257 replies to this topic

[vandalhooch]

Shifty McSwift, on 29 April 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

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

Take your bruised ego somewhere else. I'm not interested.

Notice that he only said this AFTER I got some blockhead to demonstrate that they just don't get it?

[Shifty McSwift]

vandalhooch, on 29 April 2017 - 06:36 AM, said:

bruised ego

Ah well, I guess some never learn.

[Bishop Steiner]

Curccu, on 29 April 2017 - 01:05 AM, said:

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.

I know, I was commenting on my own stats in comparison. TBH, between only playing a small set of matches, on a borrowed laptop, and solely playing ASNs and RGHs to level them up... I'm actually surprised my stats were as "good" (well, average-ish, TBH) as they were, and would not have been shocked if my stats had been similar to Mr 11 Day, tbh.

But it's hilarious the way the other guy tried to use those stats like they said well...anything? Numbers without context, are meaningless.

[WarHippy]

Widowmaker1981, on 29 April 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

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?

Because the work was done? Just because they are garbage doesn't mean they should lose all the time that was put into them.

Widowmaker1981, on 29 April 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

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.

The old system was objectively not fair and it really is not up for debate. The new system is a lot more fair than we can really hope for or honestly deserve.

Widowmaker1981, on 29 April 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

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.

A slider isn't really necessary since you can just sell the modules now for that 50% if you wish, but I wouldn't have a problem with the slider either.

[Lukoi Banacek]

WarHippy, on 29 April 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

A slider isn't really necessary since you can just sell the modules now for that 50% if you wish, but I wouldn't have a problem with the slider either.

Actually the slider would 100% be better than making people "guess" at which modules to sell. It offers granularity of choice to players so they can do what they think is best with their refund. And it's offers transparency that forcing players to guess at, feels fundamentally unfair to that demographic that's impacted.

Yes, pre-patch selling is a work around but honestly it's not even remotely helpful (from a customer service/retention perspective) of PGI to say "figure it out" vice functionally giving players a choice as part of the game itself.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 29 April 2017 - 12:30 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lukoi Banacek, on 29 April 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Actually the slider would 100% be better than making people "guess" at which modules to sell. It offers granularity of choice to players so they can do what they think is best with their refund. And it's offers transparency that forcing players to guess at, feels fundamentally unfair to that demographic that's impacted.

Yes, pre-patch selling is a work around but honestly it's not even remotely helpful of PGI to say "figure it out" vice functionally giving players a choice as part of the game itself.

I do think this would be a huge boon to the overall transition.

Hell even little fixes over the last implementation, where the skill point/xp numbers stay static while you were entering the amount to convert (last time it you had say 5012 pts to convert, it would do the math as you typed, so if you hit "5" it now showed 5007, by the time you typed "50" it showed 4062, "501" it showed 4511.... seemingly minor, but for instance if you forgot the number, you had to zero out and start over, etc.), were huge boons to making this iteration work more smoothly.

Anything to improve transparency on these things I would be all for.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 April 2017 - 12:27 PM.

[Widowmaker1981]

WarHippy, on 29 April 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

The old system was objectively not fair and it really is not up for debate. The new system is a lot more fair than we can really hope for or honestly deserve.

The old system was absolutely objectively fair, in that it refunded every single player exactly what they had put into the system.

The new system does not do that, because it doesnt refund modules with cbills, when that is what they were bought with.

They did move the goalposts though, by making modules bonuses not transferable between mechs for free - which is part of why im ok with this on reflection, despite the fact its costing me at least 500 million cbills (yes, after taking into account paying for leveling the 60 or so mechs i would have bothered to level under the original proposal).

[Jay Leon Hart]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 April 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

The old system was absolutely objectively fair, in that it refunded every single player exactly what they had put into the system.

The new system does not do that, because it doesnt refund modules with cbills, when that is what they were bought with.

They did move the goalposts though, by making modules bonuses not transferable between mechs for free - which is part of why im ok with this on reflection, despite the fact its costing me at least 500 million cbills (yes, after taking into account paying for leveling the 60 or so mechs i would have bothered to level under the original proposal).

Giving XP refunds when SP cost XP *and* C-Bills was obviously not fair. 2 > 1. It is impossible to call this fair, as you could not get back to where you were with what you were given in return. People with lots of modules didn't notice it as much, but they were *still* required to pay a massive sum of C-Bills if they wanted to re-skill their 'mechs, they just happened to have a lot from the refund.

In the new system, you get upgrades (modules) swapped for upgrades (GSP). While some may not need all those GSP, as they lack the 'mechs to utilise them, some may also not need all the C-Bills back, as they have nothing to spend them on. In both scenarios, someone loses out. But in the old scenario, more people lost out. At least with this refund option, no progress is lost.

I reckon 80-90% of these refund complaints would not exist if the C-Bill refund was never mentioned. Alas, it was, so here we are. And to reiterate my stance, a choice between GSP or C-Bills would be a much better idea, I just think C-Bills only is the worst solution and GSP is slightly better.

[Widowmaker1981]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

Giving XP refunds when SP cost XP *and* C-Bills was obviously not fair. 2 > 1. It is impossible to call this fair, as you could not get back to where you were with what you were given in return. People with lots of modules didn't notice it as much, but they were *still* required to pay a massive sum of C-Bills if they wanted to re-skill their 'mechs, they just happened to have a lot from the refund.

What C-Bills did you put into those skills? Thats right, none. So you spent the C-Bills you earned on something, right? I spent them, largely, on modules, because swapping was such a disgusting chore when it took 3 minutes to save a loadout for large mechbays (its fixed now, it did that for ages though). The first iteration of the system refunded everyone EXACTLY what they put in. The new system is, in effect, giving LOADS of free C-Bills to everyone (as you dont have to pay for the skill unlocks) and taking those cbills out of the system purely from module owners.

As ive said though, i see why they are doing it like this and im OK with it in the end. (though i think Russ should just refund the modules for cbills instead of GSP and deal with the fact some people will be mega rich, but im obviously biased)

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

some may also not need all the C-Bills back, as they have nothing to spend them on.

Who? Upgrading mechs to use new tech will not be free.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 April 2017 - 03:44 AM, said:

What C-Bills did you put into those skills? Thats right, none. So you spent the C-Bills you earned on something, right? I spent them, largely, on modules, because swapping was such a disgusting chore when it took 3 minutes to save a loadout for large mechbays (its fixed now, it did that for ages though). The first iteration of the system refunded everyone EXACTLY what they put in. The new system is, in effect, giving LOADS of free C-Bills to everyone (as you dont have to pay for the skill unlocks) and taking those cbills out of the system purely from module owners.

As ive said though, i see why they are doing it like this and im OK with it in the end. (though i think Russ should just refund the modules for cbills instead of GSP and deal with the fact some people will be mega rich, but im obviously biased)

Who? Upgrading mechs to use new tech will not be free.

How many C-Bills do you have now? How many do you have after the refund? If it isn't less, you lost nothing. The second system gave you back EXACTLY what you ALREADY HAD and then some extra HSP & GSP as gravy.

Who? People who have all the 'mechs, engines and weapons they want already, with enough C-Bills to buy anything they could ever want. I'd wager they're as rare as the people with no need for GSP.

[Edit] If there was no C-Bill cost for skill nodes, then I would be 100% fine with the original refund, as it would not cost you MORE to get back what you previously had. But since skill nodes DO cost C-Bills, then only getting XP back is unacceptable. Clearly enough people agree, as it was changed. Will it change back, or to something better for everyone? We will have to see in the next PTS (if there is one) [/Edit]

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 30 April 2017 - 04:09 AM.

[Xetelian]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

Who? People who have all the 'mechs, engines and weapons they want already, with enough C-Bills to buy anything they could ever want. I'd wager they're as rare as the people with no need for GSP.

77 mechs, with a lot of money in legacy modules that will be GSP

Almost all my mechs are mastered which covers the XP cost of each node. I have 85,000,000 cBills currently covers skills for all the mechs that I wish to play but most are going to start with 91 points because they're mastered.


I'm going to be getting GSP that isn't going to be used for anything, if they gave me straight cBills I would buy more mechbays and mechs so win win.

Edited by Xetelian, 30 April 2017 - 04:00 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

How many C-Bills do you have now? How many do you have after the refund? If it isn't less, you lost nothing. The second system gave you back EXACTLY what you ALREADY HAD and then some extra HSP & GSP as gravy.

And, my point is, the second system gives you back FAR MORE than you had. Your issue is equating mastered mech now with mastered mech after skill system, when actually its mastered + moduled now = new mastered. Then its refunding (you understand the meaning of that word, right? A refund that leaves you on the exact same funds.. isnt returning any funds) the cbills invested in the modules in points that would be useful, except because of all the free stuff you (and i) are getting they become functionally useless (all the mechs i care about are mastered just from existing XP), forcing me to sell them at 50% value in advance.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 30 April 2017 - 04:13 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 April 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

And, my point is, the second system gives you back FAR MORE than you had. Your issue is equating mastered mech now with mastered mech after skill system, when actually its mastered + moduled now = new mastered. Then its refunding (you understand the meaning of that word, right? A refund that leaves you on the exact same funds.. isnt returning any funds) the cbills invested in the modules in points that would be useful, except because of all the free stuff you (and i) are getting they become functionally useless (all the mechs i care about are mastered just from existing XP), forcing me to sell them at 50% value in advance.

Yes, I would much prefer a proper return on investment (I've seen 56-61 nodes for Mastery thrown about, they seem right) then GSP from modules would be much more useful.

Yes, refund was the correct term originally (as you said, a full return on what you put in) but now, they should really change it to "compensation" or such, to avoid such silly semantics.

At least you have the option of selling modules to get C-Bills for them in the second iteration, people like me had no option to get extra C-Bills to cover the cost of re-skilling our 'mechs in the first.

Just adding my edit from the quoted post;

Quote

If there was no C-Bill cost for skill nodes, then I would be 100% fine with the original refund, as it would not cost you MORE to get back what you previously had. But since skill nodes DO cost C-Bills, then only getting XP back is unacceptable. Clearly enough people agree, as it was changed. Will it change back, or to something better for everyone? We will have to see in the next PTS (if there is one)

[Willard Phule]

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.

HOWEVER......

The utility of the item we spent MILLIONS of cbills on, as well as GXP, is lost in the exchange. I could remove a module from one mech, slap it on another and transfer that ability with a drag, drop and click. It's not like we can remove SP from one mech and transfer it to another after it's been used.

Also keep in mind that most of us use modules on already mastered mechs that have MILLIONS of unused XP sitting on them. Giving us this new "LOLXP" or whatever they're calling it is just a complete waste. Sure, it absolutely helps the people that have joined since December 2016, but anyone that purchased a module before that point in time (YEARS before, in some cases) get screwed.

Not like this is any big deal or should come as a surprise to anyone. It's just like every patch, event or mech that PGI releases. Instead of taking a look at the big picture and seeing what is the easiest way to do something....they listen to a small, vocal group and make it ten times more complicated than it has to be.

Refund GXP used to the GXP pool. Mech XP to the mech pool. Cbills to Cbills. It's not like they don't have a record of what was spent, where and when.

[Bishop Steiner]

Xetelian, on 30 April 2017 - 03:59 AM, said:

77 mechs, with a lot of money in legacy modules that will be GSP

Almost all my mechs are mastered which covers the XP cost of each node. I have 85,000,000 cBills currently covers skills for all the mechs that I wish to play but most are going to start with 91 points because they're mastered.


I'm going to be getting GSP that isn't going to be used for anything, if they gave me straight cBills I would buy more mechbays and mechs so win win.

so you don't need skill points to skip the grind on those theoretical future mech additions?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

so you don't need skill points to skip the grind on those theoretical future mech additions?

TBF none of us need the GSP's for future mechs. These guys want the choice of CB over GSP. It's demonstrable that with some work on the player's end, they can sacrifice GSP for CB (if they want the more flexible currency, but at a cost) with some guesswork and a pre-patch liquidation of modules but I don't think it's unreasonable that they are asking for an ingame mechanism to choose how they get reimbursed really. As someone with, as it turns out 380 modules (holy ****), I can see it making a difference for some folks.

[vandalhooch]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

Giving XP refunds when SP cost XP *and* C-Bills was obviously not fair. 2 > 1. It is impossible to call this fair, as you could not get back to where you were with what you were given in return. People with lots of modules didn't notice it as much, but they were *still* required to pay a massive sum of C-Bills if they wanted to re-skill their 'mechs, they just happened to have a lot from the refund.

The didn't "just happen" to have the C-bills. We earned those C-bills through hours and hours of play time. We were simply getting all of them back.

In other words, module buyers had already done the grind for a fully tricked out mech.

Quote

In the new system, you get upgrades (modules) swapped for upgrades (GSP). While some may not need all those GSP, as they lack the 'mechs to utilise them, some may also not need all the C-Bills back, as they have nothing to spend them on. In both scenarios, someone loses out. But in the old scenario, more people lost out. At least with this refund option, no progress is lost.

That "lost progess" argument is bunk. The movable modules only hid the fact that some people hadn't actually earned as much progress on each mech as others. However, I get that many players reactions to seeing their true progress on each mech was creating a perception of "lost progress." The new system addresses that mistaken perception. Fine. But, why does the new system make module holders pay a 50% tax when swappers pay no tax?

Quote

I reckon 80-90% of these refund complaints would not exist if the C-Bill refund was never mentioned. Alas, it was, so here we are. And to reiterate my stance, a choice between GSP or C-Bills would be a much better idea, I just think C-Bills only is the worst solution and GSP is slightly better.

GSP suffers from diminishing returns that C-bills don't.

[vandalhooch]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

so you don't need skill points to skip the grind on those theoretical future mech additions?

No. Earning all of our C-bills in the first place has given us a glut of GXP and mech XP. If we buy copies of variants we already own, we can use HXP to take care of it. If we buy totally new variants, we can use GXP to take care of the node costs. What we are being required to give up is the one resource we need above all else, C-bills.

[Jay Leon Hart]

vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

That "lost progess" argument is bunk. The movable modules only hid the fact that some people hadn't actually earned as much progress on each mech as others. However, I get that many players reactions to seeing their true progress on each mech was creating a perception of "lost progress." The new system addresses that mistaken perception. Fine. But, why does the new system make module holders pay a 50% tax when swappers pay no tax?

GSP suffers from diminishing returns that C-bills don't.

How is the argument "bunk" ? Getting XP back for skills, then having the spend additional C-Bills (which you may not have) and that same XP to get back to where you were? If you don't have the C-Bills, you can't get that progress back. If you know a way to unlock skill nodes without spending C-Bills, I'm all ears. Otherwise, stop lying.

I do think there are better ways to handle this (such as only giving 56-61 skill nodes for a Mastered 'mech, making GSP much more valuable). However, this is what we have and if the latest notes indicate anything, it;s that it won;t be changing. It is a demonstrably better system than the previous one, even if you don't agree with it.

I would have loved to have received additional C-Bills for skill nodes, based on XP earned for 'mechs in the previous iteration. There were none. So, the 0% for people like me was worse than the 50% available for people like you. It may still suck, but it sucks less.

Of course C-Bills suffer from diminishing returns, there comes a point where you no longer need any more, just like XP in the current Live system.

[Lukoi Banacek]

vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

The new system addresses that mistaken perception. Fine. But, why does the new system make module holders pay a 50% tax when swappers pay no tax?

Well, I can think of a conspiracy theory reason for this....which item, mechs or modules, can be purchased predominately with MC/cash? Modules come in packs but you're not buying the pack for the module I'm sure. Just a thought.