Shard Economy Changes [MEGA]

Replies

  • TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.
  • Kyno
    28652 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.
  • Gifafi
    5307 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Gifafi wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...

    There's a couple other huge threads about why that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. Theoretically if it was a fairly even match between all 4 GL's, it wouldn't be a problem.
  • Kyno
    28652 posts Moderator
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...

    There's a couple other huge threads about why that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. Theoretically if it was a fairly even match between all 4 GL's, it wouldn't be a problem.

    R-P-S doesnt mean or even imply that it should be fairly even. But that is a conversation for a different thread
  • Gifafi
    5307 posts Member
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...

    There's a couple other huge threads about why that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. Theoretically if it was a fairly even match between all 4 GL's, it wouldn't be a problem.

    everuone? fair?? idk what fair means in this context tbh.
    Maybe End Game isn't for you
  • Gifafi wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...

    There's a couple other huge threads about why that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. Theoretically if it was a fairly even match between all 4 GL's, it wouldn't be a problem.

    everuone? fair?? idk what fair means in this context tbh.

    RPS implies that everyone can beat someone *consistently* and that they have their own weaknesses. I never said fair, I said fairly even, which is what that concept is based on. If you have Rock, you beat Scissors, etc.

    If Rock loses to two other Papers and can be beaten by Scissors as long as scissors has the right squad comp, that's not fairly even. Rock is unbalanced and needs a tweak IF that was the intention was to have a balance among the options. However if that was NOT the intention, then it needs to be stated so that people aren't misled into believing any choice of the Rock, Paper, or Scissors has an equal chance of being useful to the consumer. Especially when it could cost upwards of hundreds of dollars to choose Rock, only to find out he can only beat Scissors for a month before someone comes up with a nuke comp to end Rock's advantage.
  • Kyno
    28652 posts Moderator
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...

    There's a couple other huge threads about why that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. Theoretically if it was a fairly even match between all 4 GL's, it wouldn't be a problem.

    everuone? fair?? idk what fair means in this context tbh.

    RPS implies that everyone can beat someone *consistently* and that they have their own weaknesses. I never said fair, I said fairly even, which is what that concept is based on. If you have Rock, you beat Scissors, etc.

    If Rock loses to two other Papers and can be beaten by Scissors as long as scissors has the right squad comp, that's not fairly even. Rock is unbalanced and needs a tweak IF that was the intention was to have a balance among the options. However if that was NOT the intention, then it needs to be stated so that people aren't misled into believing any choice of the Rock, Paper, or Scissors has an equal chance of being useful to the consumer. Especially when it could cost upwards of hundreds of dollars to choose Rock, only to find out he can only beat Scissors for a month before someone comes up with a nuke comp to end Rock's advantage.

    But this is not RPS, it is RPS like, where you have different weighted interactions between the groups.

    This game will never allow for a single development that will have exactly what you are saying there are too many variables. Players have different mods, use different team comps, play against different team comps. It will never be as simple as Rey always beats Kylo, kylo always beats JML, SEE always beats JML and Rey....ext.

    Also, let's get this conversation in a SEE thread, and not this one. It doesnt belong here.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Gifafi wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »

    Lol

    Obviously the new guy. I mean, he keeps liking my posts.

    Not new to the game, just to the forums, and I usually genuinely like your posts :D . And I should've specified by recently I mean like the last year's worth of updates, and no I don't have any expectations that any patterns like that will ever change. Just pointing out that they've had less and less regard for community input over the last year or so. The only thing they took any criticism for was SLKR needing buffed, and that was a niche instance that created a whole new slew of problems like raid balance and the idea of the whole "rock paper scissors" meta.

    Not sure why people keep making this odd connection between SLKRs changes and the raid. He could solo the raid before that happened. I'm also not sure what that has to do with R-P-S meta.

    Alright maybe I was misremembering the timing of his solo potential, but what it has to do with the RPS meta is it made it harder to balance the other GL's to beat him. He only loses to a very select few teams unless you gimmick him. So naturally the new GL's had to add some balance to the meta. And the idea of tuning new GL's around beating the old GL's and each other in this RPS style lead to very niche kits that have lots of holes and problems. There are literally active threads pleading that BOTH GL's be buffed, which is nothing new, but the fact that it's a recurring theme is notable.

    if the GL's can all beat each other, what's the problem? that's rps. I see all of them at the top of arena, so...

    There's a couple other huge threads about why that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. Theoretically if it was a fairly even match between all 4 GL's, it wouldn't be a problem.

    everuone? fair?? idk what fair means in this context tbh.

    RPS implies that everyone can beat someone *consistently* and that they have their own weaknesses. I never said fair, I said fairly even, which is what that concept is based on. If you have Rock, you beat Scissors, etc.

    If Rock loses to two other Papers and can be beaten by Scissors as long as scissors has the right squad comp, that's not fairly even. Rock is unbalanced and needs a tweak IF that was the intention was to have a balance among the options. However if that was NOT the intention, then it needs to be stated so that people aren't misled into believing any choice of the Rock, Paper, or Scissors has an equal chance of being useful to the consumer. Especially when it could cost upwards of hundreds of dollars to choose Rock, only to find out he can only beat Scissors for a month before someone comes up with a nuke comp to end Rock's advantage.

    But this is not RPS, it is RPS like, where you have different weighted interactions between the groups.

    This game will never allow for a single development that will have exactly what you are saying there are too many variables. Players have different mods, use different team comps, play against different team comps. It will never be as simple as Rey always beats Kylo, kylo always beats JML, SEE always beats JML and Rey....ext.

    Also, let's get this conversation in a SEE thread, and not this one. It doesnt belong here.

    True, true, I was supposed to be talking about their communication pattern with big updates with this argument and I got distracted :D
  • CG_Doja_Fett
    306 posts SWGOH Dev Team
    edited November 2020
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    When did I ever say they dont do it? When did I ever say they wouldnt do it?

    I was talking about a very specific statement and situation, they increased ally points rewarded and said they dont like to decrease or take away rewards, which is why they didnt lower them down when tournaments were removed.

    Sure you can use other examples that does also include rewards being removed when a whole game mode is removed, but still not the same thing, as they removed the whole game mode/event for it's own reasons. There really is no way to remove those things and then keep the rewards present.

    Increasing rewards for X reason, and then reducing them is never something they like to do. No that doesnt mean they will not do it, and no one said they wouldnt.

    Moving gear into and out of nodes is also not a 1 to 1, as they did make other things more accessible.

    Not that any of this matters, so can we get back on topic please.

    I didn't say you said they don't do it, I very clearly quoted you saying they don't like to do it. Which we both know is what you said. But whether they like it or not, they do it all the time (as you have acknowledged).

    But, back on topic: they clearly have no actual intentions of un-nerfing Bronziums, else they would have used more definitive language. "We will explore a possible fix in the future," translates to "we know what the problem is and have decided it is too expensive to fix."

    Did you use one of those online translation sites? They're helpful, but not always accurate.
  • StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    When did I ever say they dont do it? When did I ever say they wouldnt do it?

    I was talking about a very specific statement and situation, they increased ally points rewarded and said they dont like to decrease or take away rewards, which is why they didnt lower them down when tournaments were removed.

    Sure you can use other examples that does also include rewards being removed when a whole game mode is removed, but still not the same thing, as they removed the whole game mode/event for it's own reasons. There really is no way to remove those things and then keep the rewards present.

    Increasing rewards for X reason, and then reducing them is never something they like to do. No that doesnt mean they will not do it, and no one said they wouldnt.

    Moving gear into and out of nodes is also not a 1 to 1, as they did make other things more accessible.

    Not that any of this matters, so can we get back on topic please.

    I didn't say you said they don't do it, I very clearly quoted you saying they don't like to do it. Which we both know is what you said. But whether they like it or not, they do it all the time (as you have acknowledged).

    But, back on topic: they clearly have no actual intentions of un-nerfing Bronziums, else they would have used more definitive language. "We will explore a possible fix in the future," translates to "we know what the problem is and have decided it is too expensive to fix."

    Did you use one of those online translation sites? They're helpful, but not always accurate.

    No, I’ve just been here for 5 years. You have declined to do just about anything to Bronziums at all (aside from changing 5 attempts to 10) in those 5 years. You flip flopped a bit on uses for ally tokens.

    But, if you knew you were going to fix it you would have just said “this will be fixed in a future update,” not “we will explore fixing it.” The use of vague language covers your butt, because you know you may not fix it.

    Maybe it was simply because you knew it would be hard and wanted to see how much we would care. Experience (specific to this game and this game studio) tells me that you used that phrase because you know it will never change, but you want to kick the can down the road a bit so we move on and stop bringing it up after a while.
  • The kick the can down the road list:
    Social Security solvency
    Medicare solvency
    Green Energy
    Bug Fixes
    New Content
    Improved Gear Economy
    Cheating

    Keep squeezing us taxpayers err players for more money and produce less results...1 billion so far.

    What will be tackled and resolved first? Any guesses? Maybe Relic 8 will fix this issue?
  • The sad part of it is that fixing the bronzium's issue is pretty trivial. There are so many easy ways to solve it, the problem itself, although CG has not stated it, is quite obvious, and so their choice to not fix it now either means that...
    1. They haven't given it the 3 seconds of thought that would be needed to fix the issue, and will not, or
    2. They intend to just either halve the cost or double the drops when/if they implement a similar gear economy change as well.

    The second option is fine I guess, the first one not so much.
    superawesomepi#1512 | My Youtube | swgoh.gg
  • Are ships getting the same treatment though?
  • Kyno
    28652 posts Moderator
    Asuo wrote: »
    Are ships getting the same treatment though?

    No, shards for ships will not be doubled at the source.

    They will be balanced in the shard shop to keep the buying power, from my understanding.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hi Holotable Heroes,

    Our 5th Anniversary is fast approaching and we have some exciting news for this month! Starting with the 5th year celebration, we will be increasing the Shard drop count on most nodes and the currency-to-Shard rate in many stores.

    Character Shards are the first big hurdle that new players hit and it’s a hurdle that’s grown over the last 5 years, from around 60 characters at launch to now over 200 (including ships)! Our intent with this change is to help all players expand their collections faster, and in particular to help new players progress in the game. To that end we will be broadly increasing the Shard drop count for many characters. We’re also adjusting conversion rates and prices in the Shard Shop to keep these changes effectively neutral for this store.

    To dive into the details -- there are now effectively two groups of Character Shards -- Original Rate and Accelerated. (See the list below for which characters are in the Accelerated category).
    • Original Rate characters are made up of New and Exclusive characters. Generally, this set includes those characters exclusive to Raids, Journey Guide, Territory Battles, and certain high-value currencies. This also includes all Ships blueprints.
    • Accelerated characters are typically those found on Nodes and in various Stores.
    • New Marquee characters will launch as Original Rate characters, and move to the Accelerated list approximately 1 year after their release. (eg The Mandalorian will move to Accelerated in April/May 2021)

    As the primary impact of these changes, Accelerated Characters have their Shard distribution doubled in most modes:
    • Combat nodes drop 2 Shards instead of 1. This increases to 4 during Double Drops.
    • Store Shipments provide twice as many Shards for the same amount of currency (ex: 10 for the price of 5 previously).
    • Includes Galactic War and non-Journey Guide Events. (ex: Assault Battles)
    • Does not include Quests & Achievements.
    • Does not include Bronzium Data Cards due to a technical issue. We will explore increasing this rate in a future update.

    Due to the resulting variation in between Shards, we are modifying the Shard Shop to keep Shard-to-Purchase ratios unchanged. Under the hood, this means we are doubling all sources of Shard Shop Currency, doubling in-store costs, and then doubling unspent Shard Shop Currency on all accounts when these changes go live.
    • Accelerated-Farm Characters keep their conversion the same (1 Shard > 15 SSC).
    • Original Rate characters have their conversion doubled (1 Shard > 30 SSC).
    • For ships, this doubles such that 1 Shard > 38 SSC
    • All Shard Shop Store items will cost twice as much to match this doubled income.
    • When these changes are released, we will double all players’ Shard Shop Currency.
    • As these changes approach, note that Shards remain worth the same “buying power” (relative to store price) no matter when you cash them in. There is no extra value from saving it up and waiting.
    • In the future, a Character or Ship moving from Original to Accelerated group will have its exchange rate adjusted accordingly.

    TL;DR Summary: Accelerated Characters will now reach 7 Stars twice as quickly for all players. Shard Shop purchasing is unchanged, all the numbers are just doubled.

    These changes clearly open the door to conversations about other economies, including Gear. Without making promises, we are in the midst of exploring how this could change in the future - but we need to adjust Shard rates first. Shards play a foundational role in Galaxy of Heroes and have a cascading impact into subsequent economies. This makes them an essential place to start and finish before we make adjustments to systems that will be affected by changes to Shards.

    We will be carefully monitoring how these changes impact the overall game economy, listening for feedback, and considering follow-up changes. Thank you for reading, and we will have more to share in our Anniversary announcement.

    See you on the Holotables!


    LIST OF ACCELERATED CHARACTERS:
    Aayla Secura
    Admiral Ackbar
    Ahsoka Tano
    Ahsoka Tano (Fulcrum)
    Amilyn Holdo
    ARC Trooper
    Asajj Ventress
    Aurra Sing
    B1 Battle Droid
    B2 Super Battle Droid
    Barriss Offee
    Bastila Shan
    Bastila Shan (Fallen)
    Baze Malbus
    Biggs Darklighter
    Bistan
    Boba Fett
    Bodhi Rook
    Bossk
    Cad Bane
    Canderous Ordo
    Captain Han Solo
    Captain Phasma
    Carth Onasi
    Cassian Andor
    CC-2224 "Cody"
    Chief Chirpa
    Chief Nebit
    Chirrut Îmwe
    Chopper
    Clone Sergeant - Phase I
    Clone Wars Chewbacca
    Colonel Starck
    Coruscant Underworld Police
    Count Dooku
    CT-21-0408 "Echo"
    CT-5555 "Fives"
    CT-7567 "Rex"
    Darth Maul
    Darth Nihilus
    Darth Sidious
    Darth Sion
    Dathcha
    Death Trooper
    Dengar
    Director Krennic
    Droideka
    Eeth Koth
    Embo
    Enfys Nest
    Ewok Eldar
    Ewok Scout
    Ezra Bridger
    Finn
    First Order Executioner
    First Order Officer
    First Order SF TIE Pilot
    First Order Stormtrooper
    First Order TIE Pilot
    Gamorrean Guard
    Gar Saxon
    Garazeb "Zeb" Orrelios
    General Hux
    General Veers
    Geonosian Brood Alpha
    Geonosian Soldier
    Geonosian Spy
    Grand Moff Tarkin
    Greedo
    Hera Syndulla
    HK-47
    Hoth Rebel Scout
    Hoth Rebel Soldier
    IG-100 MagnaGuard
    IG-86 Sentinel
    IG-88
    Ima-Gun Di
    Imperial Super Commando
    Jango Fett
    Jawa
    Jawa Engineer
    Jawa Scavenger
    Jedi Consular
    Jedi Knight Anakin
    Jedi Knight Guardian
    Jolee Bindo
    Juhani
    Jyn Erso
    K-2SO
    Kanan Jarrus
    Kit Fisto
    Kylo Ren
    Kylo Ren (Unmasked)
    L3-37
    Lando Calrissian
    Lobot
    Logray
    Luke Skywalker (Farmboy)
    Luminara Unduli
    Mace Windu
    Magmatrooper
    Mission Vao
    Mob Enforcer
    Mother Talzin
    Nightsister Acolyte
    Nightsister Initiate
    Nightsister Spirit
    Nightsister Zombie
    Nute Gunray
    Obi-Wan Kenobi (Old Ben)
    Old Daka
    Pao
    Paploo
    Plo Koon
    Poe Dameron
    Poggle the Lesser
    Princess Leia
    Qi'ra
    Qui-Gon Jinn
    Range Trooper
    Resistance Hero Finn
    Resistance Hero Poe
    Resistance Pilot
    Resistance Trooper
    Rey (Scavenger)
    Rose Tico
    Royal Guard
    Sabine Wren
    Savage Opress
    Scarif Rebel Pathfinder
    Shaak Ti
    Shoretrooper
    Sith Assassin
    Sith Empire Trooper
    Sith Marauder
    Sith Trooper
    Snowtrooper
    Stormtrooper
    Stormtrooper Han
    Sun Fac
    T3-M4
    Talia
    Teebo
    TIE Fighter Pilot
    Tusken Raider
    Tusken Shaman
    Ugnaught
    URoRRuR'R'R
    Vandor Chewbacca
    Veteran Smuggler Chewbacca
    Veteran Smuggler Han Solo
    Visas Marr
    Wedge Antilles
    Wicket
    Young Han Solo
    Young Lando Calrissian
    Zaalbar
    Zam Wesell

    <<DEV POST>>
    Kyno wrote: »
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hi Holotable Heroes,

    Our 5th Anniversary is fast approaching and we have some exciting news for this month! Starting with the 5th year celebration, we will be increasing the Shard drop count on most nodes and the currency-to-Shard rate in many stores.

    These changes clearly open the door to conversations about other economies, including Gear. Without making promises, we are in the midst of exploring how this could change in the future - but we need to adjust Shard rates first. Shards play a foundational role in Galaxy of Heroes and have a cascading impact into subsequent economies. This makes them an essential place to start and finish before we make adjustments to systems that will be affected by changes to Shards.

    We will be carefully monitoring how these changes impact the overall game economy, listening for feedback, and considering follow-up changes. Thank you for reading,
    [/spoiler]

    <<DEV POST>>

    Now this is the best news and finally. I do have an idea for gear at least gold gear. If some how it can be rotated. No offense to developers, but I have over 1000 for a useless gold gear so far that is placed in much needed farming spots. Well at least my much needed farming spots. Lol

    Dropping costs on the harder to get gear would be awesome.

    What will be done about logray ewok? No way to farm, rarely ever shows up on any free drops or shop sections.

    I really like the opening up for discussion on this topic!
  • I may be over simplifying it, but with regards to there being a technical issue with Bronzium packs and the ability to convert shards from those packs into the new economy type shards...couldn't you just instead double the drop rate on the shards in Bronzium packs? Wouldn't that in essence do the same thing by doubling the amount of Original Rate currency received to then be converted?

    I could be wrong, but it seems like that would at least be a band-aid fix until the Brozium Packs could be brought up to work like the rest of the currency in game.
  • TVF wrote: »
    I would love to know the reasoning behind not doubling blueprint drops.

    I mean, reasoning that has some sort of basis in logic. Press X to doubt.

    My theory is to keep g12 (or g12+)gear away from newer players. If they cant farm the higher nodes from fleet, they don't have access to a lot of the right side salvage. There will be the outliers that get in strong guilds early, but most players wont get much of that gear until well after level 85. It takes a long time to farm ships good enough to beat the level four and five nodes.
  • Snowbird13 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I would love to know the reasoning behind not doubling blueprint drops.

    I mean, reasoning that has some sort of basis in logic. Press X to doubt.

    My theory is to keep g12 (or g12+)gear away from newer players. If they cant farm the higher nodes from fleet, they don't have access to a lot of the right side salvage. There will be the outliers that get in strong guilds early, but most players wont get much of that gear until well after level 85. It takes a long time to farm ships good enough to beat the level four and five nodes.

    True, I'm still in the process of beating the last couple level 5 nodes. I neglected ships for a long time, and knowing that new players may be pushed towards prioritizing gear and character farming makes me fear for their future in the game. My gear farm and several important characters like Shaak and B2 were stunted for me by my neglect of ship content, and now it'll be made to look like ships farming is the least lucrative for new players.
  • scuba
    12617 posts Member
    wilhud wrote: »
    I may be over simplifying it, but with regards to there being a technical issue with Bronzium packs and the ability to convert shards from those packs into the new economy type shards...couldn't you just instead double the drop rate on the shards in Bronzium packs? Wouldn't that in essence do the same thing by doubling the amount of Original Rate currency received to then be converted?

    I could be wrong, but it seems like that would at least be a band-aid fix until the Brozium Packs could be brought up to work like the rest of the currency in game.

    My theory is that it is not the single shards that are the issue, it is when a full charater drops and is converted to shards, the technical issue is converting the full charater to shards or for one that is not unlocked yet for a new player, dropping a full charater and converting the second on to shards
  • StarSon wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    When did I ever say they dont do it? When did I ever say they wouldnt do it?

    I was talking about a very specific statement and situation, they increased ally points rewarded and said they dont like to decrease or take away rewards, which is why they didnt lower them down when tournaments were removed.

    Sure you can use other examples that does also include rewards being removed when a whole game mode is removed, but still not the same thing, as they removed the whole game mode/event for it's own reasons. There really is no way to remove those things and then keep the rewards present.

    Increasing rewards for X reason, and then reducing them is never something they like to do. No that doesnt mean they will not do it, and no one said they wouldnt.

    Moving gear into and out of nodes is also not a 1 to 1, as they did make other things more accessible.

    Not that any of this matters, so can we get back on topic please.

    I didn't say you said they don't do it, I very clearly quoted you saying they don't like to do it. Which we both know is what you said. But whether they like it or not, they do it all the time (as you have acknowledged).

    But, back on topic: they clearly have no actual intentions of un-nerfing Bronziums, else they would have used more definitive language. "We will explore a possible fix in the future," translates to "we know what the problem is and have decided it is too expensive to fix."

    Did you use one of those online translation sites? They're helpful, but not always accurate.

    No, I’ve just been here for 5 years. You have declined to do just about anything to Bronziums at all (aside from changing 5 attempts to 10) in those 5 years. You flip flopped a bit on uses for ally tokens.

    But, if you knew you were going to fix it you would have just said “this will be fixed in a future update,” not “we will explore fixing it.” The use of vague language covers your butt, because you know you may not fix it.

    Maybe it was simply because you knew it would be hard and wanted to see how much we would care. Experience (specific to this game and this game studio) tells me that you used that phrase because you know it will never change, but you want to kick the can down the road a bit so we move on and stop bringing it up after a while.

    4a2opmflmkd8.png

    There are a LOT of assumptions being made here.

    From the start I've stated I would share as much as possible whenever possible. I'll continue to do that. Everything we were able to say about the issue was put into the original dev announcement. The call was made to make the post to give players as much as warning as possible regarding the changes so they could plan accordingly, even though we couldn't say more about the Bronzium packs.

    I know it's frustrating for players to not have access to all the info, and I can understand how you might try to read between the lines - it's fun to do that sometimes. But I'm seeing enough conspiracy theories being bandied about here to make a sequel to They Live, which would be rad because I dig that movie.
  • scuba
    12617 posts Member
    StarSon wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    When did I ever say they dont do it? When did I ever say they wouldnt do it?

    I was talking about a very specific statement and situation, they increased ally points rewarded and said they dont like to decrease or take away rewards, which is why they didnt lower them down when tournaments were removed.

    Sure you can use other examples that does also include rewards being removed when a whole game mode is removed, but still not the same thing, as they removed the whole game mode/event for it's own reasons. There really is no way to remove those things and then keep the rewards present.

    Increasing rewards for X reason, and then reducing them is never something they like to do. No that doesnt mean they will not do it, and no one said they wouldnt.

    Moving gear into and out of nodes is also not a 1 to 1, as they did make other things more accessible.

    Not that any of this matters, so can we get back on topic please.

    I didn't say you said they don't do it, I very clearly quoted you saying they don't like to do it. Which we both know is what you said. But whether they like it or not, they do it all the time (as you have acknowledged).

    But, back on topic: they clearly have no actual intentions of un-nerfing Bronziums, else they would have used more definitive language. "We will explore a possible fix in the future," translates to "we know what the problem is and have decided it is too expensive to fix."

    Did you use one of those online translation sites? They're helpful, but not always accurate.

    No, I’ve just been here for 5 years. You have declined to do just about anything to Bronziums at all (aside from changing 5 attempts to 10) in those 5 years. You flip flopped a bit on uses for ally tokens.

    But, if you knew you were going to fix it you would have just said “this will be fixed in a future update,” not “we will explore fixing it.” The use of vague language covers your butt, because you know you may not fix it.

    Maybe it was simply because you knew it would be hard and wanted to see how much we would care. Experience (specific to this game and this game studio) tells me that you used that phrase because you know it will never change, but you want to kick the can down the road a bit so we move on and stop bringing it up after a while.

    4a2opmflmkd8.png

    There are a LOT of assumptions being made here.

    From the start I've stated I would share as much as possible whenever possible. I'll continue to do that. Everything we were able to say about the issue was put into the original dev announcement. The call was made to make the post to give players as much as warning as possible regarding the changes so they could plan accordingly, even though we couldn't say more about the Bronzium packs.

    I know it's frustrating for players to not have access to all the info, and I can understand how you might try to read between the lines - it's fun to do that sometimes. But I'm seeing enough conspiracy theories being bandied about here to make a sequel to They Live, which would be rad because I dig that movie.

    @CG_Doja_Fett it is not just the lack of information, which personally I get, there also tends to be unclear information that causes reading between the lines (mostly see this with kit releases).
    Note: To me the original post was very clear as to what was happening (even if the community doesn't like part of it), so please keep this up.
  • CG_Doja_Fett
    306 posts SWGOH Dev Team
    edited November 2020
    scuba wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    When did I ever say they dont do it? When did I ever say they wouldnt do it?

    I was talking about a very specific statement and situation, they increased ally points rewarded and said they dont like to decrease or take away rewards, which is why they didnt lower them down when tournaments were removed.

    Sure you can use other examples that does also include rewards being removed when a whole game mode is removed, but still not the same thing, as they removed the whole game mode/event for it's own reasons. There really is no way to remove those things and then keep the rewards present.

    Increasing rewards for X reason, and then reducing them is never something they like to do. No that doesnt mean they will not do it, and no one said they wouldnt.

    Moving gear into and out of nodes is also not a 1 to 1, as they did make other things more accessible.

    Not that any of this matters, so can we get back on topic please.

    I didn't say you said they don't do it, I very clearly quoted you saying they don't like to do it. Which we both know is what you said. But whether they like it or not, they do it all the time (as you have acknowledged).

    But, back on topic: they clearly have no actual intentions of un-nerfing Bronziums, else they would have used more definitive language. "We will explore a possible fix in the future," translates to "we know what the problem is and have decided it is too expensive to fix."

    Did you use one of those online translation sites? They're helpful, but not always accurate.

    No, I’ve just been here for 5 years. You have declined to do just about anything to Bronziums at all (aside from changing 5 attempts to 10) in those 5 years. You flip flopped a bit on uses for ally tokens.

    But, if you knew you were going to fix it you would have just said “this will be fixed in a future update,” not “we will explore fixing it.” The use of vague language covers your butt, because you know you may not fix it.

    Maybe it was simply because you knew it would be hard and wanted to see how much we would care. Experience (specific to this game and this game studio) tells me that you used that phrase because you know it will never change, but you want to kick the can down the road a bit so we move on and stop bringing it up after a while.

    4a2opmflmkd8.png

    There are a LOT of assumptions being made here.

    From the start I've stated I would share as much as possible whenever possible. I'll continue to do that. Everything we were able to say about the issue was put into the original dev announcement. The call was made to make the post to give players as much as warning as possible regarding the changes so they could plan accordingly, even though we couldn't say more about the Bronzium packs.

    I know it's frustrating for players to not have access to all the info, and I can understand how you might try to read between the lines - it's fun to do that sometimes. But I'm seeing enough conspiracy theories being bandied about here to make a sequel to They Live, which would be rad because I dig that movie.

    @CG_Doja_Fett it is not just the lack of information, which personally I get, there also tends to be unclear information that causes reading between the lines (mostly see this with kit releases).
    Note: To me the original post was very clear as to what was happening (even if the community doesn't like part of it), so please keep this up.

    Understood. I'll do my best to make things clear, and when they're unclear I'll do my best to follow up (when and where I can).

    I know it'll take time, and I appreciate y'all for your passion and commitment.
  • For the record, I've taken this Bronzium issue to the devs (as I have with other notable concerns).

    Unfortunately, I don't have more to report at the moment. But, I can tell you I'm raising the flags.
  • I agree with scuba on the kind of basis of why these theories are happening. It's not because the recent posts have been unclear, I actually think you've been doing an excellent job since you started. The issue comes from the multiple years previous when we were told things, time and time again, that never ended up happening. Over years of effectively being lied to and misled, the community is now in a permanent state of lack of trust, which has led to the "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality. I know for myself, I had also gotten to the point where I was kind of in a state of, not going and being rude on the forums, that's not really my thing, but not taking any dev post for granted anymore, and only believing something would be in the game...when it got to the game.
    Having seen a lot of your posts recently, I feel like you have been pretty forthcoming with everyone here who is willing to listen, and I feel like the state of things is a lot better than it was, but it takes time to build the trust back that was lost, and so I believe that's where most of this is coming from.
    superawesomepi#1512 | My Youtube | swgoh.gg
  • I agree with scuba on the kind of basis of why these theories are happening. It's not because the recent posts have been unclear, I actually think you've been doing an excellent job since you started. The issue comes from the multiple years previous when we were told things, time and time again, that never ended up happening. Over years of effectively being lied to and misled, the community is now in a permanent state of lack of trust, which has led to the "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality. I know for myself, I had also gotten to the point where I was kind of in a state of, not going and being rude on the forums, that's not really my thing, but not taking any dev post for granted anymore, and only believing something would be in the game...when it got to the game.
    Having seen a lot of your posts recently, I feel like you have been pretty forthcoming with everyone here who is willing to listen, and I feel like the state of things is a lot better than it was, but it takes time to build the trust back that was lost, and so I believe that's where most of this is coming from.

    I totally understand the "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality. I take none of this personally, and like I said I respect the passion and commitment. I'm excited for what's to come, I just wish things moved at warp speed instead of regular speed.

    But, I suppose it's a good exercise in patience, eh?
  • @CG_Doja_Fett Love what you're doing man, I gotta say. Nothing I ever say is meant to disrespect your efforts. I will, however, always be asking "why" something can/can't happen when the "what" is so clearly stated. Like when you say more can't be said then "it's a technical issue we'll explore later," why? Is there a legal reason, do they not actually know what to look into, or have they just not given the information to you? Should we be directing our ire and questions at the legal system, the coding, or the people who won't help you do your job? Cuz you're doing great and I appreciate it.
Sign In or Register to comment.