Shard Economy Changes [MEGA]

Replies

  • scuba wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Firefox54 wrote: »
    IMO ... just fix the Bronzium packs. I understand that if we farm older toons to 7* faster we will have more energy to get gear ... but that will be offset (to some degree) by cutting gear we get from the shard shop in half. This may/may not give us more gear (don't have the time today to do the math or read through the entirety of the forum). For new toons, this will clearly be a net loss in the amount of gear that can be collected.

    The worst thing (in CG's viewpoint) that could happen by fixing the Bronzium packs now is that we might actually get a little more gear than we currently get over the long-term ... and that's the big crunch in the game. I, as an older player, am rarely concerned with getting my toons to 7* (sometimes a ship now with GLs but not toons), but gear is the crunch.

    Finally, yes, a number of players are skeptical when CG makes a change that, in the end, we're going to be worse off than before (let's be honest, they don't have a great community track record). If they fixed the Bronzium concern now, without tweaking other areas like drop rates, they'd likely have no one in the community questioning this change.

    CG ... just throw out some goodwill and adjust the Bronzium packs now ... the money will still flow into the game ... and you'll make the entire player base happy.

    I understand where you are coming from, but you make it sound like they are choosing not to adjust bronzium. They made this plan and when they started implementing it, ran into an issue, that will require more time/focus/work-arounds to get done.

    Despite all the conspiracy theories around it, it's not a direct choice that they just need to be convinced to change it.

    Genuine question, how hard would it be to just double ally points earned?

    Yes.

    Considering something like that has multiple sources, probably more manual work than some of the other suggestions.

    The one I feel should have the least amount of effort involved would be half the bronzium cost. That should only be the most localized change.

    Ok let's do it. It's just hard to believe that this "technical issue" would be so hard to solve.

    It's hard to believe that anyone without knowledge of the code can make that assessment, but just like the technical issue, here we are.

    store>storeItem[121]>offer[0]>price = 125
    or if you like:
    "offer": [{
                "paymentCurrency": 13,
                "price": 0,
                "inAppProductIdOld": 0,
                "costKey": "",
                "cooldownKey": "SOCIAL_PACK_COOLDOWN",
                "dailyPurchaseCapKey": "SOCIAL_PACK_DAILY_CAP",
                "inAppProductId": ""
            }, {
                "paymentCurrency": 4,
                "price": 125,
                "inAppProductIdOld": 0,
                "costKey": "",
                "cooldownKey": "",
                "dailyPurchaseCapKey": "",
                "inAppProductId": ""
            }
        ]
    

    There Bronzium price cut in half

    Give that man a raise! (first start paying him)
  • Kyno
    30051 posts Moderator
    edited November 2020
    scuba wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Firefox54 wrote: »
    IMO ... just fix the Bronzium packs. I understand that if we farm older toons to 7* faster we will have more energy to get gear ... but that will be offset (to some degree) by cutting gear we get from the shard shop in half. This may/may not give us more gear (don't have the time today to do the math or read through the entirety of the forum). For new toons, this will clearly be a net loss in the amount of gear that can be collected.

    The worst thing (in CG's viewpoint) that could happen by fixing the Bronzium packs now is that we might actually get a little more gear than we currently get over the long-term ... and that's the big crunch in the game. I, as an older player, am rarely concerned with getting my toons to 7* (sometimes a ship now with GLs but not toons), but gear is the crunch.

    Finally, yes, a number of players are skeptical when CG makes a change that, in the end, we're going to be worse off than before (let's be honest, they don't have a great community track record). If they fixed the Bronzium concern now, without tweaking other areas like drop rates, they'd likely have no one in the community questioning this change.

    CG ... just throw out some goodwill and adjust the Bronzium packs now ... the money will still flow into the game ... and you'll make the entire player base happy.

    I understand where you are coming from, but you make it sound like they are choosing not to adjust bronzium. They made this plan and when they started implementing it, ran into an issue, that will require more time/focus/work-arounds to get done.

    Despite all the conspiracy theories around it, it's not a direct choice that they just need to be convinced to change it.

    Genuine question, how hard would it be to just double ally points earned?

    Yes.

    Considering something like that has multiple sources, probably more manual work than some of the other suggestions.

    The one I feel should have the least amount of effort involved would be half the bronzium cost. That should only be the most localized change.

    Ok let's do it. It's just hard to believe that this "technical issue" would be so hard to solve.

    It's hard to believe that anyone without knowledge of the code can make that assessment, but just like the technical issue, here we are.

    store>storeItem[121]>offer[0]>price = 125
    or if you like:
    "offer": [{
                "paymentCurrency": 13,
                "price": 0,
                "inAppProductIdOld": 0,
                "costKey": "",
                "cooldownKey": "SOCIAL_PACK_COOLDOWN",
                "dailyPurchaseCapKey": "SOCIAL_PACK_DAILY_CAP",
                "inAppProductId": ""
            }, {
                "paymentCurrency": 4,
                "price": 125,
                "inAppProductIdOld": 0,
                "costKey": "",
                "cooldownKey": "",
                "dailyPurchaseCapKey": "",
                "inAppProductId": ""
            }
        ]
    

    There Bronzium price cut in half

    Correct, that's why I said that is probably the easiest solution.
  • Ultowe
    38 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    :D:D:D made my day!
  • This also lowers Shard Shop income for veteran accounts from Guild Currency.

    Currently, if you have all the toons from that shop, you typically buy the 5 shards of Cassian U wing for 95 **** currency. That is higher than 5 character shard for 75 Currency.

    After change, you get 10 character shards for 150 currency, which is a better deal than the ship. But prices doubled. So it is loss of ~18% from excess Cantina currency converting to shard shop converting to gear.

    Again, small, but the last thing we need is throttling down of gear acquisition.
  • as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.
  • Kyno
    30051 posts Moderator
    This also lowers Shard Shop income for veteran accounts from Guild Currency.

    Currently, if you have all the toons from that shop, you typically buy the 5 shards of Cassian U wing for 95 **** currency. That is higher than 5 character shard for 75 Currency.

    After change, you get 10 character shards for 150 currency, which is a better deal than the ship. But prices doubled. So it is loss of ~18% from excess Cantina currency converting to shard shop converting to gear.

    Again, small, but the last thing we need is throttling down of gear acquisition.

    Is this typical? I never buy anything but gear in the guild store. Also I was unaware that there were any ships offered there.

    I'm confused by the comparison between stores.
  • Kyno
    30051 posts Moderator
    as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.

    Did they say too difficult?

    As a project manager, I can assure you that some times unexpected issues will be pushed aside to keep a project moving forward with the full intent of circling back to it or trying to find a solution, without changing project deadlines. That has to be expressed somehow, and is not uncommon. At no point is it just about one point of "too difficult" or "too busy" it's a balance between getting the project done and meeting the goals set. They are just expressing the situation with some visibility on what's going on.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.

    Did they say too difficult?

    As a project manager, I can assure you that some times unexpected issues will be pushed aside to keep a project moving forward with the full intent of circling back to it or trying to find a solution, without changing project deadlines. That has to be expressed somehow, and is not uncommon. At no point is it just about one point of "too difficult" or "too busy" it's a balance between getting the project done and meeting the goals set. They are just expressing the situation with some visibility on what's going on.

    If this is the case and they are planning to circle back, why would they not say so and instead leave a vague and open ended statement like "we will explore fixing it in a future update?" That's akin to admitting there is currently no plan to address the issue. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, saying they won't even explore it until a future update probably means they aren't even collecting input yet, or looking into Bronzium alternatives, they just plan to leave the whole thing until much further down the road.
  • Kyno
    30051 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.

    Did they say too difficult?

    As a project manager, I can assure you that some times unexpected issues will be pushed aside to keep a project moving forward with the full intent of circling back to it or trying to find a solution, without changing project deadlines. That has to be expressed somehow, and is not uncommon. At no point is it just about one point of "too difficult" or "too busy" it's a balance between getting the project done and meeting the goals set. They are just expressing the situation with some visibility on what's going on.

    If this is the case and they are planning to circle back, why would they not say so and instead leave a vague and open ended statement like "we will explore fixing it in a future update?" That's akin to admitting there is currently no plan to address the issue. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, saying they won't even explore it until a future update probably means they aren't even collecting input yet, or looking into Bronzium alternatives, they just plan to leave the whole thing until much further down the road.

    They may not have used those words, but they did give that impression. Otherwise, why say :
    We will explore increasing this rate in a future update.

    Ok, you can take that however you want, but that seems like there is a plan, and they just don't want to commit to any direct timeline.

    Again did they say "much further", no. We can argue about the wording and how you take what they said all day, if you dont think its going to happen, then that's how you will read that. Which is fine, we all have our own grain of salt on every word we read.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.

    Did they say too difficult?

    As a project manager, I can assure you that some times unexpected issues will be pushed aside to keep a project moving forward with the full intent of circling back to it or trying to find a solution, without changing project deadlines. That has to be expressed somehow, and is not uncommon. At no point is it just about one point of "too difficult" or "too busy" it's a balance between getting the project done and meeting the goals set. They are just expressing the situation with some visibility on what's going on.

    If this is the case and they are planning to circle back, why would they not say so and instead leave a vague and open ended statement like "we will explore fixing it in a future update?" That's akin to admitting there is currently no plan to address the issue. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, saying they won't even explore it until a future update probably means they aren't even collecting input yet, or looking into Bronzium alternatives, they just plan to leave the whole thing until much further down the road.

    They may not have used those words, but they did give that impression. Otherwise, why say :
    We will explore increasing this rate in a future update.

    Ok, you can take that however you want, but that seems like there is a plan, and they just don't want to commit to any direct timeline.

    Again did they say "much further", no. We can argue about the wording and how you take what they said all day, if you dont think its going to happen, then that's how you will read that. Which is fine, we all have our own grain of salt on every word we read.

    If they had a plan, and it was an easy fix, then after seeing such backlash to this small problem they could easily just release a statement saying "alright we've explored it, we're gonna increase the rate." Either they don't have a plan which means it's gonna take them a while, or it isn't an easy fix which means it's gonna take them a while, or they were leaving themselves a back door to never fix it at all.
  • scuba
    12682 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    This also lowers Shard Shop income for veteran accounts from Guild Currency.

    Currently, if you have all the toons from that shop, you typically buy the 5 shards of Cassian U wing for 95 **** currency. That is higher than 5 character shard for 75 Currency.

    After change, you get 10 character shards for 150 currency, which is a better deal than the ship. But prices doubled. So it is loss of ~18% from excess Cantina currency converting to shard shop converting to gear.

    Again, small, but the last thing we need is throttling down of gear acquisition.
    None of those numbers make sense to me
    The guild store where you can spend guild tokens
    4 x ship shards for 450 guild tokens
    5 x char shards for 450 guild tokens

    Shard Shop currency right now
    Ships
    4 x 19 = 76
    Characters
    5 x 15 = 75
    After planned change
    Ships
    4 x (2 x 19) = 152
    Accelrated Charaters
    (2 x 5) x 15 = 150

    So both get doubled
    If you are talking about the Cantina Store where you can get 5 shards of Cassian U-wing it is the same thing

    Shard Shop currency right now
    ships
    5 x 19 = 95
    Characters
    5 x 15 = 75

    After planned change
    Ships
    5 x (2 x 19) = 190
    Accelrated Charaters
    (2 x 5) x 15 = 150

    both still get doubled for Shard Shop currency

    Edit:
    Maybe you missed this part:
    Due to the resulting variation in between Shards, we are modifying the Shard Shop to keep Shard-to-Purchase ratios unchanged. Under the hood, this means we are doubling all sources of Shard Shop Currency, doubling in-store costs, and then doubling unspent Shard Shop Currency on all accounts when these changes go live.
    • Accelerated-Farm Characters keep their conversion the same (1 Shard > 15 SSC).
    • Original Rate characters have their conversion doubled (1 Shard > 30 SSC).
    • For ships, this doubles such that 1 Shard > 38 SSC
  • Kyno
    30051 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.

    Did they say too difficult?

    As a project manager, I can assure you that some times unexpected issues will be pushed aside to keep a project moving forward with the full intent of circling back to it or trying to find a solution, without changing project deadlines. That has to be expressed somehow, and is not uncommon. At no point is it just about one point of "too difficult" or "too busy" it's a balance between getting the project done and meeting the goals set. They are just expressing the situation with some visibility on what's going on.

    If this is the case and they are planning to circle back, why would they not say so and instead leave a vague and open ended statement like "we will explore fixing it in a future update?" That's akin to admitting there is currently no plan to address the issue. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, saying they won't even explore it until a future update probably means they aren't even collecting input yet, or looking into Bronzium alternatives, they just plan to leave the whole thing until much further down the road.

    They may not have used those words, but they did give that impression. Otherwise, why say :
    We will explore increasing this rate in a future update.

    Ok, you can take that however you want, but that seems like there is a plan, and they just don't want to commit to any direct timeline.

    Again did they say "much further", no. We can argue about the wording and how you take what they said all day, if you dont think its going to happen, then that's how you will read that. Which is fine, we all have our own grain of salt on every word we read.

    If they had a plan, and it was an easy fix, then after seeing such backlash to this small problem they could easily just release a statement saying "alright we've explored it, we're gonna increase the rate." Either they don't have a plan which means it's gonna take them a while, or it isn't an easy fix which means it's gonna take them a while, or they were leaving themselves a back door to never fix it at all.

    They released this remark 2 days ago and had a holiday yesterday, so if you feel they should be reacting to any backlash, you may be jumping the gun a bit.

    But also, they were probably aware this was not going to be liked since they are missing one of their stated goals, and they may want to still roll this out without that element and get to it when its planned (internally)without committing to anything externally.

    I get that, but they did release a statement, and that is the statement they are comfortable with. Take it how you want, but they are not likely to make another statement saying basically the same thing unless something has changed in their end.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    as a computer programmer i cant accept that this is too hard to fix issue. I know i didnt write the code for the app but I have written programs in many different languages and know enough about Ios and Android coding methods to say that is not a sufficient answer for a company like ea/cg.

    Did they say too difficult?

    As a project manager, I can assure you that some times unexpected issues will be pushed aside to keep a project moving forward with the full intent of circling back to it or trying to find a solution, without changing project deadlines. That has to be expressed somehow, and is not uncommon. At no point is it just about one point of "too difficult" or "too busy" it's a balance between getting the project done and meeting the goals set. They are just expressing the situation with some visibility on what's going on.

    If this is the case and they are planning to circle back, why would they not say so and instead leave a vague and open ended statement like "we will explore fixing it in a future update?" That's akin to admitting there is currently no plan to address the issue. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, saying they won't even explore it until a future update probably means they aren't even collecting input yet, or looking into Bronzium alternatives, they just plan to leave the whole thing until much further down the road.

    They may not have used those words, but they did give that impression. Otherwise, why say :
    We will explore increasing this rate in a future update.

    Ok, you can take that however you want, but that seems like there is a plan, and they just don't want to commit to any direct timeline.

    Again did they say "much further", no. We can argue about the wording and how you take what they said all day, if you dont think its going to happen, then that's how you will read that. Which is fine, we all have our own grain of salt on every word we read.

    If they had a plan, and it was an easy fix, then after seeing such backlash to this small problem they could easily just release a statement saying "alright we've explored it, we're gonna increase the rate." Either they don't have a plan which means it's gonna take them a while, or it isn't an easy fix which means it's gonna take them a while, or they were leaving themselves a back door to never fix it at all.

    They released this remark 2 days ago and had a holiday yesterday, so if you feel they should be reacting to any backlash, you may be jumping the gun a bit.

    But also, they were probably aware this was not going to be liked since they are missing one of their stated goals, and they may want to still roll this out without that element and get to it when its planned (internally)without committing to anything externally.

    I get that, but they did release a statement, and that is the statement they are comfortable with. Take it how you want, but they are not likely to make another statement saying basically the same thing unless something has changed in their end.

    I know they released a statement, that's the statement that I'm picking apart. Whenever they've left themselves such an obvious and glaring opening in the past, in a best case scenario it has meant what it has said. However other times it has led to something being delayed or not happening at all. In a situation like this where it comes down to the entire end-game gear economy being thrown out of whack, I would like to not flip a coin, since they haven't really established a big enough positive precedent for me to trust them.

    Also, holiday or not, barely hours after they released the statement and this thread blew up, @CG_Doja_Fett said he would be bringing up concerns with the team, so they had this information and this backlash the day they made the statement. Disregarding the holiday, they had time to at least react so if there's no addressing this thread by at least Doja again within a couple days, then they obviously have other plans than fixing the packs any time soon.
  • Also if they plan to ignore the backlash because they already have an internal calendar, then you can see why my concern isn't erased. Their internal calendar works in months, maybe even years. It has been two years since they've released any major content updates within anything less than four months of each other. If by "future update" they mean the next economy tweak they plan after getting data from this, then I have no reason to believe the Bronziums will be fixed in anything less than four months.
  • Lets just say that they know people arent playing as much because the drop rates are so garbage that only the whales will remain so they decide to raise them. So what? My daily 5 chances for 1 shard to drop get raised from 0 to still 0?
    Its veery disappointing that not all of us whale this game. I may buy some crystals now and then but nother over 10 bucks. Its not worth it. The drop rate for this game alone has made a lot of my guild mates leave the game because to farm 1 character would take a year and in the meantime you drop 10 new ones that are the “meta”
    As for ships, us ftp get rebels who were the meta for a long time and now are rank 20 and below.

    What about refreshing the farmable toons in the store?
  • Fieldgulls wrote: »
    Fieldgulls wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Fieldgulls wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Fieldgulls wrote: »
    ea/cg cant do something to help the community without taking something away. so they give one thing but take something else away. as a player that has been around since nov 2015 when the game started i know ea/cg doesnt care about me anymore. thats the statement they make when they do something for new players and take something away from us longtime players on a 5th year anniversary change. thats how i see it. if you do something for the community it should universally benefit the community. i am all for helping newer players but not at the detriment of the majority of the community.

    I agree wholeheartedly on your comment. I am close if not a day one player. I have read all the past Q&A’s and provided feedback to surveys to all see it ignored (i.e. gear crunch) The game made it five years on the backs of us long term players. I am all for helping newer players as they have way more characters to farm than we did...however the gear acquisition has no way kept up. A nice gesture of keeping the shard shop cost the same, as it is now, instead of doubling it would have helped EVERYONE and would have been seen as them listening to their player base...especially after kyro addition under the guise it would help “diversify” the gear requirements to only turn into another gear wall. What is the plan for year 6 anniversary? What will be taken away then? We have had more nerfs in 2020 than content. Think about that!!

    How do you assess gear acquisition not keeping up?

    When I look at the evolution of my roster it's not as bad as majority claims. To give an idea of the conditions, f2p, both arena top income, very rarely buy gear but always 3x farm. At the time g13 was introduced I had 80 g12s. Right now I have 65 g13s and 63 g12s. I bet g13 count will exceed previous g12 count before the new gear thingie is here. Stun things are waning as a bottleneck for me while kyro and fleet g12+ needs (especially mk12 furnace and stun cuffs) are becoming more prominent. This is very much by design and everyone hits it at some point.

    You are looking at it from your roster and your point of view. I am looking at it from an all player view as I see what my needs are but also that of my guild. A pretty big tell tale sign is the daily gear request made by guild members...we have at least 15-20 requests a day for stun guns. Let’s be honest all guilds probably see this daily except the high end ones. One place to get said stuns guns is the shard shop...make it easier to get this stuns guns with this change is to keep the cost as it is now instead of doubling. Plus add them to the guild store (the only reason they’re not there is guns were/are the gear wall with older toons)...as now kyros are the gear wall on new toons. So if we are helping newer players with shards, on the accelerated path, shouldn’t they be helped with the gear wall on gear level 7 or 8?

    I posed a question. You are not looking at all player point of view whatsoever. I'm not talking about -this change- either, I'm talking about the claim that gear crunch is ever getting worse and asked for what metric you are deciding that to be the case. -still needing guns- is not much of a proof as everyone still needs guns.

    Let me try to understand...everyone still needs stun guns and we do not have hundreds laying around to scavenge. We still need them because of old gear walls and many new toon still have them. We have limited stores to purchase them in. We have more toons then years ago...we have had gear levels 9-12.5 added in the last few years that may also need stun guns. You are now trying to accelerate shard acquisition with no decent way to improve gear acquisition to accommodate...seems fishy to me. Are they buying time to where six months down the road these newer players realize they have all the 7 star toons stuck at gear level 7 and then give up? I see it everyday in my guild as the churn is real. They need to do both!! Being able to have a little more purchasing power in the shard shop will probably go along way to keep the players around. FYI, I am using stun guns as the example as we all know for newer players these are the problem.

    They never said they didn't plan to adjust gear too. Just that they are doing shards first since they affect gear (shard shop).

    I read that as they want more information before adjusting gear (so they don't have to turn around and nerf it because they went too far. Cause that would go over well.)

    You can believe them or not. But reading the release as a statement that they aren't touching gear at some point is just dishonest.

    I have played the game for five years...I know the deal on how they word their comments and what actions follow. I enjoy the game and have spent money on this game but it gets harder and harder when they make comments on the economy, cancel content, lack of bug fixes...I grow more skeptical every day. Maybe canceling the planned raid was not due to time or technical issues...or developing it so one toon cannot solo it. Maybe it was due to the gear included and what it would do the economy of the game? Hmmm

    If you hate CG so much and don't think they will make the game better, perhaps it's time for you to find a game that suits you better.
  • Fieldgulls wrote: »
    Fieldgulls wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Fieldgulls wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Fieldgulls wrote: »
    ea/cg cant do something to help the community without taking something away. so they give one thing but take something else away. as a player that has been around since nov 2015 when the game started i know ea/cg doesnt care about me anymore. thats the statement they make when they do something for new players and take something away from us longtime players on a 5th year anniversary change. thats how i see it. if you do something for the community it should universally benefit the community. i am all for helping newer players but not at the detriment of the majority of the community.

    I agree wholeheartedly on your comment. I am close if not a day one player. I have read all the past Q&A’s and provided feedback to surveys to all see it ignored (i.e. gear crunch) The game made it five years on the backs of us long term players. I am all for helping newer players as they have way more characters to farm than we did...however the gear acquisition has no way kept up. A nice gesture of keeping the shard shop cost the same, as it is now, instead of doubling it would have helped EVERYONE and would have been seen as them listening to their player base...especially after kyro addition under the guise it would help “diversify” the gear requirements to only turn into another gear wall. What is the plan for year 6 anniversary? What will be taken away then? We have had more nerfs in 2020 than content. Think about that!!

    How do you assess gear acquisition not keeping up?

    When I look at the evolution of my roster it's not as bad as majority claims. To give an idea of the conditions, f2p, both arena top income, very rarely buy gear but always 3x farm. At the time g13 was introduced I had 80 g12s. Right now I have 65 g13s and 63 g12s. I bet g13 count will exceed previous g12 count before the new gear thingie is here. Stun things are waning as a bottleneck for me while kyro and fleet g12+ needs (especially mk12 furnace and stun cuffs) are becoming more prominent. This is very much by design and everyone hits it at some point.

    You are looking at it from your roster and your point of view. I am looking at it from an all player view as I see what my needs are but also that of my guild. A pretty big tell tale sign is the daily gear request made by guild members...we have at least 15-20 requests a day for stun guns. Let’s be honest all guilds probably see this daily except the high end ones. One place to get said stuns guns is the shard shop...make it easier to get this stuns guns with this change is to keep the cost as it is now instead of doubling. Plus add them to the guild store (the only reason they’re not there is guns were/are the gear wall with older toons)...as now kyros are the gear wall on new toons. So if we are helping newer players with shards, on the accelerated path, shouldn’t they be helped with the gear wall on gear level 7 or 8?

    I posed a question. You are not looking at all player point of view whatsoever. I'm not talking about -this change- either, I'm talking about the claim that gear crunch is ever getting worse and asked for what metric you are deciding that to be the case. -still needing guns- is not much of a proof as everyone still needs guns.

    Let me try to understand...everyone still needs stun guns and we do not have hundreds laying around to scavenge. We still need them because of old gear walls and many new toon still have them. We have limited stores to purchase them in. We have more toons then years ago...we have had gear levels 9-12.5 added in the last few years that may also need stun guns. You are now trying to accelerate shard acquisition with no decent way to improve gear acquisition to accommodate...seems fishy to me. Are they buying time to where six months down the road these newer players realize they have all the 7 star toons stuck at gear level 7 and then give up? I see it everyday in my guild as the churn is real. They need to do both!! Being able to have a little more purchasing power in the shard shop will probably go along way to keep the players around. FYI, I am using stun guns as the example as we all know for newer players these are the problem.

    They never said they didn't plan to adjust gear too. Just that they are doing shards first since they affect gear (shard shop).

    I read that as they want more information before adjusting gear (so they don't have to turn around and nerf it because they went too far. Cause that would go over well.)

    You can believe them or not. But reading the release as a statement that they aren't touching gear at some point is just dishonest.

    I have played the game for five years...I know the deal on how they word their comments and what actions follow. I enjoy the game and have spent money on this game but it gets harder and harder when they make comments on the economy, cancel content, lack of bug fixes...I grow more skeptical every day. Maybe canceling the planned raid was not due to time or technical issues...or developing it so one toon cannot solo it. Maybe it was due to the gear included and what it would do the economy of the game? Hmmm

    If you hate CG so much and don't think they will make the game better, perhaps it's time for you to find a game that suits you better.

    Oh I dislike CG but love the game to death. And a fair bit of the time, they pleasantly surprise me. I'm just not holding my breath that they'll fix this one, so I gotta say I'm with him at least a little bit in saying he's skeptical of their comments.
  • scuba wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Mace_Windu wrote: »
    There was an idea... why don't they half the amount of shard shop currency you get from accelerated characters and leave everything else to do with the shard shop alone? this would fix the bronzium ''problem'' while leaving everything else exactly how it is and how it's going to be.

    The idea, which I give them credit for, is to keep the shard shop neutral.
    With the current plan accelerated characters are obtained at double the rate every where except Bronzium
    If you half the shard shop currency from accelerated characters and leave shard shop prices the same you are still Bronzium characters are still going to have the same issue because the aquistion rate is not changing
    The problem is they can't (for some technical reason) change the bronzium rate

    They could add some of the characters shards for bronizum characters to other events as a temp fix. Like throw 50 boba shards in a GC one week. Or what ever number required to even it out.

    That would be better than adjusting ally points.

    Except players do different things with allypoints
    Some open lots of packs some (like me) barely open the free ones.

    Everything I got from this change with what they are trying to achieve is to accelerate the shard farm for these older characters and keep everything else the neutral.
    To do this the Shard Shop Currency for bronzium also needs to be adjusted in some way, so that a player gets ~ the same as what they where getting before the change based on what they are doing.
    IMO the best way, if they can't change the number of shards dropped from bronzium is to, as ultra suggested, cut the cost in half until they can get around the "technical" issue.
    for those that spend allypoints on bronzium this should keep it neutral, which is what it seems like they are trying to achieve.
    It doesn't change how much people have to buy from the weekly shipment as the acquition of allypoints doesn't change.
    and it will be an easy change to revert if/when they figure it out, which I do believe they will figure it out, I just don't have confidence it will be anytime soon (TM)

    Giving extra shards in events sounds good and all however it would be more rewarding to a player like me who doesn't spend allypoints in bronzium and neutral or still on the negative side for a player that does spend allypoints

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the halving the cost idea. That just doubles the clicks you have to do to efficiently use your ally points.

    I prefer a solution that roughly evens out the shard currency to what it was before and doesn't add to a boring time sink.

    Whether spending ally points in the store or on bronizums with the changes going forward is a separate conversation up to individual players. They don't need to preemptively make it even based of future decisions.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Firefox54 wrote: »
    IMO ... just fix the Bronzium packs. I understand that if we farm older toons to 7* faster we will have more energy to get gear ... but that will be offset (to some degree) by cutting gear we get from the shard shop in half. This may/may not give us more gear (don't have the time today to do the math or read through the entirety of the forum). For new toons, this will clearly be a net loss in the amount of gear that can be collected.

    The worst thing (in CG's viewpoint) that could happen by fixing the Bronzium packs now is that we might actually get a little more gear than we currently get over the long-term ... and that's the big crunch in the game. I, as an older player, am rarely concerned with getting my toons to 7* (sometimes a ship now with GLs but not toons), but gear is the crunch.

    Finally, yes, a number of players are skeptical when CG makes a change that, in the end, we're going to be worse off than before (let's be honest, they don't have a great community track record). If they fixed the Bronzium concern now, without tweaking other areas like drop rates, they'd likely have no one in the community questioning this change.

    CG ... just throw out some goodwill and adjust the Bronzium packs now ... the money will still flow into the game ... and you'll make the entire player base happy.

    I understand where you are coming from, but you make it sound like they are choosing not to adjust bronzium. They made this plan and when they started implementing it, ran into an issue, that will require more time/focus/work-arounds to get done.

    Despite all the conspiracy theories around it, it's not a direct choice that they just need to be convinced to change it.

    Genuine question, how hard would it be to just double ally points earned?

    Yes.

    Considering something like that has multiple sources, probably more manual work than some of the other suggestions.

    The one I feel should have the least amount of effort involved would be half the bronzium cost. That should only be the most localized change.

    Ok let's do it. It's just hard to believe that this "technical issue" would be so hard to solve.

    It's hard to believe that anyone without knowledge of the code can make that assessment, but just like the technical issue, here we are.

    Wasn’t the unity update supposed to fix problems like this though?

    Like this? I dont see how.

    It did nothing for older events or other older code, it was all about making things easier/better moving forward.

    Then wouldn’t it behoove them to make a new bronzonium spot all together. If the older code isn’t affected by their massive unity update, just make a whole new bronzonium store. That way you fix the technical issue with the shards, and can even develop a slider to open multiple packs which would be another very welcome fix that’s been years in the making
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Firefox54 wrote: »
    IMO ... just fix the Bronzium packs. I understand that if we farm older toons to 7* faster we will have more energy to get gear ... but that will be offset (to some degree) by cutting gear we get from the shard shop in half. This may/may not give us more gear (don't have the time today to do the math or read through the entirety of the forum). For new toons, this will clearly be a net loss in the amount of gear that can be collected.

    The worst thing (in CG's viewpoint) that could happen by fixing the Bronzium packs now is that we might actually get a little more gear than we currently get over the long-term ... and that's the big crunch in the game. I, as an older player, am rarely concerned with getting my toons to 7* (sometimes a ship now with GLs but not toons), but gear is the crunch.

    Finally, yes, a number of players are skeptical when CG makes a change that, in the end, we're going to be worse off than before (let's be honest, they don't have a great community track record). If they fixed the Bronzium concern now, without tweaking other areas like drop rates, they'd likely have no one in the community questioning this change.

    CG ... just throw out some goodwill and adjust the Bronzium packs now ... the money will still flow into the game ... and you'll make the entire player base happy.

    I understand where you are coming from, but you make it sound like they are choosing not to adjust bronzium. They made this plan and when they started implementing it, ran into an issue, that will require more time/focus/work-arounds to get done.

    Despite all the conspiracy theories around it, it's not a direct choice that they just need to be convinced to change it.

    Genuine question, how hard would it be to just double ally points earned?

    Yes.

    Considering something like that has multiple sources, probably more manual work than some of the other suggestions.

    The one I feel should have the least amount of effort involved would be half the bronzium cost. That should only be the most localized change.

    Ok let's do it. It's just hard to believe that this "technical issue" would be so hard to solve.

    It's hard to believe that anyone without knowledge of the code can make that assessment, but just like the technical issue, here we are.

    Wasn’t the unity update supposed to fix problems like this though?

    Like this? I dont see how.

    It did nothing for older events or other older code, it was all about making things easier/better moving forward.

    Then wouldn’t it behoove them to make a new bronzonium spot all together. If the older code isn’t affected by their massive unity update, just make a whole new bronzonium store. That way you fix the technical issue with the shards, and can even develop a slider to open multiple packs which would be another very welcome fix that’s been years in the making

    This. If the new unity update is supposed to make working with new bug fixes and updates easier, an the problem is with old code, can't they essentially copy/replace the old code into the new system and make it a new tool that is helped by the unity update?
  • Also I don’t see why they can’t just keep the shard shop the same then. It takes away the hassle of fixing Bronzonium cards, still gives the newer players a fast tracking for their characters and does what veteran players have been begging for now for years, easing the gear crunch. There’s no way that the extra shard shop currency would kill the in game economy. It’ll ease up specific areas and there still is the idea that there are a finite number of slots and gear is randomized. Not to mention you need to spend crystals to refresh the choices and you’re not guaranteed gear in those spots that you need.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Also I don’t see why they can’t just keep the shard shop the same then. It takes away the hassle of fixing Bronzonium cards, still gives the newer players a fast tracking for their characters and does what veteran players have been begging for now for years, easing the gear crunch. There’s no way that the extra shard shop currency would kill the in game economy. It’ll ease up specific areas and there still is the idea that there are a finite number of slots and gear is randomized. Not to mention you need to spend crystals to refresh the choices and you’re not guaranteed gear in those spots that you need.

    Yeah and if they're that concerned, or if data shows that it *is* flooding the economy, then they can always do something like make the shop only refresh naturally twice a day. That way if people still want to take advantage of lower prices, they have to spend crystals. This'll also increase the value of crystals when farming since you'll be able to practically clean out the shop with every refresh, so people might be inclined to buy crystals to get a ton of rare salvage with their doubled SSC
  • Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Firefox54 wrote: »
    IMO ... just fix the Bronzium packs. I understand that if we farm older toons to 7* faster we will have more energy to get gear ... but that will be offset (to some degree) by cutting gear we get from the shard shop in half. This may/may not give us more gear (don't have the time today to do the math or read through the entirety of the forum). For new toons, this will clearly be a net loss in the amount of gear that can be collected.

    The worst thing (in CG's viewpoint) that could happen by fixing the Bronzium packs now is that we might actually get a little more gear than we currently get over the long-term ... and that's the big crunch in the game. I, as an older player, am rarely concerned with getting my toons to 7* (sometimes a ship now with GLs but not toons), but gear is the crunch.

    Finally, yes, a number of players are skeptical when CG makes a change that, in the end, we're going to be worse off than before (let's be honest, they don't have a great community track record). If they fixed the Bronzium concern now, without tweaking other areas like drop rates, they'd likely have no one in the community questioning this change.

    CG ... just throw out some goodwill and adjust the Bronzium packs now ... the money will still flow into the game ... and you'll make the entire player base happy.

    I understand where you are coming from, but you make it sound like they are choosing not to adjust bronzium. They made this plan and when they started implementing it, ran into an issue, that will require more time/focus/work-arounds to get done.

    Despite all the conspiracy theories around it, it's not a direct choice that they just need to be convinced to change it.

    Genuine question, how hard would it be to just double ally points earned?

    Yes.

    Considering something like that has multiple sources, probably more manual work than some of the other suggestions.

    The one I feel should have the least amount of effort involved would be half the bronzium cost. That should only be the most localized change.

    I think adding shards to a reward somewhere, dailes even, would be better than halving the cost of bronizums. Bronizums are tedious enough. Halving the cost just doubles the time opening them.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Also I don’t see why they can’t just keep the shard shop the same then. It takes away the hassle of fixing Bronzonium cards, still gives the newer players a fast tracking for their characters and does what veteran players have been begging for now for years, easing the gear crunch. There’s no way that the extra shard shop currency would kill the in game economy. It’ll ease up specific areas and there still is the idea that there are a finite number of slots and gear is randomized. Not to mention you need to spend crystals to refresh the choices and you’re not guaranteed gear in those spots that you need.

    Yeah and if they're that concerned, or if data shows that it *is* flooding the economy, then they can always do something like make the shop only refresh naturally twice a day. That way if people still want to take advantage of lower prices, they have to spend crystals. This'll also increase the value of crystals when farming since you'll be able to practically clean out the shop with every refresh, so people might be inclined to buy crystals to get a ton of rare salvage with their doubled SSC

    Stop using logic you silly player you. Only CGTopCash knows all.
  • Kyno
    30051 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Also I don’t see why they can’t just keep the shard shop the same then. It takes away the hassle of fixing Bronzonium cards, still gives the newer players a fast tracking for their characters and does what veteran players have been begging for now for years, easing the gear crunch. There’s no way that the extra shard shop currency would kill the in game economy. It’ll ease up specific areas and there still is the idea that there are a finite number of slots and gear is randomized. Not to mention you need to spend crystals to refresh the choices and you’re not guaranteed gear in those spots that you need.

    Yeah and if they're that concerned, or if data shows that it *is* flooding the economy, then they can always do something like make the shop only refresh naturally twice a day. That way if people still want to take advantage of lower prices, they have to spend crystals. This'll also increase the value of crystals when farming since you'll be able to practically clean out the shop with every refresh, so people might be inclined to buy crystals to get a ton of rare salvage with their doubled SSC

    They have stated they dont like to take things away, so putting it out there with a plan of "if it doesnt work, we will just take it back" is not going to be the way they would prefer to do things.
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Also I don’t see why they can’t just keep the shard shop the same then. It takes away the hassle of fixing Bronzonium cards, still gives the newer players a fast tracking for their characters and does what veteran players have been begging for now for years, easing the gear crunch. There’s no way that the extra shard shop currency would kill the in game economy. It’ll ease up specific areas and there still is the idea that there are a finite number of slots and gear is randomized. Not to mention you need to spend crystals to refresh the choices and you’re not guaranteed gear in those spots that you need.

    Because if they did that it would add more change to the gear economy, and if they have plans to work on that, which it seem they do, they would need to wait longer for this to settle to get good data before they could move forward on that plan

    As was stated the goal was to help new players get shards faster an leave everything else neutral.
  • Kyno wrote: »

    As was stated the goal was to help new players get shards faster an leave everything else neutral.


    Well yeah, but as it stands they're failing on leaving it neutral unless they address this.

  • Kyno wrote: »
    They have stated they dont like to take things away, so putting it out there with a plan of "if it doesnt work, we will just take it back" is not going to be the way they would prefer to do things.

    Just because they don't like to do it doesn't mean they won't. Member when STR rewards weren't garbage? I member.
  • scuba wrote: »
    This also lowers Shard Shop income for veteran accounts from Guild Currency.



    Edit:
    Maybe you missed this part:
    Due to the resulting variation in between Shards, we are modifying the Shard Shop to keep Shard-to-Purchase ratios unchanged. Under the hood, this means we are doubling all sources of Shard Shop Currency, doubling in-store costs, and then doubling unspent Shard Shop Currency on all accounts when these changes go live.
    • Accelerated-Farm Characters keep their conversion the same (1 Shard > 15 SSC).
    • Original Rate characters have their conversion doubled (1 Shard > 30 SSC).
    • For ships, this doubles such that 1 Shard > 38 SSC

    Nahh, I just typed wrong store, cantina currency. From farmining cantina nodes. That will be cut as well because right now there is bargain with cassians U wing. Which will cease to be a bargain.

    Sorry about that.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    I have so many points to add to this, but to illustrate, here’s 10k points spent the other day. This is how I farm g12 stuff. Scale or double or whatever, don’t nerf this.

    That's a pretty big statistical outlier since you got a 4-star character's full unlock. Are you getting those every week? So it's not exactly a very good example to use as your baseline.

    The rule of thumb is that you get 1 shard per 1000 tokens on average (which includes getting 1-star character unlocks for their 10 shards). There's going to be a dip in income, but I really don't think it's going to be that major. There are a lot of sources for getting shards that going to be effectively unchanged.

    I don't think it's a huge outlier considering the odds of getting a full character. If you sink over 5 figures into bronzium packs you are pretty likely to get something big eventually. I sink about 10k every week or so and almost always get at least a 50 shard repeat unlock.

    No you don’t. Not unless you’re the luckiest person in the world, in which case you should buy a lottery ticket.

    Every Sunday when I’m done with all my actual stuff, I spend the ~34k ally tokens that accumulated over the week. The average is rough 1 shard per 1000 currency, assuming no 50- or 80-drops. You get one of those every so often, but most certainly not every week. Track it yourself and you’ll see.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Shadowmaster4
    475 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    I have so many points to add to this, but to illustrate, here’s 10k points spent the other day. This is how I farm g12 stuff. Scale or double or whatever, don’t nerf this.

    That's a pretty big statistical outlier since you got a 4-star character's full unlock. Are you getting those every week? So it's not exactly a very good example to use as your baseline.

    The rule of thumb is that you get 1 shard per 1000 tokens on average (which includes getting 1-star character unlocks for their 10 shards). There's going to be a dip in income, but I really don't think it's going to be that major. There are a lot of sources for getting shards that going to be effectively unchanged.

    I don't think it's a huge outlier considering the odds of getting a full character. If you sink over 5 figures into bronzium packs you are pretty likely to get something big eventually. I sink about 10k every week or so and almost always get at least a 50 shard repeat unlock.

    No you don’t. Not unless you’re the luckiest person in the world, in which case you should buy a lottery ticket.

    Every Sunday when I’m done with all my actual stuff, I spend the ~34k ally tokens that accumulated over the week. The average is rough 1 shard per 1000 currency, assuming no 50- or 80-drops. You get one of those every so often, but most certainly not every week. Track it yourself and you’ll see.

    Then I might just go buy a lottery ticket considering I did track it myself. Hence my comment. I sink at least 5 figures a week, which is to say anywhere between 10k and roughly 35k. When I do that, I almost always get at least one 50 shard drop per week. Reasonably speaking, even if I miss one week, that still means over any give two week period that's about 70 shards for roughly 70k ally points, plus at least one 50+ drop. So in a two week period with roughly 70k currency, I get at least 120 shards to convert from Bronziums.

    Especially when we remember that 70k currency comes out to about 280 openings in that two weeks, so if I do them all, I'm very likely to get a big drop at least once.
Sign In or Register to comment.