After watching the latest pod cast I had some thoughts on the skill tree
Already posted this here: https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/248990-skill-tree-and-module-swapping-solution/
But, thought I'd cross-post it here.
So as I understand it I expect I might get screwed because of the C-bill component of the new skill tree, as I am a total module swapper. I have enough modules basically to field a drop deck, plus weapon system modules. I haven't seen any need to purchase any more than that. But, right now I have 94 mechs and most are Mastered or Elite'd. PGI's model for module refunds seems to be geared for people that treated modules as a mech specific upgrade, but in fact they are not. I understand that they don't want to screw the players who did that as well, and nor should they be.
So, right now it seems it's a given that modules will be integrated into the skill tree on a mech specific basis. That's okay. We just need a solution that is fair for all, extreme module swappers and module junkies. I believe it could be addressed by making a few changes:
1) Drop the c-bill component of the skill tree
2) Allow players the option of either receiving a c-bill refund or a GXP refund for their modules, in any proportion that they want.
This would allow players to with a few modules to rely on mech specific XP to progress through the skill trees on an equal footing, and not be down 10's or 100's of millions of c-bills to get back to where they were. This also allows module junkies to apply their module upgrades right back into their mechs.
I think GXP is an appropriate solution because modules in fact are not mech specific and the problems arising here are from trying to convert from a global c-bill system to a mech specific XP system. We already have a global XP currency, GXP, and can use it to convert between these systems.
I obviously don't have the data to say what the GXP or c-bill value should be for the modules. But, I do understand that PGI is looking at the data in an intensive way and expect they could find an equitable solution.
I hope to hear some thoughts and critiques.