Tried to post this a while back, but the site blocked me for several days for some reason or my ISP blocked the site, whatever.
The most consistent way is a little more work in calculate the average result from a roll 3d6 for example has an average of 12 (11.5, but rounded off) so taking that average and dividing by about 4 will give you very close to using xd6 = 6 ranks, but will be most consistent when converting a something not based on Xd6 for the original roll you are converting into M&M.
Yeah, I used to love the Palladium skill system, except that it is very open to the GM having to add modifiers to your % target based on how hard or easy the actual task is. M&M (and D20 systems in general) have a better defined guide on what the target DC for a skill check should be. Basically think of the level of difficulty you think that character should have a 50/50 shot at success/failure andJust a couple of thoughts regarding Palladium to M&M:
Relevant stats minus 10 then divide by 2 = stat numbers
Approximate skills % divided by 5 = ranks
Also remember on calculating stats that M&M uses an exponential increase in values, while Palladium's is much more linear. Remember that 12 is considered average human stat in Palladium, not 10. That would effectively lower all of Task Master's stats by 1.