257 replies to this topic

[vandalhooch]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

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.

Your "progress" was an illusion. You didn't earn the "progress complete" state on your second mech because you moved some of the progress from your first mech over in the form of a module. The new skill system was eliminating the mechanic of movable progress and you were faced with the fact that you didn't have as much progress as you thought.

The new iteration is playing right into the illusion again.

You: master - modules = 91 nodes
Me: master + modules = 91 nodes

Do you really not see the difference?

People who earned the C-bills for modules on all of their mechs are the ones who had truly completed the progress on every mech. The 100% C-bill refunds in the first iteration showed who had and had not truly completed progress on their mechs. The curtains were being pulled back. The illusionists had been playing the role of wizard for so long that they had simply forgot that they weren't actually wizards. They didn't have 300 "fully mastered" mechs. They had 25 fully mastered mechs and 275 partially mastered mechs.

Quote

If you know a way to unlock skill nodes without spending C-Bills, I'm all ears. Otherwise, stop lying.

I had already earned the C-bills to unlock them, reflected in my refund total. You hadn't, reflected in your "lost progress."

Quote

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).

That is exactly what the first iteration was! You would be happy with this iteration if you have to spend an additional 1.35 million C-bills to "get back" what you had? Because you just said the "lost progress" of the first iteration was terrible.

*Bangs head on desk!*

Quote

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 never said that I don't want the new system. I have, in fact, said the exact opposite in other threads. I just want players like you to acknowledge that this iteration of the skill system is forcing me to pay a 50% tax on my already earned C-bills while module swappers are being required to pay 0%. Just acknowledge that this one is unfair and stop telling me that it isn't and we can move on.

Quote

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.

The bonuses in the new skill system include module bonuses now. We weren't being given "additional C-bills" on our earned XP. We were being given C-bills for our earned C-bills. As were you. You just hadn't earned nearly as many as we had.

Quote

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.

10K GSP could be used to respec current mechs and insta-master a few dozen future mechs.
50K GSP does not enable me to do 5X the amount of insta-mastering because there is an additional currency capable of doing that GXP and there is unlikely to be a game running a few dozen mechs from now.

10M C-bills can buy a certain quantity of resources (mechs/upgrades/engines/weapons).
50M C-bills can buy exactly five times as much resources.
100M C-bills can buy exactly ten times as much. There is no diminishing return to having more C-bills.

The unfairness is not that I lose 50% of my C-bill purchasing power in the switch, it's that I lose that 50% and you don't lose any. Players are not all being treated exactly the same in the switch like they really were with the first iteration.

Edited by vandalhooch, 30 April 2017 - 08:30 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

You: master - modules = 91 nodes
Me: master + modules = 91 nodes

This isn't accurate though. Not that I disagree with what you're trying to get at Vandal, but just want to clarify something.

Swapper: master - modules = 91 nodes
You: master+modules = 91 nodes + GSP

[vandalhooch]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 April 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

This isn't accurate though. Not that I disagree with what you're trying to get at Vandal, but just want to clarify something.

Swapper: master - modules = 91 nodes
You: master+modules = 91 nodes + GSP

And I know that you know that that GSP does not have a static value.

I use those two equations to show that swappers are in fact receiving a bonus in this iteration. The problem is that the buyers' bonus is subjected to diminishing returns and theirs is not. But, you know that.

[Lukoi Banacek]

vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

And I know that you know that that GSP does not have a static value.

I use those two equations to show that swappers are in fact receiving a bonus in this iteration. The problem is that the buyers' bonus is subjected to diminishing returns and theirs is not. But, you know that.

I do, doesn't mean mask the issue behind false equivalence though. You are getting xp/cb value in GSP. It's not what you want, it's not something you see yourself spending, so you want the flexibility of CB which ultimately, I agree with. Doesn't help the argument to hide the value though.

You mastered a mech, you get 91HSP.

You bought modules, you get additional GSP (for prior to Dec) or additional CB (for after Dec). No reason to be disingenuous to make the point you're trying to make.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Right, people seem to be going way down the rabbit hole with this one. It boils down to very simple facts. Yes, facts.

Time is money, in RL and in gaming. C-bills earned, for the most part, represent time invested in playing the game. The more time and drops you have done, the more C-bills you have earned.

Modules are being removed from game, and therefore the C-Bills, the time that people invested, needs to be refunded at 100% value. People worked to earn those C-bills, spent huge amounts of time grinding to afford the costs. That means they worked for it, and to not refund those costs 100% means that that time is now wasted, irretrievably.

[vandalhooch]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 April 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

I do, doesn't mean mask the issue behind false equivalence though. You are getting xp/cb value in GSP. It's not what you want, it's not something you see yourself spending, so you want the flexibility of CB which ultimately, I agree with. Doesn't help the argument to hide the value though.

Fair point.

Quote

You mastered a mech, you get 91HSP.

You bought modules, you get additional GSP (for prior to Dec) or additional CB (for after Dec). No reason to be disingenuous to make the point you're trying to make.

I'll include GSP, with an acknowledgment of it's diminishing return nature, in future use of the argument.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Don't get me wrong man. the lack of flexibility is massively disproportionate for the heavy module crowd.

I could do alot more with a billion in cbills, than I'll do with 32k in GSP.

[Dogstar]

For goodness sake please stop arguing with vandalhooch and widowmaker.

THEY WILL NEVER STOP.

They want the last word no matter what and are prepared to argue endlessly repeating the same pointless set of fallacious arguments again and again.

At this point they've pretty much transformed into trolls on this issue. They know they are in the wrong and they're enjoying playing the bad guy.

Don't engage with them, it's the only way to end the rage.

My final word on this issue.

Edited by Dogstar, 30 April 2017 - 08:39 AM.

[Templar Dane]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

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.

I only linked this month's stats.. Since the public leaderboards were instated, 10 months ago or so, you had 422 total games when I looked. He had 356 in his '11 days'.

YOU made it sound like he had no reason to be commenting on anything because of his supposed inexperience. I would argue that he has more current experience.

Because seriously, you love to throw in comments about yourself being a founder...like that has any bearing on anything. You've been around a long time but your ingame experience.....

So how many forum posts have you had the last 10 months? 10,000? More? Perhaps more people would take you seriously if you played more and posted less.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Dogstar, on 30 April 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

For goodness sake please stop arguing with vandalhooch and widowmaker.

THEY WILL NEVER STOP.

They want the last word no matter what and are prepared to argue endlessly repeating the same pointless set of fallacious arguments again and again.

At this point they've pretty much transformed into trolls on this issue. They know they are in the wrong and they're enjoying playing the bad guy.

Don't engage with them, it's the only way to end the rage.

My final word on this issue.

Good. Absolutely did not care about your feedback or disjointed commentary anyway, so it'll be good that you've decided to move on.

See what I did there?

[Musashi Alexander]

I paid for several hundred modules in c-bills. When modules are removed from the game, I want my c-bills back. I don't want x billion in a new currency for the one thing I don't need.

[FallingAce]

Dammit, you people made me do the math.

I have 686,000,000 cbills tied up in modules

I've played 11639 matches averaging 109,104.25 cbills /match

686,000,000 / 109,104.25 = 6287 matches to earn those cbills.

That is a lot of grinding that PGI wants to take away from me and replace with GSP. Something that i do not need since 81/85 of my mechs are all ready mastered and will recieve 91 HSP/mech. I also have over 100,000 GXP sitting on my account.

Taking 50% of 6287 matches means PGI is wiping out the rewards for 3293 of my matches. That's 28% of my total matches played.



Guess i'll have to go change my signature.


...

Edited by FallingAce, 30 April 2017 - 09:43 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Templar Dane, on 30 April 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

I only linked this month's stats.. Since the public leaderboards were instated, 10 months ago or so, you had 422 total games when I looked. He had 356 in his '11 days'.

YOU made it sound like he had no reason to be commenting on anything because of his supposed inexperience. I would argue that he has more current experience.

Because seriously, you love to throw in comments about yourself being a founder...like that has any bearing on anything. You've been around a long time but your ingame experience.....

So how many forum posts have you had the last 10 months? 10,000? More? Perhaps more people would take you seriously if you played more and posted less.

[redacted]

In game experience? Over 25000 matches, since May 2012, spread between this acct, my Clan Acct and my What Mech Challenge Acct. Try again?

[redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 10 May 2017 - 03:35 PM.
unconstructive

[vandalhooch]

FallingAce, on 30 April 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

Dammit, you people made me do the math.

I have 686,000,000 cbills tied up in modules

I've played 11639 matches averaging 109,104.25 cbills /match

686,000,000 / 109,104.25 = 6287 matches to earn those cbills.

That is a lot of grinding that PGI wants to take away from me and replace with GSP. Something that i do not need since 81/85 of my mechs are all ready mastered and will recieve 91 HSP/mech. I also have over 100,000 GXP sitting on my account.

Taking 50% of 6287 matches means PGI is wiping out the rewards for 3293 of my matches. That's 28% of my total matches played.


Guess i'll have to go change my signature.

...

Yep.

These are the types of facts that the "it's fair for everyone" crowd simply refuse to acknowledge.

I should just start calling them denialists.

Edited by vandalhooch, 30 April 2017 - 10:00 AM.

[Templar Dane]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

No, you thought you were being clever, and as usual, fell considerably short.

In game experience? Over 25000 matches, since May 2012, spread between this acct, my Clan Acct and my What Mech Challenge Acct. Try again?

GGClose.

Uh huh sure.

Now, how do you know the dude you all but insulted for only being around for 11 days doesn't have other accounts?

[Jay Leon Hart]

vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

*blathering on*

[Edit] Forget it, I'm just riling myself up over this nonsense. Please read my replies, I've already addressed most of your points and some of the rest are things you simply misread entirely. [/Edit]

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 30 April 2017 - 02:15 PM.

[FallingAce]

I will keep it real simple.

PTS refund 1.0 Punished the people with no modules and many mechs (the cheapskates)

PTS refund 2.0 punishes the people with many modules.

The reason why some people (the cheapskates) think 2.0 is such a good deal is they are getting 91 nodes on their mastered mechs when they only deserve ~61. That would be a bonus. The people with many modules are getting the same 91 nodes but have to give up the value of modules. That would be a penalty. (And no, GSP is not a viable substitute)

So now, we need to find a middle ground where it is more equitable for both sides. (the haves or the have-nots)

Just remember, at the end of the day, this is all about creating a new tax cbill sink.

Edited by FallingAce, 30 April 2017 - 02:24 PM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

FallingAce, on 30 April 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

The reason why some people (the cheapskates) think 2.0 is such a good deal is they are getting 91 nodes on their mastered mechs when they only deserve ~61. That would be a bonus. The people with many modules are getting the same 91 nodes but have to give up the value of modules. That would be a penalty. (And no, GSP is not a viable substitute)

So now, we need to find a middle ground where it is more equitable for both sides. (the haves or the have-nots)

I've seen the 61 node suggestion a lot. Added it to the alternative refund poll

[Moonlight Grimoire]

FallingAce, on 30 April 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

I will keep it real simple.

PTS refund 1.0 Punished the people with no modules and many mechs (the cheapskates)

PTS refund 2.0 punishes the people with many modules.

The reason why some people (the cheapskates) think 2.0 is such a good deal is they are getting 91 nodes on their mastered mechs when they only deserve ~61. That would be a bonus. The people with many modules are getting the same 91 nodes but have to give up the value of modules. That would be a penalty. (And no, GSP is not a viable substitute)

So now, we need to find a middle ground where it is more equitable for both sides. (the haves or the have-nots)

Just remember, at the end of the day, this is all about creating a new tax cbill sink.

The best option remains being when you log in you get your ledger and then you get another pop up that is "how do you want your modules refunded?" which then is automatically set to 50:50 GSP and Cbills. So for example for me I have 58,000,000 mil in modules, or 1289 GSP. So, from here you have a slider, with on the sides where you can click into and type in a number for GSP. I would say take 89 GSP, or maybe 189 GSP, and 1,100 GSP refunded at 45,000 Cbills per GSP for a full refund, 0 progress lost.

This allows per person us to get what we get what is most reasonable. I would get some 49,500,000 cbills and 189 GSP to mess around with (enough to master 2 mechs with, but, I don't value auto mastering mechs, but, hey, some GSP on the side doesn't hurt). Or I could refund some 1111 and get roughly 50,000,000 cbills and have 178 GSP to mess around with.

The point being, people get a choice of what is best for them which is obviously the best solution here. For the people who like GSP, boom, take all the GSP and no cbills. People who hate GPS? Boom, take all those cbills and no dealing with 50% return on selling your modules before patch day. People who are mixed? Take you pick of what is best for you.

This is obviously the best for everyone involved as case by case people choose what they want. Sure it might not be objectively best for them, or what someone else believes is best for them, but, it is best for what the person believes is their situation which is the best for customer satisfaction.

[FallingAce]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 April 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

I've seen the 61 node suggestion a lot. Added it to the alternative refund poll

Still would need to refund the modules at a fairer rate than 50%