187 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Jaybles, on 27 April 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

As has been explained by multiple people many different ways.

I'm not getting a refund for the modules I bought before Dec 2016. FULL STOP.

PGI is removing those from my account.

PGI is placing in my account something I did not buy. Some thing I did not ask for. And something I do not need.

Telling me it is all sunshine and rainbows does not change the fact that PGI is removing X and replacing it with Y. And Telling me Y is better than X does not make it so.

Telling me that I should go sell those modules for whatever price does not change what PGI IS DOING.

You are being fully compensated for your pre-Dec modules. 100%. You keep pretending that you aren't by using some mental gymnastics to pretend that you can't get radar dep under the new system because... <insert magic BS reason here>.

That is the reason everyone is treating you like an idiot. You're being intentionally obtuse to die on a hill that makes no sense. And when you keep arguing for a clearly wrong point over and over again, it just makes you look both stupid and obstinate.

You're wrong. Everybody can see this. You should step back and reevaluate your #alternativefacts before you do irreparable damage to how people here see you. "oh, that guy? Wasn't he the one who couldn't do math?"

CDLord HHGD, on 27 April 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Horrible metaphor. Code doesn't depreciate like a physical item does.

Want to buy this copy of Word Perfect I have? It originally cost $199, but you can have it for $199 because code doesn't depreciate.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

Want to buy this copy of Word Perfect I have? It originally cost $199, but you can have it for $199 because code doesn't depreciate.

Technically code does depreciate based on competition, but seeing as how there never was competition that would force this to depreciate because it is a controlled environment, other people are correct about this, modules never depreciated and is not the same sort of situation as other goods, even software. Technically mechs should've depreciated with age because they are no longer the new hotness, this helps out new players with giving them a much cheaper way to get caught up but PGI likes trying to rip people off with some of their absurd pricing schemes.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 April 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[Heffay]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 April 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

Technically code does depreciate based on competition, but seeing as how there never was competition that would force this to depreciate because it is a controlled environment, other people are correct about this, modules never depreciated and is not the same sort of situation as other goods, even software.

Digital goods depreciate. It is wrong to say otherwise.

Every single game has a sell price for a digital good that is a fraction of the cost of the purchase price. Every one. Across the board. The second you bought that module and installed it in your mech and took advantage of the benefit it provided you, you made the decision that "I am ok with only getting 50% of my value back in if I don't want to use it anymore."

That decision was made by you. Many times. You knew the module was only worth half you paid for it, and you bought it anyway. Now you're deciding that no, you changed your mind and you want full value of something you already benefited from? Crazy. Just outright insane.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

You are being fully compensated for your pre-Dec modules. 100%. You keep pretending that you aren't by using some mental gymnastics to pretend that you can't get radar dep under the new system because... <insert magic BS reason here>.

That is the reason everyone is treating you like an idiot. You're being intentionally obtuse to die on a hill that makes no sense. And when you keep arguing for a clearly wrong point over and over again, it just makes you look both stupid and obstinate.

You're wrong. Everybody can see this. You should step back and reevaluate your #alternativefacts before you do irreparable damage to how people here see you. "oh, that guy? Wasn't he the one who couldn't do math?"



Want to buy this copy of Word Perfect I have? It originally cost $199, but you can have it for $199 because code doesn't depreciate.

You do understand that my mechs are mastered and that I will be using HSP to get my 91 points filled in?

You understand that right? That I have enough HSP to master my mechs and that, unless I purchase new mechs, there is simply no place for me to use GSP?

But please continue with the personal attacks.

[Dogstar]

Modules deprecate 50% the instant they're bought because they can only be sold back to PGI for half their original value.

To say otherwise is simply deluded.

[Heffay]

Jaybles, on 27 April 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

You do understand that my mechs are mastered and that I will be using HSP to get my 91 points filled in?

You understand that right? That I have enough HSP to master my mechs and that, unless I purchase new mechs, there is simply no place for me to use GSP?

But please continue with the personal attacks.

Yeah. Then sell your modules prior to the patch and get the 50% for them, just like you get now. That way you get fully mastered out mechs AND a fistful of when the patch goes live. You are coming out ahead on both the number of mastered out mechs you have AND . How is "I'm getting way more out of the system than I put in" mean you're getting screwed?

[Dogstar]

He's getting screwed out of the imaginary c-bills he was expecting to spend on new mechs, new engines and especially - new tech

So yeah, now he's going to have to actually play some games to afford the new stuff (just like the rest of us) and he's not happy with that.

The irony is that the people complaining the most about losing c-bills are the ones who spend the most time playing to get c-bills.

Edited by Dogstar, 27 April 2017 - 12:02 PM.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Ok...... so..... how do I choose all those modules I bought before Dec. 2016? Because I'm so entitled I would certainly only want to sell those of course seeing as how I'd want to get the full 100% refund on the ones I bought after Dec. 2016. So, please, Tell me how I can select and sell my modules based on their purchase date and I'll gladly drop this whole argument.

[Heffay]

Jaybles, on 27 April 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

Ok...... so..... how do I choose all those modules I bought before Dec. 2016? Because I'm so entitled I would certainly only want to sell those of course seeing as how I'd want to get the full 100% refund on the ones I bought after Dec. 2016. So, please, Tell me how I can select and sell my modules based on their purchase date and I'll gladly drop this whole argument.

That is a good question, and PGI has been contacted about this.

[Dogstar]

It s a piece of ****.

Log in to the PTS, open your ledger, expand the Modules: GSP refund section, and press print screen.

Log back into the live game and sell the listed amount of modules.

All done, 10 mins work tops.

You'll still have the right amount of modules for the Modules: C-bills refund section and there's no way PGI can are going to do anything other than refund c-bill modules first and GSP modules second

[Heffay]

Dogstar, on 27 April 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

It s a piece of ****.

Log in to the PTS, open your ledger, expand the Modules: GSP refund section, and press print screen.

Log back into the live game and sell the listed amount of modules.

All done, 10 mins work tops.

You'll still have the right amount of modules for the Modules: C-bills refund section and there's no way PGI can are going to do anything other than refund c-bill modules first and GSP modules second

This will work great *if* the module sell order is "oldest first". If it's random or last first, you'll end up selling the full priced modules. I'm hoping it sells oldest first, so that your method would work just fine.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Dogstar, on 27 April 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

It s a piece of ****.

Log in to the PTS, open your ledger, expand the Modules: GSP refund section, and press print screen.

Log back into the live game and sell the listed amount of modules.

All done, 10 mins work tops.

You'll still have the right amount of modules for the Modules: C-bills refund section and there's no way PGI can are going to do anything other than refund c-bill modules first and GSP modules second

If you honestly trust PGI to not screw that up..... The Beef has a video floating around here of 1000% missle cooldown on a quick draw. Or if you like you can just take a look at the Atlas Torso Turn Angle quirks from the quirk list of the current PTS found here:

https://static.mwome...Final%20PTS.pdf

Or read the patch notes from the last 2 or 3 patches about them removing outdated quirks or forgetting to change the structure quirks to armor quirks on an Orion IIC.

I'm sorry. I don't have that much faith.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Jaybles, on 27 April 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

They are already fed, watered and sheltered for life.... all GSP is doing is burying them in the barn under mounds and mounds of hay that they can't eat and I can neither spend, sell, nor burn....

This is your argument? oh, well you have so much all ready, you shouldn't mind if PGI takes your five years of grinding and turns it into pixie dust. What are you going to tell me next? Just sell those mechs and buy new ones along with a new mech pack?

None of these options really motivate me to keep playing this game.

It's like mental blindness...some players just can't see the problem here. Imho..PGI is giving decent value with the GSP, but you only need so much of it, before the excess becomes less valuable (by providing less usefulness). The mech-rich spent their c-bills prioritizing getting more mechs at the expense of getting modules. The module-rich have less mechs (all c-bill earnings being equal) but are have them more optimized as a whole (with modules). One side is getting their c-bill purchases repossessed (due to a change in the game) and isn't getting the ability to get to where the other side is at (having more mechs). In principle it's just wrong. If they changed something where our current mechs got repossessed and we got a currency-equivalent that would reasonably take multiple years to use, would these players be ok with that??? No way.. they would want to be made whole day 1 for whatever change PGI put out there.

Basically, this whole thing is saying you were a "sucker" if you bought a ton of modules back in the day. 6 years to use all that GSP!!! Sounds fair....Sorry Jaybles...you didn't need those c-bills anyway...right?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Digital goods depreciate. It is wrong to say otherwise.

Depends on the circumstances, in a controlled environment of a video game that doesn't even have an economy (since there is no player trading) then I would honestly disagree. There are always factors involved with software depreciating in the real world, but again, we aren't talking the real world are we, we are talking about inside a video game.

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Every single game has a sell price for a digital good that is a fraction of the cost of the purchase price.

The reason behind that is different than most games however. In this game there is no really good reason for it other than to sink c-bills (and even then this is part of the reason the NPE is so bad because experimentation is penalized due to this).

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

The second you bought that module and installed it in your mech and took advantage of the benefit it provided you, you made the decision that "I am ok with only getting 50% of my value back in if I don't want to use it anymore."

That's only if you sell it that you get the depreciated value though, buying a mech that uses it instead and suddenly you still maintain value. Value is even more arbitrary in a digital good in order to cause a slow down of purchasing power (under the expectation that people will make purchasing misaktes). The reason real world goods depreciate is because their usefulness does decrease relative to competition (whether it be a newer car or a newer piece of software that adds extra features). Again, the situations are not directly analogous and people need to stop treating it as such because false analogies themselves are a fallacy and do not make an argument.

Heffay, on 27 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

You knew the module was only worth half you paid for it, and you bought it anyway.

Value is subjective, and it isn't worth "half what you paid" UNTIL you sell it for that (at which case you justified that value). This is the disconnect between you and people like me. The discrepancy in value (I would add percieved as an adjective, but honestly that is always implied when talking market value) is the issue and why there is so much QQ, because people feel like the extra GSP isn't worth the value they get NOW with modules (which they kept partially because they felt like those modules were WORTH the c-bills they spent). So can we please stop acting like value is stuck in stone and the same for everyone, because if this outrage should tell you anything, it is that that is NOT the case.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 April 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[Johnny Z]

It only works if the vocal minority run around the parking lot naked yelling, "I have been playing Battletech and MechWarrior since the 80's".

[Shifty McSwift]

Johnny Z, on 27 April 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

It only works if the vocal minority run around the parking lot naked yelling, "I have been playing Battletech and MechWarrior since the 80's".

And/or if that vocal minority is the financial majority.

[CDLord HHGD]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 April 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

Depends on the circumstances, in a controlled environment of a video game that doesn't even have an economy (since there is no player trading) then I would honestly disagree. There are always factors involved with software depreciating in the real world, but again, we aren't talking the real world are we, we are talking about inside a video game.


The reason behind that is different than most games however. In this game there is no really good reason for it other than to sink c-bills (and even then this is part of the reason the NPE is so bad because experimentation is penalized due to this).


That's only if you sell it that you get the depreciated value though, buying a mech that uses it instead and suddenly you still maintain value. Value is even more arbitrary in a digital good in order to cause a slow down of purchasing power (under the expectation that people will make purchasing misaktes). The reason real world goods depreciate is because their usefulness does decrease relative to competition (whether it be a newer car or a newer piece of software that adds extra features). Again, the situations are not directly analogous and people need to stop treating it as such because false analogies themselves are a fallacy and do not make an argument.


Value is subjective, and it isn't worth "half what you paid" UNTIL you sell it for that (at which case you justified that value). This is the disconnect between you and people like me. The discrepancy in value (I would add percieved as an adjective, but honestly that is always implied when talking market value) is the issue and why there is so much QQ, because people feel like the extra GSP isn't worth the value they get NOW with modules (which they kept partially because they felt like those modules were WORTH the c-bills they spent). So can we please stop acting like value is stuck in stone and the same for everyone, because if this outrage should tell you anything, it is that that is NOT the case.

You've stated this far better than I could have. Thanks you.

[Heffay]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 April 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

And/or if that vocal minority is the financial majority.

Well, we can pretty safely say that there isn't a chance in hell that they are.

[trevalion]

Jaybles, on 26 April 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Which is why I won't be putting any more money into this game. I'm fully aware of the EULA I agreed to. No where in the EULA does it prohibit me from voicing my displeasure over changes or for asking for explanations as to why changes were made. And no PGI does not owe me an explanation. But in the interest of customer relations, I'm positively certain it would behoove them to explain their position and why they made the changes. What is the rational for taking purchased in game equipment out of player accounts and returning it as a made up currency different from that which was use to make the original purchases? Rationalize it for me? How does having those cbills affect game balance?

Somebody is just acting a bully. In what world does your attitude befit a consumer, nay an avid partaker. Have a little respect while acknowledging that under the EULA you can register complaints, but be tactful enough to realize that yours is not the only point of view. Ugly tantrums are just ugly.

[Khobai]

Quote

Modules deprecate 50% the instant they're bought because they can only be sold back to PGI for half their original value.

To say otherwise is simply deluded.

they dont depreciate when you buy them. because you bought them with the understanding youd always be able to use them as long as you played. nor do they depreciate over time because theyre always as potent and reliable as the day you bought them.

As long as you could use modules they were worth what you paid for them.

the depreciation was caused by PGI getting telling people they could no longer use modules and offering less than their face value for them. no one ever said anything about modules depreciating in value before PGI decided to get rid of them, so what youre saying is simply wrong.

derp.

Edited by Khobai, 27 April 2017 - 01:05 PM.