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.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
I have never recommending anything but hoarding. That is besides the point. The only data we had told us you didn't need to hoard this currency.
also, there are times where some just post to ask questions about why someone would do X, but because that isn't in support of the current "pitchfork" it is seen as defending, and to add to that, questioning statements that do not say what someone says, is also defending..... so people dont always keep defending things, but at times are told they are, even unrelated things to specific comments they make.
Sure, but you are actively defending their decision and their wording. You are of course welcome to do so, and you always do. That doesn't mean the people that acknowledge that CG did this in as shady a way as possible are not free to actively point that out.
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.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
The only data we had told us you didn't need to hoard this currency.
I would consider this data to the contrary:
The 4th Conquest event will also mark some refinements to the Conquest unit cadence and how we plan to address these units in game.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
Why do you say that there is no real reason to hoard GET? Are they not going to add anything to the store anymore? No more Epic Confrontation characters or ships etc.?
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
Why do you say that there is no real reason to hoard GET? Are they not going to add anything to the store anymore? No more Epic Confrontation characters or ships etc.?
those are the just in case scenarios. a real reason would be an announcement that something is coming, which makes it "real". (not that I dont also hoard a base load, just in case)
at this point, I honestly suspect they will avoid those stores due to the floating average of currency there.
personal thoughts on this: Conquest is the "new method" for releasing toons built on the knowledge of how the players "fight" against the pace of release. this new mode allows them to use it repeatedly and still keep the average pace they are trying to achieve. The "alternative" is something along the lines of making a new release method or currency (ex: GET2) to actively prevent hoarding by starting something new so everyone is "at 0".
edit to add: they could also increase the price each time, but this hurts players who dont hoard even more, causing a bad feel or even a higher level of hoarding...
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.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
The only data we had told us you didn't need to hoard this currency.
I would consider this data to the contrary:
The 4th Conquest event will also mark some refinements to the Conquest unit cadence and how we plan to address these units in game.
no?
No, I wouldn't. The data they gave was quite detailed, and left out the cost, so we were left to believe that we would continue to earn more currency than we needed.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
Why do you say that there is no real reason to hoard GET? Are they not going to add anything to the store anymore? No more Epic Confrontation characters or ships etc.?
personal thoughts on this: Conquest is the "new method" for releasing toons built on the knowledge of how the players "fight" against the pace of release. this new mode allows them to use it repeatedly and still keep the average pace they are trying to achieve.
This is kind of the key here.
Whatever “hoard” anyone had going into this conquest will eventually run out. This is a long term strategy. Even those who came in with 3500/3500 will eventually run short during a Conquest event and have to make the choice.
The advantage of that hoard is only a temporary one. Over the long term we will all be on the pace that they intended.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
Why do you say that there is no real reason to hoard GET? Are they not going to add anything to the store anymore? No more Epic Confrontation characters or ships etc.?
personal thoughts on this: Conquest is the "new method" for releasing toons built on the knowledge of how the players "fight" against the pace of release. this new mode allows them to use it repeatedly and still keep the average pace they are trying to achieve.
This is kind of the key here.
Whatever “hoard” anyone had going into this conquest will eventually run out. This is a long term strategy. Even those who came in with 3500/3500 will eventually run short during a Conquest event and have to make the choice.
The advantage of that hoard is only a temporary one. Over the long term we will all be on the pace that they intended.
What are you talking about? We are already at the pace they intended (a.k.a. Wandering Scavangers + Reward Crates) and you will eventually miss out on some shards since you will run out of currency unless something changes.
They've capped the currency and the number of shards we can buy. One of those things was enough to prevent people from hoarding. They didn't have to do both.
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.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
The only data we had told us you didn't need to hoard this currency.
I would consider this data to the contrary:
The 4th Conquest event will also mark some refinements to the Conquest unit cadence and how we plan to address these units in game.
no?
No, I wouldn't. The data they gave was quite detailed, and left out the cost, so we were left to believe that we would continue to earn more currency than we needed.
ok fair enough, but RC wasn't released on the outlined system, you couldn't 7* it in 3 conquest. so while i agree it was detailed, I dont see the basis for believing the cost would be the same.
that would be another way to control the pace of a character release, sure. but that does nothing for hoarding. look at GET 1&2, you can only buy the shards at a set pace (without refreshing), but saving a hoard allows you to do that at "a maximum pace" vs just buying them when an event finishes and you have enough currency.
what you are saying is a different release method, not a change to the practice of hoarding. which is a good idea. I know they dont want to design around hoarding, but it does allow players to have some choice in the pace they want to try and pursue, your method, doesn't and that may not really be great for everyone.
GET store refreshes every 6 hours and can be refreshed with crystals. Wandering Scavengers refresh only once a month. I don't think it's really fair to even compare the two.
If we didn't end up with negative currency by buying CAT shards there would be no real reason to hoard the currency.
There is no real reason to hoard GET, but players do it, just in case.
it is an interesting idea, but doesn't prevent hoarding like a hard cap does.
Why do you say that there is no real reason to hoard GET? Are they not going to add anything to the store anymore? No more Epic Confrontation characters or ships etc.?
personal thoughts on this: Conquest is the "new method" for releasing toons built on the knowledge of how the players "fight" against the pace of release. this new mode allows them to use it repeatedly and still keep the average pace they are trying to achieve.
This is kind of the key here.
Whatever “hoard” anyone had going into this conquest will eventually run out. This is a long term strategy. Even those who came in with 3500/3500 will eventually run short during a Conquest event and have to make the choice.
The advantage of that hoard is only a temporary one. Over the long term we will all be on the pace that they intended.
yes, depending on the long term rinse and repeat (how often they add new toons) there may be highs and lows, but I would bet that 0 can be avoided and keep pace with toon release, if managed.
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.
Can you please share a quote or a time stamp for where they said they wanted to discourage hoarding?
They said "massive hoarding", which the cap does put a hard limit on that, but they didnt say what people are saying. Unless I missed it.
Q: Why is the game designed around hoarding resources?
A: CG_Miller - This is kind of a backwards way to think of this, but I can understand the perspective. We try to make the game engaging for all players for the time they are playing the game. This will sometimes mean that goals involve a high number of resources that we would expect a player to spend time farming. The unfortunate side effect to this is that players who were not spending those resources previously will see themselves as having a leg up compared to the other players. So in short, our goal is not to design around hoarding resources, but for those resources to be acquired and consumed over time.
Their stated goal is to not design around hoarding, however, we all play this game and know differently.
Correct, and a hard limit definitely helps limit what a player can do, but still doesnt tell players to not do it.
They quite literally designed a release that required hoarding to get on the "first run" (in quotes because it's not really a first run, just earliest time possible). That goes directly against their stated intentions. So, why would anyone have been expected to know to hoard for this when they said very specifically that we shouldn't have to do that?
TBF, I wouldn't consider 150 currency "hoarding". In a new game mode where we knew things are still being worked out, taking a more cautious approach to spending seemed prudent. but I am not blaming anyone for the choices they made, just to be clear.
players never have had to do that. players choose to do that, nothing has been designed around hoarding, players still do that. why would players " all of a sudden" no think this was a good idea, when it has been one of the core tenets of player action since before and after that QA?
Amount doesn't really matter. If you didn't hoard that very small amount, you have no possibility of getting CAT at the earliest possible time. This means they designed a release that required hoarding, contrary to their own stated intentions.
I don't really know why you keep defending these kinds of things. How hard would it have been for them to give us the cost up front? Or tell us that we better hoard those tokens or we won't get CAT after 3 Conquests as they said we would?
And there are so many players that don't hoard because they don't enjoy it. Which is why I assume CG used to not design release around the need to hoard. Since Carrie left it seems they care less and less about their players.
fair enough.
I have never seen anyone recommend spending to 0 as a good plan, and more often then not the players who have more fun by not hoarding, tend to not have more fun "the whole time". prudent resource management is highly recommended most, if not all the time, regardless of that statement.
The only data we had told us you didn't need to hoard this currency.
I would consider this data to the contrary:
The 4th Conquest event will also mark some refinements to the Conquest unit cadence and how we plan to address these units in game.
no?
No, I wouldn't. The data they gave was quite detailed, and left out the cost, so we were left to believe that we would continue to earn more currency than we needed.
ok fair enough, but RC wasn't released on the outlined system, you couldn't 7* it in 3 conquest. so while i agree it was detailed, I dont see the basis for believing the cost would be the same.
And that is also fair, however it allows CG to alter the currency prices at any time in any way in the future without giving clear communication on said changes. This is not a great precedent imo. It only further “pushes” the players into a hoard mentality because we will be trying to stay ahead of the changes CG pushes out in this mode (and all other modes for that matter). For CAT it was 150 built up currency (in all fairness, not a lot), what will it be for the next release? Don’t know.
If you want to be prepared, you should probably hoard from here on out no matter the stated dev’s design intentions quoted above.
Given that this thread is up to 10 pages, I think that CG could pull a nice move for the community by gifting everyone 150 conquest credits and say something like
"Our communication about the unlock of CAT could be interpreted differently than we intended, so here are 150 conquest credits to help you along your way"
Solves the unlock issue for those that didn't have 150 credits, gives the community a little gift (the equivalent of 10 Mk 12 ArmaTek Furnaces, so no biggie), and shows that they are listening...its a win-win. Just my two cents.
agree, and has been communicated to the team, currently Crumb and Doja are out of the office, but I believe they have some announcement in the works....
Replies
I have never recommending anything but hoarding. That is besides the point. The only data we had told us you didn't need to hoard this currency.
Sure, but you are actively defending their decision and their wording. You are of course welcome to do so, and you always do. That doesn't mean the people that acknowledge that CG did this in as shady a way as possible are not free to actively point that out.
I would consider this data to the contrary:
no?
Why do you say that there is no real reason to hoard GET? Are they not going to add anything to the store anymore? No more Epic Confrontation characters or ships etc.?
those are the just in case scenarios. a real reason would be an announcement that something is coming, which makes it "real". (not that I dont also hoard a base load, just in case)
at this point, I honestly suspect they will avoid those stores due to the floating average of currency there.
personal thoughts on this: Conquest is the "new method" for releasing toons built on the knowledge of how the players "fight" against the pace of release. this new mode allows them to use it repeatedly and still keep the average pace they are trying to achieve. The "alternative" is something along the lines of making a new release method or currency (ex: GET2) to actively prevent hoarding by starting something new so everyone is "at 0".
edit to add: they could also increase the price each time, but this hurts players who dont hoard even more, causing a bad feel or even a higher level of hoarding...
No, I wouldn't. The data they gave was quite detailed, and left out the cost, so we were left to believe that we would continue to earn more currency than we needed.
This is kind of the key here.
Whatever “hoard” anyone had going into this conquest will eventually run out. This is a long term strategy. Even those who came in with 3500/3500 will eventually run short during a Conquest event and have to make the choice.
The advantage of that hoard is only a temporary one. Over the long term we will all be on the pace that they intended.
Yes! (hopefully). I'm excited by the possibility of a WAT pack
What are you talking about? We are already at the pace they intended (a.k.a. Wandering Scavangers + Reward Crates) and you will eventually miss out on some shards since you will run out of currency unless something changes.
They've capped the currency and the number of shards we can buy. One of those things was enough to prevent people from hoarding. They didn't have to do both.
ok fair enough, but RC wasn't released on the outlined system, you couldn't 7* it in 3 conquest. so while i agree it was detailed, I dont see the basis for believing the cost would be the same.
yes, depending on the long term rinse and repeat (how often they add new toons) there may be highs and lows, but I would bet that 0 can be avoided and keep pace with toon release, if managed.
And that is also fair, however it allows CG to alter the currency prices at any time in any way in the future without giving clear communication on said changes. This is not a great precedent imo. It only further “pushes” the players into a hoard mentality because we will be trying to stay ahead of the changes CG pushes out in this mode (and all other modes for that matter). For CAT it was 150 built up currency (in all fairness, not a lot), what will it be for the next release? Don’t know.
If you want to be prepared, you should probably hoard from here on out no matter the stated dev’s design intentions quoted above.
agree, and has been communicated to the team, currently Crumb and Doja are out of the office, but I believe they have some announcement in the works....