What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
They never told you to do it. There's no "faith" needed, you made the precedent up yourself.
Expectations at zero means what? Never expecting anything. The only expectation is that there are no precedents whatsoever. Could be level 100 around the corner. Could be 8* anytime. R15 could come some day. No expectations.
Unless they have actuall said it, sure expect whatever you want, no exceptions. But they have said no 8*. And as someone else broke it down, they did do exactly what they said.
This is not to say communication couldnt be better, but they never said "dont hoard", or anything that would make it sound ok to spend to 0.
No one is going to agree here, but we should not be saying they said things, if they didnt actually say them.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
Then what's the point of having a limit at all?
To prevent massive hoarding, as they stated. Players will often try to skip X to save for Y, and other tactics around hoarding that prevent them from really being able to utilize the stores they way they want in some cases. This prevents players from doing that, as they cycle through the cadence they laid out, and into future plans they may have.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
Then what's the point of having a limit at all?
To prevent massive hoarding, as they stated. Players will often try to skip X to save for Y, and other tactics around hoarding that prevent them from really being able to utilize the stores they way they want in some cases. This prevents players from doing that, as they cycle through the cadence they laid out, and into future plans they may have.
So, they tell us they didn't design this game around hoarding, they don't want us to hoard this currency, and then they require us to hoard this currency and you think that's our fault for not knowing we were supposed to be hoarding?
They never told you to do it. There's no "faith" needed, you made the precedent up yourself.
Expectations at zero means what? Never expecting anything. The only expectation is that there are no precedents whatsoever. Could be level 100 around the corner. Could be 8* anytime. R15 could come some day. No expectations.
Unless they have actuall said it, sure expect whatever you want, no exceptions. But they have said no 8*. And as someone else broke it down, they did do exactly what they said.
This is not to say communication couldnt be better, but they never said "dont hoard", or anything that would make it sound ok to spend to 0.
No one is going to agree here, but we should not be saying they said things, if they didnt actually say them.
They can always go back on their word. There is nothing really stopping them. Unhappy playerbase obviously isn't a problem for them.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
If you started this at zero, you bought more than shards. Stop or stop complaining, or neither. (It’ll probably be neither.) <closing tab>
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
If you started this at zero, you bought more than shards. Stop or stop complaining, or neither. (It’ll probably be neither.) <closing tab>
Well, yes. I did say that. But they set the expectation (and have been setting the expectation for almost 2 years) that you should have been able to spend that "extra" currency and still earn enough for the reward shards.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
If you started this at zero, you bought more than shards. Stop or stop complaining, or neither. (It’ll probably be neither.) <closing tab>
StarSon saved plenty. But he's a hero for the little guy that CG is being mean to.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
“ As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed.”
Lol. No.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
This is Conquest #1 with a toon.
And the defense when it is changed against, “well this is Conquest #1 with (insert new toon here)” during Conquest 7, 10, 13 etc etc. (whenever changes happen again as they will be likely).
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
Then what's the point of having a limit at all?
To prevent massive hoarding, as they stated. Players will often try to skip X to save for Y, and other tactics around hoarding that prevent them from really being able to utilize the stores they way they want in some cases. This prevents players from doing that, as they cycle through the cadence they laid out, and into future plans they may have.
A better method of controlling “massive hoarding” is to not require hoarding at all. Control how quickly you can buy shards. Requiring all shards is no problem there is still a choice of gear and shards vs just gear. No one can speed through unlocking content because cg won’t let you. It’s transparent, upfront, and lessens the need to guess at cgs intentions
Just here to point out that to subvert massive hoarding giving players a leg up all you have to do is limit how many nodes and shards you can buy per Conquest and not put any in the conquest store. Maybe next time CG will think of such a brilliant solution. Maybe.
Just here to point out that to subvert massive hoarding giving players a leg up all you have to do is limit how many nodes and shards you can buy per Conquest and not put any in the conquest store. Maybe next time CG will think of such a brilliant solution. Maybe.
I mean, it depends on what is considered hoarding or mass hoarding. They obviously don't want people to breeze through a conquest from saving up from previous ones. So consumables and stim packs don't carry over. There's a cap on currency to prevent any sort of mass spending to breeze a conquest or maybe even buy a bunch of character shards from the store.
And yet, currency does carry over, and up to 3,500 currency carries over. So that's an option they were ok with, and it seems prudent to take advantage of it.
The cap doesn't even make much sense. We are mostly limited by the number of Wandering Scavangers to buy the good stuff and those Jawas don't refresh their stock.
How can you mass spend on things that you can purchase once? If I hoarded all the currency from previous Conquest I still wouldn't be able to buy more than 20 CAT shards.
I mean, it depends on what is considered hoarding or mass hoarding. They obviously don't want people to breeze through a conquest from saving up from previous ones. So consumables and stim packs don't carry over. There's a cap on currency to prevent any sort of mass spending to breeze a conquest or maybe even buy a bunch of character shards from the store.
And yet, currency does carry over, and up to 3,500 currency carries over. So that's an option they were ok with, and it seems prudent to take advantage of it.
The cap doesn't even make much sense. We are mostly limited by the number of Wandering Scavangers to buy the good stuff and those Jawas don't refresh their stock.
How can you mass spend on things that you can purchase once? If I hoarded all the currency from previous Conquest I still wouldn't be able to buy more than 20 CAT shards.
It is possible they have further plans or wanted to leave themselves an option for the store. So while that may be true at the moment, later things could drop in the store or be moved there.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
Then what's the point of having a limit at all?
To prevent massive hoarding, as they stated. Players will often try to skip X to save for Y, and other tactics around hoarding that prevent them from really being able to utilize the stores they way they want in some cases. This prevents players from doing that, as they cycle through the cadence they laid out, and into future plans they may have.
A better method of controlling “massive hoarding” is to not require hoarding at all. Control how quickly you can buy shards. Requiring all shards is no problem there is still a choice of gear and shards vs just gear. No one can speed through unlocking content because cg won’t let you. It’s transparent, upfront, and lessens the need to guess at cgs intentions
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
Just here to point out that to subvert massive hoarding giving players a leg up all you have to do is limit how many nodes and shards you can buy per Conquest and not put any in the conquest store. Maybe next time CG will think of such a brilliant solution. Maybe.
see above, yes this is a different strategy, but no it doesn't nothing about hoarding. people will hoard even if purchases are paced to allow for "enough currency" to spend it at the highest rate possible.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
also, there are times where some just post to ask questions about why someone would do X, but because that isn't in support of the current "pitchfork" it is seen as defending, and to add to that, questioning statements that do not say what someone says, is also defending..... so people dont always keep defending things, but at times are told they are, even unrelated things to specific comments they make.
Just here to point out that to subvert massive hoarding giving players a leg up all you have to do is limit how many nodes and shards you can buy per Conquest and not put any in the conquest store. Maybe next time CG will think of such a brilliant solution. Maybe.
see above, yes this is a different strategy, but no it doesn't nothing about hoarding. people will hoard even if purchases are paced to allow for "enough currency" to spend it at the highest rate possible.
So there's no way to prevent hoarding except a cap, a cap which is smaller than 2 full conquests worth of tokens (presuming you spend no more than 500 over the 2 conquests). I disagree but just going along with this thinking for a bit- Why make the cap that small then? It's tiny when you consider how many tokens you get for hard mode. I've never heard of a cap in game currency that you can hit so easily.
Replies
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Unless they have actuall said it, sure expect whatever you want, no exceptions. But they have said no 8*. And as someone else broke it down, they did do exactly what they said.
This is not to say communication couldnt be better, but they never said "dont hoard", or anything that would make it sound ok to spend to 0.
No one is going to agree here, but we should not be saying they said things, if they didnt actually say them.
Lol. No.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/2000040#Comment_2000040
November 1st, 2019 at 5:32PM Central.
Lol. Yes. This is Conquest #4. The previous 3 had no expectation that if you spent your currency to zero after buying all available RC shards that you would miss out next time.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
Then what's the point of having a limit at all?
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
To prevent massive hoarding, as they stated. Players will often try to skip X to save for Y, and other tactics around hoarding that prevent them from really being able to utilize the stores they way they want in some cases. This prevents players from doing that, as they cycle through the cadence they laid out, and into future plans they may have.
So, they tell us they didn't design this game around hoarding, they don't want us to hoard this currency, and then they require us to hoard this currency and you think that's our fault for not knowing we were supposed to be hoarding?
They can always go back on their word. There is nothing really stopping them. Unhappy playerbase obviously isn't a problem for them.
This is Conquest #1 with a toon.
If you started this at zero, you bought more than shards. Stop or stop complaining, or neither. (It’ll probably be neither.) <closing tab>
Well, yes. I did say that. But they set the expectation (and have been setting the expectation for almost 2 years) that you should have been able to spend that "extra" currency and still earn enough for the reward shards.
StarSon saved plenty. But he's a hero for the little guy that CG is being mean to.
And the defense when it is changed against, “well this is Conquest #1 with (insert new toon here)” during Conquest 7, 10, 13 etc etc. (whenever changes happen again as they will be likely).
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
A better method of controlling “massive hoarding” is to not require hoarding at all. Control how quickly you can buy shards. Requiring all shards is no problem there is still a choice of gear and shards vs just gear. No one can speed through unlocking content because cg won’t let you. It’s transparent, upfront, and lessens the need to guess at cgs intentions
I already brought this up.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
see above, yes this is a different strategy, but no it doesn't nothing about hoarding. people will hoard even if purchases are paced to allow for "enough currency" to spend it at the highest rate possible.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
also, there are times where some just post to ask questions about why someone would do X, but because that isn't in support of the current "pitchfork" it is seen as defending, and to add to that, questioning statements that do not say what someone says, is also defending..... so people dont always keep defending things, but at times are told they are, even unrelated things to specific comments they make.
So there's no way to prevent hoarding except a cap, a cap which is smaller than 2 full conquests worth of tokens (presuming you spend no more than 500 over the 2 conquests). I disagree but just going along with this thinking for a bit- Why make the cap that small then? It's tiny when you consider how many tokens you get for hard mode. I've never heard of a cap in game currency that you can hit so easily.