, no I didn't, and again that large number of mechs is irrelevant when most of them are garbage.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

You and others didn't like the fact that your short cut turned out to have a downside. Fair enough. You didn't know this was coming down the pipeline. So the second iteration removes that short cut penalty by giving you a bonus:

It gives all of us a bonus you included, but you are too dense to see it.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

you = master-modules gets turned into master+modules (91 HSP)

me = master+modules gets turned into master+modules (91 HSP)

Boom. No make up grinding for you. For me, who had already done all the grinding to actually earn all 91 HSP, I get compensated with a massive, massive amount of GSP in exchange for all my C-bill modules. Because of the way C-bills and GXP are earned, the vast majority of those GSP are utterly, completely worthless to me.

I already said I wouldn't have a problem if they lowered the HSP to ~60 for those without modules, and if they do a c-bill refund only give ~60 HSP for both groups. That being said the GSP is only worthless if you don't bother using it and that is your choice.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

You played hours to earn C-bills for mechs that are still worth their same value after the switch.
I played hours to earn C-bills for modules that are NOT worth their same value after the switch.

Again, no I didn't. Also modules are going away and being replaced with something else that has value you are unwilling to see. Mechs are not going away for a different system because they unlike modules are a key part of MechWarrior.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

We are not being treated the same at all.

If you say so.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Tell me how I'm going to spend 60 or 70 thousand GSP on mechs I don't own because I don't have the C-bills for them? Earning the C-bills to buy those mechs will give me all the XP I'll need for skill point purchases. The vast majority of those GSP will never, ever be used.

It will, but it won't earn you the c-bills to purchase skill points at the same time you are earning them to buy mechs which is where the GSP comes in. You do understand that skill points cost both xp and c-bills right?

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

XP in the first iteration was being pooled into a GXP system. That was completely useful to purchase skill points on new mechs because I would also have the C-bills for them due to my module returns.

Partly correct. The problem is all of those nodes that now had a cost attached to them that previously didn't. While you wouldn't have felt it as much because of your new glut of c-bills from a refund you were still having to pay for something you already had in the old/current skill system. Even with that version you still wouldn't be able to buy new mechs because you had to repurchase all of your skills.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

That's functionally, exactly what the first iteration was!

No it wasn't. In the first iteration you were not given those first 60 HSP I was talking about. You were given the XP to purchase the nodes but not the c-bills to purchase the nodes which effectively locked you out of something previously earned. That was a problem that hit both the "cheapskates" and the "lazy" module buyers.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

When that long time finally arrives, due to the mechanics of the game, I will have already earned alternative resources capable of doing the same thing (GXP and C-bills). The GSP at that point are completely useless. Don't get me wrong, the first few thousand GSP will be very useful but there is a diminishing return to having fifty or sixty thousand of them.

You have a couple of choices. Keep using the GSP for a long time going forward allowing you to spend the future earnings on mechs and equipment etc. without worrying about having to buy skill points, or sell a bunch of your modules now so you have a nice chunk of c-bills and still have those first few thousand "useful" GSP.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Exploit? I earned those C-bills the same way you earned your C-bills for your mechs/upgrades/engines/weapons. I'm being required to sell mine back at a discount. Are you being required to sell yours back?

No, because mechs are not modules and their purpose/requirement for the game are entirely different.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

In other words, the first iteration treated everyone exactly the same. That's our point right now. The current system doesn't.

Treating everyone in the same crappy way is not a good system. While the new system is not perfect it isn't treating any of us as poorly as the old system.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Personally, I'm fine with the unfair treatment in order to get the system implemented. I'm just sick of blockheads being unable to see that it really is less fair than the first iteration.

Keep telling yourself that maybe one day it will actually be true.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

How exactly did you pay for all the engines/upgrades/weapons on your real-money mechs? Are you being required to sell all of those C-bill purchases at a 50% discount?

Moving goal posts I see. I paid for them the same way you paid for them. Guess what? They are not going away for either of us, and are entirely unrelated to modules. Hurrah!

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Almost none. A few modules from early mech pack purchases, but I stopped buying mechpacks before PGI started including more modules in them.

Neat. So maybe now would be a good time to stop trying to compare mechs with modules?

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Yes. I know that. My point with the suggestion is to get the first iteration whiners to admit that the current system isn't really treating both groups the same. That's all I want. An admission that they will receive more benefit from the change than I will. But, it seems their egos just won't let them admit that. They have to resort to convoluted rationalizations or outright ignoring of the evidence in order to keep telling themselves that they are not being treated special because they whined like toddlers earlier.

You know that they are not comparable yet still try to use it to make a point? You may want an admission, but you are not going to get one because there is nothing to admit too no matter how much you "whine like a toddler".

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

The argument for a full refund is to make up for the fact that swappers are receiving the benefit of owning huge numbers of modules despite the fact that they didn't actually earn them. We did earn them and now they give us no benefit.

The benefit is you don't have to buy skill points for a long time to come. Both are receiving more than they put in.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

At fifty thousand GSP and an "average" use of 120 per mech for future respeccing, I still need to grind out the C-bills to buy and equip 416 mechs. This game going to be around that long? Am I ever going to use the last of those GSP?

Hard to say, but at least you won't ever have to worry about buying skill points. You also still have the option to sell a bunch of those modules now if you are concerned with having too many GSP. Its and enviable position to be in so I have a hard time feeling bad for you.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

The other group hasn't already ground out the C-bills for those future mechs and points. I have. Fifty percent of that grind is going to disappear. To make things fair for both groups either give me all of the C-bills I have already earned or take away 50% of the C-bills you have, in the form of mechs/engines/upgrades/weapons.

You keep trying to compare things that can't be compared equitably. You are not going to convince people with those absurd comparisons.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

The third option is for the swappers to just shut up about the "fairness" of this iteration and let me pay the 50% tax so we can move on.

The swappers are not the ones that keep going on and on about "fairness" this interation, but you are right we should just let you take your 50% tax(assuming you take that option and don't keep those sweet sweet GSP ) and move on.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Your engines/upgrades/equipment/weapons were free? How did you swing that?

The mechs themselves were not free they cost me real money. The engines/upgrades/equipment/weapons were all things I did the grind for just like you did for your mechs. Modules are ultimately a compltetly different ball of wax.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

If I had chosen the swapper tactic, I WOULD ALREADY OWN EVERY MECH! I already earned the C-bills to own those mechs. Being compensated for the full price of my modules is not giving me an advantage.

To paraphrase a movie quote. "You have chosen... poorly." Does it give you an advantage? Probably not in the long run, but it certainly puts things in an awkward place with the rule of 3 gone and all that new tech comming. It also makes it more unlikely for players sitting on mountains of c-bills to consider buying mechs with real money which really isn't good for anyone.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

You did not buy modules for every mech but all of them will have 91 HSP in the new system. It is you that is receiving something you didn't pay for. Not me.

I already said I would be okay if people without modules only received 60 give or take HSP rather than 91. The same goes for all players if PGI does a full c-bill refund.

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Then you need to "maths" better. It is more generous to swappers than it is to you or me. Fine. It's unfair. Just stop trying to claim that it isn't.

It is a lot more fair for us as players in general than the first version was. The first interation actually took something away and placed a price tag on it whereas this version puts us all where we were. In the live game you might have 200 mastered mechs, but with the first iteration if you didn't have a ton of modules you ended up with 50 mastered mechs and 150 mechs that had no skills at all. If you bought a ton of modules you "might" have been able to master all 200. With the new iteration both players keep their 200 master mechs. While the non-module buyer ends up with the benefit of a full 91 points they do not have anywhere nearly close to the amount of GSP the module buyer had. In the new interation the non-module buyer retains what he had while the module buyer retains what he had plus the ability to fully master a crap ton more mechs going forward.

There will be an imbalance between the players initially with this one, but the imbalance doesn't really effect anything and it eventually evens out. All in all seems rather fair to me.

[Curccu]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

Snip

I was referring to mr.11 days and his massive experience in this game over you or any other since beta community member

PS. My condolences about your mom.

[Widowmaker1981]

WarHippy, on 28 April 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

They were both treated terribly in the first iteration you got me there. Again I didn't spend the c-bills on more mechs.(Which as I pointed out to someone else the number of mechs is pretty irrelevant because the rule of 3 is going away and most of the "extra" mechs I have are garbage.) Its just so unfair I have more useless mechs than you am I right?

Again, no I didn't, and again that large number of mechs is irrelevant when most of them are garbage.

If most of them are garbage (they are, i agree) .. why all the tears about not being able to level them all to master? (I don't mean from you specifically, as i dont know that). If they are garbage, why pay to re-level them?

Basically, the old system was fair. The new system is not fair. But given that Russ doesnt want loads of players flooded with billions of cbills. (I dont think it should matter, but it does to him and i cant change that), and the modules being removed does do that unless it is mitigated in some way, i understand that being fair hurts those with little as much as those with a lot,and those with a lot can bear hurt more easily. The new system puts the strain of loss squarely on the shoulders of those with the most, and i guess on reflection im OK with that, for the same reason i believe in unequal rates of tax based on wealth in real life.

One thing they absolutely should do though is to add a slider to GSP ledger where you can trade as many as you like for cbills, at a rate of 50% module value, because that changes NOTHING in the economy, since those getting too many GSP are going to be selling a lot of modules to the store just before the patch drops anyway, and since they cant stop us doing that they should just make it seamless.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 29 April 2017 - 03:48 AM.

[vandalhooch]

^^^^^^^ This guy gets it.

[Shifty McSwift]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

^^^^^^^ This guy gets it.

Notice how he also did it without ad hominem, hyperbole or hypocrisy? That was pretty sweet right? Someone could learn from such an example..