Shard Economy Changes [MEGA]

Replies

  • Konju wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Gouj4 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    CG_Doja_Fett Can you please also tell the devs about the awful rewards in HAAT and HSTR?
    More importantly, why there is so much crossover on rewards from HAAT into HSTR. There are so many ways to fix the gear crunch but it’s continually ignored
    If They don't believe something exists are They really continually ignoring it?

    From Thier perspective there may not be a gear crunch, and it may be right where They want it to be.

    Except Cyanides came out last year and said fixes were needed for gear economy and even asked us as much what we would see as relief to the gear crunch if their methods weren’t enough. That was literally a year ago. So yes. Gear crunch acknowledged and ignored.
    Gouj4 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    CG_Doja_Fett Can you please also tell the devs about the awful rewards in HAAT and HSTR?
    More importantly, why there is so much crossover on rewards from HAAT into HSTR. There are so many ways to fix the gear crunch but it’s continually ignored
    If They don't believe something exists are They really continually ignoring it?

    From Thier perspective there may not be a gear crunch, and it may be right where They want it to be.

    Except they’ve stated that they know gear is one of the things they need to tackle

    Yet as many have stated a simple thing with this change to shards would have been to leave the shard shop alone to ease the gear crunch, however they are not doing this, instead they are doing everything they can to make it stay the same or worse on the gear front.

    I’m aware of that but your point was that they didn’t know it exists which they clearly do. Just because they’re not doing anything to address it now doesn’t mean they won’t down the line once they’ve seen whatever they need to see from this shard update.

    You are right. They do know and have known that the gear crunch is an aspect the player base has been frustrated with for quite some time. I think scuba was saying that they created the gear crunch to be as it is, therefore they do not view it as a real issue. I think most people who have played this game for over a year or two see the actions of the devs toward the players’ acquisition of gear (the biggest crunch in the game) as a net negative to the player base. They “say” they want to “tackle” the gear crunch issue. Their “solutions” for the gear crunch so far:

    1. Introduce Kyrotech (another gear crunch), “alleviated” by obtaining 3ish salvage daily when single characters need 100s
    2. Increase gear levels and relic levels (another crunch)
    3. Introduced Galactic Challenges (“requiring” relic characters to get gear rewards for which there is a crunch)
    4. Add new tiers to Assault Battles (also “requiring” relic characters in order to obtain relic materials)
    5. Offer cheaper gear packs ($5 sounds really nice when fighting for gear for weeks and months), good way to make money for CG.
    6. Nerf Bronzium character drops, reducing shard shop currency.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hope you are right and they do something to at least keep the gear crunch as is, but previous actions speak otherwise. Intentionality of the gear crunch by the devs, in my view, is obvious. I do not expect any large positive changes when it comes to gear acquisition, especially when gear purchases make up a big portion of their profits...by design. My worry is that even if/when they do give us some gear benefits down the road, it will be in a similar form as this shard benefit now, creating problems elsewhere in the game.

    All I hope for is a net neutral outcome from this Bronzium pack issue when it comes to shard shop currency. I do not expect anything to alleviate the gear crunch, but my guess is that it will come in the form of rewards from a new “impossible to complete for a few more months/year” type of content. Oh wait...new Rancor Tiers are on the way, aren’t they?

    You are only mentioning the ones that fit your criteria.

    You missed

    1. Addition of new tb which reward a significant amount of gear.

    2. Addition of gac (with gear rewards)

    So I agree that they do make changes that nerf gear, they also add content that reduces the crunch.

    I don't know if they think the crunch will need tightening or loosening after the shard changes but they likely have a target and will change it to meet it.

    I'm hoping the target is to make getting to g12 much easier but that may or may not be the case.

    Fair enough. GAC rewards do help. No argument there. The new TBs do reward better for those guilds that have made it past some of the gear crunches as well. Certainly.

    So if we add these items to my list and I completely agree to your point that the new TBs are only beneficial (which can be debated as negatives to the new TBs do exist), then the results are still showing significantly more attention being paid by the devs to increase the gear crunch than decrease it.

    I don’t want to believe that this was intentional. I hope this was just an oversight. I only ask for net neutral for full character pulls from bronzium cards, though I think more should and likely will be done to alleviate gear crunches.

    I agree with you that more should be done. But it is important to not cherry pick evidence to prove your point.
  • Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think a key point being missed by the people arguing numbers games is that CG stated explicitly that their goal is to keep end-game neutral this round of updates. So even if the nerf is as low as 2%, it is a failure on their end that should be corrected, by their own admission.

    I believe it was stated "as close as possible", at which point if it was really only 2% (which we cant really prove), that would be pretty close.

    We can prove with math that each person has a different outcome, but no one has said a number as low as 2% yet. I was being generous, because the real average is likely much closer to 10%.

    Also, if 2% is as close as possible, then why would there be easy ways to close that 2% gap? That's not what "as close as possible" means, that's settling.

    Edit: 2% would be incredibly close though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop there unless it is absolutely as close as they can get it. And it isn't, since they can just adjust prices or income sources as much as they want until it's balanced or even net positive.

    I'd say 10% would probably be a decent average. Though it may be as high as 20% in some cases.

    Or as some people have said, since gear farming can take all the energy, and all the shops have stuff like ability mats to purchase too, in some cases Bronzium's might make up as much as 50 to 60% of all SSC because they don't really get any shards elsewhere. Getting prestige tokens from Arena shop until you've maxed out all capital ship skills is a viable use of those tokens and that removes up to 15 shards as someone has said. Getting Zetas and Omegas practically eliminates all Ship Store farming for many players unless you reaaally want SSC. You really only have Galactic War and Cantina as reliable sources until you've gotten all the Zetas and Capital ship moves that you want.

    I specifically left out the ship store from my calculation because I assumed Zetas are bought there by most. And that came up to less than 10%.

    And prestige is likely not farmed a lot by end game players since you get a ton over the years naturally. You may farm it for a time to get a capital ship done faster but it really isn't needed.

    Yes some may buy credits or ship credits rather than shard currency but CG can't be expected to correct for any possible choice.

    And I think in this case you have to consider end game when calculating the nerf since the added speed of farms more than make up for the nerf already for early and mid game (eg you don't have the stores finished.)

    Well I'm just saying, for anyone that wants to argue the semantics of an "average", that there are people in mid-endgame with different farming strats, and there are people with no finished stores because they bought the Hyperdrive bundle and just floated to the top of their shard meta and stayed there. The "average" lost currency gets very muddled because in these rare scenarios, it may be a 0% loss for someone who never opens Bronziums, or it may be a 100% nerf from someone whos only SSC source is Bronziums. Middle ground between those is still bad, because it's highly likely for some people that 50% of their SSC comes from good Bronzium pulls.

    If they could get it to 2% as a general statement, I'd be very happy, but there's no reason to stop at 2%, nor is there any reason to believe that the math will ever get as low and clean as 2%. So all around, unless the whole world just falls into place during this update, it's a nerf regardless of the number involved, and should be corrected as soon as they are capable of doing so.

    If you bought the hyperdrive bundle and just didn't bother finishing enough characters to use the stores for shard shop currency, that is a resource management issue and not one with the update.

    I don't think CG should be expected to consider these choices in the overall effect of the bronizum nerf.

    But if they only raise the price by 150% I'm good with that as it will help me as well. But I don't demand that to accept this within their stated intention.

    I just think within their stated intention of "as close as possible to net neutral for endgame" or whatever the exact phrasing was, they should consider that this nerf could very reasonably be taking well over 10% of all SSC from endgame players. For a lot of people it could exceed 25%, and for a select group who only get SSC from Bronziums, it could be over 50% if they get lucky drops. Those numbers are dangerous when your goal is to be close to 0%, and just because people with only 4% lost can say "I only lost 4% so the price buff should be balanced at 196%" doesn't mean that should be how it is. It should be closer to the average because that's how you calculate "net gain"

    You can't just pick a day when you get 100 shards from a pull to get a 90% nerf number though. That's an outlier. I think 10% is probably close to an average for endgame players that use their resources wisely.

    I'll define spending resources wisely as it affect shard shop currency to be clear.

    1. You are using crystals to do 3 refreshes of cantina energy and farming either a character or signal data. (That nets you about 10 shards a day from the cantina store) and you need the signal data and refreshes are much cheaper than buying it.

    2. You use the following stores for shard shop currency

    Cantina store
    Arena store (there's only so much prestige you can farm before it is dumb)
    Galactic war store

    If you are doing that the nerf is probably around 10%. Maybe as high as 15% if my 10 shards a day from bronizums is incorrect.

    But there is no way you are endgame, using your resources smartly, and getting a 50% nerf to your shard shop income from this.

    The problem is you're assuming endgame players and ignoing midgame players like me. I don't need most of the characters that benefit from this, and my SSC numbers are massively different than what you are positioning as endgame, meaning rosters like mine lose out on way more SSC than your numbers, and gain very little in exchange.

    But I think it's kind of besid the point by now. I think we're all pretty well agreed it needs to be addressed.

    So at mid game, you can't use the cantina store, the arena store, add and the gw store for shard shop currency.

    And you can't spare 300 crystals a day for cantina refreshes when you will need the signal data anyway?

    Those were my assumptions.

    Cantina store, like I said earlier, nets me 5 shards/2 days unless I'm refreshing cantina energy, which on average I get one of per day at best, and I'd rather spend that directly on gear as it is in fact more efficient when gear is a MUCH deeper bottleneck for me.

    I did factor in GW shop in those maths, so yes I do use them

    My arena store is 7.5 shards per day, and I included that in the first set of numbers. I am by no means an inefficient player, and I am frustrated you're straw-man-ing. I have increased my GP, my overall contribution to guild events, my arena rank and roster far faster than the others I my current guild and the three previous ones I was a part of, while also securing every legendary pretty darn quickly for f2p, so I think I'm doing pretty well as far as efficiency is concerned.

    You have a new alt account(Early game) and a top 10 account(Late game,) unless I am reading incorrectly, I apologise and recind this if so, but neither of your accounts seem(as I can't know for sure) to have even remotely similar potential/conditions as mine. I'm not arguing your numbers are wrong for your accounts, but they are definitely wrong for mine, and it isn't because I'm inefficient.

    I also happen to know a few people that do have accounts like mine, so it isn't an isolated edge case either. That is why I argu that the SSC/Bronziums nerf is more significant to accounts similar to mine(which I think is actually pretty close to average/60%+) than your accounts situation implies.

    I apologise if I ruffled feathers, that was not my intent. I still think we should forget the numbers, agree it should be looked at, and give each other high fives.

    I agree that we should all high five and makeup, but we absolutely should try to find the best average we can. Otherwise, we'll never know if a fix is adequately "close to net neutral" or not. If they lower the Shard Shop increase to 190% to account for a 10% nerf, but the average in actuality is closer to 20 or 30%, then the fix only helps those that fell into that 10% window. Everyone else gets bumped closer to net neutral, but still falls quite short. This is what it means when I say it would be better to err on the side of net positive, because until someone does like, a large scale case study, we can only speculate on the numbers. But either way we all agree it's AT LEAST a double digit percentage nerf.

    I agree to a point. What we really should do is find the maximum impact the nerf *could* have on an account with perfectly non-ideal conditions, and change things based on that. That is how businesses usually operate with costs and internal changes, and sometimes changes that affect customers(if they're low-impacting on budget.)

    I don't think CG will do this because it will skew the total net change squarely into positive(if you just straight double bronziums however it's done,) but that is the best way to handle it. Plan for the worst case scenario, but hope for the best.

    In this case, the best fix all around means making sure there is exactly 0 reduction in SSC across the board, while not impacting gear rates at all, which would mean just doubling bronzium obtained shards' SSC conversion, but not their drop rate, as that has the lowest impact on the rest of the game, but a perfectly net neutral SSC change. However this is the thing that would take BY FAR the most work to implement, so it likely will also not happen.

    If I were planning this change, I would have a headache because there isn't a good solution.

    My personal favorite, would be to entirely remove the inflation on SSC entirely, because it has at worst(for economy stability purposes,) a 100% net positive gain on gear rates from only SSC (and GG shards, I guess) which is some percentage of overall gear aquisition (I'm guessing 20-60% based on my experience alone?) And we have seen that anything short of this will in fact have a negative impact on *some* players

    Which means a market change of up to about 20% at pretty conservative estimates.

    A 5-20% reduction in gear bottleneck(depending on your roster,) overall might be more than they're ok with, so that may be an unacceptable solution as far as CG is concerned, but anything short of this will either 1) affect some players negatively, (varies wildly, probly very bad PR,) or 2) be much more resource intensive to implement.

    So they will have to chose between those two and easing the gear crunch a bit.

    My opinion aside, those are the likely options they're facing.

    Even if you assume

    2.5 shards from cantina store
    10 shards from arena store
    15 from gw store
    5 from gw

    And 15 a day from bronizums

    That's about 47.5 shards a day

    Assuming an 80% full character drop for the bronizum the nerf would remove 6 shards.

    That is a 12.6% nerf.

    Even if you assume 5 shards a day from arena it comes out to 14.1%.

    That is assuming you don't care about arenas or refreshes.

    I'm not going to entertain a case where you don't bother to do gw even though there are some players somewhere that may do that. Expecting CG to adjust the impact for things such as that is ridiculous.

    Even if you assume 100% of your shards are bronizums and 90% are from full drops, it would only be a 45% nerf. Mathematically a 50% net is the max since that would be if you only got shards from full character drops.

    So I'm not sure where you are getting as high as a 60% nerf since that is mathematically impossible with the facts we have.

    And realistically 15% seems like a pretty good ceiling if you just do your dailies.
  • Konju wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Gouj4 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    CG_Doja_Fett Can you please also tell the devs about the awful rewards in HAAT and HSTR?
    More importantly, why there is so much crossover on rewards from HAAT into HSTR. There are so many ways to fix the gear crunch but it’s continually ignored
    If They don't believe something exists are They really continually ignoring it?

    From Thier perspective there may not be a gear crunch, and it may be right where They want it to be.

    Except Cyanides came out last year and said fixes were needed for gear economy and even asked us as much what we would see as relief to the gear crunch if their methods weren’t enough. That was literally a year ago. So yes. Gear crunch acknowledged and ignored.
    Gouj4 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    CG_Doja_Fett Can you please also tell the devs about the awful rewards in HAAT and HSTR?
    More importantly, why there is so much crossover on rewards from HAAT into HSTR. There are so many ways to fix the gear crunch but it’s continually ignored
    If They don't believe something exists are They really continually ignoring it?

    From Thier perspective there may not be a gear crunch, and it may be right where They want it to be.

    Except they’ve stated that they know gear is one of the things they need to tackle

    Yet as many have stated a simple thing with this change to shards would have been to leave the shard shop alone to ease the gear crunch, however they are not doing this, instead they are doing everything they can to make it stay the same or worse on the gear front.

    I’m aware of that but your point was that they didn’t know it exists which they clearly do. Just because they’re not doing anything to address it now doesn’t mean they won’t down the line once they’ve seen whatever they need to see from this shard update.

    You are right. They do know and have known that the gear crunch is an aspect the player base has been frustrated with for quite some time. I think scuba was saying that they created the gear crunch to be as it is, therefore they do not view it as a real issue. I think most people who have played this game for over a year or two see the actions of the devs toward the players’ acquisition of gear (the biggest crunch in the game) as a net negative to the player base. They “say” they want to “tackle” the gear crunch issue. Their “solutions” for the gear crunch so far:

    1. Introduce Kyrotech (another gear crunch), “alleviated” by obtaining 3ish salvage daily when single characters need 100s
    2. Increase gear levels and relic levels (another crunch)
    3. Introduced Galactic Challenges (“requiring” relic characters to get gear rewards for which there is a crunch)
    4. Add new tiers to Assault Battles (also “requiring” relic characters in order to obtain relic materials)
    5. Offer cheaper gear packs ($5 sounds really nice when fighting for gear for weeks and months), good way to make money for CG.
    6. Nerf Bronzium character drops, reducing shard shop currency.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hope you are right and they do something to at least keep the gear crunch as is, but previous actions speak otherwise. Intentionality of the gear crunch by the devs, in my view, is obvious. I do not expect any large positive changes when it comes to gear acquisition, especially when gear purchases make up a big portion of their profits...by design. My worry is that even if/when they do give us some gear benefits down the road, it will be in a similar form as this shard benefit now, creating problems elsewhere in the game.

    All I hope for is a net neutral outcome from this Bronzium pack issue when it comes to shard shop currency. I do not expect anything to alleviate the gear crunch, but my guess is that it will come in the form of rewards from a new “impossible to complete for a few more months/year” type of content. Oh wait...new Rancor Tiers are on the way, aren’t they?

    You are only mentioning the ones that fit your criteria.

    You missed

    1. Addition of new tb which reward a significant amount of gear.

    2. Addition of gac (with gear rewards)

    So I agree that they do make changes that nerf gear, they also add content that reduces the crunch.

    I don't know if they think the crunch will need tightening or loosening after the shard changes but they likely have a target and will change it to meet it.

    I'm hoping the target is to make getting to g12 much easier but that may or may not be the case.

    Fair enough. GAC rewards do help. No argument there. The new TBs do reward better for those guilds that have made it past some of the gear crunches as well. Certainly.

    So if we add these items to my list and I completely agree to your point that the new TBs are only beneficial (which can be debated as negatives to the new TBs do exist), then the results are still showing significantly more attention being paid by the devs to increase the gear crunch than decrease it.

    I don’t want to believe that this was intentional. I hope this was just an oversight. I only ask for net neutral for full character pulls from bronzium cards, though I think more should and likely will be done to alleviate gear crunches.

    I agree with you that more should be done. But it is important to not cherry pick evidence to prove your point.

    I think you mistake my intentions. I think you added more pieces of older content that I missed and I immediately agreed. I also think my point stands; significantly more time on creating a gear crunch opposed to alleviating a gear crunch.
  • Konju wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Gouj4 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    CG_Doja_Fett Can you please also tell the devs about the awful rewards in HAAT and HSTR?
    More importantly, why there is so much crossover on rewards from HAAT into HSTR. There are so many ways to fix the gear crunch but it’s continually ignored
    If They don't believe something exists are They really continually ignoring it?

    From Thier perspective there may not be a gear crunch, and it may be right where They want it to be.

    Except Cyanides came out last year and said fixes were needed for gear economy and even asked us as much what we would see as relief to the gear crunch if their methods weren’t enough. That was literally a year ago. So yes. Gear crunch acknowledged and ignored.
    Gouj4 wrote: »
    scuba wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    CG_Doja_Fett Can you please also tell the devs about the awful rewards in HAAT and HSTR?
    More importantly, why there is so much crossover on rewards from HAAT into HSTR. There are so many ways to fix the gear crunch but it’s continually ignored
    If They don't believe something exists are They really continually ignoring it?

    From Thier perspective there may not be a gear crunch, and it may be right where They want it to be.

    Except they’ve stated that they know gear is one of the things they need to tackle

    Yet as many have stated a simple thing with this change to shards would have been to leave the shard shop alone to ease the gear crunch, however they are not doing this, instead they are doing everything they can to make it stay the same or worse on the gear front.

    I’m aware of that but your point was that they didn’t know it exists which they clearly do. Just because they’re not doing anything to address it now doesn’t mean they won’t down the line once they’ve seen whatever they need to see from this shard update.

    You are right. They do know and have known that the gear crunch is an aspect the player base has been frustrated with for quite some time. I think scuba was saying that they created the gear crunch to be as it is, therefore they do not view it as a real issue. I think most people who have played this game for over a year or two see the actions of the devs toward the players’ acquisition of gear (the biggest crunch in the game) as a net negative to the player base. They “say” they want to “tackle” the gear crunch issue. Their “solutions” for the gear crunch so far:

    1. Introduce Kyrotech (another gear crunch), “alleviated” by obtaining 3ish salvage daily when single characters need 100s
    2. Increase gear levels and relic levels (another crunch)
    3. Introduced Galactic Challenges (“requiring” relic characters to get gear rewards for which there is a crunch)
    4. Add new tiers to Assault Battles (also “requiring” relic characters in order to obtain relic materials)
    5. Offer cheaper gear packs ($5 sounds really nice when fighting for gear for weeks and months), good way to make money for CG.
    6. Nerf Bronzium character drops, reducing shard shop currency.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hope you are right and they do something to at least keep the gear crunch as is, but previous actions speak otherwise. Intentionality of the gear crunch by the devs, in my view, is obvious. I do not expect any large positive changes when it comes to gear acquisition, especially when gear purchases make up a big portion of their profits...by design. My worry is that even if/when they do give us some gear benefits down the road, it will be in a similar form as this shard benefit now, creating problems elsewhere in the game.

    All I hope for is a net neutral outcome from this Bronzium pack issue when it comes to shard shop currency. I do not expect anything to alleviate the gear crunch, but my guess is that it will come in the form of rewards from a new “impossible to complete for a few more months/year” type of content. Oh wait...new Rancor Tiers are on the way, aren’t they?

    You are only mentioning the ones that fit your criteria.

    You missed

    1. Addition of new tb which reward a significant amount of gear.

    2. Addition of gac (with gear rewards)

    So I agree that they do make changes that nerf gear, they also add content that reduces the crunch.

    I don't know if they think the crunch will need tightening or loosening after the shard changes but they likely have a target and will change it to meet it.

    I'm hoping the target is to make getting to g12 much easier but that may or may not be the case.

    Fair enough. GAC rewards do help. No argument there. The new TBs do reward better for those guilds that have made it past some of the gear crunches as well. Certainly.

    So if we add these items to my list and I completely agree to your point that the new TBs are only beneficial (which can be debated as negatives to the new TBs do exist), then the results are still showing significantly more attention being paid by the devs to increase the gear crunch than decrease it.

    I don’t want to believe that this was intentional. I hope this was just an oversight. I only ask for net neutral for full character pulls from bronzium cards, though I think more should and likely will be done to alleviate gear crunches.

    I agree with you that more should be done. But it is important to not cherry pick evidence to prove your point.

    I think you mistake my intentions. I think you added more pieces of older content that I missed and I immediately agreed. I also think my point stands; significantly more time on creating a gear crunch opposed to alleviating a gear crunch.

    I think they spend time on both. They seem to like to keep it where it is. I am hopeful that they recognize the shard crunch for new players that they will also recognize the gear crunch and ease it at least up to g12.

    You're dreaming if you think they will ease the relic crunch.

    And we may see an approach more targeted to easing the crunch for newer players while keeping it relatively the same at end game. That seems to be the way they are going.

    And I can't say that is wrong. While I'd like it if they eased it for everyone, the end game gear crunch is slow but manageable. The early game crunch, if you want to ever hope on catching up is ridiculous.
  • Agreed, I don’t believe I said they would lighten relics. Your speculations would be nice, just like many others. To your point, I’ve been arguing too negatively against the devs for their past efforts. I don’t expect much of anything to lighten gear crunches as I see gear purchases to be a primary source of revenue for CG. I just can’t idly abide this nerf. Just gotta see what they decide to do.
  • Hornist
    31 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think a key point being missed by the people arguing numbers games is that CG stated explicitly that their goal is to keep end-game neutral this round of updates. So even if the nerf is as low as 2%, it is a failure on their end that should be corrected, by their own admission.

    I believe it was stated "as close as possible", at which point if it was really only 2% (which we cant really prove), that would be pretty close.

    We can prove with math that each person has a different outcome, but no one has said a number as low as 2% yet. I was being generous, because the real average is likely much closer to 10%.

    Also, if 2% is as close as possible, then why would there be easy ways to close that 2% gap? That's not what "as close as possible" means, that's settling.

    Edit: 2% would be incredibly close though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop there unless it is absolutely as close as they can get it. And it isn't, since they can just adjust prices or income sources as much as they want until it's balanced or even net positive.

    I'd say 10% would probably be a decent average. Though it may be as high as 20% in some cases.

    Or as some people have said, since gear farming can take all the energy, and all the shops have stuff like ability mats to purchase too, in some cases Bronzium's might make up as much as 50 to 60% of all SSC because they don't really get any shards elsewhere. Getting prestige tokens from Arena shop until you've maxed out all capital ship skills is a viable use of those tokens and that removes up to 15 shards as someone has said. Getting Zetas and Omegas practically eliminates all Ship Store farming for many players unless you reaaally want SSC. You really only have Galactic War and Cantina as reliable sources until you've gotten all the Zetas and Capital ship moves that you want.

    I specifically left out the ship store from my calculation because I assumed Zetas are bought there by most. And that came up to less than 10%.

    And prestige is likely not farmed a lot by end game players since you get a ton over the years naturally. You may farm it for a time to get a capital ship done faster but it really isn't needed.

    Yes some may buy credits or ship credits rather than shard currency but CG can't be expected to correct for any possible choice.

    And I think in this case you have to consider end game when calculating the nerf since the added speed of farms more than make up for the nerf already for early and mid game (eg you don't have the stores finished.)

    Well I'm just saying, for anyone that wants to argue the semantics of an "average", that there are people in mid-endgame with different farming strats, and there are people with no finished stores because they bought the Hyperdrive bundle and just floated to the top of their shard meta and stayed there. The "average" lost currency gets very muddled because in these rare scenarios, it may be a 0% loss for someone who never opens Bronziums, or it may be a 100% nerf from someone whos only SSC source is Bronziums. Middle ground between those is still bad, because it's highly likely for some people that 50% of their SSC comes from good Bronzium pulls.

    If they could get it to 2% as a general statement, I'd be very happy, but there's no reason to stop at 2%, nor is there any reason to believe that the math will ever get as low and clean as 2%. So all around, unless the whole world just falls into place during this update, it's a nerf regardless of the number involved, and should be corrected as soon as they are capable of doing so.

    If you bought the hyperdrive bundle and just didn't bother finishing enough characters to use the stores for shard shop currency, that is a resource management issue and not one with the update.

    I don't think CG should be expected to consider these choices in the overall effect of the bronizum nerf.

    But if they only raise the price by 150% I'm good with that as it will help me as well. But I don't demand that to accept this within their stated intention.

    I just think within their stated intention of "as close as possible to net neutral for endgame" or whatever the exact phrasing was, they should consider that this nerf could very reasonably be taking well over 10% of all SSC from endgame players. For a lot of people it could exceed 25%, and for a select group who only get SSC from Bronziums, it could be over 50% if they get lucky drops. Those numbers are dangerous when your goal is to be close to 0%, and just because people with only 4% lost can say "I only lost 4% so the price buff should be balanced at 196%" doesn't mean that should be how it is. It should be closer to the average because that's how you calculate "net gain"

    You can't just pick a day when you get 100 shards from a pull to get a 90% nerf number though. That's an outlier. I think 10% is probably close to an average for endgame players that use their resources wisely.

    I'll define spending resources wisely as it affect shard shop currency to be clear.

    1. You are using crystals to do 3 refreshes of cantina energy and farming either a character or signal data. (That nets you about 10 shards a day from the cantina store) and you need the signal data and refreshes are much cheaper than buying it.

    2. You use the following stores for shard shop currency

    Cantina store
    Arena store (there's only so much prestige you can farm before it is dumb)
    Galactic war store

    If you are doing that the nerf is probably around 10%. Maybe as high as 15% if my 10 shards a day from bronizums is incorrect.

    But there is no way you are endgame, using your resources smartly, and getting a 50% nerf to your shard shop income from this.

    The problem is you're assuming endgame players and ignoing midgame players like me. I don't need most of the characters that benefit from this, and my SSC numbers are massively different than what you are positioning as endgame, meaning rosters like mine lose out on way more SSC than your numbers, and gain very little in exchange.

    But I think it's kind of besid the point by now. I think we're all pretty well agreed it needs to be addressed.

    So at mid game, you can't use the cantina store, the arena store, add and the gw store for shard shop currency.

    And you can't spare 300 crystals a day for cantina refreshes when you will need the signal data anyway?

    Those were my assumptions.

    Cantina store, like I said earlier, nets me 5 shards/2 days unless I'm refreshing cantina energy, which on average I get one of per day at best, and I'd rather spend that directly on gear as it is in fact more efficient when gear is a MUCH deeper bottleneck for me.

    I did factor in GW shop in those maths, so yes I do use them

    My arena store is 7.5 shards per day, and I included that in the first set of numbers. I am by no means an inefficient player, and I am frustrated you're straw-man-ing. I have increased my GP, my overall contribution to guild events, my arena rank and roster far faster than the others I my current guild and the three previous ones I was a part of, while also securing every legendary pretty darn quickly for f2p, so I think I'm doing pretty well as far as efficiency is concerned.

    You have a new alt account(Early game) and a top 10 account(Late game,) unless I am reading incorrectly, I apologise and recind this if so, but neither of your accounts seem(as I can't know for sure) to have even remotely similar potential/conditions as mine. I'm not arguing your numbers are wrong for your accounts, but they are definitely wrong for mine, and it isn't because I'm inefficient.

    I also happen to know a few people that do have accounts like mine, so it isn't an isolated edge case either. That is why I argu that the SSC/Bronziums nerf is more significant to accounts similar to mine(which I think is actually pretty close to average/60%+) than your accounts situation implies.

    I apologise if I ruffled feathers, that was not my intent. I still think we should forget the numbers, agree it should be looked at, and give each other high fives.

    I believe not focusing on arena is inefficient. If you don't want to do that then fine but you miss out on a lot of crystals and refreshes that way.

    As far as buying gear with crystals vs energy refreshes, crystals in the store is often quicker but the energy refreshes are more efficient long term.

    I typically try to keep to the efficient forms of farming as much as possible (unless I deem a farm to potentially be important enough to warrant speed over time. An example is I used a ton of Crystals to fast farm piett for see since having a GL sooner makes holding in arena easier and will save me Crystals later. But once I'm done with papa palps I will focus crystals only on energy since it's more efficient mathematically and I'm not in a hurry on my other farms.

    So by my definition if you are spending crystals to buy gear rather than energy for toons that will not lead to more crystal income, that is inefficient. It's fine if you want to play like that but it isn't all that efficient.

    I'm mean, you're not wrong, but you're not really right either.

    Over half the big gear pieces are actually quite efficient in shipments, and others are close to refreshes, though definitely not quite as good. It's a difference of about five crystals per piece on the ones whose value is lower in shipments than from refreshes, which is not unsignificant - like 20% worse, and usually those are the ones I spend on(many are the raid exclusives for G12+)

    I tend to hoard regardless, because my buying power is better leveraged against things that I get a full piece of once every two months in bulk, rather than getting small amounts of stuff I already slowly get small amounts of from other places, I'd rather get the gear that is hardest to get for me, that also happens to almost always be a better value in shipments than refreshes.

    https://www.shatteredorder.com/gearguide

    ^efficiency guide

    Stun guns are the only exception. Gotta farm those stun guns, but I still usually spend my extra energy from bonuses and natural regen after shard farms, unless I'm desperate for SGs, then I'll refresh, so to sum this up, I'll say what I said at the beginning: I tend to buy gear in bulk, and do around 5 refreshes per week. I don't have the income to support more, and while, yes, I have most GL counters toons, I would need to gear them more than the entire combined highest relics I currently have to push beyond what I've said. I told you, I tried.

    You keep assuming I am a crap player, but you don't know me or my situation, only your own and those around you.

    There are certainly things that I could improve, but I've unlocked everything I've unlocked with bare minimums because I put the work and energy and research into it, just like I did when trying to push beyond my top in arena.

    I could gear up what I would need, but it would literally take all the relic mats I have on characters now over again and more to do so, not even talking about gear. That's double what I have gear wise to tackle more than one GL, and that also means I lose time farming toward JKL and SLKR, not to mention any and all other barriers that are between me and top 50, and likely some I don't even know about tbh.

    Please stop assuming I'm crap because I'm not top 50. You're just wrong. In a competitive game with literally thousands of players in each shard with accounts of an insanely similar age it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to be a top player. In my shard there are at least 250 regularly active people with my GP or above. Even with 24 payout windows that is not enough to allow everyone to cycle top 50 without a shard chat that is willing to organize literally every hour, nearly down to a minute.

    So please stop assuming you know everything about my situation and the best way to do things. Again, you are just wrong about my account. I'm rising faster than those around me, making more progress. I lost a year, and am behind because of that, and that for sure is my fault, and I accept the ramifications. Not everyone can be in the top of arena, by design, and I would really appreciate it if you stopped implying I'm incompetent.
  • Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think a key point being missed by the people arguing numbers games is that CG stated explicitly that their goal is to keep end-game neutral this round of updates. So even if the nerf is as low as 2%, it is a failure on their end that should be corrected, by their own admission.

    I believe it was stated "as close as possible", at which point if it was really only 2% (which we cant really prove), that would be pretty close.

    We can prove with math that each person has a different outcome, but no one has said a number as low as 2% yet. I was being generous, because the real average is likely much closer to 10%.

    Also, if 2% is as close as possible, then why would there be easy ways to close that 2% gap? That's not what "as close as possible" means, that's settling.

    Edit: 2% would be incredibly close though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop there unless it is absolutely as close as they can get it. And it isn't, since they can just adjust prices or income sources as much as they want until it's balanced or even net positive.

    I'd say 10% would probably be a decent average. Though it may be as high as 20% in some cases.

    Or as some people have said, since gear farming can take all the energy, and all the shops have stuff like ability mats to purchase too, in some cases Bronzium's might make up as much as 50 to 60% of all SSC because they don't really get any shards elsewhere. Getting prestige tokens from Arena shop until you've maxed out all capital ship skills is a viable use of those tokens and that removes up to 15 shards as someone has said. Getting Zetas and Omegas practically eliminates all Ship Store farming for many players unless you reaaally want SSC. You really only have Galactic War and Cantina as reliable sources until you've gotten all the Zetas and Capital ship moves that you want.

    I specifically left out the ship store from my calculation because I assumed Zetas are bought there by most. And that came up to less than 10%.

    And prestige is likely not farmed a lot by end game players since you get a ton over the years naturally. You may farm it for a time to get a capital ship done faster but it really isn't needed.

    Yes some may buy credits or ship credits rather than shard currency but CG can't be expected to correct for any possible choice.

    And I think in this case you have to consider end game when calculating the nerf since the added speed of farms more than make up for the nerf already for early and mid game (eg you don't have the stores finished.)

    Well I'm just saying, for anyone that wants to argue the semantics of an "average", that there are people in mid-endgame with different farming strats, and there are people with no finished stores because they bought the Hyperdrive bundle and just floated to the top of their shard meta and stayed there. The "average" lost currency gets very muddled because in these rare scenarios, it may be a 0% loss for someone who never opens Bronziums, or it may be a 100% nerf from someone whos only SSC source is Bronziums. Middle ground between those is still bad, because it's highly likely for some people that 50% of their SSC comes from good Bronzium pulls.

    If they could get it to 2% as a general statement, I'd be very happy, but there's no reason to stop at 2%, nor is there any reason to believe that the math will ever get as low and clean as 2%. So all around, unless the whole world just falls into place during this update, it's a nerf regardless of the number involved, and should be corrected as soon as they are capable of doing so.

    If you bought the hyperdrive bundle and just didn't bother finishing enough characters to use the stores for shard shop currency, that is a resource management issue and not one with the update.

    I don't think CG should be expected to consider these choices in the overall effect of the bronizum nerf.

    But if they only raise the price by 150% I'm good with that as it will help me as well. But I don't demand that to accept this within their stated intention.

    I just think within their stated intention of "as close as possible to net neutral for endgame" or whatever the exact phrasing was, they should consider that this nerf could very reasonably be taking well over 10% of all SSC from endgame players. For a lot of people it could exceed 25%, and for a select group who only get SSC from Bronziums, it could be over 50% if they get lucky drops. Those numbers are dangerous when your goal is to be close to 0%, and just because people with only 4% lost can say "I only lost 4% so the price buff should be balanced at 196%" doesn't mean that should be how it is. It should be closer to the average because that's how you calculate "net gain"

    You can't just pick a day when you get 100 shards from a pull to get a 90% nerf number though. That's an outlier. I think 10% is probably close to an average for endgame players that use their resources wisely.

    I'll define spending resources wisely as it affect shard shop currency to be clear.

    1. You are using crystals to do 3 refreshes of cantina energy and farming either a character or signal data. (That nets you about 10 shards a day from the cantina store) and you need the signal data and refreshes are much cheaper than buying it.

    2. You use the following stores for shard shop currency

    Cantina store
    Arena store (there's only so much prestige you can farm before it is dumb)
    Galactic war store

    If you are doing that the nerf is probably around 10%. Maybe as high as 15% if my 10 shards a day from bronizums is incorrect.

    But there is no way you are endgame, using your resources smartly, and getting a 50% nerf to your shard shop income from this.

    The problem is you're assuming endgame players and ignoing midgame players like me. I don't need most of the characters that benefit from this, and my SSC numbers are massively different than what you are positioning as endgame, meaning rosters like mine lose out on way more SSC than your numbers, and gain very little in exchange.

    But I think it's kind of besid the point by now. I think we're all pretty well agreed it needs to be addressed.

    So at mid game, you can't use the cantina store, the arena store, add and the gw store for shard shop currency.

    And you can't spare 300 crystals a day for cantina refreshes when you will need the signal data anyway?

    Those were my assumptions.

    Cantina store, like I said earlier, nets me 5 shards/2 days unless I'm refreshing cantina energy, which on average I get one of per day at best, and I'd rather spend that directly on gear as it is in fact more efficient when gear is a MUCH deeper bottleneck for me.

    I did factor in GW shop in those maths, so yes I do use them

    My arena store is 7.5 shards per day, and I included that in the first set of numbers. I am by no means an inefficient player, and I am frustrated you're straw-man-ing. I have increased my GP, my overall contribution to guild events, my arena rank and roster far faster than the others I my current guild and the three previous ones I was a part of, while also securing every legendary pretty darn quickly for f2p, so I think I'm doing pretty well as far as efficiency is concerned.

    You have a new alt account(Early game) and a top 10 account(Late game,) unless I am reading incorrectly, I apologise and recind this if so, but neither of your accounts seem(as I can't know for sure) to have even remotely similar potential/conditions as mine. I'm not arguing your numbers are wrong for your accounts, but they are definitely wrong for mine, and it isn't because I'm inefficient.

    I also happen to know a few people that do have accounts like mine, so it isn't an isolated edge case either. That is why I argu that the SSC/Bronziums nerf is more significant to accounts similar to mine(which I think is actually pretty close to average/60%+) than your accounts situation implies.

    I apologise if I ruffled feathers, that was not my intent. I still think we should forget the numbers, agree it should be looked at, and give each other high fives.

    I agree that we should all high five and makeup, but we absolutely should try to find the best average we can. Otherwise, we'll never know if a fix is adequately "close to net neutral" or not. If they lower the Shard Shop increase to 190% to account for a 10% nerf, but the average in actuality is closer to 20 or 30%, then the fix only helps those that fell into that 10% window. Everyone else gets bumped closer to net neutral, but still falls quite short. This is what it means when I say it would be better to err on the side of net positive, because until someone does like, a large scale case study, we can only speculate on the numbers. But either way we all agree it's AT LEAST a double digit percentage nerf.

    I agree to a point. What we really should do is find the maximum impact the nerf *could* have on an account with perfectly non-ideal conditions, and change things based on that. That is how businesses usually operate with costs and internal changes, and sometimes changes that affect customers(if they're low-impacting on budget.)

    I don't think CG will do this because it will skew the total net change squarely into positive(if you just straight double bronziums however it's done,) but that is the best way to handle it. Plan for the worst case scenario, but hope for the best.

    In this case, the best fix all around means making sure there is exactly 0 reduction in SSC across the board, while not impacting gear rates at all, which would mean just doubling bronzium obtained shards' SSC conversion, but not their drop rate, as that has the lowest impact on the rest of the game, but a perfectly net neutral SSC change. However this is the thing that would take BY FAR the most work to implement, so it likely will also not happen.

    If I were planning this change, I would have a headache because there isn't a good solution.

    My personal favorite, would be to entirely remove the inflation on SSC entirely, because it has at worst(for economy stability purposes,) a 100% net positive gain on gear rates from only SSC (and GG shards, I guess) which is some percentage of overall gear aquisition (I'm guessing 20-60% based on my experience alone?) And we have seen that anything short of this will in fact have a negative impact on *some* players

    Which means a market change of up to about 20% at pretty conservative estimates.

    A 5-20% reduction in gear bottleneck(depending on your roster,) overall might be more than they're ok with, so that may be an unacceptable solution as far as CG is concerned, but anything short of this will either 1) affect some players negatively, (varies wildly, probly very bad PR,) or 2) be much more resource intensive to implement.

    So they will have to chose between those two and easing the gear crunch a bit.

    My opinion aside, those are the likely options they're facing.

    Even if you assume

    2.5 shards from cantina store
    10 shards from arena store
    15 from gw store
    5 from gw

    And 15 a day from bronizums

    That's about 47.5 shards a day

    Assuming an 80% full character drop for the bronizum the nerf would remove 6 shards.

    That is a 12.6% nerf.

    Even if you assume 5 shards a day from arena it comes out to 14.1%.

    That is assuming you don't care about arenas or refreshes.

    I'm not going to entertain a case where you don't bother to do gw even though there are some players somewhere that may do that. Expecting CG to adjust the impact for things such as that is ridiculous.

    Even if you assume 100% of your shards are bronizums and 90% are from full drops, it would only be a 45% nerf. Mathematically a 50% net is the max since that would be if you only got shards from full character drops.

    So I'm not sure where you are getting as high as a 60% nerf since that is mathematically impossible with the facts we have.

    And realistically 15% seems like a pretty good ceiling if you just do your dailies.

    I never said 60% in relation to SSC. I literally said that 50% is the worst case scenario. The 20-60% is (as stated in my post) referring to how much of ones overall gear squires is from SSC, and it was a wild guess as well, also stated in my post.

    I am not going to outline how your math doesn't align with my situation again, which wasn't even what I was arguing in the specific post.

    I am past specifics of percentages, because the truth is that as long as the SSC is inflated and bronzium shard conversion isn't doubled exactly to a true net 0, there will be at least some accounts affected negatively. They can reduce the SSC inflation as little or as much as they want, but regardless how much or little, if Bronziums don't convert exactly evenly or better there will be accounts affected negatively.

    I posited solutions that avoid having to make high impact/costly changes that also affect the playerbase negatively at all. I don't care about the math specifically to anyone, because it doesn't actually matter, and we can debate the trivialities until we expire.
  • Konju wrote: »
    Agreed, I don’t believe I said they would lighten relics. Your speculations would be nice, just like many others. To your point, I’ve been arguing too negatively against the devs for their past efforts. I don’t expect much of anything to lighten gear crunches as I see gear purchases to be a primary source of revenue for CG. I just can’t idly abide this nerf. Just gotta see what they decide to do.

    I could see them eventually easing up on g11 and below. There's even a case that it would increase profits.

    Most whales and krackens have already bought that gear for most if not all of their roster that they want to. And a lot of new players may be leery to spend because the goal is so far out of sight. If you can get to g12 easily, then the spending to get to relics by newer players may increase.

    And they can always add to the relics for the krackens.
  • Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think a key point being missed by the people arguing numbers games is that CG stated explicitly that their goal is to keep end-game neutral this round of updates. So even if the nerf is as low as 2%, it is a failure on their end that should be corrected, by their own admission.

    I believe it was stated "as close as possible", at which point if it was really only 2% (which we cant really prove), that would be pretty close.

    We can prove with math that each person has a different outcome, but no one has said a number as low as 2% yet. I was being generous, because the real average is likely much closer to 10%.

    Also, if 2% is as close as possible, then why would there be easy ways to close that 2% gap? That's not what "as close as possible" means, that's settling.

    Edit: 2% would be incredibly close though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop there unless it is absolutely as close as they can get it. And it isn't, since they can just adjust prices or income sources as much as they want until it's balanced or even net positive.

    I'd say 10% would probably be a decent average. Though it may be as high as 20% in some cases.

    Or as some people have said, since gear farming can take all the energy, and all the shops have stuff like ability mats to purchase too, in some cases Bronzium's might make up as much as 50 to 60% of all SSC because they don't really get any shards elsewhere. Getting prestige tokens from Arena shop until you've maxed out all capital ship skills is a viable use of those tokens and that removes up to 15 shards as someone has said. Getting Zetas and Omegas practically eliminates all Ship Store farming for many players unless you reaaally want SSC. You really only have Galactic War and Cantina as reliable sources until you've gotten all the Zetas and Capital ship moves that you want.

    I specifically left out the ship store from my calculation because I assumed Zetas are bought there by most. And that came up to less than 10%.

    And prestige is likely not farmed a lot by end game players since you get a ton over the years naturally. You may farm it for a time to get a capital ship done faster but it really isn't needed.

    Yes some may buy credits or ship credits rather than shard currency but CG can't be expected to correct for any possible choice.

    And I think in this case you have to consider end game when calculating the nerf since the added speed of farms more than make up for the nerf already for early and mid game (eg you don't have the stores finished.)

    Well I'm just saying, for anyone that wants to argue the semantics of an "average", that there are people in mid-endgame with different farming strats, and there are people with no finished stores because they bought the Hyperdrive bundle and just floated to the top of their shard meta and stayed there. The "average" lost currency gets very muddled because in these rare scenarios, it may be a 0% loss for someone who never opens Bronziums, or it may be a 100% nerf from someone whos only SSC source is Bronziums. Middle ground between those is still bad, because it's highly likely for some people that 50% of their SSC comes from good Bronzium pulls.

    If they could get it to 2% as a general statement, I'd be very happy, but there's no reason to stop at 2%, nor is there any reason to believe that the math will ever get as low and clean as 2%. So all around, unless the whole world just falls into place during this update, it's a nerf regardless of the number involved, and should be corrected as soon as they are capable of doing so.

    If you bought the hyperdrive bundle and just didn't bother finishing enough characters to use the stores for shard shop currency, that is a resource management issue and not one with the update.

    I don't think CG should be expected to consider these choices in the overall effect of the bronizum nerf.

    But if they only raise the price by 150% I'm good with that as it will help me as well. But I don't demand that to accept this within their stated intention.

    I just think within their stated intention of "as close as possible to net neutral for endgame" or whatever the exact phrasing was, they should consider that this nerf could very reasonably be taking well over 10% of all SSC from endgame players. For a lot of people it could exceed 25%, and for a select group who only get SSC from Bronziums, it could be over 50% if they get lucky drops. Those numbers are dangerous when your goal is to be close to 0%, and just because people with only 4% lost can say "I only lost 4% so the price buff should be balanced at 196%" doesn't mean that should be how it is. It should be closer to the average because that's how you calculate "net gain"

    You can't just pick a day when you get 100 shards from a pull to get a 90% nerf number though. That's an outlier. I think 10% is probably close to an average for endgame players that use their resources wisely.

    I'll define spending resources wisely as it affect shard shop currency to be clear.

    1. You are using crystals to do 3 refreshes of cantina energy and farming either a character or signal data. (That nets you about 10 shards a day from the cantina store) and you need the signal data and refreshes are much cheaper than buying it.

    2. You use the following stores for shard shop currency

    Cantina store
    Arena store (there's only so much prestige you can farm before it is dumb)
    Galactic war store

    If you are doing that the nerf is probably around 10%. Maybe as high as 15% if my 10 shards a day from bronizums is incorrect.

    But there is no way you are endgame, using your resources smartly, and getting a 50% nerf to your shard shop income from this.

    The problem is you're assuming endgame players and ignoing midgame players like me. I don't need most of the characters that benefit from this, and my SSC numbers are massively different than what you are positioning as endgame, meaning rosters like mine lose out on way more SSC than your numbers, and gain very little in exchange.

    But I think it's kind of besid the point by now. I think we're all pretty well agreed it needs to be addressed.

    So at mid game, you can't use the cantina store, the arena store, add and the gw store for shard shop currency.

    And you can't spare 300 crystals a day for cantina refreshes when you will need the signal data anyway?

    Those were my assumptions.

    Cantina store, like I said earlier, nets me 5 shards/2 days unless I'm refreshing cantina energy, which on average I get one of per day at best, and I'd rather spend that directly on gear as it is in fact more efficient when gear is a MUCH deeper bottleneck for me.

    I did factor in GW shop in those maths, so yes I do use them

    My arena store is 7.5 shards per day, and I included that in the first set of numbers. I am by no means an inefficient player, and I am frustrated you're straw-man-ing. I have increased my GP, my overall contribution to guild events, my arena rank and roster far faster than the others I my current guild and the three previous ones I was a part of, while also securing every legendary pretty darn quickly for f2p, so I think I'm doing pretty well as far as efficiency is concerned.

    You have a new alt account(Early game) and a top 10 account(Late game,) unless I am reading incorrectly, I apologise and recind this if so, but neither of your accounts seem(as I can't know for sure) to have even remotely similar potential/conditions as mine. I'm not arguing your numbers are wrong for your accounts, but they are definitely wrong for mine, and it isn't because I'm inefficient.

    I also happen to know a few people that do have accounts like mine, so it isn't an isolated edge case either. That is why I argu that the SSC/Bronziums nerf is more significant to accounts similar to mine(which I think is actually pretty close to average/60%+) than your accounts situation implies.

    I apologise if I ruffled feathers, that was not my intent. I still think we should forget the numbers, agree it should be looked at, and give each other high fives.

    I believe not focusing on arena is inefficient. If you don't want to do that then fine but you miss out on a lot of crystals and refreshes that way.

    As far as buying gear with crystals vs energy refreshes, crystals in the store is often quicker but the energy refreshes are more efficient long term.

    I typically try to keep to the efficient forms of farming as much as possible (unless I deem a farm to potentially be important enough to warrant speed over time. An example is I used a ton of Crystals to fast farm piett for see since having a GL sooner makes holding in arena easier and will save me Crystals later. But once I'm done with papa palps I will focus crystals only on energy since it's more efficient mathematically and I'm not in a hurry on my other farms.

    So by my definition if you are spending crystals to buy gear rather than energy for toons that will not lead to more crystal income, that is inefficient. It's fine if you want to play like that but it isn't all that efficient.

    I'm mean, you're not wrong, but you're not really right either.

    Over half the big gear pieces are actually quite efficient in shipments, and others are close to refreshes, though definitely not quite as good. It's a difference of about five crystals per piece on the ones whose value is lower in shipments than from refreshes, which is not unsignificant - like 20% worse, and usually those are the ones I spend on(many are the raid exclusives for G12+)

    I tend to hoard regardless, because my buying power is better leveraged against things that I get a full piece of once every two months in bulk, rather than getting small amounts of stuff I already slowly get small amounts of from other places, I'd rather get the gear that is hardest to get for me, that also happens to almost always be a better value in shipments than refreshes.

    https://www.shatteredorder.com/gearguide

    ^efficiency guide

    Stun guns are the only exception. Gotta farm those stun guns, but I still usually spend my extra energy from bonuses and natural regen after shard farms, unless I'm desperate for SGs, then I'll refresh, so to sum this up, I'll say what I said at the beginning: I tend to buy gear in bulk, and do around 5 refreshes per week. I don't have the income to support more, and while, yes, I have most GL counters toons, I would need to gear them more than the entire combined highest relics I currently have to push beyond what I've said. I told you, I tried.

    You keep assuming I am a crap player, but you don't know me or my situation, only your own and those around you.

    There are certainly things that I could improve, but I've unlocked everything I've unlocked with bare minimums because I put the work and energy and research into it, just like I did when trying to push beyond my top in arena.

    I could gear up what I would need, but it would literally take all the relic mats I have on characters now over again and more to do so, not even talking about gear. That's double what I have gear wise to tackle more than one GL, and that also means I lose time farming toward JKL and SLKR, not to mention any and all other barriers that are between me and top 50, and likely some I don't even know about tbh.

    Please stop assuming I'm crap because I'm not top 50. You're just wrong. In a competitive game with literally thousands of players in each shard with accounts of an insanely similar age it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to be a top player. In my shard there are at least 250 regularly active people with my GP or above. Even with 24 payout windows that is not enough to allow everyone to cycle top 50 without a shard chat that is willing to organize literally every hour, nearly down to a minute.

    So please stop assuming you know everything about my situation and the best way to do things. Again, you are just wrong about my account. I'm rising faster than those around me, making more progress. I lost a year, and am behind because of that, and that for sure is my fault, and I accept the ramifications. Not everyone can be in the top of arena, by design, and I would really appreciate it if you stopped implying I'm incompetent.

    Ok well less shard shop currency is an opportunity cost to doing things the way you choose to do them. That is on you. A fix by CG shouldn't have to account for you choosing to do things the way that makes you reliant on bronizums as a large portion of your shard currency.

    I still think you're wrong about gearing a counter team being a waste. I also took an 8 month break. It only took me about a month or so to get a team that could get back in the top 20 and a little longer to get back in the top 5. The added crystals over the last several months made farming for a GL much faster. That's just free advice though. Take it for what it's worth.
  • wz9zv4x4m5aq.png

    75k ally points yielded that. 165 shards came from the full character drops.165 out of 201 total shards. 2475 shard currency from the full drops. So with their “fix” that means I lose half of that value. About 1235 shard currency worth.
    That’s about 40 Mark 5 stun gun salvage. Their fix is not an acceptable one. Period
  • TVF
    27424 posts Member
    While you aren't wrong about this needing to be fixed, pulling an 80 from 75k ally points is not anywhere near frequent enough to use in calculations.

    I did almost 50k ally points last night and got 450 SSC. Enjoy your bounty.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Hornist wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I think a key point being missed by the people arguing numbers games is that CG stated explicitly that their goal is to keep end-game neutral this round of updates. So even if the nerf is as low as 2%, it is a failure on their end that should be corrected, by their own admission.

    I believe it was stated "as close as possible", at which point if it was really only 2% (which we cant really prove), that would be pretty close.

    We can prove with math that each person has a different outcome, but no one has said a number as low as 2% yet. I was being generous, because the real average is likely much closer to 10%.

    Also, if 2% is as close as possible, then why would there be easy ways to close that 2% gap? That's not what "as close as possible" means, that's settling.

    Edit: 2% would be incredibly close though, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop there unless it is absolutely as close as they can get it. And it isn't, since they can just adjust prices or income sources as much as they want until it's balanced or even net positive.

    I'd say 10% would probably be a decent average. Though it may be as high as 20% in some cases.

    Or as some people have said, since gear farming can take all the energy, and all the shops have stuff like ability mats to purchase too, in some cases Bronzium's might make up as much as 50 to 60% of all SSC because they don't really get any shards elsewhere. Getting prestige tokens from Arena shop until you've maxed out all capital ship skills is a viable use of those tokens and that removes up to 15 shards as someone has said. Getting Zetas and Omegas practically eliminates all Ship Store farming for many players unless you reaaally want SSC. You really only have Galactic War and Cantina as reliable sources until you've gotten all the Zetas and Capital ship moves that you want.

    I specifically left out the ship store from my calculation because I assumed Zetas are bought there by most. And that came up to less than 10%.

    And prestige is likely not farmed a lot by end game players since you get a ton over the years naturally. You may farm it for a time to get a capital ship done faster but it really isn't needed.

    Yes some may buy credits or ship credits rather than shard currency but CG can't be expected to correct for any possible choice.

    And I think in this case you have to consider end game when calculating the nerf since the added speed of farms more than make up for the nerf already for early and mid game (eg you don't have the stores finished.)

    Well I'm just saying, for anyone that wants to argue the semantics of an "average", that there are people in mid-endgame with different farming strats, and there are people with no finished stores because they bought the Hyperdrive bundle and just floated to the top of their shard meta and stayed there. The "average" lost currency gets very muddled because in these rare scenarios, it may be a 0% loss for someone who never opens Bronziums, or it may be a 100% nerf from someone whos only SSC source is Bronziums. Middle ground between those is still bad, because it's highly likely for some people that 50% of their SSC comes from good Bronzium pulls.

    If they could get it to 2% as a general statement, I'd be very happy, but there's no reason to stop at 2%, nor is there any reason to believe that the math will ever get as low and clean as 2%. So all around, unless the whole world just falls into place during this update, it's a nerf regardless of the number involved, and should be corrected as soon as they are capable of doing so.

    If you bought the hyperdrive bundle and just didn't bother finishing enough characters to use the stores for shard shop currency, that is a resource management issue and not one with the update.

    I don't think CG should be expected to consider these choices in the overall effect of the bronizum nerf.

    But if they only raise the price by 150% I'm good with that as it will help me as well. But I don't demand that to accept this within their stated intention.

    I just think within their stated intention of "as close as possible to net neutral for endgame" or whatever the exact phrasing was, they should consider that this nerf could very reasonably be taking well over 10% of all SSC from endgame players. For a lot of people it could exceed 25%, and for a select group who only get SSC from Bronziums, it could be over 50% if they get lucky drops. Those numbers are dangerous when your goal is to be close to 0%, and just because people with only 4% lost can say "I only lost 4% so the price buff should be balanced at 196%" doesn't mean that should be how it is. It should be closer to the average because that's how you calculate "net gain"

    You can't just pick a day when you get 100 shards from a pull to get a 90% nerf number though. That's an outlier. I think 10% is probably close to an average for endgame players that use their resources wisely.

    I'll define spending resources wisely as it affect shard shop currency to be clear.

    1. You are using crystals to do 3 refreshes of cantina energy and farming either a character or signal data. (That nets you about 10 shards a day from the cantina store) and you need the signal data and refreshes are much cheaper than buying it.

    2. You use the following stores for shard shop currency

    Cantina store
    Arena store (there's only so much prestige you can farm before it is dumb)
    Galactic war store

    If you are doing that the nerf is probably around 10%. Maybe as high as 15% if my 10 shards a day from bronizums is incorrect.

    But there is no way you are endgame, using your resources smartly, and getting a 50% nerf to your shard shop income from this.

    The problem is you're assuming endgame players and ignoing midgame players like me. I don't need most of the characters that benefit from this, and my SSC numbers are massively different than what you are positioning as endgame, meaning rosters like mine lose out on way more SSC than your numbers, and gain very little in exchange.

    But I think it's kind of besid the point by now. I think we're all pretty well agreed it needs to be addressed.

    So at mid game, you can't use the cantina store, the arena store, add and the gw store for shard shop currency.

    And you can't spare 300 crystals a day for cantina refreshes when you will need the signal data anyway?

    Those were my assumptions.

    Cantina store, like I said earlier, nets me 5 shards/2 days unless I'm refreshing cantina energy, which on average I get one of per day at best, and I'd rather spend that directly on gear as it is in fact more efficient when gear is a MUCH deeper bottleneck for me.

    I did factor in GW shop in those maths, so yes I do use them

    My arena store is 7.5 shards per day, and I included that in the first set of numbers. I am by no means an inefficient player, and I am frustrated you're straw-man-ing. I have increased my GP, my overall contribution to guild events, my arena rank and roster far faster than the others I my current guild and the three previous ones I was a part of, while also securing every legendary pretty darn quickly for f2p, so I think I'm doing pretty well as far as efficiency is concerned.

    You have a new alt account(Early game) and a top 10 account(Late game,) unless I am reading incorrectly, I apologise and recind this if so, but neither of your accounts seem(as I can't know for sure) to have even remotely similar potential/conditions as mine. I'm not arguing your numbers are wrong for your accounts, but they are definitely wrong for mine, and it isn't because I'm inefficient.

    I also happen to know a few people that do have accounts like mine, so it isn't an isolated edge case either. That is why I argu that the SSC/Bronziums nerf is more significant to accounts similar to mine(which I think is actually pretty close to average/60%+) than your accounts situation implies.

    I apologise if I ruffled feathers, that was not my intent. I still think we should forget the numbers, agree it should be looked at, and give each other high fives.

    I agree that we should all high five and makeup, but we absolutely should try to find the best average we can. Otherwise, we'll never know if a fix is adequately "close to net neutral" or not. If they lower the Shard Shop increase to 190% to account for a 10% nerf, but the average in actuality is closer to 20 or 30%, then the fix only helps those that fell into that 10% window. Everyone else gets bumped closer to net neutral, but still falls quite short. This is what it means when I say it would be better to err on the side of net positive, because until someone does like, a large scale case study, we can only speculate on the numbers. But either way we all agree it's AT LEAST a double digit percentage nerf.

    I agree to a point. What we really should do is find the maximum impact the nerf *could* have on an account with perfectly non-ideal conditions, and change things based on that. That is how businesses usually operate with costs and internal changes, and sometimes changes that affect customers(if they're low-impacting on budget.)

    I don't think CG will do this because it will skew the total net change squarely into positive(if you just straight double bronziums however it's done,) but that is the best way to handle it. Plan for the worst case scenario, but hope for the best.

    In this case, the best fix all around means making sure there is exactly 0 reduction in SSC across the board, while not impacting gear rates at all, which would mean just doubling bronzium obtained shards' SSC conversion, but not their drop rate, as that has the lowest impact on the rest of the game, but a perfectly net neutral SSC change. However this is the thing that would take BY FAR the most work to implement, so it likely will also not happen.

    If I were planning this change, I would have a headache because there isn't a good solution.

    My personal favorite, would be to entirely remove the inflation on SSC entirely, because it has at worst(for economy stability purposes,) a 100% net positive gain on gear rates from only SSC (and GG shards, I guess) which is some percentage of overall gear aquisition (I'm guessing 20-60% based on my experience alone?) And we have seen that anything short of this will in fact have a negative impact on *some* players

    Which means a market change of up to about 20% at pretty conservative estimates.

    A 5-20% reduction in gear bottleneck(depending on your roster,) overall might be more than they're ok with, so that may be an unacceptable solution as far as CG is concerned, but anything short of this will either 1) affect some players negatively, (varies wildly, probly very bad PR,) or 2) be much more resource intensive to implement.

    So they will have to chose between those two and easing the gear crunch a bit.

    My opinion aside, those are the likely options they're facing.

    Even if you assume

    2.5 shards from cantina store
    10 shards from arena store
    15 from gw store
    5 from gw

    And 15 a day from bronizums

    That's about 47.5 shards a day

    Assuming an 80% full character drop for the bronizum the nerf would remove 6 shards.

    That is a 12.6% nerf.

    Even if you assume 5 shards a day from arena it comes out to 14.1%.

    That is assuming you don't care about arenas or refreshes.

    I'm not going to entertain a case where you don't bother to do gw even though there are some players somewhere that may do that. Expecting CG to adjust the impact for things such as that is ridiculous.

    Even if you assume 100% of your shards are bronizums and 90% are from full drops, it would only be a 45% nerf. Mathematically a 50% net is the max since that would be if you only got shards from full character drops.

    So I'm not sure where you are getting as high as a 60% nerf since that is mathematically impossible with the facts we have.

    And realistically 15% seems like a pretty good ceiling if you just do your dailies.

    I never said 60% in relation to SSC. I literally said that 50% is the worst case scenario. The 20-60% is (as stated in my post) referring to how much of ones overall gear squires is from SSC, and it was a wild guess as well, also stated in my post.

    I am not going to outline how your math doesn't align with my situation again, which wasn't even what I was arguing in the specific post.

    I am past specifics of percentages, because the truth is that as long as the SSC is inflated and bronzium shard conversion isn't doubled exactly to a true net 0, there will be at least some accounts affected negatively. They can reduce the SSC inflation as little or as much as they want, but regardless how much or little, if Bronziums don't convert exactly evenly or better there will be accounts affected negatively.

    I posited solutions that avoid having to make high impact/costly changes that also affect the playerbase negatively at all. I don't care about the math specifically to anyone, because it doesn't actually matter, and we can debate the trivialities until we expire.

    There's no way shard currency is 60% of the gear you get.

    You get some gear from the following sources.

    1. Energy (even if you are farming shards it still drops gear)
    2. Fleet energy
    3. Guild store
    4. Events
    5. Raids
    6. Dailies
    7. Guild store
    8. Gac store
    9. Shard shop

    I'd say 5-20% from shard shop would be a more accurate estimate but this is hard to calculate and will likely vary a lot. Some may get more gear from the guild store and events than others. Though farming shards from the guild store is temporary (through a long process). But you also don't get nearly as much shard currency early on either. So I'll assume as high as 30% in some edge cases but for 60% you'd have to be purposely ignoring some aspects of the game. And once again, that is not CGs responsibility to correct for.

    So if you figure a 15% nerf to shard shop currency and that it's 30% of your gear, that's a 4.5% nerf. But that's worse case. Probably closer to 1.5%.

    Definitely a big enough issue to need fixing but not the end of the world.
  • DarkHelmet1138
    3512 posts Member
    edited November 2020
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    wz9zv4x4m5aq.png

    75k ally points yielded that. 165 shards came from the full character drops.165 out of 201 total shards. 2475 shard currency from the full drops. So with their “fix” that means I lose half of that value. About 1235 shard currency worth.
    That’s about 40 Mark 5 stun gun salvage. Their fix is not an acceptable one. Period

    Assuming you earn 10k a day your pull comes to 26 shards a day. Though and 80 drop from 75k is probably pretty rare. If you add tvf's results it would bring the average down to 18 or so. So 15 a day seems to be fairly close. Though no enough data to say.

    I went back a few pages and the person that posted about opening 1.425 mil worth comes out to about 17 a day if you assume 10k ally points earned a day and 12 a day if you assume 7500 ally points a day earned. So the 15 a day from bronizums seems pretty close.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    wz9zv4x4m5aq.png

    75k ally points yielded that. 165 shards came from the full character drops.165 out of 201 total shards. 2475 shard currency from the full drops. So with their “fix” that means I lose half of that value. About 1235 shard currency worth.
    That’s about 40 Mark 5 stun gun salvage. Their fix is not an acceptable one. Period

    Assuming you earn 10k a day your pull comes to 26 shards a day. Though and 80 drop from 75k is probably pretty rare. If you add tvf's results it would bring the average down to 18 or so. So 15 a day seems to be fairly close. Though no enough data to say.

    I went back a few pages and the person that posted about opening 1.425 mil worth comes out to about 17 a day if you assume 10k ally points earned a day and 12 a day if you assume 7500 ally points a day earned. So the 15 a day from bronizums seems pretty close.

    Whether it’s an average decrease or a decrease from this one instance. It’s still a decrease. Take out the 80 drop even and you still get many 10’s to drop. But average or not, a nerf is a nerf and a decrease to the gear economy when it’s already insanely in a stranglehold is ridiculous. It’s not an acceptable fix.
  • Jppc
    378 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    While you aren't wrong about this needing to be fixed, pulling an 80 from 75k ally points is not anywhere near frequent enough to use in calculations.

    I did almost 50k ally points last night and got 450 SSC. Enjoy your bounty.

    Anecdotal
  • Wow, 27 pages and two weeks worth of discussion. This is shaping up to be another one of those controversial issues like other nerfs the devs inflicted on us over the years, likely to grow to 54 pages with no official comment. Wait, did I say that out loud..
    Ok, so I started with about 150k ally points when this discussion started, I tracked the amount of SSC garnered from 10k spends. Inb4 complaints about not tracking full drops, I didn't. Here's the amounts for 9 of these: 480, 225, 180, 765, 1020, 75, 180, 195 and 210. I think the one for 1020 had a 80 shard full.
    I am in agreement with all of you that are pointing out that this is a nerf, whatever the maths are.
    Officer in Ewoks Fit In Blenders. Traya, Wat & Negotiator on farm. PM to join us.
  • This is my contribution to sampling. For exactly 47.5 ally points. It's pretty much in line with what I get every 150k or so coins.

    wza6hutq1xix.png
  • Konju wrote: »
    Agreed, I don’t believe I said they would lighten relics. Your speculations would be nice, just like many others. To your point, I’ve been arguing too negatively against the devs for their past efforts. I don’t expect much of anything to lighten gear crunches as I see gear purchases to be a primary source of revenue for CG. I just can’t idly abide this nerf. Just gotta see what they decide to do.

    I could see them eventually easing up on g11 and below. There's even a case that it would increase profits.

    Most whales and krackens have already bought that gear for most if not all of their roster that they want to. And a lot of new players may be leery to spend because the goal is so far out of sight. If you can get to g12 easily, then the spending to get to relics by newer players may increase.

    And they can always add to the relics for the krackens.

    Eventually....really? Awesome!!
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    wz9zv4x4m5aq.png

    75k ally points yielded that. 165 shards came from the full character drops.165 out of 201 total shards. 2475 shard currency from the full drops. So with their “fix” that means I lose half of that value. About 1235 shard currency worth.
    That’s about 40 Mark 5 stun gun salvage. Their fix is not an acceptable one. Period

    Assuming you earn 10k a day your pull comes to 26 shards a day. Though and 80 drop from 75k is probably pretty rare. If you add tvf's results it would bring the average down to 18 or so. So 15 a day seems to be fairly close. Though no enough data to say.

    I went back a few pages and the person that posted about opening 1.425 mil worth comes out to about 17 a day if you assume 10k ally points earned a day and 12 a day if you assume 7500 ally points a day earned. So the 15 a day from bronizums seems pretty close.

    Whether it’s an average decrease or a decrease from this one instance. It’s still a decrease. Take out the 80 drop even and you still get many 10’s to drop. But average or not, a nerf is a nerf and a decrease to the gear economy when it’s already insanely in a stranglehold is ridiculous. It’s not an acceptable fix.

    I agree but determining the level of the nerf is important to know what fix would make it ok. As far as I can tell the shard currency is around a 10% nerf for most and up to about 15% for some depending on how many other shard shop sources they have.

    So in my opinion, if they changed the 200% increase in price to 185% it would even out.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    This is my contribution to sampling. For exactly 47.5 ally points. It's pretty much in line with what I get every 150k or so coins.

    wza6hutq1xix.png

    Currently that would net you...30 Mk5 stun gun salvage. With their change you would lose half of your value from full pulls, so you would lose about 14 stun guns worth of value. Sounds fair lol
  • Fieldgulls wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Agreed, I don’t believe I said they would lighten relics. Your speculations would be nice, just like many others. To your point, I’ve been arguing too negatively against the devs for their past efforts. I don’t expect much of anything to lighten gear crunches as I see gear purchases to be a primary source of revenue for CG. I just can’t idly abide this nerf. Just gotta see what they decide to do.

    I could see them eventually easing up on g11 and below. There's even a case that it would increase profits.

    Most whales and krackens have already bought that gear for most if not all of their roster that they want to. And a lot of new players may be leery to spend because the goal is so far out of sight. If you can get to g12 easily, then the spending to get to relics by newer players may increase.

    And they can always add to the relics for the krackens.

    Eventually....really? Awesome!!

    It should’ve already been done. Getting to G12 shouldn’t be a chore anymore. Once at G12, getting the g12 gear as well as the relic materials, that’s an acceptable choke point and already is a big one since finishers use not only kyro’s but also high demand gear like Mk5 guns and callers, stun cuffs, etc.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    This is my contribution to sampling. For exactly 47.5 ally points. It's pretty much in line with what I get every 150k or so coins.

    wza6hutq1xix.png

    Currently that would net you...30 Mk5 stun gun salvage. With their change you would lose half of your value from full pulls, so you would lose about 14 stun guns worth of value. Sounds fair lol

    It's not fair at all and I don't want this to go through at all.

    Though I don't need stun guns xD. g12+ pieces are of much more value to me.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    This is my contribution to sampling. For exactly 47.5 ally points. It's pretty much in line with what I get every 150k or so coins.

    wza6hutq1xix.png

    Currently that would net you...30 Mk5 stun gun salvage. With their change you would lose half of your value from full pulls, so you would lose about 14 stun guns worth of value. Sounds fair lol

    It's not fair at all and I don't want this to go through at all.

    Though I don't need stun guns xD. g12+ pieces are of much more value to me.

    Stun guns are more of just a basis of comparison. I’ve been using shard currency for those mk12 furnaces that everyone and their mother need lol
  • Konju wrote: »
    Agreed, I don’t believe I said they would lighten relics. Your speculations would be nice, just like many others. To your point, I’ve been arguing too negatively against the devs for their past efforts. I don’t expect much of anything to lighten gear crunches as I see gear purchases to be a primary source of revenue for CG. I just can’t idly abide this nerf. Just gotta see what they decide to do.

    I could see them eventually easing up on g11 and below. There's even a case that it would increase profits.

    Most whales and krackens have already bought that gear for most if not all of their roster that they want to. And a lot of new players may be leery to spend because the goal is so far out of sight. If you can get to g12 easily, then the spending to get to relics by newer players may increase.

    And they can always add to the relics for the krackens.

    You could very well be right here. Won’t know until they make such an adjustment.

    Honestly, if newer players farm gear with the saved energy from weeks/months less shard farming, then the gear crunch should already be lessened for them. Hopefully they know/learn to farm gear harder. Also, with faster shard farms, newer players will hit heroic raids sooner—further lightening the gear crunch.
  • Konju wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Agreed, I don’t believe I said they would lighten relics. Your speculations would be nice, just like many others. To your point, I’ve been arguing too negatively against the devs for their past efforts. I don’t expect much of anything to lighten gear crunches as I see gear purchases to be a primary source of revenue for CG. I just can’t idly abide this nerf. Just gotta see what they decide to do.

    I could see them eventually easing up on g11 and below. There's even a case that it would increase profits.

    Most whales and krackens have already bought that gear for most if not all of their roster that they want to. And a lot of new players may be leery to spend because the goal is so far out of sight. If you can get to g12 easily, then the spending to get to relics by newer players may increase.

    And they can always add to the relics for the krackens.

    You could very well be right here. Won’t know until they make such an adjustment.

    Honestly, if newer players farm gear with the saved energy from weeks/months less shard farming, then the gear crunch should already be lessened for them. Hopefully they know/learn to farm gear harder. Also, with faster shard farms, newer players will hit heroic raids sooner—further lightening the gear crunch.

    I think that is why they are waiting. They want to see the extent of the changes. After all that would be difficult to predict ahead of time.

    But I think more tweaks will be needed, especially for newer players. How much or whether CG agrees with me is another question altogether.
  • Since they announced the accelerated rate and Bronzium issue, from Broziums I've gotten:
    • 1 80 shard unlock
    • 1 50 shard unlock
    • 4 24 shard unlocks
    • about a dozen 10 shard unlocks
    I had 75k ally points at the time and burned through them all, including all the points I accumulated during the week (actually reached exactly 0 an hour ago). Almost like the game is fronting me some currency for the upcoming half-off sale :smile:
    xSWCr - Nov '15 shard - swgoh.gg kalidor-m
  • They say they are going to address the rest of the economy, I could see them adding stun guns to someplace to help with the gear crunch - purchasable for ally points.
    Officer in Ewoks Fit In Blenders. Traya, Wat & Negotiator on farm. PM to join us.
  • i think the push to make these shard store changes live without addressing bronziums shows how little ea/cg cares about the community. shame on them.
  • Most of my guild just had update come down and I can tell you the change is not positive based on the feedback. Much of the guild is newer to mid level players. Great job CG!!
Sign In or Register to comment.