187 replies to this topic

[vandalhooch]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:

Technically we could probably use all the GSP to unlock every node on every mech we own, but not only is that tedious but it isn't really near as useful as c-bills or the current modules.

I will still have left over GSP, thousands of left over GSP.

A moderate quantity of GSP, 10-12 thousand, has value. Fifty or sixty thousand GSP does not have 5X the value.

Fifty million C-bills is exactly five times as valuable as ten million.

Edited by vandalhooch, 28 April 2017 - 08:03 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

I will still have left over GSP, thousands of left over GSP.

A moderate quantity of GSP, 10-12 thousand, has value. Fifty or sixty thousand GSP does not have 5X the value.

Fifty million C-billions is exactly five times as valuable as ten million.

You crazy person.

Just want to point out though that I do agree with you, just pointing out that technically some of us could use those GSP, they just would be pretty worthless in application. That's where that disconnect between values comes into play.

Jaybles, on 28 April 2017 - 08:00 AM, said:

But I suppose that means not every mech actually has 242 unlock-able nodes.

Correct, AMS nodes are locked out if your mech doesn't have AMS hardpoints too, and there is another couple that get locked out for another tree iirc.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 April 2017 - 08:05 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

So, are those who support this iteration of the refund ok with calling the following day 1 (after the refund) scenario "fair"?:

2 players each earned 2 billion c-bills

-Player 1 spent all of it on mechs and got 200 mechs. Which he played regularly enough to earn all 91 nodes each under the new system, but gets no GSP and no c-bill refund

-Player 2 earned the same as player one but spent it 1/2 on mechs and 1/2 on modules. He has 100 mechs, and because he also played them regularly he earned 91 nodes from mastery. He is getting enough c-bills refunded to buy 15 more mechs imediately and enough GSP to master 207 new mechs. The alternative if he doesn't like the refund is to sell his modules at a discount and gain enough c-bills to get to having 150 mechs (with no c-bill or GSP...just like player 1)

Day 1 of the refund...both players have 91 nodes (fully enhanced mechs) on all their current mechs. Player 1 however has 200 mechs and player 2 can have either 115 mechs that are fully enhanced day 1 (plus the ability to upgrade 200+ future mechs imediately) or 150 mechs and to have to grind exactly like player 1 to upgrade future mechs.

---
Yes. It's extreme...no one likely did exactly what player 1 did. But some were close.. Both earned the same, but player 1 comes out massively ahead on day 1...although the advantage gap closes over time as player 2 gains future fully noded mechs faster for a while.

200 fully noded mechs is better than 115 or 150 on day 1 of the change.

I have been racking my brain as to why some players can think this isn't an issue that other players might care about....all I can come up with is that either players:

1. can't see it (because they aren't savvy enough to realize why some might care or are feeling good about their deal now and don't want to risk see it and risk PGI changing the refund again)

2. Are glad that they will have a leg up on other players. "We earned the same, but I have more fully enhanced mechs than other players and am glad that PGI gave me the bigger slice of the pie". I can't imagine this is a huge group, in terms of conscious thought anyway.

3. Are overweighting the value of the GSP. It's a good deal, if you can reasonably use it. Some players just have more than they can possibly use though in many years.

Or maybe some combo of the above.

[vandalhooch]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 28 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

So, are those who support this iteration of the refund ok with calling the following day 1 (after the refund) scenario "fair"?:

2 players each earned 2 billion c-bills

-Player 1 spent all of it on mechs and got 200 mechs. Which he played regularly enough to earn all 91 nodes each under the new system, but gets no GSP and no c-bill refund

-Player 2 earned the same as player one but spent it 1/2 on mechs and 1/2 on modules. He has 100 mechs, and because he also played them regularly he earned 91 nodes from mastery. He is getting enough c-bills refunded to buy 15 more mechs imediately and enough GSP to master 207 new mechs. The alternative if he doesn't like the refund is to sell his modules at a discount and gain enough c-bills to get to having 150 mechs (with no c-bill or GSP...just like player 1)

Day 1 of the refund...both players have 91 nodes (fully enhanced mechs) on all their current mechs. Player 1 however has 200 mechs and player 2 can have either 115 mechs that are fully enhanced day 1 (plus the ability to upgrade 200+ future mechs imediately) or 150 mechs and to have to grind exactly like player 1 to upgrade future mechs.

---
Yes. It's extreme...no one likely did exactly what player 1 did. But some were close.. Both earned the same, but player 1 comes out massively ahead on day 1...although the advantage gap closes over time as player 2 gains future fully noded mechs faster for a while.

200 fully noded mechs is better than 115 or 150 on day 1 of the change.

I have been racking my brain as to why some players can think this isn't an issue that other players might care about....all I can come up with is that either players:

1. can't see it (because they aren't savvy enough to realize why some might care or are feeling good about their deal now and don't want to risk see it and risk PGI changing the refund again)

2. Are glad that they will have a leg up on other players. "We earned the same, but I have more fully enhanced mechs than other players and am glad that PGI gave me the bigger slice of the pie". I can't imagine this is a huge group, in terms of conscious thought anyway.

3. Are overweighting the value of the GSP. It's a good deal, if you can reasonably use it. Some players just have more than they can possibly use though in many years.

Or maybe some combo of the above.

The problem is that my lights are carrying three or four times their value in modules alone. Even my assaults have more invested in their modules than in the mech. Player 2 is much, much further behind on day 1 than your hypothetical indicates.

[4rcs1ne]

Maybe I'm over simplifying the issue, but why can't we have a choice in how we're refunded? That way, all parties are at least partially satisfied.

I would think the implementation would be as simple as an if-else statement in computer code.

Edited by Matt2496, 28 April 2017 - 08:20 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Matt2496, on 28 April 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

Maybe I'm over simplifying the issue, but why can't we have a choice in how we're refunded? That way, all parties are at least partially satisfied.

It would be the correct solution, but one that PGI doesn't seem to be willing to concede imo.

[B0oN]

MechaBattler, on 27 April 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

Says the Clamman.

´Cause HE CAN

[Marquis De Lafayette]

vandalhooch, on 28 April 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

The problem is that my lights are carrying three or four times their value in modules alone. Even my assaults have more invested in their modules than in the mech. Player 2 is much, much further behind on day 1 than your hypothetical indicates.

In many cases yes. I actually had a more couple of things that hurt Player 2 even worse, which I added and then deleted before posting. As the basic inequity of this seems so hard for some people to see (or acknowledge) I didn't want to make it a more complicated example than it had to be to get the point across. The basics of this illustrate that not all purchases for all players are being treated equally (when PGI wants to make a change). That is wrong.