It just boggles my mind how they continue to design the game so hoarding is such a great strategy. It's on the player if they haven't realized it by now, but it's still such terrible game design.
At this point you cannot take CGs word for it on anything. They are like the person who pushes someone off the building but then says the fall killed them. While technically accurate…..
Does anyone have the actual wording they used re 3x conquests?
We are also increasing the amount of shards you will be able to earn throughout an event - you will be able to unlock Commander Ahsoka at 7* after 3 Hard Conquests if you are earning the maximum reward crate and purchase her shards from merchants.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Character shards are the only thing of value for that currency, I just don’t get any of you who spent to zero on other stuff.
Stun Guns.
You can get stun guns from several other places. Therefore far less value for the currency, unless you don't care about CAT, in which case there's no reason to complain.
Come on guys just be realistic. You want to know why they told you that you can unlock CAT in 3 GC? Here’s why. Thanks, you can all move along now:)
I'm more interested in those other bundles. Separatist commander? Wat shards maybe?
Taking the name of these packs together makes me worried that CAT might indeed be needed for Kenobi. You can't say there's a three-month gate if there are packs, now can you?
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
Capping the currency “obviously” tells you to spend it so that you don’t get too much and lose the possibility of earning more. How much you spend is on the player sure. But again all of my points are pointing to the poor communication from the devs. They don’t want us to hoard (as expressed from the conquest currency statements as well as from the cap put in place) but required a small hoard later.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this anymore. Please, just ignore my comments because you only understand your own perspective and those of the devs while applying little tact, blaming players (instead of holding devs accountable for their poor communication) and deleting comments that the devs ABSOLUTELY deserve/need to hear. This game doesn’t need to be Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing, but you are fine with both. I’m not, that’s it.
Always hoard currency, don’t believe devs, expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. That’s not a great place to work from imo. I cannot lay it out there any more simply. If you can’t see it, then simply ignore me. Thanks.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
Does anyone have the actual wording they used re 3x conquests?
We are also increasing the amount of shards you will be able to earn throughout an event - you will be able to unlock Commander Ahsoka at 7* after 3 Hard Conquests if you are earning the maximum reward crate and purchase her shards from merchants.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
Why are people hung up on three conquests? Why is it poor communication for them to not say doing it in three conquests was only for the prepared? If you're not prepared to get max crate and buy all shards, it will take you longer. GAS and Malak were possible the first time. But not for me. It's possible to unlock CAT in three. But not everyone. I also don't understand why that's a hard deadline. So you'll get her in four if you blew your whole stash.
All these analogies about houses...yes, you can buy it in three payments of 400k. But why is it on the bank to remind you that you only make 350k a month and you should therefore start with some money put away? Is that poor communication? Why would you buy a house with 0 money in the bank? Why would you ever willingly zero out your bank account? Why would you, using assumptions about income and cost, plan something down to the penny and act like net 0 was all good? What about surprise emergency expenses? If you don't have a cushion, don't make a huge purchase like that. 0 might as well be negative. Treat your cushion as 0. It's just plain basic financial sense.
CG made a statement that it was *possible* to get her in three. And that's ALL they did. And it's 100% true. It's obvious that not everyone would do it or they wouldn't keep offering the shards after that. You can get her after that. There's no hard deadline. And they certainly didn't promise that every single person would get her in three. There's no bait and switch. If you get max rewards and buy all shards, you'll get her in three. I like to do things besides buy all the shards, like swap discs, get stim packs. So I know I want to make sure I have enough currency for the shards plus some other things. So I don't buy a bunch of farmable gold gear. I don't buy relic salvage. I never once would've assumed that going in with 0 was enough to buy all shards even under the old system.
It really sounds like you gave yourself the expectation that of course you'd be one of the ones to unlock in three, found out you're not, and are shifting blame.
So the question is why did they purposefully omit that information? That is really what I want to know.
There is a HUGE assumption on that question.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
I wouldn't call 150 "mass hoarding."
I didn't say that. Kyno said that the 'cap is there so you can't hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there' which is true but the reason devs gave us was different.
I mean, it depends on what is considered hoarding or mass hoarding. They obviously don't want people to breeze through a conquest from saving up from previous ones. So consumables and stim packs don't carry over. There's a cap on currency to prevent any sort of mass spending to breeze a conquest or maybe even buy a bunch of character shards from the store.
And yet, currency does carry over, and up to 3,500 currency carries over. So that's an option they were ok with, and it seems prudent to take advantage of it.
I mean, it depends on what is considered hoarding or mass hoarding. They obviously don't want people to breeze through a conquest from saving up from previous ones. So consumables and stim packs don't carry over. There's a cap on currency to prevent any sort of mass spending to breeze a conquest or maybe even buy a bunch of character shards from the store.
And yet, currency does carry over, and up to 3,500 currency carries over. So that's an option they were ok with, and it seems prudent to take advantage of it.
The cap doesn't even make much sense. We are mostly limited by the number of Wandering Scavangers to buy the good stuff and those Jawas don't refresh their stock.
How can you mass spend on things that you can purchase once? If I hoarded all the currency from previous Conquest I still wouldn't be able to buy more than 20 CAT shards.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
Capping the currency “obviously” tells you to spend it so that you don’t get too much and lose the possibility of earning more. How much you spend is on the player sure. But again all of my points are pointing to the poor communication from the devs. They don’t want us to hoard (as expressed from the conquest currency statements as well as from the cap put in place) but required a small hoard later.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this anymore. Please, just ignore my comments because you only understand your own perspective and those of the devs while applying little tact, blaming players (instead of holding devs accountable for their poor communication) and deleting comments that the devs ABSOLUTELY deserve/need to hear. This game doesn’t need to be Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing, but you are fine with both. I’m not, that’s it.
Always hoard currency, don’t believe devs, expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. That’s not a great place to work from imo. I cannot lay it out there any more simply. If you can’t see it, then simply ignore me. Thanks.
Yes, I understand the cap tells us to spend, so we don't hit it. That makes sense.
You said it can mean the exact opposite of hoarding. That means spending it all to 0. How does a cap make you think you should spend it to 0?
This has nothing to do with my perspective, I just dont see how you get to the complete opposite, just because there is a cap.
This has nothing to do with communication or any other discussion here, I was simply asking a direct question about your single reply.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
I wouldn't call 150 "mass hoarding."
I didn't say that. Kyno said that the 'cap is there so you can't hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there' which is true but the reason devs gave us was different.
I mean, it depends on what is considered hoarding or mass hoarding. They obviously don't want people to breeze through a conquest from saving up from previous ones. So consumables and stim packs don't carry over. There's a cap on currency to prevent any sort of mass spending to breeze a conquest or maybe even buy a bunch of character shards from the store.
And yet, currency does carry over, and up to 3,500 currency carries over. So that's an option they were ok with, and it seems prudent to take advantage of it.
The cap doesn't even make much sense. We are mostly limited by the number of Wandering Scavangers to buy the good stuff and those Jawas don't refresh their stock.
How can you mass spend on things that you can purchase once? If I hoarded all the currency from previous Conquest I still wouldn't be able to buy more than 20 CAT shards.
It is possible they have further plans or wanted to leave themselves an option for the store. So while that may be true at the moment, later things could drop in the store or be moved there.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
I wouldn't call 150 "mass hoarding."
I didn't say that. Kyno said that the 'cap is there so you can't hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there' which is true but the reason devs gave us was different.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
I wouldn't call 150 "mass hoarding."
I didn't say that. Kyno said that the 'cap is there so you can't hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there' which is true but the reason devs gave us was different.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
CG could fix the situation by reducing the cost to 525 for 5 for the next 2 conquests (not including this one), and we'd be able to unlock CAT and still have 50 to play with to switch disks. That'd show some goodwill to address this fragmented comm signal.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
Capping the currency “obviously” tells you to spend it so that you don’t get too much and lose the possibility of earning more. How much you spend is on the player sure. But again all of my points are pointing to the poor communication from the devs. They don’t want us to hoard (as expressed from the conquest currency statements as well as from the cap put in place) but required a small hoard later.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this anymore. Please, just ignore my comments because you only understand your own perspective and those of the devs while applying little tact, blaming players (instead of holding devs accountable for their poor communication) and deleting comments that the devs ABSOLUTELY deserve/need to hear. This game doesn’t need to be Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing, but you are fine with both. I’m not, that’s it.
Always hoard currency, don’t believe devs, expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. That’s not a great place to work from imo. I cannot lay it out there any more simply. If you can’t see it, then simply ignore me. Thanks.
Yes, I understand the cap tells us to spend, so we don't hit it. That makes sense.
You said it can mean the exact opposite of hoarding. That means spending it all to 0. How does a cap make you think you should spend it to 0?
This has nothing to do with my perspective, I just dont see how you get to the complete opposite, just because there is a cap.
This has nothing to do with communication or any other discussion here, I was simply asking a direct question about your single reply.
You consistently argue in favor of the devs and bash players so yeah I do think you’ve got blinders on for your own and dev perspective.
In opposition, I see your point. I even admitted that going to 0 was player chosen (btw I had some just not 150). The interview seems to say they don’t want hoards to happen, yet the answer for CAT was to hoard (no matter the size of the hoard).
See it however you want man. It’s bad communication as always and to be continually expected since they do not change.
To get into why I don’t have 150 saved currency: I farmed gear hard in the first 2 conquest runs. I was behind on RC for the 3rd run (which was my choice and I was fine with it). So in the 3rd run I bought as many RC shards as I could just to ensure I would unlock RC by end of event this run. The funny thing is that the end of event did not lessen on RC shards (as was alluded to by the dev posts for 4th runs on) so I didn’t need to buy any of those RC shards for my goals in the first place. I am 18 short on unlock from my gearing choices and purchases, but will get 44 from max crate to easily finish it this run. It turns out that I wasted my currency because I don’t really need the RC shards I bought, but I didn’t want to fall too far behind while also enjoying longer runs on raids with my newly unlocked “raid king” GL in my guild.
I wanted simple RC unlock by end of this run so I spent the currency in order to ensure RC unlock after the shard changes and then they didn’t change so I will have extra shard on a ship I don’t really want, but have to wait on CAT now. It’s not the end of the world waiting a short while longer for CAT, but the communication is continually aggravating.
The issue that I really have is with the dev communications around both of these releases being vague and contradictory. I know just hoard from here on, but I chose not to because of the interview, currency cap and shard rewards lowering (most of which was simply inaccurate). It is what it is. I have accepted I have to wait, but I refuse to accept the terrible communication standards set by CG. They are abysmal.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
Capping the currency “obviously” tells you to spend it so that you don’t get too much and lose the possibility of earning more. How much you spend is on the player sure. But again all of my points are pointing to the poor communication from the devs. They don’t want us to hoard (as expressed from the conquest currency statements as well as from the cap put in place) but required a small hoard later.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this anymore. Please, just ignore my comments because you only understand your own perspective and those of the devs while applying little tact, blaming players (instead of holding devs accountable for their poor communication) and deleting comments that the devs ABSOLUTELY deserve/need to hear. This game doesn’t need to be Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing, but you are fine with both. I’m not, that’s it.
Always hoard currency, don’t believe devs, expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. That’s not a great place to work from imo. I cannot lay it out there any more simply. If you can’t see it, then simply ignore me. Thanks.
Yes, I understand the cap tells us to spend, so we don't hit it. That makes sense.
You said it can mean the exact opposite of hoarding. That means spending it all to 0. How does a cap make you think you should spend it to 0?
This has nothing to do with my perspective, I just dont see how you get to the complete opposite, just because there is a cap.
This has nothing to do with communication or any other discussion here, I was simply asking a direct question about your single reply.
You consistently argue in favor of the devs and bash players so yeah I do think you’ve got blinders on for your own and dev perspective.
In opposition, I see your point. I even admitted that going to 0 was player chosen (btw I had some just not 150). The interview seems to say they don’t want hoards to happen, yet the answer for CAT was to hoard (no matter the size of the hoard).
See it however you want man. It’s bad communication as always and to be continually expected since they do not change.
To get into why I don’t have 150 saved currency: I farmed gear hard in the first 2 conquest runs. I was behind on RC for the 3rd run (which was my choice and I was fine with it). So in the 3rd run I bought as many RC shards as I could just to ensure I would unlock RC by end of event this run. The funny thing is that the end of event did not lessen on RC shards (as was alluded to by the dev posts for 4th runs on) so I didn’t need to buy any of those RC shards for my goals in the first place. I am 18 short on unlock from my gearing choices and purchases, but will get 44 from max crate to easily finish it this run. It turns out that I wasted my currency because I don’t really need the RC shards I bought, but I didn’t want to fall too far behind while also enjoying longer runs on raids with my newly unlocked “raid king” GL in my guild.
I wanted simple RC unlock by end of this run so I spent the currency in order to ensure RC unlock after the shard changes and then they didn’t change so I will have extra shard on a ship I don’t really want, but have to wait on CAT now. It’s not the end of the world waiting a short while longer for CAT, but the communication is continually aggravating.
The issue that I really have is with the dev communications around both of these releases being vague and contradictory. I know just hoard from here on, but I chose not to because of the interview, currency cap and shard rewards lowering (most of which was simply inaccurate). It is what it is. I have accepted I have to wait, but I refuse to accept the terrible communication standards set by CG. They are abysmal.
Ok. So the cap doesnt mean the opposite ?
Also, as I said, I was directly asking about that, because I am not here to argue about that. I was genuinely confused by that remark, as I just dont see how the cap can mean the opposite.
Vague, sure. I have yet to see a contradiction, what part contradicts itself?
CG could fix the situation by reducing the cost to 525 for 5 for the next 2 conquests (not including this one), and we'd be able to unlock CAT and still have 50 to play with to switch disks. That'd show some goodwill to address this fragmented comm signal.
You're assuming there's a situation that needs fixing.
You could have known all this, when they put a cap on the hoarding. That made it obvious, that hoarding is required.
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
Capping the currency “obviously” tells you to spend it so that you don’t get too much and lose the possibility of earning more. How much you spend is on the player sure. But again all of my points are pointing to the poor communication from the devs. They don’t want us to hoard (as expressed from the conquest currency statements as well as from the cap put in place) but required a small hoard later.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this anymore. Please, just ignore my comments because you only understand your own perspective and those of the devs while applying little tact, blaming players (instead of holding devs accountable for their poor communication) and deleting comments that the devs ABSOLUTELY deserve/need to hear. This game doesn’t need to be Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing, but you are fine with both. I’m not, that’s it.
Always hoard currency, don’t believe devs, expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. That’s not a great place to work from imo. I cannot lay it out there any more simply. If you can’t see it, then simply ignore me. Thanks.
Yes, I understand the cap tells us to spend, so we don't hit it. That makes sense.
You said it can mean the exact opposite of hoarding. That means spending it all to 0. How does a cap make you think you should spend it to 0?
This has nothing to do with my perspective, I just dont see how you get to the complete opposite, just because there is a cap.
This has nothing to do with communication or any other discussion here, I was simply asking a direct question about your single reply.
You consistently argue in favor of the devs and bash players so yeah I do think you’ve got blinders on for your own and dev perspective.
In opposition, I see your point. I even admitted that going to 0 was player chosen (btw I had some just not 150). The interview seems to say they don’t want hoards to happen, yet the answer for CAT was to hoard (no matter the size of the hoard).
See it however you want man. It’s bad communication as always and to be continually expected since they do not change.
To get into why I don’t have 150 saved currency: I farmed gear hard in the first 2 conquest runs. I was behind on RC for the 3rd run (which was my choice and I was fine with it). So in the 3rd run I bought as many RC shards as I could just to ensure I would unlock RC by end of event this run. The funny thing is that the end of event did not lessen on RC shards (as was alluded to by the dev posts for 4th runs on) so I didn’t need to buy any of those RC shards for my goals in the first place. I am 18 short on unlock from my gearing choices and purchases, but will get 44 from max crate to easily finish it this run. It turns out that I wasted my currency because I don’t really need the RC shards I bought, but I didn’t want to fall too far behind while also enjoying longer runs on raids with my newly unlocked “raid king” GL in my guild.
I wanted simple RC unlock by end of this run so I spent the currency in order to ensure RC unlock after the shard changes and then they didn’t change so I will have extra shard on a ship I don’t really want, but have to wait on CAT now. It’s not the end of the world waiting a short while longer for CAT, but the communication is continually aggravating.
The issue that I really have is with the dev communications around both of these releases being vague and contradictory. I know just hoard from here on, but I chose not to because of the interview, currency cap and shard rewards lowering (most of which was simply inaccurate). It is what it is. I have accepted I have to wait, but I refuse to accept the terrible communication standards set by CG. They are abysmal.
Ok. So the cap doesnt mean the opposite ?
Also, as I said, I was directly asking about that, because I am not here to argue about that. I was genuinely confused by that remark, as I just dont see how the cap can mean the opposite.
Vague, sure. I have yet to see a contradiction, what part contradicts itself?
The cap simply stops a full on hoard sure. Clarifying language, fine. We all know hoard from now on. The devs apparently like this method as they keep using it.
Contradiction:
Don’t have a hoard. We are requiring a hoard (though small).
Falsity:
RC shards will be reduced in end of event after 3rd Conquest. They weren’t. (I’m not mad about that result, but I prepared as though they would be reduced).
Replies
I'm more interested in those other bundles. Separatist commander? Wat shards maybe?
Putting a cap on the currency can mean the exact opposite. They don’t want it to be hoarded so there is a cap. Both ideas are valid and the conclusion becomes less than obvious.
Stun Guns.
You can get stun guns from several other places. Therefore far less value for the currency, unless you don't care about CAT, in which case there's no reason to complain.
Taking the name of these packs together makes me worried that CAT might indeed be needed for Kenobi. You can't say there's a three-month gate if there are packs, now can you?
Honestly I still dont see that one.
They out the cap there so you cant hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there. I dont see how that can mean you should spend it to 0, because there is a cap.
Capping the currency “obviously” tells you to spend it so that you don’t get too much and lose the possibility of earning more. How much you spend is on the player sure. But again all of my points are pointing to the poor communication from the devs. They don’t want us to hoard (as expressed from the conquest currency statements as well as from the cap put in place) but required a small hoard later.
I really don’t want to get drawn into this anymore. Please, just ignore my comments because you only understand your own perspective and those of the devs while applying little tact, blaming players (instead of holding devs accountable for their poor communication) and deleting comments that the devs ABSOLUTELY deserve/need to hear. This game doesn’t need to be Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing, but you are fine with both. I’m not, that’s it.
Always hoard currency, don’t believe devs, expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. That’s not a great place to work from imo. I cannot lay it out there any more simply. If you can’t see it, then simply ignore me. Thanks.
In an interview about Conquest they said that they didn't want us to mass hoard currency because it 'breaks how the mode works' which is not true.
Thanks. My point is even more valid seeing that, and the justifications itt even more lol.
Like I said, it’s only 150, that’s not the problem.
I wouldn't call 150 "mass hoarding."
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I didn't say that. Kyno said that the 'cap is there so you can't hoard to get ahead when something new gets dropped in there' which is true but the reason devs gave us was different.
And yet, currency does carry over, and up to 3,500 currency carries over. So that's an option they were ok with, and it seems prudent to take advantage of it.
The cap doesn't even make much sense. We are mostly limited by the number of Wandering Scavangers to buy the good stuff and those Jawas don't refresh their stock.
How can you mass spend on things that you can purchase once? If I hoarded all the currency from previous Conquest I still wouldn't be able to buy more than 20 CAT shards.
Yes, I understand the cap tells us to spend, so we don't hit it. That makes sense.
You said it can mean the exact opposite of hoarding. That means spending it all to 0. How does a cap make you think you should spend it to 0?
This has nothing to do with my perspective, I just dont see how you get to the complete opposite, just because there is a cap.
This has nothing to do with communication or any other discussion here, I was simply asking a direct question about your single reply.
Can you quote the reason they gave?
It is possible they have further plans or wanted to leave themselves an option for the store. So while that may be true at the moment, later things could drop in the store or be moved there.
Yeah, sorry I saw your post after posting that.
You consistently argue in favor of the devs and bash players so yeah I do think you’ve got blinders on for your own and dev perspective.
In opposition, I see your point. I even admitted that going to 0 was player chosen (btw I had some just not 150). The interview seems to say they don’t want hoards to happen, yet the answer for CAT was to hoard (no matter the size of the hoard).
See it however you want man. It’s bad communication as always and to be continually expected since they do not change.
To get into why I don’t have 150 saved currency: I farmed gear hard in the first 2 conquest runs. I was behind on RC for the 3rd run (which was my choice and I was fine with it). So in the 3rd run I bought as many RC shards as I could just to ensure I would unlock RC by end of event this run. The funny thing is that the end of event did not lessen on RC shards (as was alluded to by the dev posts for 4th runs on) so I didn’t need to buy any of those RC shards for my goals in the first place. I am 18 short on unlock from my gearing choices and purchases, but will get 44 from max crate to easily finish it this run. It turns out that I wasted my currency because I don’t really need the RC shards I bought, but I didn’t want to fall too far behind while also enjoying longer runs on raids with my newly unlocked “raid king” GL in my guild.
I wanted simple RC unlock by end of this run so I spent the currency in order to ensure RC unlock after the shard changes and then they didn’t change so I will have extra shard on a ship I don’t really want, but have to wait on CAT now. It’s not the end of the world waiting a short while longer for CAT, but the communication is continually aggravating.
The issue that I really have is with the dev communications around both of these releases being vague and contradictory. I know just hoard from here on, but I chose not to because of the interview, currency cap and shard rewards lowering (most of which was simply inaccurate). It is what it is. I have accepted I have to wait, but I refuse to accept the terrible communication standards set by CG. They are abysmal.
Ok. So the cap doesnt mean the opposite ?
Also, as I said, I was directly asking about that, because I am not here to argue about that. I was genuinely confused by that remark, as I just dont see how the cap can mean the opposite.
Vague, sure. I have yet to see a contradiction, what part contradicts itself?
You're assuming there's a situation that needs fixing.
The cap simply stops a full on hoard sure. Clarifying language, fine. We all know hoard from now on. The devs apparently like this method as they keep using it.
Contradiction:
Don’t have a hoard. We are requiring a hoard (though small).
Falsity:
RC shards will be reduced in end of event after 3rd Conquest. They weren’t. (I’m not mad about that result, but I prepared as though they would be reduced).
Communication leaves much to be desired.