"from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain."
Lol, when you put it that way, I can't really blame them. I mean, I stopped buying crystals and packs because it was a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain too.
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Without a doubt have the lowest % of participation??? I’m guessing you’re counting deploy then log off on LS geoTB as participation. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could be less than that game mode.
Or would it have less participation than the GL events?
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Without a doubt have the lowest % of participation??? I’m guessing you’re counting deploy then log off on LS geoTB as participation. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could be less than that game mode.
Or would it have less participation than the GL events?
correct, a game mode with no rewards will always have the lowest level of participation when you look at each game mode. it will always be the first to be skipped or ignored if anything else comes up IRL. the same would not be said about deploying in TB.
TBs have rewards and many players are still doing Hoth TBs, not every guild is in the same place as you.
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
What ever happened to this from a Q&A awhile back.
Q: Easiest sandbox: create a button "practice" instead of "battle" in both arenas. Dont tie it to the server. Combat already client side, just code it so results never reported to server, and it doesnt affect anyones cooldowns. EZ. Most asked update ever. Plz consider
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Without a doubt have the lowest % of participation??? I’m guessing you’re counting deploy then log off on LS geoTB as participation. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could be less than that game mode.
Or would it have less participation than the GL events?
correct, a game mode with no rewards will always have the lowest level of participation when you look at each game mode. it will always be the first to be skipped or ignored if anything else comes up IRL. the same would not be said about deploying in TB.
TBs have rewards and many players are still doing Hoth TBs, not every guild is in the same place as you.
Well, I guess you and I are talking about the difference in participating in a game mode vs actually playing it. If I get a vote, I’d rather play a game. And I don’t count deploying in TB as playing.
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Without a doubt have the lowest % of participation??? I’m guessing you’re counting deploy then log off on LS geoTB as participation. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could be less than that game mode.
Or would it have less participation than the GL events?
correct, a game mode with no rewards will always have the lowest level of participation when you look at each game mode. it will always be the first to be skipped or ignored if anything else comes up IRL. the same would not be said about deploying in TB.
TBs have rewards and many players are still doing Hoth TBs, not every guild is in the same place as you.
Well, I guess you and I are talking about the difference in participating in a game mode vs actually playing it. If I get a vote, I’d rather play a game. And I don’t count deploying in TB as playing.
I just see this as you wanting to have a distinction that doesn't exist. part of playing that game mode is deploying and setting platoons. Part of playing the game is simming challenges/events/GW/raids. Part of playing the game is gearing up toons. none of these involve operating in a battle scenario (unless you want to not sim) but they are all part of playing the game.
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
well clearly art is the least important, if we go by how it looks (sometimes, to be fair) and how successful the game is. I mean, obviously. But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!
If you are asking how marketing and ads tie into revenue, well...
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
well clearly art is the least important, if we go by how it looks (sometimes, to be fair) and how successful the game is. I mean, obviously. But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!
If you are asking how marketing and ads tie into revenue, well...
Well what? I could have picked any of those 3 and made the same argument. There is no direct correlation. Companies guess at it all the time, but an increase in spending on any of these cannot be directly tied to an increase in revenue.
“ But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!” I think if we change the word “art” for “sandbox mode” we would see basically the same argument.
They can't sell us packs if they give us Sandbox mode, so no it's not happening, even if you show proof of 80% of player base wants it, they will still say only fraction of player base wants it
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
well clearly art is the least important, if we go by how it looks (sometimes, to be fair) and how successful the game is. I mean, obviously. But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!
If you are asking how marketing and ads tie into revenue, well...
Well what? I could have picked any of those 3 and made the same argument. There is no direct correlation. Companies guess at it all the time, but an increase in spending on any of these cannot be directly tied to an increase in revenue.
“ But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!” I think if we change the word “art” for “sandbox mode” we would see basically the same argument.
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
well clearly art is the least important, if we go by how it looks (sometimes, to be fair) and how successful the game is. I mean, obviously. But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!
If you are asking how marketing and ads tie into revenue, well...
Well what? I could have picked any of those 3 and made the same argument. There is no direct correlation. Companies guess at it all the time, but an increase in spending on any of these cannot be directly tied to an increase in revenue.
“ But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!” I think if we change the word “art” for “sandbox mode” we would see basically the same argument.
if you don't think product, marketing, and ads can be directly tied to revenue I can't help you. I mean, what exactly can be directly tied to revenue iyo?
They can't sell us packs if they give us Sandbox mode, so no it's not happening, even if you show proof of 80% of player base wants it, they will still say only fraction of player base wants it
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Its totally different when i can choose my opponent or when i have to fight against 5-6 stormtroopers which is not helping with strategy. For me its pointless to replay. I dont get it how some other games are getting Sandbox modes and CG has just some silly excuses. And what long time content Its really not very convincing, sorry
What games of this style have sandbox modes? I definitely have not tried them all, but none that I have include anything remotely close to a sandbox mode.
I’m surprised they went into such detail about how expensive it would be. I really don’t get the “it can’t be monetized” or “it won’t make money” arguments. Marketing, ads, and artwork in game can’t directly be tied to making money, but they spend a lot of time on those.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
well clearly art is the least important, if we go by how it looks (sometimes, to be fair) and how successful the game is. I mean, obviously. But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!
If you are asking how marketing and ads tie into revenue, well...
Well what? I could have picked any of those 3 and made the same argument. There is no direct correlation. Companies guess at it all the time, but an increase in spending on any of these cannot be directly tied to an increase in revenue.
“ But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!” I think if we change the word “art” for “sandbox mode” we would see basically the same argument.
I have read some crazy "business" theories on this forum, but wow, to say that marketing does not impact revenue is something else.
I hate the argument that if they create a sandbox mode there won't be enough player engagement to go around because it offers no rewards. If that's the case why are people asking for it? The whole point of collecting characters is to use these characters in the game. The problem is this game has become so top heavy that many characters honestly can't be used or there's limited places to try new combinations of characters and actually gain that knowledge of how it performed.
Also, how many games have modes that are not reward driven? There's tons of them. Halo's Forge mode is a sandbox with no rewards. People loved it. **** Zombies had no rewards (at first) people loved it. **** Zombies wasn't even supposed to be in the game yet people loved it and spawned a whole new game mode for years to come. I get that those games weren't free downloadable phone games but this game has also made a billion dollars so money shouldn't be an issue.
The problem is, for CG it is. They stated clearly if it's not something they can do for free they will NOT do it. Every other reason they state doesn't even matter cause the underlying issue is $$$. If a company straight up says they won't do it because it's not free to do, clearly they're only driven on $$$ and not the player base. It's as simple as that.
I've suggested (and I'm not claiming any particular originality here) that GW could be changed to a soft and hard mode, or as someone else suggested, give the option for arena battles to stay on the client side.
I hate the argument that if they create a sandbox mode there won't be enough player engagement to go around because it offers no rewards. If that's the case why are people asking for it? The whole point of collecting characters is to use these characters in the game. The problem is this game has become so top heavy that many characters honestly can't be used or there's limited places to try new combinations of characters and actually gain that knowledge of how it performed.
what you are saying here is the point, what they are saying is that they want to focus on creating content where toons can be used that will offer rewards, because that will have higher engagement. They do not want to take resources away from that development to make something that "will have" lower engagement. Please remember that the forums are only a % of the community.
Although not getting a sandbox mode is not ideal, the biggest joke is that theres no GR Jedi or Mace Windu rework coming anytime soon. They dropped a LS Geo TB months ago with jedi only missions and the kits of the jedi are unable to get past 1 phase. The Jedi rework appears to be pushed back again and again. Why drop a TB with characters required for the missions that have useless kits and not rework any of them. Especially when TB is a massive part of the game and you've even got Clone Wars final season on right now. Yet CG seem to be oblivious to it and want to focus on Mandalorian characters, a ESB quarter where theres not many characters missing and you're clearly not building towards a raid? They want us to be patient but we had 4 months of nothing with the GL's and now want us to wait longer for an action packed quarter when interest in the game is dwindling at this point.
I just love that @kyno has had to answer more questions and provide more information about the Q&A than what was actually said in the the Q&A. 😂 I fully expect the Q&A to disappear soon. If their stance is to not provide any info that pertains to the future of the game, then what’s the point? Especially if they feel the pressure to leak info and then backtrack on what they do leak. It’s just a bad situation. The players are only going to ask questions about the future of the game, and the devs are just going to dodge and hedge. That’s a perfect recipe for the anger you see here.
I have joyfully played this game from launch, and i have to say that this q&a is pretty much the penultimate nail in the coffin for me. I really think this is the last slap before i grab the hand and say no more...I have watched as this company went from superfans with a dream job to jaded money grubbers with eyes on wealthy retirement. I have a great mid level guild and we love the game but the lack of effort and the attitude is taking its toll. I really feel this set of answers reflects a bitterness on the devs part over the failure of GL, as a whole. There is a petulant tone that does not germinate hope for the future of this game. Finally i don't know how much the moderators are paid, but i hope it's a lot... it can't be easy, as a fellow player of this game, to robotically tow the company line. you know, defend the indefensible... it has to be tough.
They have explained where they are coming from with the "data", and they have other places where they monitor and talk with players.
agree or dont, they have some information about the situation. There are also other points that can be made:
- if a player has something going on IRL, anything not rewards based would probably be the first thing they dont play.
- not everyone will use it. plain and simple, a mode like this will without a doubt have the lowest % of interaction compared to modes that give rewards.
- unfortunately there is no "simple compromise", once it is in game people are going to ask for upgrades and QOL, its a game feature and it would need attention as time moves on. in for a penny in for a pound.
I think the last reason there is one of the main reasons we have been dragged on for a while with a maybe, and now its more of a hard no. At one point it was considered, but now the long term investment of resources is just not something they want to considering investing in, because it would start to limit their ability to put out content.
Think about it, since the JG has been introduced, how many times have you redone events just for something to play?
from a business sense (not $$) it makes sense, its a large (and continuing) investment for a lower/unknown gain.
Myself and many of my guild mates and allies on the game have replayed the old events for nostalgia and for fun. I use my OP characters to crush the event and then UP to test different things for fun. So yes I myself and many others do. Especially Malak now that he’s there cause it’s fun.
The main point of sandbox is to be able to test team compositions vs the meta. Even krakens have a finite number of plays to test things with crystal refreshes since test accounts got taken away. If they made a mode where you could matchup for fun against guild members even, using their toons that would be an issue. No ranks. No refreshes. Everyone in the guild can set up team compositions and mods they have. Have the ability to set certain number of teams and let them have at it. Unlimited tries, just for fun. Heck you could even set up new level 1’s to have a laugh. I don’t think that would be too expensive or require that much UI work, do you?
Also their data pull that unlimited tries in certain events like the Marquee is bad for. You mean to tell me that they think because we don’t want to play against the same UP rebel pilots or random scoundrel bruisers that’s we don’t want to test different team comps? Come on, that’s just as ridiculous as the billion dollar game claiming it’s too expensive to give the community something it’s been begging for for several months, if not longer and then charge them $100 for a pack of mods that could yield absolutely nothing.
I hate the argument that if they create a sandbox mode there won't be enough player engagement to go around because it offers no rewards. If that's the case why are people asking for it? The whole point of collecting characters is to use these characters in the game. The problem is this game has become so top heavy that many characters honestly can't be used or there's limited places to try new combinations of characters and actually gain that knowledge of how it performed.
what you are saying here is the point, what they are saying is that they want to focus on creating content where toons can be used that will offer rewards, because that will have higher engagement. They do not want to take resources away from that development to make something that "will have" lower engagement. Please remember that the forums are only a % of the community.
The main issue I have is that the only playable content we’ve had in over a year is GAC, GeoTBs and 2 new levels of assault battles.
GAC is the best playable content that caters to the largest % of the player base, basically everyone can play.
LSgeoTB is barely playable to a very small % of the player base and not much fun to a lot of people that even qualify to play it.
DSgeoTB is playable and more fun to a larger % of the player base than LSgeoTB. This content caters best to mid to high level players, especially mid level players that are improving each month.
New Assault battle tiers: T1 is doable to a lot of mid/high level players. T2 is doable to a much smaller % of the players that can complete T1. I also don’t consider these tiers to be much fun, maybe I’m in the minority and a large % of players love these new tiers. The only thing I like about T1 is the rewards, period.
Other than that all we’ve gotten is several more characters, kyrotechs, gear 12+ gear to take us to G13 and relics.
This game has always been a collection (grind) game and a using your characters game. It seems the past year has swayed more in the favor of collecting and grinding rather than using your collection to actually play.
I think they set the bar higher than they have previously, but I dont think we can expect them to make singular game modes that are just universally playable. meaning they can't just add a new level to the assault tiers that will not exclude some level of players who have already beat all the other tiers. if they do its a trivial add. Tbs are a little different, that is pretty steep, but I sense that that game mode is on a much longer timescale than smaller events.
I wouldn't necessarily say the game has gotten more grindy, just there are more options for things you could want. I am not trying to "word smith" my response, I just feel like the grind is the same, and with a focused approach you can still achieve things. which is the same as it has always been, but there are more things you can want.... if you prioritize one thing you can still achieve that thing in the same time-frame as always, for its level.
not enjoying TB is more of a personal thing. I lose quite often in TB battles we all do, but I do play it.... it is playable.
not every game mode can be GAC, and not everyone likes that game mode.
having everything is never going to be a thing for many of us, yes the gear grind is here and always has been. I feel like older players are starting to forget what the game was for them years ago and have an expectation that may be a little far reaching for "getting things". They have to keep the game developing for all levels, and that includes the higher end older players to keep them developing.
They will never please everyone and games like this always evolve. I dont think this QA changed anything that wasn't already there and I will just wait for the next RA to see whats coming and be happy about the recent Mando introduction.
Replies
I get it, but none of that is technically true.
Without a doubt have the lowest % of participation??? I’m guessing you’re counting deploy then log off on LS geoTB as participation. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could be less than that game mode.
Or would it have less participation than the GL events?
correct, a game mode with no rewards will always have the lowest level of participation when you look at each game mode. it will always be the first to be skipped or ignored if anything else comes up IRL. the same would not be said about deploying in TB.
TBs have rewards and many players are still doing Hoth TBs, not every guild is in the same place as you.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game aren't directly tied to making money?
I feel like you’re trying to make a point...what is it?
Q: Easiest sandbox: create a button "practice" instead of "battle" in both arenas. Dont tie it to the server. Combat already client side, just code it so results never reported to server, and it doesnt affect anyones cooldowns. EZ. Most asked update ever. Plz consider
A: CG_Vyeking - We're working on it!
Well, I guess you and I are talking about the difference in participating in a game mode vs actually playing it. If I get a vote, I’d rather play a game. And I don’t count deploying in TB as playing.
Marketing, ads, and artwork in game are directly tied to making money
I just see this as you wanting to have a distinction that doesn't exist. part of playing that game mode is deploying and setting platoons. Part of playing the game is simming challenges/events/GW/raids. Part of playing the game is gearing up toons. none of these involve operating in a battle scenario (unless you want to not sim) but they are all part of playing the game.
How so? If they increase the art department’s budget by 20%, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
well clearly art is the least important, if we go by how it looks (sometimes, to be fair) and how successful the game is. I mean, obviously. But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!
If you are asking how marketing and ads tie into revenue, well...
Well what? I could have picked any of those 3 and made the same argument. There is no direct correlation. Companies guess at it all the time, but an increase in spending on any of these cannot be directly tied to an increase in revenue.
“ But art is important to get people into the game and many people like it. Just look at all the art questions!” I think if we change the word “art” for “sandbox mode” we would see basically the same argument.
No
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fraction?q=fraction
if you don't think product, marketing, and ads can be directly tied to revenue I can't help you. I mean, what exactly can be directly tied to revenue iyo?
Did you even read that? It clearly states in can be a percentage in section 2. Thank you come again!
What games of this style have sandbox modes? I definitely have not tried them all, but none that I have include anything remotely close to a sandbox mode.
I have read some crazy "business" theories on this forum, but wow, to say that marketing does not impact revenue is something else.
Also, how many games have modes that are not reward driven? There's tons of them. Halo's Forge mode is a sandbox with no rewards. People loved it. **** Zombies had no rewards (at first) people loved it. **** Zombies wasn't even supposed to be in the game yet people loved it and spawned a whole new game mode for years to come. I get that those games weren't free downloadable phone games but this game has also made a billion dollars so money shouldn't be an issue.
The problem is, for CG it is. They stated clearly if it's not something they can do for free they will NOT do it. Every other reason they state doesn't even matter cause the underlying issue is $$$. If a company straight up says they won't do it because it's not free to do, clearly they're only driven on $$$ and not the player base. It's as simple as that.
$50/month. Not crystals. Cold, hard cash.
You don’t like it, or can’t afford it, at least you have something else to complain about other than it’s non-existence.
can you please quote this for us.
what you are saying here is the point, what they are saying is that they want to focus on creating content where toons can be used that will offer rewards, because that will have higher engagement. They do not want to take resources away from that development to make something that "will have" lower engagement. Please remember that the forums are only a % of the community.
Myself and many of my guild mates and allies on the game have replayed the old events for nostalgia and for fun. I use my OP characters to crush the event and then UP to test different things for fun. So yes I myself and many others do. Especially Malak now that he’s there cause it’s fun.
The main point of sandbox is to be able to test team compositions vs the meta. Even krakens have a finite number of plays to test things with crystal refreshes since test accounts got taken away. If they made a mode where you could matchup for fun against guild members even, using their toons that would be an issue. No ranks. No refreshes. Everyone in the guild can set up team compositions and mods they have. Have the ability to set certain number of teams and let them have at it. Unlimited tries, just for fun. Heck you could even set up new level 1’s to have a laugh. I don’t think that would be too expensive or require that much UI work, do you?
Also their data pull that unlimited tries in certain events like the Marquee is bad for. You mean to tell me that they think because we don’t want to play against the same UP rebel pilots or random scoundrel bruisers that’s we don’t want to test different team comps? Come on, that’s just as ridiculous as the billion dollar game claiming it’s too expensive to give the community something it’s been begging for for several months, if not longer and then charge them $100 for a pack of mods that could yield absolutely nothing.
I think they set the bar higher than they have previously, but I dont think we can expect them to make singular game modes that are just universally playable. meaning they can't just add a new level to the assault tiers that will not exclude some level of players who have already beat all the other tiers. if they do its a trivial add. Tbs are a little different, that is pretty steep, but I sense that that game mode is on a much longer timescale than smaller events.
I wouldn't necessarily say the game has gotten more grindy, just there are more options for things you could want. I am not trying to "word smith" my response, I just feel like the grind is the same, and with a focused approach you can still achieve things. which is the same as it has always been, but there are more things you can want.... if you prioritize one thing you can still achieve that thing in the same time-frame as always, for its level.
not enjoying TB is more of a personal thing. I lose quite often in TB battles we all do, but I do play it.... it is playable.
not every game mode can be GAC, and not everyone likes that game mode.
having everything is never going to be a thing for many of us, yes the gear grind is here and always has been. I feel like older players are starting to forget what the game was for them years ago and have an expectation that may be a little far reaching for "getting things". They have to keep the game developing for all levels, and that includes the higher end older players to keep them developing.
They will never please everyone and games like this always evolve. I dont think this QA changed anything that wasn't already there and I will just wait for the next RA to see whats coming and be happy about the recent Mando introduction.