Rationale for charging for disk swaps?

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    That's my point though, as the player it's my opinion that the meaning shouldn't be in what I place, it should be in what I achieve. Data disks are already RNG-heavy, and I see the same ones over and over. A lot of times, there is no meaning in what disks I place anyways because there's a lot of repeats in my inventory. If they want swaps to be meaningful, then I'd rather see more stability in what disks we see in a given sector, so that we have the variety to make swaps more meaningful. Otherwise it seems like wasted energy to swap a slightly better disk later in the conquest.

    If what you achieve is meaningful to you, why don't you move them around to achieve things? It seems that's where you put your value and nothing is stopping you from doing that.

    I agree they do repeat a little too often.
  • They want the change to be meaningful, but there are very limited ways in game to achieve this. What are the realistic options?
    -Credits
    -Fleet credits
    -Energy
    -Keycards

    It's been discussed already that credits would be meaningless. Fleet credits are in much shorter supply and would really make no sense at all. This leave energy and keycards. They have tried one of these already and IMO it was far more detrimental than having to use energy.

    I mean the only other option I can feasibly think of is the datadisk destroys itself once you unequip, however the acquisition system would have to change to accommodate something like this.

    As for the reason as to why there is a cost - again, explained already. The devs wanted something to make the choice of disks meaningful.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Here’s an idea, just run one conquest with no cost, collect data, decide next steps.

    I hold no hope for them listening to us, they surely didn’t for conquest 7.

    What data would they get from that?

    They know people want to swap them, hence the cost making that a "harder choice".

    As I said, they will discuss things and look at how things are progressing. I don't believe anything is really off the table, but there is a balance they will always be looking for.
  • CG gets a kick about reading complaints and consider that more engagement from the fan base. Meanwhile players are seeing what else is in the App Store, or outside, or what’s up with their family.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    That's my point though, as the player it's my opinion that the meaning shouldn't be in what I place, it should be in what I achieve. Data disks are already RNG-heavy, and I see the same ones over and over. A lot of times, there is no meaning in what disks I place anyways because there's a lot of repeats in my inventory. If they want swaps to be meaningful, then I'd rather see more stability in what disks we see in a given sector, so that we have the variety to make swaps more meaningful. Otherwise it seems like wasted energy to swap a slightly better disk later in the conquest.

    If what you achieve is meaningful to you, why don't you move them around to achieve things? It seems that's where you put your value and nothing is stopping you from doing that.

    I agree they do repeat a little too often.

    So, you don't think requiring energy to swap data disks is causing f2p players to keep whatever disks they have rather than swap them? Especially with the increased cost to do a battle?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    $$$. Spend more for more crystals so you can refresh more often.. That's ENGAGEMENT, right???

    ugh..


    It should be just Credits.. make it more expensive in Hard Mode, of course. But this "Energy" idea is just horrible with the new Feats and the added cost for each Battle.

    I don't think there is a credit amount that would make the choices feel significant for most players. Many veteran players have a huge amount just sitting around waiting for mods that look like they hold some promise.

    That can be a challenge.. But not every veteran player has hundreds of millions of credits and not every newer player has very little. It is subjective.

    I think there should be a cost but tying it to Energy is counter-intuitive to "engagement" or even the theory-crafting for the insane number of Feats..

    Credits are the balance for the thought of having a "Cost" and not reducing the Engagement for this Event.

    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    Things will progress and change, and this will always be a conversation to be had, and maybe one of the trade offs we see to help keep this mode "engaging", but only time will tell.

    Here's the problem though. I'm not actually thinking about it. I'm not weighing any options. I'm simply ignoring the option of swapping data disks. So I'm using few and I'm not removing them. Where's the engagement in that? They didn't want it "easy" to swap disks. Solution! Don't let us swap disks. They want to keep the mode "engaging" :joy::joy::joy: that's hilarious bc they've done the exact opposite. I've never seen so many players disengaged from both the mode and the game itself. I enjoyed the first conquest. 2nd was okay. 3rd was repetitive. The next set of three became pure boredom and the only glimmer of joy was CAT. This set? This set could end tomorrow and I wouldn't miss it. They still have the same feats from the first 6 in. STILL. They added worse ones and kept the boring old ones.

    I do fewer battles each day than in 1-6 and don't want to spend crystals on refreshes (and haven't thus far). If they believe this keeps players engaged, it explains why they make so many bad decisions.

    (I am not defending them)
    That is your choice. If you feel that they are important to your enjoyment of the game mode, you can choose to do more.

    Why lock them in when they don't have to? Players have the agency to play how they want, and weigh the options.

    We can wait and see how this plays out, I'm sure they are looking at many factors and trying to figure things out.

    Meh we don't really get to play how we want. We have no say in which disks we get. Either that CG puts into each conquest 'round' or in which ones we get access to. I keep seeing doubles of the same disk on nodes. Sometimes triples. That's something I was bringing up in Conquest 1-3. Nice to see them listen to feedback. CG can say it's "meaningful" that I'm keeping the disks I have. What it REALLY means is I'm finding lots of lame disks and so many copies it's obscene. I've probably seen half a dozen of that ambiguous 4% health disk by now. BC it's ambiguous and I don't want to play 'read the mind of CG' I've ignored it each time. Now THAT was a meaningful decision.

    If CG really wants us to make "meaningful" decisions, then let us choose ANY disks we want. As of right now Person A gets 2 purples by the end of sector 3. Person B gets no purples and not even any blue ones in the same amount of nodes. That's a BIG problem. It's been pointed out since the beginning. I know ppl who, in 7 conquests, haven't seen a single purple disk. Meanwhile CG is working on how to charge more for disks and hide behind the 'meaningful' excuse for doing so. Maybe they should just toss that 'meaningful' idea into the trash can. It seems to be getting in the way of them making the product better.

    Another thought- strip the modifiers altogether. No modifiers on enemies, none on our toons. just straight play. You'd limit who gets red box still, and push ppl to farm GLs. And since disks are apparently too tough to fix so we don't see triples or doubles on nodes, that would solve their other problem they have too.
  • SotaDraken
    447 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    We have seen how these "Cost" of swapping Disks from Conquest 1-6 played out and now 7's is hilariously and horrendously out of control with the flip to Energy and still @Kyno is suggesting that we "wait and see?"

    I don't know how to take that..

    Is it just a way to say, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, now go outside and play.." or is it way to say quit suggesting these ideas because it's never gonna happen?

    Meaningful cost to swapping Disks is a joke when it's so RNG heavy about what we get (DUPLICATES AND TRIPLICATES STILL?!) and why some Disks help certain Toons (Zealous Ambition) and others help Factions, and some are good for any number of Squads, the COST OF SWAPPING is reducing the "ENGAGEMENT" (spending of crystals) and thus does not work..


    tick tock... tick tock CG..
    Post edited by Kyno on
  • Kyno wrote: »
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    $$$. Spend more for more crystals so you can refresh more often.. That's ENGAGEMENT, right???

    ugh..


    It should be just Credits.. make it more expensive in Hard Mode, of course. But this "Energy" idea is just horrible with the new Feats and the added cost for each Battle.

    I don't think there is a credit amount that would make the choices feel significant for most players. Many veteran players have a huge amount just sitting around waiting for mods that look like they hold some promise.

    That can be a challenge.. But not every veteran player has hundreds of millions of credits and not every newer player has very little. It is subjective.

    I think there should be a cost but tying it to Energy is counter-intuitive to "engagement" or even the theory-crafting for the insane number of Feats..

    Credits are the balance for the thought of having a "Cost" and not reducing the Engagement for this Event.

    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    Things will progress and change, and this will always be a conversation to be had, and maybe one of the trade offs we see to help keep this mode "engaging", but only time will tell.

    The problem with that rationale is that forces us to use discs that can work with our whole roster. There are discs that works only on certain conditiones (like Attacks out of Turn discs), but why waste space on those when there are many teams without AooT, if I can't change them when I need to change a team, I'd rather stick to the same discs that works for every team, specially with the energy being such a scarce resource (120 energy/day at 20 energy/battle, it's 91 battles you can do in the whole Conquest without refreshing, that's not enough to finish half the feats).
  • Winterwolves
    1717 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Here’s an idea, just run one conquest with no cost, collect data, decide next steps.

    I hold no hope for them listening to us, they surely didn’t for conquest 7.

    What data would they get from that?

    They know people want to swap them, hence the cost making that a "harder choice".

    As I said, they will discuss things and look at how things are progressing. I don't believe anything is really off the table, but there is a balance they will always be looking for.

    The data might show that people play the game mode way more, even after there is no need to. You know, just for fun? I know I would. Their stated goal - engagement increasing.
  • So it sounds like the only rationale is cost=meaningful. Which I think is senseless. Unless in this case “meaningful” is code for “profitable” which I suspect it is. But regardless. I think a better solution would be to sell the disks up front then let us swap as we see fit. Make the full array available, maybe colors/rarity go up as you increase sectors. Make the meaningful choice an actual informed choice rather than how to manage the randomly dropped stuff I get that I have no control over. As it is now, it’s like we’re given a bunch of puzzle pieces that may or may not fit together, but if we try to find out, we get charged to disassemble the attempt before trying again. Which is dumb.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    That's my point though, as the player it's my opinion that the meaning shouldn't be in what I place, it should be in what I achieve. Data disks are already RNG-heavy, and I see the same ones over and over. A lot of times, there is no meaning in what disks I place anyways because there's a lot of repeats in my inventory. If they want swaps to be meaningful, then I'd rather see more stability in what disks we see in a given sector, so that we have the variety to make swaps more meaningful. Otherwise it seems like wasted energy to swap a slightly better disk later in the conquest.

    If what you achieve is meaningful to you, why don't you move them around to achieve things? It seems that's where you put your value and nothing is stopping you from doing that.

    I agree they do repeat a little too often.

    So, you don't think requiring energy to swap data disks is causing f2p players to keep whatever disks they have rather than swap them? Especially with the increased cost to do a battle?

    Please understand, I am not defending anything. I am explaining what has been discussed when this topic was brought up.

    I think the use of energy gives less pause to changing disks, but I would prefer it to be free.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    We have seen how these "Cost" of swapping Disks from Conquest 1-6 played out and now 7's is hilariously and horrendously out of control with the flip to Energy and still Kyno is suggesting that we "wait and see?"

    I don't know how to take that..

    Is it just a way to say, "Thanks for sharing your opinion, now go outside and play.." or is it way to say quit suggesting these ideas because it's never gonna happen?

    Meaningful cost to swapping Disks is a joke when it's so RNG heavy about what we get (DUPLICATES AND TRIPLICATES STILL?!) and why some Disks help certain Toons (Zealous Ambition) and others help Factions, and some are good for any number of Squads, the COST OF SWAPPING is reducing the "ENGAGEMENT" (spending of crystals) and thus does not work..


    tick tock... tick tock CG..

    Things are always being discussed, but don't wait and see on my account. I'm just saying that things are still being discussed.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Granolo wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    SotaDraken wrote: »
    $$$. Spend more for more crystals so you can refresh more often.. That's ENGAGEMENT, right???

    ugh..


    It should be just Credits.. make it more expensive in Hard Mode, of course. But this "Energy" idea is just horrible with the new Feats and the added cost for each Battle.

    I don't think there is a credit amount that would make the choices feel significant for most players. Many veteran players have a huge amount just sitting around waiting for mods that look like they hold some promise.

    That can be a challenge.. But not every veteran player has hundreds of millions of credits and not every newer player has very little. It is subjective.

    I think there should be a cost but tying it to Energy is counter-intuitive to "engagement" or even the theory-crafting for the insane number of Feats..

    Credits are the balance for the thought of having a "Cost" and not reducing the Engagement for this Event.

    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    Things will progress and change, and this will always be a conversation to be had, and maybe one of the trade offs we see to help keep this mode "engaging", but only time will tell.

    The problem with that rationale is that forces us to use discs that can work with our whole roster. There are discs that works only on certain conditiones (like Attacks out of Turn discs), but why waste space on those when there are many teams without AooT, if I can't change them when I need to change a team, I'd rather stick to the same discs that works for every team, specially with the energy being such a scarce resource (120 energy/day at 20 energy/battle, it's 91 battles you can do in the whole Conquest without refreshing, that's not enough to finish half the feats).

    You are not forced, unless you mean you are forcing yourself. If you are forcing yourself, then it would seem that the system is working, as you are weighing and making "important" decisions each time you place a disk.

    Having to refresh anyway, personally means I am ok with a little swapping. I have already done one.

    But I still think it should be free.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Here’s an idea, just run one conquest with no cost, collect data, decide next steps.

    I hold no hope for them listening to us, they surely didn’t for conquest 7.

    What data would they get from that?

    They know people want to swap them, hence the cost making that a "harder choice".

    As I said, they will discuss things and look at how things are progressing. I don't believe anything is really off the table, but there is a balance they will always be looking for.

    The data might show that people play the game mode way more, even after there is no need to. You know, just for fun? I know I would. Their stated goal - engagement increasing.

    You think players who didnt refresh before to finish would refresh if that was the case to finish, and then also play more, and possibly refresh to do so? (To play after finishing, you would have to have wasted a refresh to do so)

    I'm not sure that would be the case, but ok.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    So it sounds like the only rationale is cost=meaningful. Which I think is senseless. Unless in this case “meaningful” is code for “profitable” which I suspect it is. But regardless. I think a better solution would be to sell the disks up front then let us swap as we see fit. Make the full array available, maybe colors/rarity go up as you increase sectors. Make the meaningful choice an actual informed choice rather than how to manage the randomly dropped stuff I get that I have no control over. As it is now, it’s like we’re given a bunch of puzzle pieces that may or may not fit together, but if we try to find out, we get charged to disassemble the attempt before trying again. Which is dumb.

    When something has a cost involved, players do weigh their decisions against that. That action gives it meaning. You can choose not to, if you do not feel it's worth it, or you can find an advantage in doing so. That is 90% the basis of the game right there.

    Managing randomly dropped stuff is the other 15% 😉.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    That's my point though, as the player it's my opinion that the meaning shouldn't be in what I place, it should be in what I achieve. Data disks are already RNG-heavy, and I see the same ones over and over. A lot of times, there is no meaning in what disks I place anyways because there's a lot of repeats in my inventory. If they want swaps to be meaningful, then I'd rather see more stability in what disks we see in a given sector, so that we have the variety to make swaps more meaningful. Otherwise it seems like wasted energy to swap a slightly better disk later in the conquest.

    If what you achieve is meaningful to you, why don't you move them around to achieve things? It seems that's where you put your value and nothing is stopping you from doing that.

    I agree they do repeat a little too often.

    So, you don't think requiring energy to swap data disks is causing f2p players to keep whatever disks they have rather than swap them? Especially with the increased cost to do a battle?

    Please understand, I am not defending anything. I am explaining what has been discussed when this topic was brought up.

    I think the use of energy gives less pause to changing disks, but I would prefer it to be free.

    I get you're not defending it, it's just kinda silly to say there's nothing stopping me from changing data disks, when clearly the energy cost is. But nevertheless, I do hope that we see some sort of communication after this conquest is done. It does seem that most of the player base are not fans of a lot of the changes, even big spenders. And I do appreciate your honesty here, as well as the decent dialogue 👍.
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Here’s an idea, just run one conquest with no cost, collect data, decide next steps.

    I hold no hope for them listening to us, they surely didn’t for conquest 7.

    What data would they get from that?

    They know people want to swap them, hence the cost making that a "harder choice".

    As I said, they will discuss things and look at how things are progressing. I don't believe anything is really off the table, but there is a balance they will always be looking for.

    The data might show that people play the game mode way more, even after there is no need to. You know, just for fun? I know I would. Their stated goal - engagement increasing.

    Too bad their stated goal is not the actual goal.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Sumo_Sloth
    9 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    This is my take on it. If the actual goal, was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.

    If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
  • Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.

    If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.

    Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    StarSon wrote: »
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.

    If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.

    Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.

    Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    That's my point though, as the player it's my opinion that the meaning shouldn't be in what I place, it should be in what I achieve. Data disks are already RNG-heavy, and I see the same ones over and over. A lot of times, there is no meaning in what disks I place anyways because there's a lot of repeats in my inventory. If they want swaps to be meaningful, then I'd rather see more stability in what disks we see in a given sector, so that we have the variety to make swaps more meaningful. Otherwise it seems like wasted energy to swap a slightly better disk later in the conquest.

    If what you achieve is meaningful to you, why don't you move them around to achieve things? It seems that's where you put your value and nothing is stopping you from doing that.

    I agree they do repeat a little too often.

    So, you don't think requiring energy to swap data disks is causing f2p players to keep whatever disks they have rather than swap them? Especially with the increased cost to do a battle?

    Please understand, I am not defending anything. I am explaining what has been discussed when this topic was brought up.

    I think the use of energy gives less pause to changing disks, but I would prefer it to be free.

    I get you're not defending it, it's just kinda silly to say there's nothing stopping me from changing data disks, when clearly the energy cost is. But nevertheless, I do hope that we see some sort of communication after this conquest is done. It does seem that most of the player base are not fans of a lot of the changes, even big spenders. And I do appreciate your honesty here, as well as the decent dialogue 👍.

    It's not stopping you, it's making you weigh the decision. That makes the ones you do place "more important", as you may not see enough of a benefit to changing them.

    I'm sure we will see some communication, but I feel like much of this will be locked in for 3 runs, and they will likely only address the bugs. As we are seeing the changes they want to offer are external to Conquest, to reduce the time elsewhere, and not exactly changes to this system (at this moment). But only time will tell.
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    The time reduction from AB sim is like 1% of the time that was added via the new Conquest.

    Adding HSTR sim will add another 2%.

    Not remotely close to a good tradeoff.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.

    If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.

    Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.

    Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.

    Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
  • Every time this conversation comes up, it's so infuriating to read. CG can use whatever buzz words they want, the clear reason to charge something to swap disks is $.

    Disk loadouts are already "meaningful" because you can lose battles or miss out on feats by the disks you chose to equip. The tax to unequip them does make your choices more "meaningful", but in a really obnoxious way.

    Hey, CG should lock all our mods in place and not allow us to swap them for Conquest battles without spending Conquest energy. That would make our mod choices more meaningful and make CG extra $. But it would be stupid and ruin some of the fun and strategy. Which is exactly what they've done with disks.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    I disagree. If they lowered the amount of equippable disks, the opportunity costs for selecting disks would make it meaningful despite having no direct cost to switching. I mean, you still have to slend the energy to attempt the battle to see if your disk selection is worth it.
  • Budgernaut wrote: »
    [...][ I mean, you still have to slend the energy to attempt the battle to see if your disk selection is worth it.

    Exactly this.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    edited September 2021
    TVF wrote: »
    The time reduction from AB sim is like 1% of the time that was added via the new Conquest.

    Adding HSTR sim will add another 2%.

    Not remotely close to a good tradeoff.

    Correct.

    It also doesnt make Conquest any more fun.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.

    If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.

    Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.

    Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.

    Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.

    The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.

    The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Budgernaut wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    emoore123 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    CaesarAM wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.

    But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.

    Because they want the decision to be meaningful.

    Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".

    It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷

    And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.

    I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.

    I disagree. If they lowered the amount of equippable disks, the opportunity costs for selecting disks would make it meaningful despite having no direct cost to switching. I mean, you still have to slend the energy to attempt the battle to see if your disk selection is worth it.

    Yes changing the number of discs you can equip would change things, but I didnt think that was part of this conversation.

    Correct, but that would be "half the cost" than it is now. So the weight of the choice would be different and therefore "easier" to make.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Sumo_Sloth wrote: »
    This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.

    If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.

    Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.

    Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.

    Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.

    The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.

    The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?

    Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Sign In or Register to comment.