Cantina credit rewards - it all adds up
May 9, 2016 5:45AM
edited May 2016
So we all feel the pain of the credit crunch. Availability of credits informs pretty much every decision we have to make as a player. So when the usual increase in rewards as the difficulty gets tougher is reduced, we feel the pain even more.
Let's look at cantina credit rewards, for an example. For doing a level 1 cantina node, you are rewarded with 1,000 credits, So, per 120 energy spent, you'd earn 15,000 credits. The rewards cuve looks like this:
1. 15,000 per 120 energy (8 energy per node)
2. 22,500
3. 30,000 (10 per node)
4. 36,000
5. 45,000 (12 per node)
6. 50,000
7. 52,500 (16 per node)
Up until the release of the level 7 nodes, every time there was an increase in the energy required per node, the reward per 120 cantina energy spent jumped by 15,000 (1 ->3, 3 ->5). This time, that rate has been halved. If it had followed on the same trend, the reward would be 8,000 credits per node at level 7, netting 60,000 credits per 120 energy spent, instead of the 52,500 it provides now.
That 7,500 credits may not seem like a huge difference - but think about it. If you're doing a 100 and 200 crystal refresh per day, now the difference is 22,500 credits per day. 157,500 per week. About 675,000 credits per 30 days. This is credit death by a thousand cuts.
You could argue that the release of raids opens another revenue stream for players in credit raid rewards - but the amount of spending players have to do to get their squads raid-ready outpaces these rewards by a large margin.
TL-DR version: Up the level 7 cantina credit rewards to 8,000 per node. Stay consistent with the pattern you'd already established. Stop making it even tougher proportionally to earn credits.
Let's look at cantina credit rewards, for an example. For doing a level 1 cantina node, you are rewarded with 1,000 credits, So, per 120 energy spent, you'd earn 15,000 credits. The rewards cuve looks like this:
1. 15,000 per 120 energy (8 energy per node)
2. 22,500
3. 30,000 (10 per node)
4. 36,000
5. 45,000 (12 per node)
6. 50,000
7. 52,500 (16 per node)
Up until the release of the level 7 nodes, every time there was an increase in the energy required per node, the reward per 120 cantina energy spent jumped by 15,000 (1 ->3, 3 ->5). This time, that rate has been halved. If it had followed on the same trend, the reward would be 8,000 credits per node at level 7, netting 60,000 credits per 120 energy spent, instead of the 52,500 it provides now.
That 7,500 credits may not seem like a huge difference - but think about it. If you're doing a 100 and 200 crystal refresh per day, now the difference is 22,500 credits per day. 157,500 per week. About 675,000 credits per 30 days. This is credit death by a thousand cuts.
You could argue that the release of raids opens another revenue stream for players in credit raid rewards - but the amount of spending players have to do to get their squads raid-ready outpaces these rewards by a large margin.
TL-DR version: Up the level 7 cantina credit rewards to 8,000 per node. Stay consistent with the pattern you'd already established. Stop making it even tougher proportionally to earn credits.
0
- 61.3K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.6K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.2K Guild Recruitment
- 733 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
Should've been 14 energy with current credit amount and it would equal 60k -> 15k increase. They just upped the energy for 2 more. Just to slow us further down as if it was needed.
Now that theyve lowered the linear rise by 50% there and gw and challenge are the same it is slowly getting to my credit bank as i just cant get more anywhere( even the raise in credit pack wasnt even close enough, would need 1,2 mil the least with that cost)
I propose that they will raise it to same progressive rate as leveling costs or bring down crystal per credit ratio a big time.
+1
Thoughts?
No I think 7 is still better, it's just not as much better as 6 than 6 was to 5