Many traded in a 6* class gem but got the same class back. Why wasn't that class excluded from the RNG like the T4C trade in crystal in the Special tab?
If this happened to anyone, can you remove it from their accounts and send us another 6* AG crystal with that class withdrawn? I'm sure can be done.
Send anyone who got a duplicate gem a token with the option to switch. If they accept the token Kabam removes their gem and gives them another AG crystal. This would go a long way.
What? Why? If your request is to include an exclusive crystal next time, it makes sense. But crystal that excludes one class even for catalysts, require two of that item. Why would any one trade 2 6* class gems for 1?
It was never advertised as a different class gem so why should they send you another just because you didnt get the class you wanted?
It's a 1-1 trade in. 1 6* class for 1 random crystal. It just makes sense not include the same class you traded in.
Actually it does not. You're spending something and getting something of greater value through zero effort.
No one's saying it's not greater value, but it shouldn't be a recycling gem either. No one trades in to get the same stuff back.
I didn't open my first gem to get a class I didn't want but that's what it gives. Nothing to do there. Rng
To be fair, given the rarity of the Gems, I was scratching my head on that one as well. It would have been reasonable to remove the one you sacrificed.
What sacrifice? If you got the same gem that means it was a net zero trade.
The point of trading a Gem is to get one of five different outcomes. That's not a trade, it's a rebound.
The point of trading a gem is essentially a reroll. Nothing else. If there was tech to reroll that would have been done
Disagree. You're still using the element of RNG, and the Crystals are limited. Have you ever rolled 30 or 40 T4CCs to get one Class? I have. Not pleasant. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because rolling the same one you traded is obsolete.
You think that the re rolling of a gem for free is bad? Yet you are so onboard with the ridiculousness of the 5 generics for a 6 star gem. You are ridiculous
Why are people rerolling? Why would they sit on a Gem as valuable as a 6* to begin with? Why are people even trading Gens for a 6*? THEY AREN'T USING THEM. By all means, if people suggested limiting the number of rerolls so you don't just roll what you want, great. At the very least, remove the one you're trading. That much is logical. Not sure why people think that's sane.
“Rules aren't arbitrary. They're used to ensure what's fair, as well as what's most protective for the design of The Contest. They're not just blindly made to the tastes of the Devs. The health of the game, the homeostasis and balance, the overall fairness towards the Players and the Event in question, all of these things go into making them. While there are times they can bend things to meet the expectations of Players, those situations still hinge on a number of other factors. I find it somewhat limited to consider they can just do whatever they want. There's more to it than that.”
I’m just a little curious as to why this is applicable to the devs decision to make the 5* generic trade-in the way it is (which you disagree with changing), but it isn’t applicable to the re-roll (which you agree with changing).
No accusations here, but it seems like it’s one approach to the situation you disagree with, and another for the one you agree with.
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
Imagine pulling a Groot and then a prompt asks you if you want to reroll . You lose the Groot but you can possibly get him again. No loss only gains. With the risk that you get something worse . Same situation with the store
Many traded in a 6* class gem but got the same class back. Why wasn't that class excluded from the RNG like the T4C trade in crystal in the Special tab?
If this happened to anyone, can you remove it from their accounts and send us another 6* AG crystal with that class withdrawn? I'm sure can be done.
Send anyone who got a duplicate gem a token with the option to switch. If they accept the token Kabam removes their gem and gives them another AG crystal. This would go a long way.
What? Why? If your request is to include an exclusive crystal next time, it makes sense. But crystal that excludes one class even for catalysts, require two of that item. Why would any one trade 2 6* class gems for 1?
It was never advertised as a different class gem so why should they send you another just because you didnt get the class you wanted?
It's a 1-1 trade in. 1 6* class for 1 random crystal. It just makes sense not include the same class you traded in.
Actually it does not. You're spending something and getting something of greater value through zero effort.
No one's saying it's not greater value, but it shouldn't be a recycling gem either. No one trades in to get the same stuff back.
I didn't open my first gem to get a class I didn't want but that's what it gives. Nothing to do there. Rng
To be fair, given the rarity of the Gems, I was scratching my head on that one as well. It would have been reasonable to remove the one you sacrificed.
What sacrifice? If you got the same gem that means it was a net zero trade.
The point of trading a Gem is to get one of five different outcomes. That's not a trade, it's a rebound.
The point of trading a gem is essentially a reroll. Nothing else. If there was tech to reroll that would have been done
Disagree. You're still using the element of RNG, and the Crystals are limited. Have you ever rolled 30 or 40 T4CCs to get one Class? I have. Not pleasant. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because rolling the same one you traded is obsolete.
You think that the re rolling of a gem for free is bad? Yet you are so onboard with the ridiculousness of the 5 generics for a 6 star gem. You are ridiculous
Why are people rerolling? Why would they sit on a Gem as valuable as a 6* to begin with? Why are people even trading Gens for a 6*? THEY AREN'T USING THEM. By all means, if people suggested limiting the number of rerolls so you don't just roll what you want, great. At the very least, remove the one you're trading. That much is logical. Not sure why people think that's sane.
I sat on a 6* Mystic AG for almost a year because I didn`t think it was a good use to awaken Dr Strange, Iron Fist, America Chavez or Purgatory...... I re-rolled because I have an unduped Aegon, Guardian, Fury, Falcon, Magneto, I Abom, Kingpin, Venompool, King Groot, Cable, Ultron, Mr Fantastic, Thor Ragnarok, Void... any one of which I would have use a gem on if I got that class.
Your logic is "Well I got this 6* Mystic Gem and these 2 bad options to use it on..... Time to flip a coin!!"
I held it as long as possible in hopes of getting a 6* Mystic worth the use, but this trade in was my hope of getting any one of the other 5 classes where I could justify using it on a great champ right away
I think its distasteful to be talking about the Rng of trading a 6* AG for a different class in front of people that couldnt get the 6* AG... U guys should discuss that in one of the many other posts about it or start a new one ..
Many traded in a 6* class gem but got the same class back. Why wasn't that class excluded from the RNG like the T4C trade in crystal in the Special tab?
If this happened to anyone, can you remove it from their accounts and send us another 6* AG crystal with that class withdrawn? I'm sure can be done.
Send anyone who got a duplicate gem a token with the option to switch. If they accept the token Kabam removes their gem and gives them another AG crystal. This would go a long way.
What? Why? If your request is to include an exclusive crystal next time, it makes sense. But crystal that excludes one class even for catalysts, require two of that item. Why would any one trade 2 6* class gems for 1?
It was never advertised as a different class gem so why should they send you another just because you didnt get the class you wanted?
It's a 1-1 trade in. 1 6* class for 1 random crystal. It just makes sense not include the same class you traded in.
Actually it does not. You're spending something and getting something of greater value through zero effort.
No one's saying it's not greater value, but it shouldn't be a recycling gem either. No one trades in to get the same stuff back.
I didn't open my first gem to get a class I didn't want but that's what it gives. Nothing to do there. Rng
To be fair, given the rarity of the Gems, I was scratching my head on that one as well. It would have been reasonable to remove the one you sacrificed.
What sacrifice? If you got the same gem that means it was a net zero trade.
The point of trading a Gem is to get one of five different outcomes. That's not a trade, it's a rebound.
The point of trading a gem is essentially a reroll. Nothing else. If there was tech to reroll that would have been done
Disagree. You're still using the element of RNG, and the Crystals are limited. Have you ever rolled 30 or 40 T4CCs to get one Class? I have. Not pleasant. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because rolling the same one you traded is obsolete.
You think that the re rolling of a gem for free is bad? Yet you are so onboard with the ridiculousness of the 5 generics for a 6 star gem. You are ridiculous
Why are people rerolling? Why would they sit on a Gem as valuable as a 6* to begin with? Why are people even trading Gens for a 6*? THEY AREN'T USING THEM. By all means, if people suggested limiting the number of rerolls so you don't just roll what you want, great. At the very least, remove the one you're trading. That much is logical. Not sure why people think that's sane.
“Rules aren't arbitrary. They're used to ensure what's fair, as well as what's most protective for the design of The Contest. They're not just blindly made to the tastes of the Devs. The health of the game, the homeostasis and balance, the overall fairness towards the Players and the Event in question, all of these things go into making them. While there are times they can bend things to meet the expectations of Players, those situations still hinge on a number of other factors. I find it somewhat limited to consider they can just do whatever they want. There's more to it than that.”
I’m just a little curious as to why this is applicable to the devs decision to make the 5* generic trade-in the way it is (which you disagree with changing), but it isn’t applicable to the re-roll (which you agree with changing).
No accusations here, but it seems like it’s one approach to the situation you disagree with, and another for the one you agree with.
No shade to you GW (since everyone is always like that) ,but most of the time you are in favour of changing and removing and complaining about things that affect you personally but whenever someone else has an issue you shut it down by saying how that is intended and carefully crafted by the devs for balance and stuff. Or how it is fine just the way it is
To be fair to GW here, this situation doesn’t actually affect him (as earlier in the thread he did say that he didn’t have enough for the 6* gem). So I don’t think it’s a matter of affecting, I think it’s more what GW thinks is right and wrong in regards to this store. My question is just about the rationale behind saying the rules can’t be changed in one situation but they can in the other.
Many traded in a 6* class gem but got the same class back. Why wasn't that class excluded from the RNG like the T4C trade in crystal in the Special tab?
If this happened to anyone, can you remove it from their accounts and send us another 6* AG crystal with that class withdrawn? I'm sure can be done.
Send anyone who got a duplicate gem a token with the option to switch. If they accept the token Kabam removes their gem and gives them another AG crystal. This would go a long way.
What? Why? If your request is to include an exclusive crystal next time, it makes sense. But crystal that excludes one class even for catalysts, require two of that item. Why would any one trade 2 6* class gems for 1?
It was never advertised as a different class gem so why should they send you another just because you didnt get the class you wanted?
It's a 1-1 trade in. 1 6* class for 1 random crystal. It just makes sense not include the same class you traded in.
Actually it does not. You're spending something and getting something of greater value through zero effort.
No one's saying it's not greater value, but it shouldn't be a recycling gem either. No one trades in to get the same stuff back.
I didn't open my first gem to get a class I didn't want but that's what it gives. Nothing to do there. Rng
To be fair, given the rarity of the Gems, I was scratching my head on that one as well. It would have been reasonable to remove the one you sacrificed.
What sacrifice? If you got the same gem that means it was a net zero trade.
The point of trading a Gem is to get one of five different outcomes. That's not a trade, it's a rebound.
The point of trading a gem is essentially a reroll. Nothing else. If there was tech to reroll that would have been done
Disagree. You're still using the element of RNG, and the Crystals are limited. Have you ever rolled 30 or 40 T4CCs to get one Class? I have. Not pleasant. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because rolling the same one you traded is obsolete.
You think that the re rolling of a gem for free is bad? Yet you are so onboard with the ridiculousness of the 5 generics for a 6 star gem. You are ridiculous
Why are people rerolling? Why would they sit on a Gem as valuable as a 6* to begin with? Why are people even trading Gens for a 6*? THEY AREN'T USING THEM. By all means, if people suggested limiting the number of rerolls so you don't just roll what you want, great. At the very least, remove the one you're trading. That much is logical. Not sure why people think that's sane.
“Rules aren't arbitrary. They're used to ensure what's fair, as well as what's most protective for the design of The Contest. They're not just blindly made to the tastes of the Devs. The health of the game, the homeostasis and balance, the overall fairness towards the Players and the Event in question, all of these things go into making them. While there are times they can bend things to meet the expectations of Players, those situations still hinge on a number of other factors. I find it somewhat limited to consider they can just do whatever they want. There's more to it than that.”
I’m just a little curious as to why this is applicable to the devs decision to make the 5* generic trade-in the way it is (which you disagree with changing), but it isn’t applicable to the re-roll (which you agree with changing).
No accusations here, but it seems like it’s one approach to the situation you disagree with, and another for the one you agree with.
I never said I was against them changing the cost. I said it wasn't likely. They're also two different situations. When you're talking about a chance to reroll something as valuable as a 6* Gem, even if you limit it to one Crystal chance, that's at least another roll. You may end up with a Class you don't want, but that's still RNG. You're not rolling to get the same thing back. What I said was, the cost of the 6* Gem is for a very specific Player, one that has what they need or is very close to it. I never said I was against them changing it. I said I understand the logic. All I said was I don't see it happening. Which I seem to have been correct thus far.
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
Obviously there are people who can do it. But just like everything else, they've decided to go this route for whatever reason. Maybe becuase there is primarily no need for it because they can just do what they're doing now instead. It's not worth doing the whole for just 1 time event when you can do it with existing mechanics with zero difference in result other than people calling it a scam
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
Imagine pulling a Groot and then a prompt asks you if you want to reroll . You lose the Groot but you can possibly get him again. No loss only gains. With the risk that you get something worse . Same situation with the store
I mean there's people who work there who could code that in though right? Like people who...make code? I understand the overall concept of what rng, reroll, trading etc as an educated adult human, but call me crazy it doesn't seem like an impassable barrier for someone who's job is to literally construct the content of the game?
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
It's been done before. T4 Trade-Ins.
Rerolls? Never seen them. Got a grab?
You're talking about the code for rerolling without the outcome you're trading, and it's been done before. For the record, I'm not asking they change the Store now. I'm debating the logistics of the subject.
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
It's been done before. T4 Trade-Ins.
Rerolls? Never seen them. Got a grab?
You're talking about the code for rerolling without the outcome you're trading, and it's been done before. For the record, I'm not asking they change the Store now. I'm debating the logistics of the subject.
It's literally a reroll, for a price, with no chance of getting the one you didn't want. I mean......if you're going to argue semantics and code, at least make sure the argument is solid.
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
Could they not change the "crystal engine?" Obviously hypothetically.
In theory, yes. In practical terms, this is a lot more difficult than you might think. Think of the game itself as data that sits in the game engine. The best analogy I can think of is think about an Excel workbook in Excel the software. When we make spreadsheets, we make formulas and put data here and there, and sometimes even things like scripts. It can all look like we're "programming" the spreadsheet, but we're really just designing it within the actual program. The actual code is all entirely under the hood.
Now, suppose there's a specific thing that just doesn't work right in one of your spreadsheets. In theory, you could just change the code of Excel to make that thing work, or ask Microsoft to do that. In practice, that's never done. Excel does change over time, but not in response to one person's spreadsheet. New features are added and sometimes old features are modified, but only in a very holistic and global way. No one thinks about hacking Excel to do one thing in one place differently, because even if you could, actually doing that would very quickly make a mess out of Excel.
Same applies here. The crystal designers have no visibility into how the game spins crystals. It just does, just like the SUM() formula just works in Excel. The actual programmers who have the power to alter the code of the game aren't going to do so just for one crystal, because that would add a lot of weird and eventually buggy behaviors to the game engine. Nor can they do that arbitrarily even if they wanted to, because if they change the code of the game to make crystals work differently, they could break all the data in the game that currently defines crystals. It would be like if Microsoft changed the SUM() function in Excel to work in a way they thought was better, but then broke a billion spreadsheets in the world as a result.
It's literally a reroll, for a price, with no chance of getting the one you didn't want. I mean......if you're going to argue semantics and code, at least make sure the argument is solid.
If we're arguing semantics you are completely in the wrong. His argument is solid, yours is not. Not sure how you can justify being right in your own head.
He's arguing we don't have the tech to do it. I disagreed and proved him wrong. You think it's unsurmountable to make the value of a single trade-in 1 Gem rather than two and allow the outcome to be void of the trade-in? Please.
I'm just expressing an opinion. Not expecting them to implement anything. It would have made logical sense to me to have a system that removed the Class you traded. People are free to agree or disagree, but saying it's not a possibility because they don't have the tech is just plain wrong.
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
Inside ball:
That would require code to perform the reroll function. It would require UI changes to implement the controls for the reroll button. It would require database schema changes to add the flags that would determine which crystals were allowed to be rerolled. It would require toolchain changes to give designers the ability to flip the flag to allow the designated crystals to be rerolled. And because you cannot control a feature like this once you add it to the game mechanics, you also have to add all the base stuff you would need if this feature was used in the general case rather than just in the trade in store itself - data mining tools and dashboards to track the usage of the feature, and modifications to the resource monitoring engines to account for rerolls (to distinguish between rolls adding resources to the game economy and rerolls which swap one resource for another, to prevent double counting). Otherwise it would be a landmine waiting to detonate under some poor designer's feet when they stumbled across this feature a year from now.
At this point you're dealing with a feature that touches the engine, the meta engine, the UI, the game economy, the data analytics, and the game client, and that means you probably have to allocate a producer slot to manage all of this and coordinate the time involved (you can't just make half these changes and not the other half without things in the game getting wonky, so if you can't allocate all the dev time simultaneously you'd have to implement in phases, keeping certain featured dormant until they could be safely activated). There's also game client testing (what happens if a game client that has not yet been updated to have the reroll code attempts to spin a crystal after rerolls are enabled?).
Unfortunately, that's the scope of work that can happen when you try to add a button.
Thank you Kabam for even providing the trade in store. Although not everyone can get lucky this time around, please consider bringing back something similar in the future.
It's understandable why there's a limited number of chances for a 6* AG reroll. (The store wasn't intended to allow unlimited limit, which would give way to 100% of players with 6* AG to turn it to whatever class they'd like).
This thread has been pointing out how the pricing of 5 5* generic AGs for 1 6* AG crystal, probably is too pricy for most players, especially with the limit on trading 4* generic AGs for 5* AG crystal.
It's pricy to the point that there are players who are sitting on 15+ 5* AG who are 1 5* generic AG away from trading for a 6* AG crystal.
Ok I see, so like if they had coded that in when they coded in the reroll.
There is no code for reroll so this is the next best thing with literally the same result as a reroll.
There is no code that's specific to any particular crystal. Crystal contents are governed by a general crystal opening system that uses reward tables. Every crystal is defined by a table of results and the weighted percentage chance for that result to drop. It is not possible for an AG trade in to programmatically exclude the AG class used to buy it, because the rewards are essentially baked into the crystal when it is defined. Instead, Kabam would have to make six different AG crystals, each one excluding a single class.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
I get that. I was talking about a reroll function on the crystal reward screen itlsef. Eliminate the resource dropped , and spin a crysta again(awakening gem crystal in this instance)
Inside ball:
That would require code to perform the reroll function. It would require UI changes to implement the controls for the reroll button. It would require database schema changes to add the flags that would determine which crystals were allowed to be rerolled. It would require toolchain changes to give designers the ability to flip the flag to allow the designated crystals to be rerolled. And because you cannot control a feature like this once you add it to the game mechanics, you also have to add all the base stuff you would need if this feature was used in the general case rather than just in the trade in store itself - data mining tools and dashboards to track the usage of the feature, and modifications to the resource monitoring engines to account for rerolls (to distinguish between rolls adding resources to the game economy and rerolls which swap one resource for another, to prevent double counting). Otherwise it would be a landmine waiting to detonate under some poor designer's feet when they stumbled across this feature a year from now.
At this point you're dealing with a feature that touches the engine, the meta engine, the UI, the game economy, the data analytics, and the game client, and that means you probably have to allocate a producer slot to manage all of this and coordinate the time involved (you can't just make half these changes and not the other half without things in the game getting wonky, so if you can't allocate all the dev time simultaneously you'd have to implement in phases, keeping certain featured dormant until they could be safely activated). There's also game client testing (what happens if a game client that has not yet been updated to have the reroll code attempts to spin a crystal after rerolls are enabled?).
Unfortunately, that's the scope of work that can happen when you try to add a button.
Comments
I’m just a little curious as to why this is applicable to the devs decision to make the 5* generic trade-in the way it is (which you disagree with changing), but it isn’t applicable to the re-roll (which you agree with changing).
No accusations here, but it seems like it’s one approach to the situation you disagree with, and another for the one you agree with.
Imagine pulling a Groot and then a prompt asks you if you want to reroll . You lose the Groot but you can possibly get him again. No loss only gains. With the risk that you get something worse . Same situation with the store
Your logic is "Well I got this 6* Mystic Gem and these 2 bad options to use it on..... Time to flip a coin!!"
I held it as long as possible in hopes of getting a 6* Mystic worth the use, but this trade in was my hope of getting any one of the other 5 classes where I could justify using it on a great champ right away
What I said was, the cost of the 6* Gem is for a very specific Player, one that has what they need or is very close to it. I never said I was against them changing it. I said I understand the logic. All I said was I don't see it happening. Which I seem to have been correct thus far.
They could make six new crystals in theory, but new crystal definitions do not appear to come "for free" because a relatively small number of them can have significant impacts on the performance of the entire game, which is why they do periodic crystal clean ups and why they seem reluctant to create large numbers of crystals to work around issues like this.
Obviously there are people who can do it. But just like everything else, they've decided to go this route for whatever reason. Maybe becuase there is primarily no need for it because they can just do what they're doing now instead. It's not worth doing the whole for just 1 time event when you can do it with existing mechanics with zero difference in result other than people calling it a scam
For the record, I'm not asking they change the Store now. I'm debating the logistics of the subject.
Featured Items. Always present.
Now, suppose there's a specific thing that just doesn't work right in one of your spreadsheets. In theory, you could just change the code of Excel to make that thing work, or ask Microsoft to do that. In practice, that's never done. Excel does change over time, but not in response to one person's spreadsheet. New features are added and sometimes old features are modified, but only in a very holistic and global way. No one thinks about hacking Excel to do one thing in one place differently, because even if you could, actually doing that would very quickly make a mess out of Excel.
Same applies here. The crystal designers have no visibility into how the game spins crystals. It just does, just like the SUM() formula just works in Excel. The actual programmers who have the power to alter the code of the game aren't going to do so just for one crystal, because that would add a lot of weird and eventually buggy behaviors to the game engine. Nor can they do that arbitrarily even if they wanted to, because if they change the code of the game to make crystals work differently, they could break all the data in the game that currently defines crystals. It would be like if Microsoft changed the SUM() function in Excel to work in a way they thought was better, but then broke a billion spreadsheets in the world as a result.
That would require code to perform the reroll function. It would require UI changes to implement the controls for the reroll button. It would require database schema changes to add the flags that would determine which crystals were allowed to be rerolled. It would require toolchain changes to give designers the ability to flip the flag to allow the designated crystals to be rerolled. And because you cannot control a feature like this once you add it to the game mechanics, you also have to add all the base stuff you would need if this feature was used in the general case rather than just in the trade in store itself - data mining tools and dashboards to track the usage of the feature, and modifications to the resource monitoring engines to account for rerolls (to distinguish between rolls adding resources to the game economy and rerolls which swap one resource for another, to prevent double counting). Otherwise it would be a landmine waiting to detonate under some poor designer's feet when they stumbled across this feature a year from now.
At this point you're dealing with a feature that touches the engine, the meta engine, the UI, the game economy, the data analytics, and the game client, and that means you probably have to allocate a producer slot to manage all of this and coordinate the time involved (you can't just make half these changes and not the other half without things in the game getting wonky, so if you can't allocate all the dev time simultaneously you'd have to implement in phases, keeping certain featured dormant until they could be safely activated). There's also game client testing (what happens if a game client that has not yet been updated to have the reroll code attempts to spin a crystal after rerolls are enabled?).
Unfortunately, that's the scope of work that can happen when you try to add a button.