257 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

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.

Okay, they both made a choice seems fair so far.

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

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.

Still seems fair. In particular when you realize that player one has a lot of those mechs because of the rule of 3 and with that going away player 2 is in a MUCH better position going forward.

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

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...

Sure, player 1 has more mechs than player 2 initially, but player 1 also has a lot more useless mechs than player 2 thanks to the rule of 3.

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

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

Have you put yourself in PGI's shoes? Seems strange to advocate for others to sympathize with you when you can't seem to understand why it would be bad for PGI to have an enormous amount of C-bills floating around.

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

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.

As someone who won't have an absurd number of GSP I envy them. I wish I had their problem.

[Lykaon]

Prosperity Park, on 26 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

You bought modules to improve mech performance. This includes sensor upgrades, weapon mods, etc.


You did not buy them as if they were trade bonds. You did not buy modules for the sake of using them as a C-Bill reservoir for later liquidation. You did not buy them for the sake of laundering Cbills and refusing to equip them on your Mechs.

Face it, if you bought modules, it is because you wanted to spend your Cbills on weapon mods, sensor upgrades, etc. If you didn't want these things, you would not have bought those modules.

In exchange for your modules, you are getting skill points that act as weapon mods, sensor upgrades, etc. You are exchanging upgrades for upgrades.

If you are complaining about this, then you have to openly admit that you bought modules for the sole sake of selling them back later, and *not* to equip them on your Mech to improve performance.

I don't think anyone here is that stupid. So, please, drop the act and stop complaining. I know you are not that dumb, I have faith in you.

So I spent a lot of "imaginary robot bucks" on modules. That I installed on mechs that I also bought for imaginary robot bucks.I played these mechs and earned XP on these mechs and continued to play these now mastered mechs and banked a pile of XP on them.

The XP I have on many (possibly most) of my mechs is sufficent to master them again under the proposed new system.

So what value is more XP to me? PGI has changed the "currency" of performance upgrades from C-bills and XP to just XP. I have a massive glut in "banked" XP turning my C-bill purchased upgrades (modules) into yet more XP is not as valuable to me as c-bills (that I currently do not have a huge bank of unlike XP).

If I had not purchased several duplicate module sets for my mechs I would currently have a stock pile of XP and C-Bills. and this is obviously more versitile since I can't buy mechs engines and weapons on banked XP.

So this is why my personal preferances are not reflected in the current refunding plan.

[MW222]

Prosperity Park, on 26 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

You bought modules to improve mech performance. This includes sensor upgrades, weapon mods, etc.


You did not buy them as if they were trade bonds. You did not buy modules for the sake of using them as a C-Bill reservoir for later liquidation. You did not buy them for the sake of laundering Cbills and refusing to equip them on your Mechs.

Face it, if you bought modules, it is because you wanted to spend your Cbills on weapon mods, sensor upgrades, etc. If you didn't want these things, you would not have bought those modules.

In exchange for your modules, you are getting skill points that act as weapon mods, sensor upgrades, etc. You are exchanging upgrades for upgrades.

If you are complaining about this, then you have to openly admit that you bought modules for the sole sake of selling them back later, and *not* to equip them on your Mech to improve performance.

I don't think anyone here is that stupid. So, please, drop the act and stop complaining. I know you are not that dumb, I have faith in you.

I have Enabled every weapon, sensor and expendable module there is Clan and IS. The only ones I did not spend GXP on were the hill clime, legged speed one and the anti shake one when attacked.

I have not purchased all of them with C credit but have a large number and there is more then one of several types. That should allow me to re skill petty much everything. Maybe doing a better job of it. What about the player who was not as global as I was but one more specific.

Will that player be able to run the same mech the same way that they had before? So far from what I have seen and heard the answer to that have been a resounding 'Ah maybe".

The one step forward two steps back formula is not something you want to use or to force on people in this area. We all know of players who quit when their favorite mech was Nerffed and this has the potential to be a Global Drive by Nerffing. Anyone who thinks other wise is not paying attention.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

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.

Do you not realize that this is exactly what some players were telling those who had mastered 200+ mechs (whose skills they would be unable to unlock...because they lacked 200 million c-bills) in the first version of the refund.???? that SO many complained about.

Madness!!!

[Ace Selin]

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.

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.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

Okay, they both made a choice seems fair so far.
Still seems fair. In particular when you realize that player one has a lot of those mechs because of the rule of 3 and with that going away player 2 is in a MUCH better position going forward.
Sure, player 1 has more mechs than player 2 initially, but player 1 also has a lot more useless mechs than player 2 thanks to the rule of 3.
Have you put yourself in PGI's shoes? Seems strange to advocate for others to sympathize with you when you can't seem to understand why it would be bad for PGI to have an enormous amount of C-bills floating around.
As someone who won't have an absurd number of GSP I envy them. I wish I had their problem.

-I actually don't have a problem with people who acknowledge the day 1 discrepancy (and that there might be a discrepancy for a while after). Most people posting here can't even seem to see it. Well done. You and I will probably have to agree to disagree on what "fair" would look like

-Rule of 3 might well close the gap a bit in terms of utility or fun. Some Mechs are neither good nor fun to run...player 1 would likely have a few more than player 2. Not enough to equalize things, but your point does close the gap a bit. I believe there should be as close to zero gap as possible though. This refund proposal fails on that front.


-I would defend PGI's right to make money if it was MC or $ purchases here. But then both sides should still be equal in grind. For example I am glad they aren't offering hero's or clan hero Omnipods for c-bills (as some players recently advocated for). PGI is a business and needs our $ to survive. I doubt they sell much in the way if c-bills for $...c-bills are nearly always earned by grinding this game, not by opening your wallet. So, PGI would directly lose $, by granting full c-bill refunds. It would just spare players grinding c-bills in game.

[Lukoi Banacek]

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

So yes people with lots of modules are getting shafted.

So I was under the impression I had 200-something modules. I went back and counted them all on PTS, not including consumables.

Post Feb 8, I have 8.
Pre Feb 8, I have 372.

I have 380 modules. Does that qualify as alot of modules?

Because I honestly do not feel shafted at all by this reimbursement plan and will make a ton of money back by liquidating modules before the patch goes live, while saving more than enough GSP to master my next 200 mechs or so (I have 32,223 GSP coming to me per the PTS -- that will shift down as they move modules over to the c-bill refund category based on the new December cut-off they intend to use).

[vandalhooch]

dario03, on 26 April 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Because they are different groups of people....

In the old system the "cheapskates" got "screwed".
In the new system the non-cheapskates get screwed.

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.

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.

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.

Edited by vandalhooch, 27 April 2017 - 03:57 PM.

[vandalhooch]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

And you bought them, knowing you'd get **** in resale. And you bought them, to buff your gundams.

Now you want to get the skill points to buff your gundams AND the money back on top,

I've yet to see anyone ask for both GSP and C-bills for their lost modules. That's only happening in your head.

Quote

to buy more gunz n gundams, which means you are actually looking for MORE than "fair" compensation.

Sorry bro, I'm in the EXACT same position you are in...as is everyone. And somehow, not feeling remotely buttpuckered over it.

I AM, HOWEVER, FEELING BUTTPUCKERED OVER THE DAMN COMMUNITY HOLDING PROGRESS HOSTAGE.


Whether you wear blinders when I post or not, not really anything I lose sleep over. But hey, glad we agree here.

I'm fine with going forward with the change, just don't try and pretend that both pilot groups are being treated equally during the shift.

[Ted Wayz]

I bought them to swap.

So you are saying I can swap mech SP?

[vandalhooch]

Dogstar, on 27 April 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

I've been thinking about this and it's rather a disingenuous example as it doesn't consider either XP or money.

Lets give two players 100M c-bills, $100, and 100K XP - more than enough to buy a ton of stuff

For the sake of simplicity lets assume mechs cost either 10mill or $10, don't need to be upgraded, and that a 'set' of modules costs 10mill too. Lets also assume each mech needs 10K XP to 'master' it

Player A spends 50 mill on 5 mechs, 50K XP to master them, and 50 mill to outfit them with modules
Player B spends $100 on 10 mechs, 100K XP to master, but doesn't buy modules

Player A kicks Player B's B-hind in most matches thanks to the module advantage

Refund time!

Player A has 5 mechs fully mastered, GSP to master another 5 mechs, 50K XP, and $100
Player B has 10 mechs fully mastered, no GSP, no XP, and 100 mill

Player A buys 10 more mechs for $100, masters half with GSP half with XP
Player B buys 10 more mechs for 100 mill but can't master any

Player A has 15 mechs fully mastered
Player B has 10 mechs fully mastered, and 10 mechs to master

Player A kick's player B's B-hind in most matches thanks to the mastery advantage

So when you actually account for XP and real money things aren't so simplistic.

C-bills and XP aren't earned at equal rates. C-bills and XP aren't spent at equal rates. Your model treats the resources as if they are equivalent in utility. They aren't.

People who ground out the C-bills for modules also already earned all the XP they will ever need. Being given GSP is being given a completely useless resource. My GXP and stockpiled MXP will insta-master year's worth of new mech purchases. But, the C-bills I earned to go with that XP will not be available because "cheapskate" cry-babies threw a fit at a simple, straight exchange rate.

[dario03]

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.

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.

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.

Note my usage of "" around screwed when talking about the old system.

[vandalhooch]

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,

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.

Quote

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,

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:

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.

Quote

but they don't have to worry about buy skills for them or and testing.

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.

Quote

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.
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.

Because you took shortcuts and didn't like having that pointed out.

Quote

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

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.

Quote

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

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

Quote

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.

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

dario03, on 27 April 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Note my usage of "" around screwed when talking about the old system.

Yeah, I noticed. But, you made a false equivalency between the two. The second is the only one that requires one group to make a sacrifice relative to the other group.

[dario03]

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

Yeah, I noticed. But, you made a false equivalency between the two. The second is the only one that requires one group to make a sacrifice relative to the other group.

You didn't notice the meaning of them then. Put short, I agree with you.

[vandalhooch]

dario03, on 27 April 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

You didn't notice the meaning of them then. Put short, I agree with you.

Yep. I missed the fact that both descriptions don't have the " ". My bad.

Edited by vandalhooch, 27 April 2017 - 04:51 PM.

[reflectorjones]

You bought a whipple supercharger for your engine, so to compensate they are taking away the whipple and replacing it with spinning dubs. sounds fair to me.

[Pr8Dator2]

supporting this tthread because I like the new skill tree and there has been too many vocal haters

[vandalhooch]

Pr8Dator2, on 27 April 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

supporting this tthread because I like the new skill tree and there has been too many vocal haters

It's not really hate for the new skill tree. It's dislike for the manner in which the switch over is affecting some players differently than others. In my case, it's annoyance at the former whiners failing to see that there really is a true, measurable difference in that treatment.

[Lukoi Banacek]

vandalhooch, on 27 April 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

I've yet to see anyone ask for both GSP and C-bills for their lost modules. That's only happening in your head.

Once he goes on a rant, it happens alot. Don't let it shock ya

[vandalhooch]

Lukoi Banacek, on 27 April 2017 - 07:14 PM, said:

Once he goes on a rant, it happens alot. Don't let it shock ya

Yeah, I've been around long enough to know that. My comment isn't really for him in the end anyway.