257 replies to this topic

[Jay Leon Hart]

FallingAce, on 30 April 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

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

I was thinking of it as an solution to the "I don't need more GSP" response. Otherwise, there are better options for (hopefully) getting more C-Bills

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

FallingAce, on 30 April 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

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

It would at least give us a better choice than playing module roulette with which module were purchased before and after Dec. 2016

[Shifty McSwift]

Maybe boost the sale price for modules for anyone who has over 24 of them to 75% original value, and refund extra c-bills to whoever sold them already?

Eh seems to convoluted, and really it depends on the actual reasoning; like if they were afraid of flooding the market with c-bills for whatever reason, they could hide the refunded c-bills behind a grind wall, granting extra c-bills per match until the refund pool of a given player ran out, that way selling them now would be a choice of whether to avoid grind for less immediate payoff etc.

[Steel Raven]

You know whats a wast of time and C-Bills? The Rule of Three! If I no longer need to wast time, effort and C-bills on mechs I don't want so I can Master the Mechs I actually have fun playing, I'm calling it a win on my part.

We have seen so many buffs, nerfs and meta changes, bitching about modules is pointless to me as long as I'm compensated in one way or another. 'Fair' is very subjective, especially when we are talking about totally new system.

[DrxAbstract]

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

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.



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.

It's not that I don't agree with you, for the most part I do. The error I see with your argument though is suggesting the people that swapped modules "earned less" than those that kitted out most of their Mechs with their own set of Modules - That isn't particularly true. "Swappers", in all likelihood, earned as many C-Bills as "Kitters" did but spent their C-Bills on more Mechs/Weapons/Engines/Equipment whereas the opposite is true of Kitters.

The issue I have (And obviously you do too) with the 'reimbursement' method PGI has chosen is that Swappers keep 100% of their investments with the added benefits from the Skill System changeover--Kitters are outright getting screwed as their investments are not translating in a similarly efficient and effective ratio like the Swappers are getting. I'm in the Kitter population, and is getting a discount on future Mech skill-ups a bad thing? Not really... But that's making the assumption I am going to come close to using all the GSP I'd get from the revamp, which I definitely will not. That is completely beside the fact I'd have to expend more C-Bills to obtain said Mechs, and that if I don't want all that GSP then my only option is to re-sell the Modules at a 50% loss... Which means I'd be spending far more​ C-Bills per skill-up'd Mech post-revamp than Swappers did for all of theirs pre-revamp despite having GSP.

That is unacceptable. Same time and C-Bills invested yet less overall return specifically because I chose to invest in my Mech's loadout and readiness rather than filling my Mechbays... That is simply absurd.

[WarHippy]

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 (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.

Like I said I have no issue with the slider I just don't think it is 100% necessary. If it makes things easier for people then great lets do it so we can all move on.

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.

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.

At least there are a few out there that understand. Kudos to you sir.

[vandalhooch]

DrxAbstract, on 01 May 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

It's not that I don't agree with you, for the most part I do. The error I see with your argument though is suggesting the people that swapped modules "earned less" than those that kitted out most of their Mechs with their own set of Modules - That isn't particularly true. "Swappers", in all likelihood, earned as many C-Bills as "Kitters" did but spent their C-Bills on more Mechs/Weapons/Engines/Equipment whereas the opposite is true of Kitters.

Yes. But swappers don't seem to measure progress in the game based on total earned resources. To many of them it's about how many "mastered" mechs they have. When they saw that I only had 176 mechs and I was getting back 1B C-billions they saw it as unfair. They had the same number of mechs but weren't getting as much back! It wasn't unfair because they weren't taking into account the time I spent to get my 176 mechs was much, much more than they did for their 176 mechs. In truth, if I had gone the swapping route I would be sitting on 300 or more mechs.

Quote

The issue I have (And obviously you do too) with the 'reimbursement' method PGI has chosen is that Swappers keep 100% of their investments with the added benefits from the Skill System changeover--Kitters are outright getting screwed as their investments are not translating in a similarly efficient and effective ratio like the Swappers are getting. I'm in the Kitter population, and is getting a discount on future Mech skill-ups a bad thing? Not really... But that's making the assumption I am going to come close to using all the GSP I'd get from the revamp, which I definitely will not. That is completely beside the fact I'd have to expend more C-Bills to obtain said Mechs, and that if I don't want all that GSP then my only option is to re-sell the Modules at a 50% loss... Which means I'd be spending far more​ C-Bills per skill-up'd Mech post-revamp than Swappers did for all of theirs pre-revamp despite having GSP.

Yep.

Quote

That is unacceptable. Same time and C-Bills invested yet less overall return specifically because I chose to invest in my Mech's loadout and readiness rather than filling my Mechbays... That is simply absurd.

It is absurd . . . and I'm okay with it happening. I'll pay the tax so that we can move on. What drives me nuts is despite the absurdity you have some swappers continuing to insist that this is the more fair of the two iterations.

[Insidious Johnson]

Tell me about "respec'ing". Is it as easy and cost free as moving a module? ...Yeah...

[vandalhooch]

Insidious Johnson, on 01 May 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

Tell me about "respec'ing". Is it as easy and cost free as moving a module? ...Yeah...

Cost free?

In C-bills, yes.

In MXP, no.

As easy?

Depends, how good were you at "find the module?"

If you just bought modules as needed, then no. It's not going to be nearly as easy.

[PhoenixFire55]

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

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

Over 25000 matches and still no clue how to play.

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

GGClose.

Indeed.

[The Lighthouse]

PhoenixFire55, on 02 May 2017 - 02:10 AM, said:

Over 25000 matches and still no clue how to play.



Indeed.

I laughed in agreement at way too long and way too loud for this post. It really, really has to be said, for the sake of Bishop Steiner himself really.

[DrxAbstract]

vandalhooch, on 01 May 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

It is absurd . . . and I'm okay with it happening. I'll pay the tax so that we can move on. What drives me nuts is despite the absurdity you have some swappers continuing to insist that this is the more fair of the two iterations.

I'm not ok with it happening, though. Only about 15% of the GSP I'll get will actually be useful to me, unless PGI makes C-Bill Mechs purchasable with GSP as well.

And quite frankly if anyone thinks this is holding up Skill Tree development then they need to put down the kool-aid.

[Kotzi]

You guys know that this is a deliberate decision by PGI? There is no physical need to refund GSP. Just reimburse people with the Cbills they spend. Those modules arent worn, lost value by usage or anything else. PGI doesnt want spacebillionaires. Its a method to kill the amount of Cbills.

[vandalhooch]

Kotzi, on 02 May 2017 - 04:32 AM, said:

You guys know that this is a deliberate decision by PGI? There is no physical need to refund GSP. Just reimburse people with the Cbills they spend. Those modules arent worn, lost value by usage or anything else. PGI doesnt want spacebillionaires. Its a method to kill the amount of Cbills.

Yes. And I'm fine with them using the switch as a one time currency sink. But, not all players are being hit with the cost in the same way. Module swappers aren't paying anything into the sink.

[Ted Wayz]

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

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

No, we need a new skill system that actually makes sense. Why people feel the need to settle on this point or accept an inevitability that can be avoided (and therefore is not inevitable) I cannot understand. You are fighting over crumbs instead of seeing the whole pie.

PGI needs to scrap the monetization of skills...period. They need to respect the fact that many people who have invested money do not want to invest the time respeccing...period. This is a bad idea that should be shunned at all costs.

And don't listen to the paid off mouth pieces on the forum. Tell them to take their pieces of silver and take a hike!

[PhoenixFire55]

Ted Wayz, on 02 May 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

No, we need a new skill system that actually makes sense. Why people feel the need to settle on this point or accept an inevitability that can be avoided (and therefore is not inevitable) I cannot understand. You are fighting over crumbs instead of seeing the whole pie.

PGI needs to scrap the monetization of skills...period. They need to respect the fact that many people who have invested money do not want to invest the time respeccing...period. This is a bad idea that should be shunned at all costs.

And don't listen to the paid off mouth pieces on the forum. Tell them to take their pieces of silver and take a hike!

We don't agree on many things, but what you've said here I support 100%.

[Kotzi]

vandalhooch, on 02 May 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

Yes. And I'm fine with them using the switch as a one time currency sink. But, not all players are being hit with the cost in the same way. Module swappers aren't paying anything into the sink.

Why? They used the money for other mechs and thus get GSP too. The same like someone bought Modules for those Cbills. 91 GSP for mechs you mastered and Cbills for modules. I dont see any problems with that. Just because PGI wants to screw at least one part of the community you shouldnt be fighting each other just because you are on the "winning" side. Unite and fight against that arbitrariness of cutting the progress you made in these years even if you seem to be not affected.

[Lily from animove]

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.

But they have better (logical) and math based arguments while you fail delivering both.



I wonde rwhy no one already brought up MC bought Cbills, in fact every player that has bought Cbills with MC and spent them on modules should refund those MC from PGI because he forcefully got MC bought Cbills transferred into GXP. Which in this case is probably the worst case scenario as een Real Money was involved.

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 May 2017 - 01:12 AM.