To me, the real prize from the top crate is 7* RC only one month behind someone who buys RC shards each time, assuming you always get top crate. That’s 44 shards for a month’s delay, or 5500 conquest currency, that would instead go to G12+ gear, gear to scrap for impulse detectors, or whichever injector that rng decided to screw you over on. It’s 18 conquest currency per gear piece, so 305 pieces of gear. That’s worth way more than extra rng chance at stun guns.
Fair and of course you aren’t just looking at players like me. I’m just looking at all players earning more through success in objectively better rewards in this mode. That’s really it.
But it's not objective. Some people might consider the gear as being the "better" reward others may think it's better to go for the higher relic materials and / or the RC shards.
Fair and of course you aren’t just looking at players like me. I’m just looking at all players earning more through success in objectively better rewards in this mode. That’s really it.
But it's not objective. Some people might consider the gear as being the "better" reward others may think it's better to go for the higher relic materials and / or the RC shards.
Exactly, I am arguing that the rewards should be objectively better instead of the subjective approach currently employed.
Their “logic” is that the higher end relic material and RC shards are worth more than the gear lost. It’s one of the few flaws with this conquest mode.
The rewards, like in most of the game, are lackluster because CG wants to be stingy as heck with them.
What CG should do is keep the amount of gear boxes consistent and building up till you see the 2 of each box along with the relic salavge and Rc shards. They also need to up the amount of gear in the boxes too, and also get rid of the trash in them, looking at those mk 4 carbs and guns.
Given their history though, they’re unlikely to give us more or proportionate rewards with the effort. Just look at HSTR and cranky. Still passing out tank raid gear like it’s nothing.
It is the same as the gear going down, because apparently if you complete conquest you don't require gear?
I really can't understand their logic of removing some of the rewards that you have earned in the progress of getting to the top crate just to say that they have been 'replaced with better'.
This of it this way - everything in the game has a back end "cost" (you can think of the cost in Crystals, it may help)
The prizes - for everything: raids, conquest, GCs, raids etc - have a cost value assigned to them. Then the cost is broken out into the individual parts.
So if they determine that T7 box has a prize equal to "5,000" then to put in better things some of the lower things will have to decrease - it's simple math.
Now you may ask why they need to have a fixe cost on the prizes, and - as someone pointed out already - the game exists to make a profit, the "squeeze" will always need to exist somewhere, or the game will stop existing.
No matter how you twist it and bring up the "overall value" or some other excuse, it's the first time in (gaming?) history that the second prize has more of something offered in the first prize
It is the same as the gear going down, because apparently if you complete conquest you don't require gear?
I really can't understand their logic of removing some of the rewards that you have earned in the progress of getting to the top crate just to say that they have been 'replaced with better'.
This of it this way - everything in the game has a back end "cost" (you can think of the cost in Crystals, it may help)
The prizes - for everything: raids, conquest, GCs, raids etc - have a cost value assigned to them. Then the cost is broken out into the individual parts.
So if they determine that T7 box has a prize equal to "5,000" then to put in better things some of the lower things will have to decrease - it's simple math.
Now you may ask why they need to have a fixe cost on the prizes, and - as someone pointed out already - the game exists to make a profit, the "squeeze" will always need to exist somewhere, or the game will stop existing.
So an addition of 20 total relic signal, 75 total relic mats (ccb, bronzium wiring & chromium transistors) & 70 total gear pieces (25 injector, 15 G12+, 15 G12, & 15 core gear) once a month from a difficult new mode would cause the game to be unprofitable? I don’t think so at all.
These numbers were obtained from the differences in T1 rewards vs T7 rewards. The difference is not game breaking or a complete disruption in gear economy. The addition of these pieces doesn’t change gear or relic economy much since these rewards are on a once monthly release.
In fact, I think the devs hurt themselves by using a subjective tiered system as opposed to using an objective system where a player like myself would likely use some crystals to earn the best crate vs not spending any crystals for the T5 crate.
The cuts are unnecessary and make CG look stingy imo.
No matter how you twist it and bring up the "overall value" or some other excuse, it's the first time in (gaming?) history that the second prize has more of something offered in the first prize
Not even close.
I've played quite a few games where it was actually optimal to come in under the 50% mark at times, depending on game progress. And many, many, MANY games where the more common drop from things was better than the rarer one, but they were mutually exclusive.
Just because most of this game's playerbase has little to no experience in MMOs, RPGs, MMO-lites and even other mobile games, doesn't mean this is a "industry first", it's not even close to being one. I can think of 15-20 year old games that have similar, if not nigh identical, systems. Including some pretty mainstream ones.
The cuts are unnecessary and make CG look stingy imo.
I'm not arguing that, I'm trying to explain WHY it is that way.
The data analysts have come up with a "magic number" and a formula to get people to spend more - they have then gone back to the Dev team and said "Your target for the top is X, tier 2 is X-1, Tier 3 si X-2 etc"
Then the devs try to fill out the rewards to stay within the boundaries that are given to them.
The people programming the game do not solely make these kinds of decisions - it's made by the operations/accounting department and the devs are given the parameters that they need to stay within.
That's how it works - because that's how it works everywhere.
The difference is not game breaking or a complete disruption in gear economy. The addition of these pieces doesn’t change gear or relic economy much since these rewards are on a once monthly release.
So you have the calculation that they use for revenue generation? You know their CAC and LTV?
The changes may not be immediately "unbalancing" on the gear economy, but how does that scale over time and in relation to the speed with which new content gets generated?
You may argue that you don't LIKE the way things are, but don't present your opinions as if you know the internal structure of their business unless you know it.
The difference is not game breaking or a complete disruption in gear economy. The addition of these pieces doesn’t change gear or relic economy much since these rewards are on a once monthly release.
So you have the calculation that they use for revenue generation? You know their CAC and LTV?
The changes may not be immediately "unbalancing" on the gear economy, but how does that scale over time and in relation to the speed with which new content gets generated?
You may argue that you don't LIKE the way things are, but don't present your opinions as if you know the internal structure of their business unless you know it.
Likewise.
All questions posed to you as well. Basically, don’t present it as if you know the behind the scenes discussion. This is obviously only a discussion on the forums and you’ve claimed much more in the way of knowing how they make these decisions than I have. You brought in accounting, equations etc. Are you a developer?
I’m saying 70 gear pieces (15 of which could be trash gear), 75 relic mats (most not even a choke point for the vast majority of players) and 20 relic signal each month is not game breaking. Does giving these rewards out have negative impacts on revenue for the devs? Perhaps yes. Does a negative player experience from noticing the stinginess of the company over and over and over and over again also negatively impact revenue? From my wallet, definitely yes.
You brought in accounting, equations etc. Are you a developer?
I'm an operations/organizational consultant (project manager at times) for companies and very frequently work with multiple teams of developers - including initial QA testing and developing customer feedback on software.
A very large part of what I do is helping to organize and develop communication between developers/engineering teams and other internal teams like finance, marketing etc.
I know how this works because I do this for a living.
I have absolutely 0 insight into how CG calculates their metrics, but I know that those metrics are ultimately the ones that are driving 75% of the decisions the player base talks about because that's simply how things work in software development.
I'm just gonna copy my opinion from another thread:
The rewards progression doesn't make sense.
I understand that "higher crate = more relics but less gear" but why do we end up with "higher crate = less/different relics and less gear"?
Between the two final crates you lose 5 Chromium Transistors, 10 Bronzium Wiring and gain 5 extra Aeromagnifiers. Is that a good trade? Yes, 100%.
But why? We still need all relic materials for R8. It's not like you suddenly don't need Bronzium Wiring after R7.
It's five steps forward but one step back. Difference between T5 and T6 is even more significant.
I'm just gonna copy my opinion from another thread:
The rewards progression doesn't make sense.
I understand that "higher crate = more relics but less gear" but why do we end up with "higher crate = less/different relics and less gear"?
Between the two final crates you lose 5 Chromium Transistors, 10 Bronzium Wiring and gain 5 extra Aeromagnifiers. Is that a good trade? Yes, 100%.
But why? We still need all relic materials for R8. It's not like you suddenly don't need Bronzium Wiring after R7.
It's five steps forward but one step back. Difference between T5 and T6 is even more significant.
5 steps forward and 1 back still nets you 4 steps forward.
I'm just gonna copy my opinion from another thread:
The rewards progression doesn't make sense.
I understand that "higher crate = more relics but less gear" but why do we end up with "higher crate = less/different relics and less gear"?
Between the two final crates you lose 5 Chromium Transistors, 10 Bronzium Wiring and gain 5 extra Aeromagnifiers. Is that a good trade? Yes, 100%.
But why? We still need all relic materials for R8. It's not like you suddenly don't need Bronzium Wiring after R7.
It's five steps forward but one step back. Difference between T5 and T6 is even more significant.
5 steps forward and 1 back still nets you 4 steps forward.
Yeah, but why do we have to take steps back? Take away the Aeromagnifiers from the T7 crate and you are left with a crate that's barely better than T1.
I'm just gonna copy my opinion from another thread:
The rewards progression doesn't make sense.
I understand that "higher crate = more relics but less gear" but why do we end up with "higher crate = less/different relics and less gear"?
Between the two final crates you lose 5 Chromium Transistors, 10 Bronzium Wiring and gain 5 extra Aeromagnifiers. Is that a good trade? Yes, 100%.
But why? We still need all relic materials for R8. It's not like you suddenly don't need Bronzium Wiring after R7.
It's five steps forward but one step back. Difference between T5 and T6 is even more significant.
5 steps forward and 1 back still nets you 4 steps forward.
Yeah, but why do we have to take steps back? Take away the Aeromagnifiers from the T7 crate and you are left with a crate that's barely better than T1.
See my post above - CG has (currently) placed an internal value to R8 mats that is significantly above all other items.
I don't expect it to continue long-term, but there always has to be a carrot.
just want to point this out, maybe it is their goal, maybe not, I'm not sure.
if you look at conquest as a whole over the long term, a player working through the rewards scheme will run through many early boxes helping to push them more even with older players, but also causing them to have less need for those components (much like older players did when relics first came out). This will in the end be a system that really does help push players to "catch up" and makes sense, beyond the obvious increase in value of components that can be seen (since this argument is dismissed so often).
Once razor crest is finished I will probably stop at a lower crate for the gear... Like most of the raids they seem to have designed a pretty stupid system for rewards.
It is certainly dumb not to be pushing for max rewards as long as RC shards are needed. After that I will buy the r8 stuff off the wandering jawas and take the lower gear rewards.
just want to point this out, maybe it is their goal, maybe not, I'm not sure.
if you look at conquest as a whole over the long term, a player working through the rewards scheme will run through many early boxes helping to push them more even with older players, but also causing them to have less need for those components (much like older players did when relics first came out). This will in the end be a system that really does help push players to "catch up" and makes sense, beyond the obvious increase in value of components that can be seen (since this argument is dismissed so often).
You guys can argue h7 vs h6, but i stopped at h4. Since I can’t get to h6, and h5 is a step down from h4. No r8 mats involved. The cantina energy to get 5+5 signal data, and scrap for 5 heatsinks(more valuable scrap)is worth more than 4 ship shards and scrap for 10 conductors. It looks like your trying to make a halfway box to h6, but it doesn’t work/balance out. Can’t try last boss cause if i kill 2 more enemies and get feat, I’ll go to h5. I’ll live, but dang.
I do wish they would add Armorer to the store tho.
just want to point this out, maybe it is their goal, maybe not, I'm not sure.
if you look at conquest as a whole over the long term, a player working through the rewards scheme will run through many early boxes helping to push them more even with older players, but also causing them to have less need for those components (much like older players did when relics first came out). This will in the end be a system that really does help push players to "catch up" and makes sense, beyond the obvious increase in value of components that can be seen (since this argument is dismissed so often).
So then if that’s their intent, we still need a fix to gear economy if the penalties in gear for later boxes are to remain.
Either way, the loss of relic material, rather than adding on it if the gear is meant more as a catch up is kind of lame. If later boxes are meant to have more relic materials in them, perhaps they can keep the carbanti boards in them and increase the amount. It’s getting to be a pretty annoying choke point as my roster progresses to their new imposed R5 base point. Maybe conquest isn’t meant for that, but it would be nice if it could help
So, I don't have a problem with gear decreasing etc.
But FOR THE LOVE OF GOD please PLEASE remove the stupid mk4 rewards from the cartes. If this was going to regularly be a 2X monthly event ok maybe I get it - but this should have me EXCITED about rewards and when I get MK4 stun guns in there it's just annoying.
It is funny that the majority of the people who say they don't need the gear, or you can farm it, have pretty much full relic rosters anyway and they have stockpiles of gear so of course they wouldn't want to sacrifice gear for those extra rewards as the gear isn't important to them as the relic mats, mod mats and new shards are.
You are completely missing the people that have the 4-6 mil rosters that complete the red box but still need a hell of a lot of gear. In total you lose 25x injector salvage, 30x gear 12 salvage, 30x gear 12.5 salvage and 30x core gear salvage. Not to mention you also lose 2 lots of 10 signal data and lose lots of the earlier salvage materials.
Also guess what, these end rewards from the best crate are as valuable to everyone, so everyone should be aiming for the red crate because of this, there shouldn't be a choice to stop doing the content because the lesser crates have more rewards of something else that they need. There should not be this choice at all.
Thanks everyone for your input, I guess I would prefer to see the crates starting at a lower level and as you progress you earn additional gear on top of what you have earned from the last crate. That would give me more motivation to go for the higher crates. I was able to max the hard mode but am unsure after I max the ship that I will continue to do so. I know people that stopped because they needed the lower relic gear. Heck the highest level crate doesn’t even offer some of the most used relic gear.
Replies
But it's not objective. Some people might consider the gear as being the "better" reward others may think it's better to go for the higher relic materials and / or the RC shards.
T5 has more gear boxes.
Exactly, I am arguing that the rewards should be objectively better instead of the subjective approach currently employed.
1 G12 & 1 G12+ box in T5 over T6 crates.
The rewards, like in most of the game, are lackluster because CG wants to be stingy as heck with them.
What CG should do is keep the amount of gear boxes consistent and building up till you see the 2 of each box along with the relic salavge and Rc shards. They also need to up the amount of gear in the boxes too, and also get rid of the trash in them, looking at those mk 4 carbs and guns.
Given their history though, they’re unlikely to give us more or proportionate rewards with the effort. Just look at HSTR and cranky. Still passing out tank raid gear like it’s nothing.
This of it this way - everything in the game has a back end "cost" (you can think of the cost in Crystals, it may help)
The prizes - for everything: raids, conquest, GCs, raids etc - have a cost value assigned to them. Then the cost is broken out into the individual parts.
So if they determine that T7 box has a prize equal to "5,000" then to put in better things some of the lower things will have to decrease - it's simple math.
Now you may ask why they need to have a fixe cost on the prizes, and - as someone pointed out already - the game exists to make a profit, the "squeeze" will always need to exist somewhere, or the game will stop existing.
So an addition of 20 total relic signal, 75 total relic mats (ccb, bronzium wiring & chromium transistors) & 70 total gear pieces (25 injector, 15 G12+, 15 G12, & 15 core gear) once a month from a difficult new mode would cause the game to be unprofitable? I don’t think so at all.
These numbers were obtained from the differences in T1 rewards vs T7 rewards. The difference is not game breaking or a complete disruption in gear economy. The addition of these pieces doesn’t change gear or relic economy much since these rewards are on a once monthly release.
In fact, I think the devs hurt themselves by using a subjective tiered system as opposed to using an objective system where a player like myself would likely use some crystals to earn the best crate vs not spending any crystals for the T5 crate.
The cuts are unnecessary and make CG look stingy imo.
Not even close.
I've played quite a few games where it was actually optimal to come in under the 50% mark at times, depending on game progress. And many, many, MANY games where the more common drop from things was better than the rarer one, but they were mutually exclusive.
Just because most of this game's playerbase has little to no experience in MMOs, RPGs, MMO-lites and even other mobile games, doesn't mean this is a "industry first", it's not even close to being one. I can think of 15-20 year old games that have similar, if not nigh identical, systems. Including some pretty mainstream ones.
is that on hard? on normal, I see:
T5: 2 injector, 2 G12+, 2 G12, 2 purple
T6: 2 injector, 3 G12+, 2 G12, 2 purple
T7: 2 injector, 2 G12+, 2 G12, 2 purple
Yes, the discussion was about the rewards in hard mode.
I'm not arguing that, I'm trying to explain WHY it is that way.
The data analysts have come up with a "magic number" and a formula to get people to spend more - they have then gone back to the Dev team and said "Your target for the top is X, tier 2 is X-1, Tier 3 si X-2 etc"
Then the devs try to fill out the rewards to stay within the boundaries that are given to them.
The people programming the game do not solely make these kinds of decisions - it's made by the operations/accounting department and the devs are given the parameters that they need to stay within.
That's how it works - because that's how it works everywhere.
So you have the calculation that they use for revenue generation? You know their CAC and LTV?
The changes may not be immediately "unbalancing" on the gear economy, but how does that scale over time and in relation to the speed with which new content gets generated?
You may argue that you don't LIKE the way things are, but don't present your opinions as if you know the internal structure of their business unless you know it.
Likewise.
All questions posed to you as well. Basically, don’t present it as if you know the behind the scenes discussion. This is obviously only a discussion on the forums and you’ve claimed much more in the way of knowing how they make these decisions than I have. You brought in accounting, equations etc. Are you a developer?
I’m saying 70 gear pieces (15 of which could be trash gear), 75 relic mats (most not even a choke point for the vast majority of players) and 20 relic signal each month is not game breaking. Does giving these rewards out have negative impacts on revenue for the devs? Perhaps yes. Does a negative player experience from noticing the stinginess of the company over and over and over and over again also negatively impact revenue? From my wallet, definitely yes.
My apologies- sorry for distracting. I missed that.
I'm an operations/organizational consultant (project manager at times) for companies and very frequently work with multiple teams of developers - including initial QA testing and developing customer feedback on software.
A very large part of what I do is helping to organize and develop communication between developers/engineering teams and other internal teams like finance, marketing etc.
I know how this works because I do this for a living.
I have absolutely 0 insight into how CG calculates their metrics, but I know that those metrics are ultimately the ones that are driving 75% of the decisions the player base talks about because that's simply how things work in software development.
The rewards progression doesn't make sense.
I understand that "higher crate = more relics but less gear" but why do we end up with "higher crate = less/different relics and less gear"?
Between the two final crates you lose 5 Chromium Transistors, 10 Bronzium Wiring and gain 5 extra Aeromagnifiers. Is that a good trade? Yes, 100%.
But why? We still need all relic materials for R8. It's not like you suddenly don't need Bronzium Wiring after R7.
It's five steps forward but one step back. Difference between T5 and T6 is even more significant.
5 steps forward and 1 back still nets you 4 steps forward.
Yeah, but why do we have to take steps back? Take away the Aeromagnifiers from the T7 crate and you are left with a crate that's barely better than T1.
See my post above - CG has (currently) placed an internal value to R8 mats that is significantly above all other items.
I don't expect it to continue long-term, but there always has to be a carrot.
if you look at conquest as a whole over the long term, a player working through the rewards scheme will run through many early boxes helping to push them more even with older players, but also causing them to have less need for those components (much like older players did when relics first came out). This will in the end be a system that really does help push players to "catch up" and makes sense, beyond the obvious increase in value of components that can be seen (since this argument is dismissed so often).
It is certainly dumb not to be pushing for max rewards as long as RC shards are needed. After that I will buy the r8 stuff off the wandering jawas and take the lower gear rewards.
Nice try.
I do wish they would add Armorer to the store tho.
So then if that’s their intent, we still need a fix to gear economy if the penalties in gear for later boxes are to remain.
Either way, the loss of relic material, rather than adding on it if the gear is meant more as a catch up is kind of lame. If later boxes are meant to have more relic materials in them, perhaps they can keep the carbanti boards in them and increase the amount. It’s getting to be a pretty annoying choke point as my roster progresses to their new imposed R5 base point. Maybe conquest isn’t meant for that, but it would be nice if it could help
But FOR THE LOVE OF GOD please PLEASE remove the stupid mk4 rewards from the cartes. If this was going to regularly be a 2X monthly event ok maybe I get it - but this should have me EXCITED about rewards and when I get MK4 stun guns in there it's just annoying.
You are completely missing the people that have the 4-6 mil rosters that complete the red box but still need a hell of a lot of gear. In total you lose 25x injector salvage, 30x gear 12 salvage, 30x gear 12.5 salvage and 30x core gear salvage. Not to mention you also lose 2 lots of 10 signal data and lose lots of the earlier salvage materials.
Also guess what, these end rewards from the best crate are as valuable to everyone, so everyone should be aiming for the red crate because of this, there shouldn't be a choice to stop doing the content because the lesser crates have more rewards of something else that they need. There should not be this choice at all.