2
vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:
1 - You could always spend them on duplicate mechs. And you wouldn't need GSP for the new mechs because HXP could be transferred.
2 - This is why all games with economies need currency sinks.
3 - With the incoming new tech are we anywhere near the point where C-bills experience diminishing returns?
1. You could always buy more 'mechs and spend GSP on them, even duplicate ones. And you wouldn't need XP for the new 'mechs, because you have so many GSP.
2. I agree.
3. A decent number of people around here already have more C-Bills than they know what to do with.
vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:
Some people lose less than others. Those who will be immediately faced with the diminishing returns of GSP will be required to either live with it or choose to lose more than other players.
Forcing some players to exchange their low inflation currency for high inflation currency while not forcing everyone is the inherent unfairness of this iteration.
And forcing players to lose skill progress because they now need hundreds of millions of extra C-Bills to get back to where they were (ignoring modules completely) was at least as unfair, if not moreso.
vandalhooch, on 30 April 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:
How is thinking that 50,000 GSP instead of 500 million C-bills is less desirable "looking at it wrong?"
How you value something is on you. You may value frogs more than gold. That doesn't make frogs worth more than gold. I have more use for GSP than C-Bills. Other players have more use for GSP than C-Bills. Some other players have more use for C-Bills than GSP. Are we a minority? Are you a minority? Time will tell.
