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).
Communication leaves much to be desired.
Where did they say not to save or "dont have a hoard"?
I see your point there, it seems the whole plan laid out is for CAT, but I can see how there may be confusion there, RC is referenced in point 2.
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).
Communication leaves much to be desired.
Where did they say not to save or "dont have a hoard"?
I see your point there, it seems the whole plan laid out is for CAT, but I can see how there may be confusion there, RC is referenced in point 2.
The cap on Conquest Currency is an implied “don’t hoard” because it blocks the large hoards that other currencies suffer. Implied is a key word, yes, but the implication’s still there. Particularly when currencies without caps (GET 1 and 2) are hoarded without hesitation because of the sheer value in getting Malak or GAS to 7* as fast as possible.
Don’t have a “massive hoard.” It’s in the interview... My goodness, Kyno...I’m done. You win.
The current system is amazing and hoarding is the best thing ever. I applaud the devs for creating a wonderful game: Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding, or Star Wars Galaxy of Poor Communication, or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing (whichever name you like).
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).
Communication leaves much to be desired.
I see your point there, it seems the whole plan laid out is for CAT, but I can see how there may be confusion there, RC is referenced in point 2.
Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It's not a case of "there may be confusion", it's quite literally that the information they gave is wrong. Nowhere does it say that the plan that they laid out is only for CAT. "The 4th Conquest event will also mark some refinements to the Conquest unit cadence and how we plan to address these units in game". "These units" referring to Conquest exclusive units, not CAT specifically.
It's absolutely hilarious to see the obvious double standard that you employ when it comes to things that CG says vs things that players who are critical of CG say. When players say something not quite correct you eagerly get into ridiculous semantical arguments and demand that everything be worded exactly in accordance with strict definitions. But when CG says something quite literally false it's suddenly something like "there may be confusion" or "they didn't literally mean it like that".
Don’t have a “massive hoard.” It’s in the interview... My goodness, Kyno...I’m done. You win.
The current system is amazing and hoarding is the best thing ever. I applaud the devs for creating a wonderful game: Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding, or Star Wars Galaxy of Poor Communication, or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing (whichever name you like).
Yes the cap is there to literally be a hard limit that doesnt allow a massive hoard. You said:
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are certainly welcome to continue to praise and defend CG, but they never actually tell us much of anything. We have to go by what they’ve done in the past to decide what they will do in the future. You and your buddy Kyno have talked about planning and preparation plenty in this thread, but the only data we had was what CG had been doing. Based on the data available, no one had any reason to think each conquest would provide less currency than was needed.
As it stands, this is exactly why I still save GW, arena, and cantina currency. CG cannot be trusted to give us all the information. For all that they don’t want us to hoard, they continually do things that force us to hoard.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are certainly welcome to continue to praise and defend CG, but they never actually tell us much of anything. We have to go by what they’ve done in the past to decide what they will do in the future. You and your buddy Kyno have talked about planning and preparation plenty in this thread, but the only data we had was what CG had been doing. Based on the data available, no one had any reason to think each conquest would provide less currency than was needed.
As it stands, this is exactly why I still save GW, arena, and cantina currency. CG cannot be trusted to give us all the information. For all that they don’t want us to hoard, they continually do things that force us to hoard.
Where did I praise them lol.
And yeah of course you should save all currencies to some level. Anyone who doesn't do so isn't paying attention. But they never said anywhere you wouldn't need to.
The "data available" was one ship that unlocked at 5*. Did you assume all conquest units would be 5* ship unlocks?
Face it, your "data" is an arbitrary made up precedent based on one data point.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are certainly welcome to continue to praise and defend CG, but they never actually tell us much of anything. We have to go by what they’ve done in the past to decide what they will do in the future. You and your buddy Kyno have talked about planning and preparation plenty in this thread, but the only data we had was what CG had been doing. Based on the data available, no one had any reason to think each conquest would provide less currency than was needed.
As it stands, this is exactly why I still save GW, arena, and cantina currency. CG cannot be trusted to give us all the information. For all that they don’t want us to hoard, they continually do things that force us to hoard.
Where did I praise them lol.
And yeah of course you should save all currencies to some level. Anyone who doesn't do so isn't paying attention. But they never said anywhere you wouldn't need to.
The "data available" was one ship that unlocked at 5*. Did you assume all conquest units would be 5* ship unlocks?
Face it, your "data" is an arbitrary made up precedent based on one data point.
I never said that wasn’t my data. I actuality pointed out that it very specifically WAS my data.
So, sure, they never actually said anything about it. Everyone should have known that meant they shouldn’t spend their currency on anything but shards (which is always the right choice anyway).
None of that changes that their messaging was disingenuous. None of that changes that not telling us what the updated cost would be was mean spirited. You cannot convince me otherwise. Unless maybe you want to convince me this is just a Hanlon’s Razor situation, which considering what they just did with Jolee would be super easy to believe.
You guys are worrying about currency cost for CAT shards...you should worry about the other screw-up with CAT...the gear. My guess is they meant for her to require 1000 kyro 😜
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.
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.
It’s not just the cap. As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed. The devs saying they wanted to discourage hoarding, purchasing all shards being only 1500 of 2150 possible currency. I just don’t understand why you keep banging the drum of it’s the player fault for spending to zero. No one has suggested we aren’t responsible for are own choices. We trusted the devs that hoarding wasn’t going to be needed. Whether that amount is 150 or 2000 doesn’t matter. It took four conquests for cg to completely disregard their stated goal of discouraging hoarding cause 150 this month means 500 could be needed for the next character or 1500 so yeah I’m a max hoarder now.
There were ways to control the speed of unlocking a character that discourages hoarding and that was the rc model. Offer only the amount of shards you want to get into the game at a cost that is less than max currency per conquest. Or just don’t say you want to discourage hoarding and I would have continued to play galaxy of hoarding. And yeah I do fully expect this to bite me further in the rear end on 6/9 which is why I’m frustrated with not being able to trust a dev at all ever on any subject.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
What’s the relation between ‘’the cap at 3500’’ and ‘’no need to hoard’’ ?? Of course you needed to hoard, a new toon was coming to conquest. The only thing is that there is a max amount you can hoard in this mode.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are right. We should have our expectations at absolute zero when it comes to CG. It is on me for my decisions. How silly of me to use previous precedent to make decisions. It is quite foolish when thinking about it. I mean, hey... it is CG after all.
This is my first time catching the front wave of a character (just a lowly 3.5 year player), so I missed the Malak fiasco. I just won’t believe what the devs say until I actually see it. Lesson learned.
My final comment. I still think it’s quite possible that they didn’t realize they had priced this beyond max currency for a conquest. It really doesn’t make sense to lower the cost per shard from the 125 on rc to 110 per shard on CAT if you didn’t care about max currency per conquest. Might as well have kept it at 125
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are right. We should have our expectations at absolute zero when it comes to CG. It is on me for my decisions. How silly of me to use previous precedent to make decisions. It is quite foolish when thinking about it. I mean, hey... it is CG after all.
This is my first time catching the front wave of a character (just a lowly 3.5 year player), so I missed the Malak fiasco. I just won’t believe what the devs say until I actually see it. Lesson learned.
A precedent of one time? Yes, that's silly to rely on. Especially when you where never told you could rely on it.
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.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are right. We should have our expectations at absolute zero when it comes to CG. It is on me for my decisions. How silly of me to use previous precedent to make decisions. It is quite foolish when thinking about it. I mean, hey... it is CG after all.
This is my first time catching the front wave of a character (just a lowly 3.5 year player), so I missed the Malak fiasco. I just won’t believe what the devs say until I actually see it. Lesson learned.
A precedent of one time? Yes, that's silly to rely on. Especially when you where never told you could rely on it.
I know. I’m not being disingenuous with that post. Having any faith in the devs is silly. Setting expectations at absolute 0 is the only way to go with CG.
They never told you to do it. There's no "faith" needed, you made the precedent up yourself.
Expectations at zero means what? Never expecting anything. The only expectation is that there are no precedents whatsoever. Could be level 100 around the corner. Could be 8* anytime. R15 could come some day. No expectations.
Replies
Where did they say not to save or "dont have a hoard"?
I see your point there, it seems the whole plan laid out is for CAT, but I can see how there may be confusion there, RC is referenced in point 2.
The cap on Conquest Currency is an implied “don’t hoard” because it blocks the large hoards that other currencies suffer. Implied is a key word, yes, but the implication’s still there. Particularly when currencies without caps (GET 1 and 2) are hoarded without hesitation because of the sheer value in getting Malak or GAS to 7* as fast as possible.
At least, that’s how many people seem to see it.
The current system is amazing and hoarding is the best thing ever. I applaud the devs for creating a wonderful game: Star Wars Galaxy of Hoarding, or Star Wars Galaxy of Poor Communication, or Star Wars Galaxy of Guessing (whichever name you like).
Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It's not a case of "there may be confusion", it's quite literally that the information they gave is wrong. Nowhere does it say that the plan that they laid out is only for CAT. "The 4th Conquest event will also mark some refinements to the Conquest unit cadence and how we plan to address these units in game". "These units" referring to Conquest exclusive units, not CAT specifically.
It's absolutely hilarious to see the obvious double standard that you employ when it comes to things that CG says vs things that players who are critical of CG say. When players say something not quite correct you eagerly get into ridiculous semantical arguments and demand that everything be worded exactly in accordance with strict definitions. But when CG says something quite literally false it's suddenly something like "there may be confusion" or "they didn't literally mean it like that".
Yes the cap is there to literally be a hard limit that doesnt allow a massive hoard. You said:
I didnt recall them saying that. But your response doesnt say what you say they said. Sorry for my confusion on the matter.
Ironic
Paging CG_Doja, Doja, where are you?
He is out of office for a few.
Not sure what Doja has to do with poor player decisions.
I’ll just drop that here again, cause it’s pretty spot on.
CG set the expectation that we earned more than enough currency to buy all shards. They then changed that, and didn’t tell us. It’s not a hard concept, really.
They never said that though. That's what people read into it, and it's 100% on them for doing so.
You are certainly welcome to continue to praise and defend CG, but they never actually tell us much of anything. We have to go by what they’ve done in the past to decide what they will do in the future. You and your buddy Kyno have talked about planning and preparation plenty in this thread, but the only data we had was what CG had been doing. Based on the data available, no one had any reason to think each conquest would provide less currency than was needed.
As it stands, this is exactly why I still save GW, arena, and cantina currency. CG cannot be trusted to give us all the information. For all that they don’t want us to hoard, they continually do things that force us to hoard.
Where did I praise them lol.
And yeah of course you should save all currencies to some level. Anyone who doesn't do so isn't paying attention. But they never said anywhere you wouldn't need to.
The "data available" was one ship that unlocked at 5*. Did you assume all conquest units would be 5* ship unlocks?
Face it, your "data" is an arbitrary made up precedent based on one data point.
I never said that wasn’t my data. I actuality pointed out that it very specifically WAS my data.
So, sure, they never actually said anything about it. Everyone should have known that meant they shouldn’t spend their currency on anything but shards (which is always the right choice anyway).
None of that changes that their messaging was disingenuous. None of that changes that not telling us what the updated cost would be was mean spirited. You cannot convince me otherwise. Unless maybe you want to convince me this is just a Hanlon’s Razor situation, which considering what they just did with Jolee would be super easy to believe.
They said something which some people in this thread insist on misinterpreting.
Avant dox?
It’s not just the cap. As mentioned many times there were many reasons to believe you could spend to zero because there was no hoarding needed. The devs saying they wanted to discourage hoarding, purchasing all shards being only 1500 of 2150 possible currency. I just don’t understand why you keep banging the drum of it’s the player fault for spending to zero. No one has suggested we aren’t responsible for are own choices. We trusted the devs that hoarding wasn’t going to be needed. Whether that amount is 150 or 2000 doesn’t matter. It took four conquests for cg to completely disregard their stated goal of discouraging hoarding cause 150 this month means 500 could be needed for the next character or 1500 so yeah I’m a max hoarder now.
There were ways to control the speed of unlocking a character that discourages hoarding and that was the rc model. Offer only the amount of shards you want to get into the game at a cost that is less than max currency per conquest. Or just don’t say you want to discourage hoarding and I would have continued to play galaxy of hoarding. And yeah I do fully expect this to bite me further in the rear end on 6/9 which is why I’m frustrated with not being able to trust a dev at all ever on any subject.
They said they wanted to discourage hoarding so I agree that the cap didn’t discourage hoarding it caps it. 5 currency or 10k currency the amount of the hoard doesn’t matter the moment you need a hoard then you can’t discourage hoarding, so don’t say you want to discourage hoarding. Cause the moment you need a 5 currency hoard the prudent thing is to hoard as much as you can.
They then followed it up by offering shards for rc at a cost less than the max amount of currency per conquest. I’m just not understanding why believing the devs and being provided a data point that supported the devs statement means it was so obvious you still needed to do the thing the devs said they wanted to discourage.
You are right. We should have our expectations at absolute zero when it comes to CG. It is on me for my decisions. How silly of me to use previous precedent to make decisions. It is quite foolish when thinking about it. I mean, hey... it is CG after all.
This is my first time catching the front wave of a character (just a lowly 3.5 year player), so I missed the Malak fiasco. I just won’t believe what the devs say until I actually see it. Lesson learned.
A precedent of one time? Yes, that's silly to rely on. Especially when you where never told you could rely on it.
I know. I’m not being disingenuous with that post. Having any faith in the devs is silly. Setting expectations at absolute 0 is the only way to go with CG.
Expectations at zero means what? Never expecting anything. The only expectation is that there are no precedents whatsoever. Could be level 100 around the corner. Could be 8* anytime. R15 could come some day. No expectations.