so, it works the way spending has always worked? cool thread
No not really... Until now it was more little bits. Not a really big jump like that. Why would a new player buy a lot crystals for gear or so? That was more the endgame economy. So with good resource management it was still possible to be on top a f2p player. This makes it literally impossible. Thats the difference.
it wasn't impossible before, but now it's impossible? Care to elaborate on that?
Thats easy... Before the HDB Everyone had to make the biggest part step by step. Maybe somebody bought some stuff but it als long as you dont regularly spend it made no big difference. If you as a f2p player focused on the stuff you wanted you could be still in reach for the top.
The HDB changes that. If you buy that you make a huge leap forward. Thats nothing that a f2p player can compensate in any way. Also you dominate the arena because you have toons, ships and gear that no f2p player can have at the same time so you will earn frequently crystals and enhance this gap even more.
This is like in most economys right now... The rich are getting richer, and the poor even poorer...
I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively).
HUGE HUGE difference from any pack before in how it affects the economy for starting F2P. To say it doesn't hurt F2P any more than other things they've sold has to be a supremely ignorant statement.
You're the one making the statement only to call it supremely ignorant, does that make you supremely ignorant?
I may have paraphrased the crux of your argument, but no, the words were yours.
No, those aren't my words. If you want to call me supremely ignorant atleast paraphrase the crux of my argument correctly.
You don't seem to understand the point i'm making, atleast you didn't refute the argument i tried to make. I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively)
For context, the "that much of a difference" is the difference between f2p being able to be competative and f2p not being able to be competative on a new leaderboard. Basically there aren't a lot (if any at all) f2p players that would have been competative on a new leaderboard, but aren't/wont be with the bundle being introduced to the game.
This doesn't mean that as a new f2p player you won't be further behind someone who bought the bundle than behind someone who spend the same amount of money on the game without buying the bundle, because you will definetely be further behind the one who bought the bundle. However, if you're able to craft a team that can beat the "meta" (without having a solid crystal income to do so) you're golden regardless of how far ahead progressionalwise the others are. After a while there's no difference in arena teams between the players who bought the bundle and players who simply have "the best" team.
so, it works the way spending has always worked? cool thread
No not really... Until now it was more little bits. Not a really big jump like that. Why would a new player buy a lot crystals for gear or so? That was more the endgame economy. So with good resource management it was still possible to be on top a f2p player. This makes it literally impossible. Thats the difference.
it wasn't impossible before, but now it's impossible? Care to elaborate on that?
Thats easy... Before the HDB Everyone had to make the biggest part step by step. Maybe somebody bought some stuff but it als long as you dont regularly spend it made no big difference. If you as a f2p player focused on the stuff you wanted you could be still in reach for the top.
The HDB changes that. If you buy that you make a huge leap forward. Thats nothing that a f2p player can compensate in any way. Also you dominate the arena because you have toons, ships and gear that no f2p player can have at the same time so you will earn frequently crystals and enhance this gap even more.
This is like in most economys right now... The rich are getting richer, and the poor even poorer...
I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively).
HUGE HUGE difference from any pack before in how it affects the economy for starting F2P. To say it doesn't hurt F2P any more than other things they've sold has to be a supremely ignorant statement.
You're the one making the statement only to call it supremely ignorant, does that make you supremely ignorant?
I may have paraphrased the crux of your argument, but no, the words were yours.
No, those aren't my words. If you want to call me supremely ignorant atleast paraphrase the crux of my argument correctly.
You don't seem to understand the point i'm making, atleast you didn't refute the argument i tried to make. I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively)
For context, the "that much of a difference" is the difference between f2p being able to be competative and f2p not being able to be competative on a new leaderboard. Basically there aren't a lot (if any at all) f2p players that would have been competative on a new leaderboard, but aren't/wont be with the bundle being introduced to the game.
This doesn't mean that as a new f2p player you won't be further behind someone who bought the bundle than behind someone who spend the same amount of money on the game without buying the bundle, because you will definetely be further behind the one who bought the bundle. However, if you're able to craft a team that can beat the "meta" (without having a solid crystal income to do so) you're golden regardless of how far ahead progressionalwise the others are. After a while there's no difference in arena teams between the players who bought the bundle and players who simply have "the best" team.
"However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed."
This is what I'm responding to mainly. You specifically said that nothing has changed other than the value for the bundle. This literally means that the only change that has occurred is on the side of the buyer. This changes things for FTP just as much as it does the buyer. Most people would say it changes things more for the FTP.
And the regular argument that you can craft a team to beat the META is pale and untrue in these circumstances. This pack makes it so someone would need at least 6 months to catch up IF they knew what they were doing. Heck it would take 6 months just to have toons of the level necessary to beat the guy in 1st place due to level difference. Strategy doesn't even enter into it in this case. In reality it's more like 9 months to a year to catch up to where they are right now. If the person who purchased doesn't progress at all that's fine, but that's not likely.
Now there are some players that could care less about arena, its always been that way and always will be. This post has nothing to do with those players. This is about the F2P people who play to win in arena as they're the F2P this pack really affects. How many people do you think would play a game for a year or more before they had a chance at being competitive when being competitive was their goal? I would say that number is extremely small.
No, this pack can't be shushed away saying "all you have to do is build the right team" like other packs. This is a completely different level of separation than one that can be overcome simply with strategy.
No, to say that this doesn't affect FTP more than the packs before it is a supremely ignorant statement, and saying that the only thing that has changed is how much value is in the pack is saying the same thing only paraphrased.
Lets say 50 people buy it then you as a f2p player will never get into the top 50. Never get crystals that way and so will never ever catch up to the rest.
Quit spreading misinformation because this statement here is simply not true. They can and definitely still will catch up at one point. You need to understand that those of us at the top have nowhere else to go. We are stuck at the top forever while everyone below us is getting stronger and stronger and "catching up".
You're right to say that it is misinformation to call it never, but we're talking 6 months minimum before a F2P would even be of a level able to challenge those top 50, so those 50 would never fall out of the top 50 fo 6 months (unless they subbed in a low level team for some reason), and that is NOT misinformation. In reality, since these players would have all these legendary toons, it will be much longer than that before the lower ranks could knock them out of the top 50 (unless the ones who bought the pack didn't even really try to play). No, this is a major game changer and it basically does ruin arena for new F2P players for more or less the first year of playing the game.
Most likely a cap increase will happen soon. I think that is the reason behind this instant 85 pack. It is the best deal the game has ever offered to newer players. But if you like the grind, save your $$$. Just know it will most likely be to 90 soon enough...
pfft a new cap ain't happening. That means EA would have to get off their butts and make content to go with it.
so, it works the way spending has always worked? cool thread
No not really... Until now it was more little bits. Not a really big jump like that. Why would a new player buy a lot crystals for gear or so? That was more the endgame economy. So with good resource management it was still possible to be on top a f2p player. This makes it literally impossible. Thats the difference.
it wasn't impossible before, but now it's impossible? Care to elaborate on that?
Thats easy... Before the HDB Everyone had to make the biggest part step by step. Maybe somebody bought some stuff but it als long as you dont regularly spend it made no big difference. If you as a f2p player focused on the stuff you wanted you could be still in reach for the top.
The HDB changes that. If you buy that you make a huge leap forward. Thats nothing that a f2p player can compensate in any way. Also you dominate the arena because you have toons, ships and gear that no f2p player can have at the same time so you will earn frequently crystals and enhance this gap even more.
This is like in most economys right now... The rich are getting richer, and the poor even poorer...
I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively).
HUGE HUGE difference from any pack before in how it affects the economy for starting F2P. To say it doesn't hurt F2P any more than other things they've sold has to be a supremely ignorant statement.
You're the one making the statement only to call it supremely ignorant, does that make you supremely ignorant?
I may have paraphrased the crux of your argument, but no, the words were yours.
No, those aren't my words. If you want to call me supremely ignorant atleast paraphrase the crux of my argument correctly.
You don't seem to understand the point i'm making, atleast you didn't refute the argument i tried to make. I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively)
For context, the "that much of a difference" is the difference between f2p being able to be competative and f2p not being able to be competative on a new leaderboard. Basically there aren't a lot (if any at all) f2p players that would have been competative on a new leaderboard, but aren't/wont be with the bundle being introduced to the game.
This doesn't mean that as a new f2p player you won't be further behind someone who bought the bundle than behind someone who spend the same amount of money on the game without buying the bundle, because you will definetely be further behind the one who bought the bundle. However, if you're able to craft a team that can beat the "meta" (without having a solid crystal income to do so) you're golden regardless of how far ahead progressionalwise the others are. After a while there's no difference in arena teams between the players who bought the bundle and players who simply have "the best" team.
"However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed."
This is what I'm responding to mainly. You specifically said that nothing has changed other than the value for the bundle. This literally means that the only change that has occurred is on the side of the buyer. This changes things for FTP just as much as it does the buyer. Most people would say it changes things more for the FTP.
Are you for real? It obviously means exactly what it says because it's the only thing that has changed. That specific change that occurs on the buyers side will have an effect on the entire playerbase, which includes f2p players. That is what this thread is about. Interpreting that statement as me saying that it has no effect on f2p players is either wilfully ignorant or just plain dumb.
And the regular argument that you can craft a team to beat the META is pale and untrue in these circumstances. This pack makes it so someone would need at least 6 months to catch up IF they knew what they were doing. Heck it would take 6 months just to have toons of the level necessary to beat the guy in 1st place due to level difference. Strategy doesn't even enter into it in this case. In reality it's more like 9 months to a year to catch up to where they are right now. If the person who purchased doesn't progress at all that's fine, but that's not likely.
You can rehash the same argument, but it doesn't refute what i'm saying at all.
Also, i've checked your profile. You're a prime example of a "bad" roster being able to compete for top ranks. So why wouldn't that be true for new players? Or do you honestly think an f2p player who started playing a few months ago was able to get to the top in arena within those few months?
Now there are some players that could care less about arena, its always been that way and always will be. This post has nothing to do with those players. This is about the F2P people who play to win in arena as they're the F2P this pack really affects. How many people do you think would play a game for a year or more before they had a chance at being competitive when being competitive was their goal? I would say that number is extremely small.
Even in the good days with level caps and such it was difficult for f2p players to compete in arena and it has only gotten more difficult since. May i remind you that we're talking about roughly 50 players out of 10k or 20k players that are actually able to compete for top ranks. The number of f2p players (not counting hoarders) in that group, especially on new leaderboards, is super low. So the number of players this bundle causes to not be able to compete in arena is also super low, even if all of those f2p players who could compete before can't anymore. I'd wager that most f2p players have realistic expectations though, it's a 4 year old freemium game afterall.
No, this pack can't be shushed away saying "all you have to do is build the right team" like other packs. This is a completely different level of separation than one that can be overcome simply with strategy.
No, to say that this doesn't affect FTP more than the packs before it is a supremely ignorant statement, and saying that the only thing that has changed is how much value is in the pack is saying the same thing only paraphrased.
Again, that's not what i said. You're arguing against something i didn't say and i don't know why. Repeating the same statement to call it supremely ignorant once again after i pointed out it wasn't what i said gives me the impression you just want to be right.
so, it works the way spending has always worked? cool thread
No not really... Until now it was more little bits. Not a really big jump like that. Why would a new player buy a lot crystals for gear or so? That was more the endgame economy. So with good resource management it was still possible to be on top a f2p player. This makes it literally impossible. Thats the difference.
it wasn't impossible before, but now it's impossible? Care to elaborate on that?
Thats easy... Before the HDB Everyone had to make the biggest part step by step. Maybe somebody bought some stuff but it als long as you dont regularly spend it made no big difference. If you as a f2p player focused on the stuff you wanted you could be still in reach for the top.
The HDB changes that. If you buy that you make a huge leap forward. Thats nothing that a f2p player can compensate in any way. Also you dominate the arena because you have toons, ships and gear that no f2p player can have at the same time so you will earn frequently crystals and enhance this gap even more.
This is like in most economys right now... The rich are getting richer, and the poor even poorer...
I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively).
HUGE HUGE difference from any pack before in how it affects the economy for starting F2P. To say it doesn't hurt F2P any more than other things they've sold has to be a supremely ignorant statement.
You're the one making the statement only to call it supremely ignorant, does that make you supremely ignorant?
I may have paraphrased the crux of your argument, but no, the words were yours.
No, those aren't my words. If you want to call me supremely ignorant atleast paraphrase the crux of my argument correctly.
You don't seem to understand the point i'm making, atleast you didn't refute the argument i tried to make. I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively)
For context, the "that much of a difference" is the difference between f2p being able to be competative and f2p not being able to be competative on a new leaderboard. Basically there aren't a lot (if any at all) f2p players that would have been competative on a new leaderboard, but aren't/wont be with the bundle being introduced to the game.
This doesn't mean that as a new f2p player you won't be further behind someone who bought the bundle than behind someone who spend the same amount of money on the game without buying the bundle, because you will definetely be further behind the one who bought the bundle. However, if you're able to craft a team that can beat the "meta" (without having a solid crystal income to do so) you're golden regardless of how far ahead progressionalwise the others are. After a while there's no difference in arena teams between the players who bought the bundle and players who simply have "the best" team.
"However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed."
This is what I'm responding to mainly. You specifically said that nothing has changed other than the value for the bundle. This literally means that the only change that has occurred is on the side of the buyer. This changes things for FTP just as much as it does the buyer. Most people would say it changes things more for the FTP.
Are you for real? It obviously means exactly what it says because it's the only thing that has changed. That specific change that occurs on the buyers side will have an effect on the entire playerbase, which includes f2p players. That is what this thread is about. Interpreting that statement as me saying that it has no effect on f2p players is either wilfully ignorant or just plain dumb.
And the regular argument that you can craft a team to beat the META is pale and untrue in these circumstances. This pack makes it so someone would need at least 6 months to catch up IF they knew what they were doing. Heck it would take 6 months just to have toons of the level necessary to beat the guy in 1st place due to level difference. Strategy doesn't even enter into it in this case. In reality it's more like 9 months to a year to catch up to where they are right now. If the person who purchased doesn't progress at all that's fine, but that's not likely.
You can rehash the same argument, but it doesn't refute what i'm saying at all.
Also, i've checked your profile. You're a prime example of a "bad" roster being able to compete for top ranks. So why wouldn't that be true for new players? Or do you honestly think an f2p player who started playing a few months ago was able to get to the top in arena within those few months?
Now there are some players that could care less about arena, its always been that way and always will be. This post has nothing to do with those players. This is about the F2P people who play to win in arena as they're the F2P this pack really affects. How many people do you think would play a game for a year or more before they had a chance at being competitive when being competitive was their goal? I would say that number is extremely small.
Even in the good days with level caps and such it was difficult for f2p players to compete in arena and it has only gotten more difficult since. May i remind you that we're talking about roughly 50 players out of 10k or 20k players that are actually able to compete for top ranks. The number of f2p players (not counting hoarders) in that group, especially on new leaderboards, is super low. So the number of players this bundle causes to not be able to compete in arena is also super low, even if all of those f2p players who could compete before can't anymore. I'd wager that most f2p players have realistic expectations though, it's a 4 year old freemium game afterall.
No, this pack can't be shushed away saying "all you have to do is build the right team" like other packs. This is a completely different level of separation than one that can be overcome simply with strategy.
No, to say that this doesn't affect FTP more than the packs before it is a supremely ignorant statement, and saying that the only thing that has changed is how much value is in the pack is saying the same thing only paraphrased.
Again, that's not what i said. You're arguing against something i didn't say and i don't know why. Repeating the same statement to call it supremely ignorant once again after i pointed out it wasn't what i said gives me the impression you just want to be right.
The use of the word "only" means that it has no ripple effect, otherwise it doesn't "only" affect the value of the pack.
What I said DOES refute your argument because it isn't rehashing the same old argument. This pack doesn't have the same impact other packs they've introduced in the past. The difference between my roster and other competitive players in my shard isn't even remotely close to being 50+ levels and 6 or more months behind in character farming the others in my shard.
Talk about the F2P who never make top ranks all you want, they will never apply to this conversation because that's not who the complaints are for. Those players usually end up rising up after sometime, but do you think they'd even bother to try when they say the massive gap they have to close? I think they would just stop playing instead.
In the long run this also hurts the people who bought the pack because it is no fun to play on a dead shard.
Once again, that is what you said (though paraphrased), though it may not be what you meant to say.
The use of the word "only" means that it has no ripple effect, otherwise it doesn't "only" affect the value of the pack.
Oh my lord, you really know how to be obnoxious don't you? Once again after i pointed out what i meant, which was probably obvious for anyone who isn't trying to nitpick just to be able to call someone else wrong, you have to go there again just to call someone else wrong. I mean, why? Just why?
What I said DOES refute your argument because it isn't rehashing the same old argument. This pack doesn't have the same impact other packs they've introduced in the past. The difference between my roster and other competitive players in my shard isn't even remotely close to being 50+ levels and 6 or more months behind in character farming the others in my shard.
Again, i don't see how this bundle makes that much of a difference in terms of f2p players being able to be competative. Simply guessing the amount of time you think it takes to catch up doesn't refute my argument at all.
You've missed 4 of the last metas (traya, JKR, DR and now GAS), but you're not months behind others on your leaderboard? Are you on a incredibly weak leaderboard or something? Regardless, apparantly you can be competative without traya, JKR, DR and GAS, that in itself proves that it doesn't matter how far behind you are, it only takes 1 team.
Talk about the F2P who never make top ranks all you want, they will never apply to this conversation because that's not who the complaints are for. Those players usually end up rising up after sometime, but do you think they'd even bother to try when they say the massive gap they have to close? I think they would just stop playing instead.
I am talking about the players who would potentially make top ranks, but can't anymore due to the bundle. That's an incredibly small group of players. If you could do it before i'm convinced you can still do it now, it probably won't even take (much) longer.
In the long run this also hurts the people who bought the pack because it is no fun to play on a dead shard.
This makes no sense. At first you're arguing players can't compete due to the bundle, now you're arguing the shard will die? How does that work exactly?
Once again, that is what you said (though paraphrased), though it may not be what you meant to say.
okay buddy, you're right. Weren't you the guy that said it doesn't matter what others think you meant, it only matters what you meant? haha
Quit spreading misinformation because this statement here is simply not true. They can and definitely still will catch up at one point. You need to understand that those of us at the top have nowhere else to go. We are stuck at the top forever while everyone below us is getting stronger and stronger and "catching up".
This is far less true than it was before G13 and especially Relics. Those consistently finishing in the third or fourth tier of payout brackets are significantly less of a risk to catch up than they were before those two gear tiers. There were times when we were hoping for a meta shift quickly following the second appearance of the current meta (e.g., the mess that arena became after JKRs second coming but before Malak - especially when mods didn't matter as much).
A person in my guild posted her alts swgoh.gg arena rank history in our guild chat. It showed that prior to the hyperdrive bundle she was getting 1-3 at every payout. After the hyperdrive bundle she was now getting 60-70 range.
If I was ftp and that happened, I'd probably quit....
@leef My first thought at looking at the Hyperdrive was also that it was the end of competitive FTP. Here's the basis for my opinion:
I've started at least ten accounts and actively played three for at least two years. Some of those accounts were "tracers" to figure out when to flip an account with stored crystals to level 28 to join arena. For the record, I only did this on one account to test a theory on how much benefit there was to those accounts that did it (answer: a lot). At the time, getting to level 28 could be done in a couple of hours if you timed your account creation correctly around your account refresh. I believe they have since altered all of the initial challenge rewards and it takes at least a few days now.
I just did a quick search and the consensus I found was that it was anywhere from 3 months to 5 months for a serious player to go from 28 to 85. So even well planned and prepped accounts that are ready to jump into a shard early as F2P will be initially outpaced by 52 character levels, closing that gap slowly over three to five months.
For fun, go back to the tables and play an early round node with any Level 80 / G8 team you might have floating around. Or if you feel like losing energy, take the opposite approach. There is just no mechanism for the F2P player to develop quickly enough to break into the "top ranks," effectively closing them out of however many ranks as there are people that bought the Hyperdrive.
Additionally, the Hyperdrivers will have access to mods, zetas, legendaries, higher challenge tiers, etc. for all that additional time, enabling them to grow their rosters more quickly, getting them into better guilds, giving them access to better TB/TW/Raid rewards, etc. etc. The flywheel just moves much faster for them.
Could the FTP'er ever "catch up"? I would imagine that given they're behind by three to five months in a however many months long race to get to "the top" (G13 with some Relic level) it will take them on the order of a year, at least, just to field an arena team capable of breaking into the Hyperdrive crowd territory.
I'm not passing judgment on this in any way and part of me wants to start an account just to see how it plays out as I'm genuinely interested. It's not like there are 1000s of active players in most shards these days anyway, so it might not matter much and the only part of the community that's really impacted is that rare hyper-competitive FTP/light-spender.
The use of the word "only" means that it has no ripple effect, otherwise it doesn't "only" affect the value of the pack.
Oh my lord, you really know how to be obnoxious don't you? Once again after i pointed out what i meant, which was probably obvious for anyone who isn't trying to nitpick just to be able to call someone else wrong, you have to go there again just to call someone else wrong. I mean, why? Just why?
What I said DOES refute your argument because it isn't rehashing the same old argument. This pack doesn't have the same impact other packs they've introduced in the past. The difference between my roster and other competitive players in my shard isn't even remotely close to being 50+ levels and 6 or more months behind in character farming the others in my shard.
Again, i don't see how this bundle makes that much of a difference in terms of f2p players being able to be competative. Simply guessing the amount of time you think it takes to catch up doesn't refute my argument at all.
You've missed 4 of the last metas (traya, JKR, DR and now GAS), but you're not months behind others on your leaderboard? Are you on a incredibly weak leaderboard or something? Regardless, apparantly you can be competative without traya, JKR, DR and GAS, that in itself proves that it doesn't matter how far behind you are, it only takes 1 team.
Talk about the F2P who never make top ranks all you want, they will never apply to this conversation because that's not who the complaints are for. Those players usually end up rising up after sometime, but do you think they'd even bother to try when they say the massive gap they have to close? I think they would just stop playing instead.
I am talking about the players who would potentially make top ranks, but can't anymore due to the bundle. That's an incredibly small group of players. If you could do it before i'm convinced you can still do it now, it probably won't even take (much) longer.
In the long run this also hurts the people who bought the pack because it is no fun to play on a dead shard.
This makes no sense. At first you're arguing players can't compete due to the bundle, now you're arguing the shard will die? How does that work exactly?
Once again, that is what you said (though paraphrased), though it may not be what you meant to say.
okay buddy, you're right. Weren't you the guy that said it doesn't matter what others think you meant, it only matters what you meant? haha
What you meant was definitely not obvious for anyone. If you had clarified WITHOUT attitude I wouldn't have persevered. And our language mistake here wasn't a simple normal misunderstanding. You used words in ways that no one does. They were the opposite of you meant. The use of the word only literally precludes the possibility of ripple effects. It's one thing to allow people to say what they want and it to mean what they mean. It's another to let someone say "go left" and then "well that actually means go right when I say it".
There is no standard interpretation of "only" that says there are still ripple effects. When I said it doesn't matter what it means to you there was 2 big difference. One: I was using a STANDARD definition if not everyone's standard. And 2: I clarified WITHOUT copping an attitude. You did not. You said you didn't say that, though you literally did.
There is a HUGE difference between the length of time the possible competitive players will have to wait now compared to before. There are people who are still joining my shard chat after 3 years, but not anybody that wasn't getting in the top 50 at the start, which was not a number less than 100 initially and probably never fell below 100. There are 1200 possible top 50+ payouts in each shard each day. That is not a small number.
The group of people that could make top ranks before but can't now is the only people this conversation is about. It basically consists of all the F2P that could have eventually made top ranks on new shards. Does the size of the group really matter if you are cutting out an important demographic? And competitive F2P are a very important demographic for the P2W to keep playing.
And I am not "guessing" how long it will take F2P to get a team full of legendary characters at top level to compete with the teams full of legendary characters. I ran a F2P guild for 2 years. I know EXACTLY how long it takes F2P to level. The FASTEST F2P COULD catch up in 6 months. IF the META doesn't shift and they farm exactly perfect. That's the MINIMUM. Reality is more like 9-12 months, and this is not just pulled out of thin air as you intimate. It is a realistic estimate based on my intimate understanding of the leveling player, something you seem to lack based on your arguments.
And yes, it will destroy the shards of the people who buy the packs too. Would you keep playing a game that you spend all sorts of money on to be competitive but then you end up not having anyone to fight against? You just sit in 1st all day for weeks. No, people usually quit in those scenarios. Selling this pack is bad for the long term health of new shards. The should just be giving new characters more characters for free as they level. Instead of allowing people to buy to a new starting point, they should just raise the starting point. This pack is simply a bad idea.
In ANY freemium game the balance between p2p and f2p determines how long people play in general, the more tipped towards P2P it is, the shorter they play. This bundle has tipped it way further than any previous one has.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation. If you had said "The main thing that's changed is the value of the pack" it would have been fine, but by including the word only you used a manipulative thinking tactic called minimizing. If you want to argue on the side you are on, do so, but please be honest about it. Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
I just did a quick search and the consensus I found was that it was anywhere from 3 months to 5 months for a serious player to go from 28 to 85. So even well planned and prepped accounts that are ready to jump into a shard early as F2P will be initially outpaced by 52 character levels, closing that gap slowly over three to five months.
@cannonfodder_iv
The question remains how much of a difference that really makes. How many players will buy the bundle, and more specifically how many of those players would you have been able to compete with if they didn't buy the bundle.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation.
Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
Don't try and overstate the negative aspects, build them up and patronizingly explain how they're the end of arena shards. You're just making a sensationalist argument.
What you meant was definitely not obvious for anyone. If you had clarified WITHOUT attitude I wouldn't have persevered. And our language mistake here wasn't a simple normal misunderstanding. You used words in ways that no one does. They were the opposite of you meant. The use of the word only literally precludes the possibility of ripple effects. It's one thing to allow people to say what they want and it to mean what they mean. It's another to let someone say "go left" and then "well that actually means go right when I say it".
There is no standard interpretation of "only" that says there are still ripple effects. When I said it doesn't matter what it means to you there was 2 big difference. One: I was using a STANDARD definition if not everyone's standard. And 2: I clarified WITHOUT copping an attitude. You did not. You said you didn't say that, though you literally did.
still not sure if you're plain dumb or willfully ignorant.
There is a HUGE difference between the length of time the possible competitive players will have to wait now compared to before. There are people who are still joining my shard chat after 3 years, but not anybody that wasn't getting in the top 50 at the start, which was not a number less than 100 initially and probably never fell below 100. There are 1200 possible top 50+ payouts in each shard each day. That is not a small number.
1200 top50+ payouts in each shard each day? Atleast you're being realistic
The group of people that could make top ranks before but can't now is the only people this conversation is about.
didnt i just say that?
It basically consists of all the F2P that could have eventually made top ranks on new shards. Does the size of the group really matter if you are cutting out an important demographic? And competitive F2P are a very important demographic for the P2W to keep playing.
Only IF they're cutting out that entire group, which at this point is just an assumption you made.
And I am not "guessing" how long it will take F2P to get a team full of legendary characters at top level to compete with the teams full of legendary characters. I ran a F2P guild for 2 years. I know EXACTLY how long it takes F2P to level. The FASTEST F2P COULD catch up in 6 months. IF the META doesn't shift and they farm exactly perfect. That's the MINIMUM. Reality is more like 9-12 months, and this is not just pulled out of thin air as you intimate. It is a realistic estimate based on my intimate understanding of the leveling player, something you seem to lack based on your arguments.
don't you mean based on your "limited understanding of the leveling players"? That's also based on your arguments.
And yes, it will destroy the shards of the people who buy the packs too. Would you keep playing a game that you spend all sorts of money on to be competitive but then you end up not having anyone to fight against? You just sit in 1st all day for weeks. No, people usually quit in those scenarios. Selling this pack is bad for the long term health of new shards. The should just be giving new characters more characters for free as they level. Instead of allowing people to buy to a new starting point, they should just raise the starting point. This pack is simply a bad idea.
Again, this argument makes no sense. Either there are enough players that bought the bundle to compete with eachother and completely push out f2p, or f2p can be competative (top20 arena) eventhough they can't beat the few players that bought the bundle.
In ANY freemium game the balance between p2p and f2p determines how long people play in general, the more tipped towards P2P it is, the shorter they play. This bundle has tipped it way further than any previous one has.
Right, and i think it won't make that much of a difference.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation. If you had said "The main thing that's changed is the value of the pack" it would have been fine, but by including the word only you used a manipulative thinking tactic called minimizing. If you want to argue on the side you are on, do so, but please be honest about it. Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
It's the only thing that changed. That change has an effect on the game, that is what we're discussing in this thread. You can argue all day that the effect the change has on the game is also a change to the game, but it seems rather obvious to me (and i assume anyone besides you) that i made a clear distinction between the change itself, which is the only thing that changed, and the effect it has on the game. It's not exactly uncommon to separate the change from the effects the change has. Anyone who interprets what i said as me saying that the change doesn't have an effect on the game is either wilfully ignorant in order to win an argument or plain dumb.
I just did a quick search and the consensus I found was that it was anywhere from 3 months to 5 months for a serious player to go from 28 to 85. So even well planned and prepped accounts that are ready to jump into a shard early as F2P will be initially outpaced by 52 character levels, closing that gap slowly over three to five months.
@cannonfodder_iv
The question remains how much of a difference that really makes. How many players will buy the bundle, and more specifically how many of those players would you have been able to compete with if they didn't buy the bundle.
@leef Agreed, all valid points. I have my own "feelings" about it and could lay down some assumptions and do some math to supply what I would consider to be subjective evidence, but that's not all that useful. To your point, we don't know how many people will buy or have bought the bundle and without that knowledge, the rest of it is just conjecture. If it's 5 per shard, the impact is minimal. If it's 500, the impact is clear. There's a number somewhere in between that's interesting.
I just did a quick search and the consensus I found was that it was anywhere from 3 months to 5 months for a serious player to go from 28 to 85. So even well planned and prepped accounts that are ready to jump into a shard early as F2P will be initially outpaced by 52 character levels, closing that gap slowly over three to five months.
cannonfodder_iv
The question remains how much of a difference that really makes. How many players will buy the bundle, and more specifically how many of those players would you have been able to compete with if they didn't buy the bundle.
leef Agreed, all valid points. I have my own "feelings" about it and could lay down some assumptions and do some math to supply what I would consider to be subjective evidence, but that's not all that useful. To your point, we don't know how many people will buy or have bought the bundle and without that knowledge, the rest of it is just conjecture. If it's 5 per shard, the impact is minimal. If it's 500, the impact is clear. There's a number somewhere in between that's interesting.
We're all making assumptions/guessing to a certain extent because we simply can't know.
Maybe i'm vastly underestimating the amount of new players that only because of this bundle is willing to spend that much money at once on this game. Maybe i'm also vastly overestimating how difficult it is for a new f2p player to reach top ranks before hitting lvl 85.
What you meant was definitely not obvious for anyone. If you had clarified WITHOUT attitude I wouldn't have persevered. And our language mistake here wasn't a simple normal misunderstanding. You used words in ways that no one does. They were the opposite of you meant. The use of the word only literally precludes the possibility of ripple effects. It's one thing to allow people to say what they want and it to mean what they mean. It's another to let someone say "go left" and then "well that actually means go right when I say it".
There is no standard interpretation of "only" that says there are still ripple effects. When I said it doesn't matter what it means to you there was 2 big difference. One: I was using a STANDARD definition if not everyone's standard. And 2: I clarified WITHOUT copping an attitude. You did not. You said you didn't say that, though you literally did.
still not sure if you're plain dumb or willfully ignorant.
There is a HUGE difference between the length of time the possible competitive players will have to wait now compared to before. There are people who are still joining my shard chat after 3 years, but not anybody that wasn't getting in the top 50 at the start, which was not a number less than 100 initially and probably never fell below 100. There are 1200 possible top 50+ payouts in each shard each day. That is not a small number.
1200 top50+ payouts in each shard each day? Atleast you're being realistic
The group of people that could make top ranks before but can't now is the only people this conversation is about.
didnt i just say that?
It basically consists of all the F2P that could have eventually made top ranks on new shards. Does the size of the group really matter if you are cutting out an important demographic? And competitive F2P are a very important demographic for the P2W to keep playing.
Only IF they're cutting out that entire group, which at this point is just an assumption you made.
And I am not "guessing" how long it will take F2P to get a team full of legendary characters at top level to compete with the teams full of legendary characters. I ran a F2P guild for 2 years. I know EXACTLY how long it takes F2P to level. The FASTEST F2P COULD catch up in 6 months. IF the META doesn't shift and they farm exactly perfect. That's the MINIMUM. Reality is more like 9-12 months, and this is not just pulled out of thin air as you intimate. It is a realistic estimate based on my intimate understanding of the leveling player, something you seem to lack based on your arguments.
don't you mean based on your "limited understanding of the leveling players"? That's also based on your arguments.
And yes, it will destroy the shards of the people who buy the packs too. Would you keep playing a game that you spend all sorts of money on to be competitive but then you end up not having anyone to fight against? You just sit in 1st all day for weeks. No, people usually quit in those scenarios. Selling this pack is bad for the long term health of new shards. The should just be giving new characters more characters for free as they level. Instead of allowing people to buy to a new starting point, they should just raise the starting point. This pack is simply a bad idea.
Again, this argument makes no sense. Either there are enough players that bought the bundle to compete with eachother and completely push out f2p, or f2p can be competative (top20 arena) eventhough they can't beat the few players that bought the bundle.
In ANY freemium game the balance between p2p and f2p determines how long people play in general, the more tipped towards P2P it is, the shorter they play. This bundle has tipped it way further than any previous one has.
Right, and i think it won't make that much of a difference.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation. If you had said "The main thing that's changed is the value of the pack" it would have been fine, but by including the word only you used a manipulative thinking tactic called minimizing. If you want to argue on the side you are on, do so, but please be honest about it. Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
It's the only thing that changed. That change has an effect on the game, that is what we're discussing in this thread. You can argue all day that the effect the change has on the game is also a change to the game, but it seems rather obvious to me (and i assume anyone besides you) that i made a clear distinction between the change itself, which is the only thing that changed, and the effect it has on the game. It's not exactly uncommon to separate the change from the effects the change has. Anyone who interprets what i said as me saying that the change doesn't have an effect on the game is either wilfully ignorant in order to win an argument or plain dumb.
Once again the use of the word only precludes any other effect. If that one change made an effect elsewhere it is not the only thing that changed. Your use of the word only here is putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here.
Your understanding is flawed, and out of posterity I absolutely will not allow you to have the last word unless you acknowledge your mistake in using the word only, because it is NOT the only thing that has changed.
Saying that it is is not only wrong, it is manipulatively wrong. For the sake of everyone who reads this thread I will respond every time you do to make sure your manipulative untruth is not the last word here.
I'm not even going to talk about anything else you've said anymore because you refuse to let this manipulative untruth go. And this isn't an opinion, you are absolutely doing this. Look up minimizing if you don't believe me.
I'm sorry you insist on making a dishonest argument, but I won't tolerate it personally.
What you meant was definitely not obvious for anyone. If you had clarified WITHOUT attitude I wouldn't have persevered. And our language mistake here wasn't a simple normal misunderstanding. You used words in ways that no one does. They were the opposite of you meant. The use of the word only literally precludes the possibility of ripple effects. It's one thing to allow people to say what they want and it to mean what they mean. It's another to let someone say "go left" and then "well that actually means go right when I say it".
There is no standard interpretation of "only" that says there are still ripple effects. When I said it doesn't matter what it means to you there was 2 big difference. One: I was using a STANDARD definition if not everyone's standard. And 2: I clarified WITHOUT copping an attitude. You did not. You said you didn't say that, though you literally did.
still not sure if you're plain dumb or willfully ignorant.
There is a HUGE difference between the length of time the possible competitive players will have to wait now compared to before. There are people who are still joining my shard chat after 3 years, but not anybody that wasn't getting in the top 50 at the start, which was not a number less than 100 initially and probably never fell below 100. There are 1200 possible top 50+ payouts in each shard each day. That is not a small number.
1200 top50+ payouts in each shard each day? Atleast you're being realistic
The group of people that could make top ranks before but can't now is the only people this conversation is about.
didnt i just say that?
It basically consists of all the F2P that could have eventually made top ranks on new shards. Does the size of the group really matter if you are cutting out an important demographic? And competitive F2P are a very important demographic for the P2W to keep playing.
Only IF they're cutting out that entire group, which at this point is just an assumption you made.
And I am not "guessing" how long it will take F2P to get a team full of legendary characters at top level to compete with the teams full of legendary characters. I ran a F2P guild for 2 years. I know EXACTLY how long it takes F2P to level. The FASTEST F2P COULD catch up in 6 months. IF the META doesn't shift and they farm exactly perfect. That's the MINIMUM. Reality is more like 9-12 months, and this is not just pulled out of thin air as you intimate. It is a realistic estimate based on my intimate understanding of the leveling player, something you seem to lack based on your arguments.
don't you mean based on your "limited understanding of the leveling players"? That's also based on your arguments.
And yes, it will destroy the shards of the people who buy the packs too. Would you keep playing a game that you spend all sorts of money on to be competitive but then you end up not having anyone to fight against? You just sit in 1st all day for weeks. No, people usually quit in those scenarios. Selling this pack is bad for the long term health of new shards. The should just be giving new characters more characters for free as they level. Instead of allowing people to buy to a new starting point, they should just raise the starting point. This pack is simply a bad idea.
Again, this argument makes no sense. Either there are enough players that bought the bundle to compete with eachother and completely push out f2p, or f2p can be competative (top20 arena) eventhough they can't beat the few players that bought the bundle.
In ANY freemium game the balance between p2p and f2p determines how long people play in general, the more tipped towards P2P it is, the shorter they play. This bundle has tipped it way further than any previous one has.
Right, and i think it won't make that much of a difference.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation. If you had said "The main thing that's changed is the value of the pack" it would have been fine, but by including the word only you used a manipulative thinking tactic called minimizing. If you want to argue on the side you are on, do so, but please be honest about it. Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
It's the only thing that changed. That change has an effect on the game, that is what we're discussing in this thread. You can argue all day that the effect the change has on the game is also a change to the game, but it seems rather obvious to me (and i assume anyone besides you) that i made a clear distinction between the change itself, which is the only thing that changed, and the effect it has on the game. It's not exactly uncommon to separate the change from the effects the change has. Anyone who interprets what i said as me saying that the change doesn't have an effect on the game is either wilfully ignorant in order to win an argument or plain dumb.
Once again the use of the word only precludes any other effect. If that one change made an effect elsewhere it is not the only thing that changed. Your use of the word only here is putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here.
Your understanding is flawed, and out of posterity I absolutely will not allow you to have the last word unless you acknowledge your mistake in using the word only, because it is NOT the only thing that has changed.
Saying that it is is not only wrong, it is manipulatively wrong. For the sake of everyone who reads this thread I will respond every time you do to make sure your manipulative untruth is not the last word here.
I'm not even going to talk about anything else you've said anymore because you refuse to let this manipulative untruth go. And this isn't an opinion, you are absolutely doing this. Look up minimizing if you don't believe me.
I'm sorry you insist on making a dishonest argument, but I won't tolerate it personally.
i see you're backing down slightly, maybe you realized what i said is not technically incorrect so you're going to accuse me of "putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here". haha
You're the guy who misquoted me/paraprashed incorrectly (what i can only assume was on purpose) only to call it supremely ignorant. Now that's a manipulative tactic to discredit someone if i ever saw one. Assuming it wasn't on purpose and you didn't actually know what i meant, you still changed "that much of a difference" to "doesn't hurt F2P any more than". So either way you're no better than what you accuse me of doing.
ps. No one besides the two of us cares about our little exchange, so lets not pretent you're doing this for the sake of everyone who reads this thread or out of posterity, haha. We both know why we're responding to eachother and i hope you also realize we're making ourselves look like fools in the process (even if you're right about everything).
What you meant was definitely not obvious for anyone. If you had clarified WITHOUT attitude I wouldn't have persevered. And our language mistake here wasn't a simple normal misunderstanding. You used words in ways that no one does. They were the opposite of you meant. The use of the word only literally precludes the possibility of ripple effects. It's one thing to allow people to say what they want and it to mean what they mean. It's another to let someone say "go left" and then "well that actually means go right when I say it".
There is no standard interpretation of "only" that says there are still ripple effects. When I said it doesn't matter what it means to you there was 2 big difference. One: I was using a STANDARD definition if not everyone's standard. And 2: I clarified WITHOUT copping an attitude. You did not. You said you didn't say that, though you literally did.
still not sure if you're plain dumb or willfully ignorant.
There is a HUGE difference between the length of time the possible competitive players will have to wait now compared to before. There are people who are still joining my shard chat after 3 years, but not anybody that wasn't getting in the top 50 at the start, which was not a number less than 100 initially and probably never fell below 100. There are 1200 possible top 50+ payouts in each shard each day. That is not a small number.
1200 top50+ payouts in each shard each day? Atleast you're being realistic
The group of people that could make top ranks before but can't now is the only people this conversation is about.
didnt i just say that?
It basically consists of all the F2P that could have eventually made top ranks on new shards. Does the size of the group really matter if you are cutting out an important demographic? And competitive F2P are a very important demographic for the P2W to keep playing.
Only IF they're cutting out that entire group, which at this point is just an assumption you made.
And I am not "guessing" how long it will take F2P to get a team full of legendary characters at top level to compete with the teams full of legendary characters. I ran a F2P guild for 2 years. I know EXACTLY how long it takes F2P to level. The FASTEST F2P COULD catch up in 6 months. IF the META doesn't shift and they farm exactly perfect. That's the MINIMUM. Reality is more like 9-12 months, and this is not just pulled out of thin air as you intimate. It is a realistic estimate based on my intimate understanding of the leveling player, something you seem to lack based on your arguments.
don't you mean based on your "limited understanding of the leveling players"? That's also based on your arguments.
And yes, it will destroy the shards of the people who buy the packs too. Would you keep playing a game that you spend all sorts of money on to be competitive but then you end up not having anyone to fight against? You just sit in 1st all day for weeks. No, people usually quit in those scenarios. Selling this pack is bad for the long term health of new shards. The should just be giving new characters more characters for free as they level. Instead of allowing people to buy to a new starting point, they should just raise the starting point. This pack is simply a bad idea.
Again, this argument makes no sense. Either there are enough players that bought the bundle to compete with eachother and completely push out f2p, or f2p can be competative (top20 arena) eventhough they can't beat the few players that bought the bundle.
In ANY freemium game the balance between p2p and f2p determines how long people play in general, the more tipped towards P2P it is, the shorter they play. This bundle has tipped it way further than any previous one has.
Right, and i think it won't make that much of a difference.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation. If you had said "The main thing that's changed is the value of the pack" it would have been fine, but by including the word only you used a manipulative thinking tactic called minimizing. If you want to argue on the side you are on, do so, but please be honest about it. Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
It's the only thing that changed. That change has an effect on the game, that is what we're discussing in this thread. You can argue all day that the effect the change has on the game is also a change to the game, but it seems rather obvious to me (and i assume anyone besides you) that i made a clear distinction between the change itself, which is the only thing that changed, and the effect it has on the game. It's not exactly uncommon to separate the change from the effects the change has. Anyone who interprets what i said as me saying that the change doesn't have an effect on the game is either wilfully ignorant in order to win an argument or plain dumb.
Once again the use of the word only precludes any other effect. If that one change made an effect elsewhere it is not the only thing that changed. Your use of the word only here is putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here.
Your understanding is flawed, and out of posterity I absolutely will not allow you to have the last word unless you acknowledge your mistake in using the word only, because it is NOT the only thing that has changed.
Saying that it is is not only wrong, it is manipulatively wrong. For the sake of everyone who reads this thread I will respond every time you do to make sure your manipulative untruth is not the last word here.
I'm not even going to talk about anything else you've said anymore because you refuse to let this manipulative untruth go. And this isn't an opinion, you are absolutely doing this. Look up minimizing if you don't believe me.
I'm sorry you insist on making a dishonest argument, but I won't tolerate it personally.
i see you're backing down slightly, maybe you realized what i said is not technically incorrect so you're going to accuse me of "putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here". haha
You're the guy who misquoted me/paraprashed incorrectly (what i can only assume was on purpose) only to call it supremely ignorant. Now that's a manipulative tactic to discredit someone if i ever saw one. Assuming it wasn't on purpose and you didn't actually know what i meant, you still changed "that much of a difference" to "doesn't hurt F2P any more than". So either way you're no better than what you accuse me of doing.
ps. No one besides the two of us cares about our little exchange, so lets not pretent you're doing this for the sake of everyone who reads this thread or out of posterity, haha. We both know why we're responding to eachother and i hope you also realize we're making ourselves look like fools in the process (even if you're right about everything).
I never misquoted you. I gave you the definition of your words. I don't care how many people may actually be swayed by your lie, but I am absolutely doing it for their sake. If it were just for myself I would have walked away from this a long time ago. The fact this is all on record is why it is important.
I am not using manipulative criminal thinking tactics. I am being completely unmanipulatively honest here. What I am accusing you of doing is not acknowledging your mistake. I always acknowledge my mistakes. I put the truth before my ego, not after it.
An effect is a change. If changing one thing affects other things, it changed them. Changing one thing causing other things to change is a domino effect. Only one thing was directly changed, but it was not the only thing that changed. Many things were changed indirectly.
What am I arguing against is the word only and how it being used here is a manipulative lie. This is what I was always responding to here. If you acknowledge that use of the word only was inappropriate, I will be satisfied. I already said so. I haven't changed my stance or desire one iota since we began this conversation.
I have gone though loads of programs designed to ensure that I don't use these manipulative tactics. It is ingrained into me. I know I am not using them. My arguments are completely straightforward. I argue for the truth, not to win.
I don't care how many people may actually be swayed by your lie, but I am absolutely doing it for their sake. If it were just for myself I would have walked away from this a long time ago.
Of course it does. It seems pretty clear that the bundle is not meant to give advantage to new players, it's just meant to try to make them spend before they realise spending on this game is not worth in general.
I never misquoted you. I gave you the definition of your words. I don't care how many people may actually be swayed by your lie, but I am absolutely doing it for their sake. If it were just for myself I would have walked away from this a long time ago. The fact this is all on record is why it is important.
lmao, how you say that after i pointed out that you changed "that much of a difference" to "doesn't hurt F2P any more than"?
I am not using manipulative criminal thinking tactics. I am being completely unmanipulatively honest here. What I am accusing you of doing is not acknowledging your mistake. I always acknowledge my mistakes. I put the truth before my ego, not after it.
If that's really how you feel you seriously lack selfawareness.
An effect is a change. If changing one thing affects other things, it changed them. Changing one thing causing other things to change is a domino effect. Only one thing was directly changed, but it was not the only thing that changed. Many things were changed indirectly.
What am I arguing against is the word only and how it being used here is a manipulative lie. This is what I was always responding to here. If you acknowledge that use of the word only was inappropriate, I will be satisfied. I already said so. I haven't changed my stance or desire one iota since we began this conversation.
Like i said, at first you were arguing that the word only was used incorrectly, now you're arguing that it's manipulative. Seems to me you lost the argument and try to start a new one just to be right
I have gone though loads of programs designed to ensure that I don't use these manipulative tactics. It is ingrained into me. I know I am not using them. My arguments are completely straightforward. I argue for the truth, not to win.
Seems to me you're not interrested in the truth. I mean the only thing you're arguing with me with isn't about what i said, but how i said it. Also, i find it kind of funny that you say you're interrested in the truth, but use that you've gone throught loads of programs as an argument.
Honestly though, what are you even talking about? My original comment is just me saying i don't see how it would make that much of a difference. It's not even me saying it won't make that much of a difference and definetely not me saying it won't make a difference. direct quote: "I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest."
And here you are still arguing about my usage of the word "only" eventhough this quote from that same comment clearly implies that the change has an effect on the game.
I never misquoted you. I gave you the definition of your words. I don't care how many people may actually be swayed by your lie, but I am absolutely doing it for their sake. If it were just for myself I would have walked away from this a long time ago. The fact this is all on record is why it is important.
lmao, how you say that after i pointed out that you changed "that much of a difference" to "doesn't hurt F2P any more than"?
I am not using manipulative criminal thinking tactics. I am being completely unmanipulatively honest here. What I am accusing you of doing is not acknowledging your mistake. I always acknowledge my mistakes. I put the truth before my ego, not after it.
If that's really how you feel you seriously lack selfawareness.
An effect is a change. If changing one thing affects other things, it changed them. Changing one thing causing other things to change is a domino effect. Only one thing was directly changed, but it was not the only thing that changed. Many things were changed indirectly.
What am I arguing against is the word only and how it being used here is a manipulative lie. This is what I was always responding to here. If you acknowledge that use of the word only was inappropriate, I will be satisfied. I already said so. I haven't changed my stance or desire one iota since we began this conversation.
Like i said, at first you were arguing that the word only was used incorrectly, now you're arguing that it's manipulative. Seems to me you lost the argument and try to start a new one just to be right
I have gone though loads of programs designed to ensure that I don't use these manipulative tactics. It is ingrained into me. I know I am not using them. My arguments are completely straightforward. I argue for the truth, not to win.
Seems to me you're not interrested in the truth. I mean the only thing you're arguing with me with isn't about what i said, but how i said it. Also, i find it kind of funny that you say you're interrested in the truth, but use that you've gone throught loads of programs as an argument.
Honestly though, what are you even talking about? My original comment is just me saying i don't see how it would make that much of a difference. It's not even me saying it won't make that much of a difference and definetely not me saying it won't make a difference. direct quote: "I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest."
And here you are still arguing about my usage of the word "only" eventhough this quote from that same comment clearly implies that the change has an effect on the game.
Nice snarky comment, that just like every other response you've given me, nicely ignores my point and goes on a bashing spree. Once again, I am here for the truth. The truth is, you made a mistake. You won't acknowledge you made a mistake. I won't let you have the last word unless it's you acknowledging your mistake. Throw aspersions on my character all you want. It only demeans you to resort to insulting me instead of simply saying " I was wrong".
If your post said something about it not being the only thing that changed to begin with, then your post was contradictory and confusing all in all and you shouldn't be defending those words, you should be happy your contradictory mistake was pointed out and acknowledge it. Definitely shouldn't be arguing like you said something different.
Spreading disinformation is a bad thing. You did. You should acknowledge that.
I never misquoted you. I gave you the definition of your words. I don't care how many people may actually be swayed by your lie, but I am absolutely doing it for their sake. If it were just for myself I would have walked away from this a long time ago. The fact this is all on record is why it is important.
lmao, how you say that after i pointed out that you changed "that much of a difference" to "doesn't hurt F2P any more than"?
I am not using manipulative criminal thinking tactics. I am being completely unmanipulatively honest here. What I am accusing you of doing is not acknowledging your mistake. I always acknowledge my mistakes. I put the truth before my ego, not after it.
If that's really how you feel you seriously lack selfawareness.
An effect is a change. If changing one thing affects other things, it changed them. Changing one thing causing other things to change is a domino effect. Only one thing was directly changed, but it was not the only thing that changed. Many things were changed indirectly.
What am I arguing against is the word only and how it being used here is a manipulative lie. This is what I was always responding to here. If you acknowledge that use of the word only was inappropriate, I will be satisfied. I already said so. I haven't changed my stance or desire one iota since we began this conversation.
Like i said, at first you were arguing that the word only was used incorrectly, now you're arguing that it's manipulative. Seems to me you lost the argument and try to start a new one just to be right
I have gone though loads of programs designed to ensure that I don't use these manipulative tactics. It is ingrained into me. I know I am not using them. My arguments are completely straightforward. I argue for the truth, not to win.
Seems to me you're not interrested in the truth. I mean the only thing you're arguing with me with isn't about what i said, but how i said it. Also, i find it kind of funny that you say you're interrested in the truth, but use that you've gone throught loads of programs as an argument.
Honestly though, what are you even talking about? My original comment is just me saying i don't see how it would make that much of a difference. It's not even me saying it won't make that much of a difference and definetely not me saying it won't make a difference. direct quote: "I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest."
And here you are still arguing about my usage of the word "only" eventhough this quote from that same comment clearly implies that the change has an effect on the game.
Nice snarky comment, that just like every other response you've given me, nicely ignores my point and goes on a bashing spree. Once again, I am here for the truth. The truth is, you made a mistake. You won't acknowledge you made a mistake. I won't let you have the last word unless it's you acknowledging your mistake. Throw aspersions on my character all you want. It only demeans you to resort to insulting me instead of simply saying " I was wrong".
If your post said something about it not being the only thing that changed to begin with, then your post was contradictory and confusing all in all and you shouldn't be defending those words, you should be happy your contradictory mistake was pointed out and acknowledge it. Definitely shouldn't be arguing like you said something different.
Spreading disinformation is a bad thing. You did. You should acknowledge that.
The truth is that you made a mistake by incorrectly paraphrasing what i said only to call it supremely ignorant. You could have asked me what i meant instead if my initial comment wasn't cleat, but that's not what you did eventhough you say you're only interrested in the truth.
You can keep arguing that you think what i said was technically incorrect due to the usage of the word "only", but given the context it was clear that i didn't think that the only thing that changed (better value for your money) didn't have an effect on new f2p players' competativeness. The only thing that changed clearly refers to the cause/change the devs made to the game, not to the effect of said change. So why are you arguing about it? Is it because you don't want to admit you paraphrased what i said incorrectly? Given the context it's hard to argue that you didn't, but maybe if you make a big deal about the word only you can argue that you did in fact paraphrase what i said correctly eventhough it clearly wasn't what i meant. You sure doubled down hard on that one sentence even after i explained what i meant 2 more times...
ps. I hope the irony of this sentence doesn't escape you "Throw aspersions on my character all you want. It only demeans you to resort to insulting me instead of simply saying " I was wrong"."
This is also a gem: "I won't let you have the last word unless it's you acknowledging your mistake"
pps. With each reply we're looking like bigger and bigger fools, haha.
Replies
No, those aren't my words. If you want to call me supremely ignorant atleast paraphrase the crux of my argument correctly.
You don't seem to understand the point i'm making, atleast you didn't refute the argument i tried to make.
I started playing almost 4 years ago, so i can't speak to the new player experience.
However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed.
I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest. Especially considering that there have always been players that spend to get ahead regardless of how much it costs. What makes you so sure that it's impossible for new f2p players now if it wasn't already impossible before? $100 is still a lot of money to spend at once on a mobile game, even if the bundle is a great deal (relatively)
For context, the "that much of a difference" is the difference between f2p being able to be competative and f2p not being able to be competative on a new leaderboard. Basically there aren't a lot (if any at all) f2p players that would have been competative on a new leaderboard, but aren't/wont be with the bundle being introduced to the game.
This doesn't mean that as a new f2p player you won't be further behind someone who bought the bundle than behind someone who spend the same amount of money on the game without buying the bundle, because you will definetely be further behind the one who bought the bundle. However, if you're able to craft a team that can beat the "meta" (without having a solid crystal income to do so) you're golden regardless of how far ahead progressionalwise the others are. After a while there's no difference in arena teams between the players who bought the bundle and players who simply have "the best" team.
"However, the only thing that really changed is how much value you get in return for your money, other than that nothing has changed."
This is what I'm responding to mainly. You specifically said that nothing has changed other than the value for the bundle. This literally means that the only change that has occurred is on the side of the buyer. This changes things for FTP just as much as it does the buyer. Most people would say it changes things more for the FTP.
And the regular argument that you can craft a team to beat the META is pale and untrue in these circumstances. This pack makes it so someone would need at least 6 months to catch up IF they knew what they were doing. Heck it would take 6 months just to have toons of the level necessary to beat the guy in 1st place due to level difference. Strategy doesn't even enter into it in this case. In reality it's more like 9 months to a year to catch up to where they are right now. If the person who purchased doesn't progress at all that's fine, but that's not likely.
Now there are some players that could care less about arena, its always been that way and always will be. This post has nothing to do with those players. This is about the F2P people who play to win in arena as they're the F2P this pack really affects. How many people do you think would play a game for a year or more before they had a chance at being competitive when being competitive was their goal? I would say that number is extremely small.
No, this pack can't be shushed away saying "all you have to do is build the right team" like other packs. This is a completely different level of separation than one that can be overcome simply with strategy.
No, to say that this doesn't affect FTP more than the packs before it is a supremely ignorant statement, and saying that the only thing that has changed is how much value is in the pack is saying the same thing only paraphrased.
You're right to say that it is misinformation to call it never, but we're talking 6 months minimum before a F2P would even be of a level able to challenge those top 50, so those 50 would never fall out of the top 50 fo 6 months (unless they subbed in a low level team for some reason), and that is NOT misinformation. In reality, since these players would have all these legendary toons, it will be much longer than that before the lower ranks could knock them out of the top 50 (unless the ones who bought the pack didn't even really try to play). No, this is a major game changer and it basically does ruin arena for new F2P players for more or less the first year of playing the game.
Are there actual new players at this point? Or just new accounts from old players?
pfft a new cap ain't happening. That means EA would have to get off their butts and make content to go with it.
You can rehash the same argument, but it doesn't refute what i'm saying at all.
Also, i've checked your profile. You're a prime example of a "bad" roster being able to compete for top ranks. So why wouldn't that be true for new players? Or do you honestly think an f2p player who started playing a few months ago was able to get to the top in arena within those few months?
Even in the good days with level caps and such it was difficult for f2p players to compete in arena and it has only gotten more difficult since. May i remind you that we're talking about roughly 50 players out of 10k or 20k players that are actually able to compete for top ranks. The number of f2p players (not counting hoarders) in that group, especially on new leaderboards, is super low. So the number of players this bundle causes to not be able to compete in arena is also super low, even if all of those f2p players who could compete before can't anymore. I'd wager that most f2p players have realistic expectations though, it's a 4 year old freemium game afterall.
Again, that's not what i said. You're arguing against something i didn't say and i don't know why. Repeating the same statement to call it supremely ignorant once again after i pointed out it wasn't what i said gives me the impression you just want to be right.
The use of the word "only" means that it has no ripple effect, otherwise it doesn't "only" affect the value of the pack.
What I said DOES refute your argument because it isn't rehashing the same old argument. This pack doesn't have the same impact other packs they've introduced in the past. The difference between my roster and other competitive players in my shard isn't even remotely close to being 50+ levels and 6 or more months behind in character farming the others in my shard.
Talk about the F2P who never make top ranks all you want, they will never apply to this conversation because that's not who the complaints are for. Those players usually end up rising up after sometime, but do you think they'd even bother to try when they say the massive gap they have to close? I think they would just stop playing instead.
In the long run this also hurts the people who bought the pack because it is no fun to play on a dead shard.
Once again, that is what you said (though paraphrased), though it may not be what you meant to say.
This sounds like scare tactic propaganda to get people to buy the pack.
Again, i don't see how this bundle makes that much of a difference in terms of f2p players being able to be competative. Simply guessing the amount of time you think it takes to catch up doesn't refute my argument at all.
You've missed 4 of the last metas (traya, JKR, DR and now GAS), but you're not months behind others on your leaderboard? Are you on a incredibly weak leaderboard or something? Regardless, apparantly you can be competative without traya, JKR, DR and GAS, that in itself proves that it doesn't matter how far behind you are, it only takes 1 team. I am talking about the players who would potentially make top ranks, but can't anymore due to the bundle. That's an incredibly small group of players. If you could do it before i'm convinced you can still do it now, it probably won't even take (much) longer. This makes no sense. At first you're arguing players can't compete due to the bundle, now you're arguing the shard will die? How does that work exactly?
okay buddy, you're right. Weren't you the guy that said it doesn't matter what others think you meant, it only matters what you meant? haha
This is far less true than it was before G13 and especially Relics. Those consistently finishing in the third or fourth tier of payout brackets are significantly less of a risk to catch up than they were before those two gear tiers. There were times when we were hoping for a meta shift quickly following the second appearance of the current meta (e.g., the mess that arena became after JKRs second coming but before Malak - especially when mods didn't matter as much).
If I was ftp and that happened, I'd probably quit....
I've started at least ten accounts and actively played three for at least two years. Some of those accounts were "tracers" to figure out when to flip an account with stored crystals to level 28 to join arena. For the record, I only did this on one account to test a theory on how much benefit there was to those accounts that did it (answer: a lot). At the time, getting to level 28 could be done in a couple of hours if you timed your account creation correctly around your account refresh. I believe they have since altered all of the initial challenge rewards and it takes at least a few days now.
I just did a quick search and the consensus I found was that it was anywhere from 3 months to 5 months for a serious player to go from 28 to 85. So even well planned and prepped accounts that are ready to jump into a shard early as F2P will be initially outpaced by 52 character levels, closing that gap slowly over three to five months.
For fun, go back to the tables and play an early round node with any Level 80 / G8 team you might have floating around. Or if you feel like losing energy, take the opposite approach. There is just no mechanism for the F2P player to develop quickly enough to break into the "top ranks," effectively closing them out of however many ranks as there are people that bought the Hyperdrive.
Additionally, the Hyperdrivers will have access to mods, zetas, legendaries, higher challenge tiers, etc. for all that additional time, enabling them to grow their rosters more quickly, getting them into better guilds, giving them access to better TB/TW/Raid rewards, etc. etc. The flywheel just moves much faster for them.
Could the FTP'er ever "catch up"? I would imagine that given they're behind by three to five months in a however many months long race to get to "the top" (G13 with some Relic level) it will take them on the order of a year, at least, just to field an arena team capable of breaking into the Hyperdrive crowd territory.
I'm not passing judgment on this in any way and part of me wants to start an account just to see how it plays out as I'm genuinely interested. It's not like there are 1000s of active players in most shards these days anyway, so it might not matter much and the only part of the community that's really impacted is that rare hyper-competitive FTP/light-spender.
What you meant was definitely not obvious for anyone. If you had clarified WITHOUT attitude I wouldn't have persevered. And our language mistake here wasn't a simple normal misunderstanding. You used words in ways that no one does. They were the opposite of you meant. The use of the word only literally precludes the possibility of ripple effects. It's one thing to allow people to say what they want and it to mean what they mean. It's another to let someone say "go left" and then "well that actually means go right when I say it".
There is no standard interpretation of "only" that says there are still ripple effects. When I said it doesn't matter what it means to you there was 2 big difference. One: I was using a STANDARD definition if not everyone's standard. And 2: I clarified WITHOUT copping an attitude. You did not. You said you didn't say that, though you literally did.
There is a HUGE difference between the length of time the possible competitive players will have to wait now compared to before. There are people who are still joining my shard chat after 3 years, but not anybody that wasn't getting in the top 50 at the start, which was not a number less than 100 initially and probably never fell below 100. There are 1200 possible top 50+ payouts in each shard each day. That is not a small number.
The group of people that could make top ranks before but can't now is the only people this conversation is about. It basically consists of all the F2P that could have eventually made top ranks on new shards. Does the size of the group really matter if you are cutting out an important demographic? And competitive F2P are a very important demographic for the P2W to keep playing.
And I am not "guessing" how long it will take F2P to get a team full of legendary characters at top level to compete with the teams full of legendary characters. I ran a F2P guild for 2 years. I know EXACTLY how long it takes F2P to level. The FASTEST F2P COULD catch up in 6 months. IF the META doesn't shift and they farm exactly perfect. That's the MINIMUM. Reality is more like 9-12 months, and this is not just pulled out of thin air as you intimate. It is a realistic estimate based on my intimate understanding of the leveling player, something you seem to lack based on your arguments.
And yes, it will destroy the shards of the people who buy the packs too. Would you keep playing a game that you spend all sorts of money on to be competitive but then you end up not having anyone to fight against? You just sit in 1st all day for weeks. No, people usually quit in those scenarios. Selling this pack is bad for the long term health of new shards. The should just be giving new characters more characters for free as they level. Instead of allowing people to buy to a new starting point, they should just raise the starting point. This pack is simply a bad idea.
In ANY freemium game the balance between p2p and f2p determines how long people play in general, the more tipped towards P2P it is, the shorter they play. This bundle has tipped it way further than any previous one has.
Now we can keep arguing about how you get defensive over your misleading confusing statements, or you could just accept that you were completely out of line to use the word only in that situation. If you had said "The main thing that's changed is the value of the pack" it would have been fine, but by including the word only you used a manipulative thinking tactic called minimizing. If you want to argue on the side you are on, do so, but please be honest about it. Don't try and downplay the negative aspects, acknowledge them and explain how they don't matter. Otherwise you are just making a dishonest argument.
@cannonfodder_iv
The question remains how much of a difference that really makes. How many players will buy the bundle, and more specifically how many of those players would you have been able to compete with if they didn't buy the bundle.
I thought it was obvious.
I disagree. But since I'm not anyone (see usage of "anyone" above) I guess it doesn't matter 🤷♂️
Oooooh, personal attack for the win!
Don't try and overstate the negative aspects, build them up and patronizingly explain how they're the end of arena shards. You're just making a sensationalist argument.
still not sure if you're plain dumb or willfully ignorant.
1200 top50+ payouts in each shard each day? Atleast you're being realistic didnt i just say that? Only IF they're cutting out that entire group, which at this point is just an assumption you made.
don't you mean based on your "limited understanding of the leveling players"? That's also based on your arguments. Again, this argument makes no sense. Either there are enough players that bought the bundle to compete with eachother and completely push out f2p, or f2p can be competative (top20 arena) eventhough they can't beat the few players that bought the bundle. Right, and i think it won't make that much of a difference.
It's the only thing that changed. That change has an effect on the game, that is what we're discussing in this thread. You can argue all day that the effect the change has on the game is also a change to the game, but it seems rather obvious to me (and i assume anyone besides you) that i made a clear distinction between the change itself, which is the only thing that changed, and the effect it has on the game. It's not exactly uncommon to separate the change from the effects the change has. Anyone who interprets what i said as me saying that the change doesn't have an effect on the game is either wilfully ignorant in order to win an argument or plain dumb.
@leef Agreed, all valid points. I have my own "feelings" about it and could lay down some assumptions and do some math to supply what I would consider to be subjective evidence, but that's not all that useful. To your point, we don't know how many people will buy or have bought the bundle and without that knowledge, the rest of it is just conjecture. If it's 5 per shard, the impact is minimal. If it's 500, the impact is clear. There's a number somewhere in between that's interesting.
We're all making assumptions/guessing to a certain extent because we simply can't know.
Maybe i'm vastly underestimating the amount of new players that only because of this bundle is willing to spend that much money at once on this game. Maybe i'm also vastly overestimating how difficult it is for a new f2p player to reach top ranks before hitting lvl 85.
Once again the use of the word only precludes any other effect. If that one change made an effect elsewhere it is not the only thing that changed. Your use of the word only here is putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here.
Your understanding is flawed, and out of posterity I absolutely will not allow you to have the last word unless you acknowledge your mistake in using the word only, because it is NOT the only thing that has changed.
Saying that it is is not only wrong, it is manipulatively wrong. For the sake of everyone who reads this thread I will respond every time you do to make sure your manipulative untruth is not the last word here.
I'm not even going to talk about anything else you've said anymore because you refuse to let this manipulative untruth go. And this isn't an opinion, you are absolutely doing this. Look up minimizing if you don't believe me.
I'm sorry you insist on making a dishonest argument, but I won't tolerate it personally.
i see you're backing down slightly, maybe you realized what i said is not technically incorrect so you're going to accuse me of "putting to work a negative/manipulative/criminal thinking tactic here". haha
You're the guy who misquoted me/paraprashed incorrectly (what i can only assume was on purpose) only to call it supremely ignorant. Now that's a manipulative tactic to discredit someone if i ever saw one. Assuming it wasn't on purpose and you didn't actually know what i meant, you still changed "that much of a difference" to "doesn't hurt F2P any more than". So either way you're no better than what you accuse me of doing.
ps. No one besides the two of us cares about our little exchange, so lets not pretent you're doing this for the sake of everyone who reads this thread or out of posterity, haha. We both know why we're responding to eachother and i hope you also realize we're making ourselves look like fools in the process (even if you're right about everything).
I never misquoted you. I gave you the definition of your words. I don't care how many people may actually be swayed by your lie, but I am absolutely doing it for their sake. If it were just for myself I would have walked away from this a long time ago. The fact this is all on record is why it is important.
I am not using manipulative criminal thinking tactics. I am being completely unmanipulatively honest here. What I am accusing you of doing is not acknowledging your mistake. I always acknowledge my mistakes. I put the truth before my ego, not after it.
An effect is a change. If changing one thing affects other things, it changed them. Changing one thing causing other things to change is a domino effect. Only one thing was directly changed, but it was not the only thing that changed. Many things were changed indirectly.
What am I arguing against is the word only and how it being used here is a manipulative lie. This is what I was always responding to here. If you acknowledge that use of the word only was inappropriate, I will be satisfied. I already said so. I haven't changed my stance or desire one iota since we began this conversation.
I have gone though loads of programs designed to ensure that I don't use these manipulative tactics. It is ingrained into me. I know I am not using them. My arguments are completely straightforward. I argue for the truth, not to win.
And we thank you for your heroics. 🙄
Seems to me you're not interrested in the truth. I mean the only thing you're arguing with me with isn't about what i said, but how i said it. Also, i find it kind of funny that you say you're interrested in the truth, but use that you've gone throught loads of programs as an argument.
Honestly though, what are you even talking about? My original comment is just me saying i don't see how it would make that much of a difference. It's not even me saying it won't make that much of a difference and definetely not me saying it won't make a difference. direct quote: "I don't really see how this 1 bundle could make that much of a difference to be honest."
And here you are still arguing about my usage of the word "only" eventhough this quote from that same comment clearly implies that the change has an effect on the game.
Nice snarky comment, that just like every other response you've given me, nicely ignores my point and goes on a bashing spree. Once again, I am here for the truth. The truth is, you made a mistake. You won't acknowledge you made a mistake. I won't let you have the last word unless it's you acknowledging your mistake. Throw aspersions on my character all you want. It only demeans you to resort to insulting me instead of simply saying " I was wrong".
If your post said something about it not being the only thing that changed to begin with, then your post was contradictory and confusing all in all and you shouldn't be defending those words, you should be happy your contradictory mistake was pointed out and acknowledge it. Definitely shouldn't be arguing like you said something different.
Spreading disinformation is a bad thing. You did. You should acknowledge that.
The truth is that you made a mistake by incorrectly paraphrasing what i said only to call it supremely ignorant. You could have asked me what i meant instead if my initial comment wasn't cleat, but that's not what you did eventhough you say you're only interrested in the truth.
You can keep arguing that you think what i said was technically incorrect due to the usage of the word "only", but given the context it was clear that i didn't think that the only thing that changed (better value for your money) didn't have an effect on new f2p players' competativeness. The only thing that changed clearly refers to the cause/change the devs made to the game, not to the effect of said change. So why are you arguing about it? Is it because you don't want to admit you paraphrased what i said incorrectly? Given the context it's hard to argue that you didn't, but maybe if you make a big deal about the word only you can argue that you did in fact paraphrase what i said correctly eventhough it clearly wasn't what i meant. You sure doubled down hard on that one sentence even after i explained what i meant 2 more times...
ps. I hope the irony of this sentence doesn't escape you "Throw aspersions on my character all you want. It only demeans you to resort to insulting me instead of simply saying " I was wrong"."
This is also a gem: "I won't let you have the last word unless it's you acknowledging your mistake"
pps. With each reply we're looking like bigger and bigger fools, haha.