Mister Blastman, on 27 April 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:
It's not my fault they weren't prudent with their c-bills. I have 180 million in the bank which is plenty.
Do you even remember the histrionics that some of the "cheapskates" went into when we tried to explain that line of reasoning to them? The real kicker is that the first iteration treated both groups equally. "Cheapskates" had more mechs but more grind to finish each of them off while modulers (what a word) had fewer mechs but less grind ahead because they had already done more grinding in the first place.
That's the part that sticks in my throat. Those whiners are now trying to claim that this new iteration, that devalues my grinding but not theirs, is somehow treating us both the same.
BTW: I have 294 M C-bills before I even begin the sell back process. Honestly, I'm not hurting under the new system but that doesn't change the fact that I'm being treated differently from you.
Quote
If someone was silly enough to spend every dime on modules, well, that's their own issue. They can sell their modules and get a chunk of dough back, while leaving the rest for GSP.
Not can, will have to if they want to retain any semblance of usability for their previous grinding time. Massive quantities of GSP are functionally useless. I think that's the part you and others seem to be missing. A moderate amount of GSP will be useful to the cheapskates but tens of thousands of GSP is useless without the requisite C-bills or mechs to go with them.
If the cheapskates were forced to sell back any of their C-bill purchased mechs that ever used a module but currently doesn't have a full set, then we could claim that both groups are being treated in a reasonably similar manner. Not a one of them has admitted that they would go for such a system, which shows how deeply in denial they all are.
Quote
The skill tree is a paradigm shift. It changes how the economy works due to how it integrates with the overarching scheme. Sure, I don't want folks to be hosed by this change, as we fought hard on Reddit to get to this point.
But I feel this point is finally a reasonable compromise--one that leaves us with more than we have even now, even if it isn't c-bills alone.
I agree that it's time for the game to move forward. But a little recognition of or at least honest acknowledgment that that moving forward will require some players to sacrifice more than others would be nice.
Quote
I don't think you can insist you get full price back for your modules, when the skill tree now allows for identical function to those modules as before, but for the cost of SP and a slot. The currency isn't as interchangeable as it once was. You got your use out of those modules--you don't want as much SP, sell for half, get some c-bills, get SP with the rest.
Then sell your C-bill purchased, module using mechs that don't have a full set. All your mastered mechs are getting an identical function (91 MSP) as a moduled mech even though you didn't buy modules for all of them. You got your use out of them but now it's time to pay for that extra functionality you are getting in the new system, so sell those certain mechs for 50%. That's a more fair system than asking me to sell my modules for 50% alone.
Quote
At some point we have to come to a middle ground, and as I see it, PGI has met us in the middle, and then some. That's a huge win. This is the most I think I've ever seen them bend to accommodate us, short of the full-on Transverse implosion, which this is not.
This is not the middle. This only looks kind of like the middle because the whiners made such a huge fuss over the true middle that was offered in the first iteration (straight refund of all resources spent). That whining shifted the perception of where the middle should be. This isn't it but since they seem to be happy and I really want to move on, I'll accept this as close enough to the middle. Just don't claim that it really is the middle.
Quote
p.s. this is kind of fun and bizarre being on the "other" side for a change, however brief it may be.
pps. To quote Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I don't think it was "the many." It's always hard to tell in an online forum.
I'd call it: "the wants of the loud outweigh the fairness for all."
Edited by vandalhooch, 27 April 2017 - 06:59 PM.