When next difficulty arrives, I have no doubt it'll change. Besides, the units of lower difficulties exist for anyone to grab. The "increased" rewards of CavEQ offsets the inexistence of units
They could probably add the Units to higher levels if they were to REMOVE those Units from corresponding lower levels (Normal/Heroic) for upper progression players who get them in the higher ones. But that would mean Normal/Heroic would not be the same anymore across all players.
Or they could do that while removing the lower levels quests completely for higher players. But it's always nice having low ones to just auto-fight for objectives or event milestones.
They just dont want to increase the number of units. I believe they said in the past it would be game breaking
No. Lol. Cav has top end rewards where UC and below do not. Just like when UC was at the top, it has no units because it has better rewards.
I just quoted the explanation they gave when people asked why UC difficulty didn't had units when it launched. They inly added lwter on because of the removal of the beginner difficulty
When Uncollected difficulty came out it was the first difficulty to not have units. At the time, I thought they forgot to include them and then doubled down by claiming that the rewards were so good that units would be too much. New uncollected players would come on the forum regularly to ask about it when they discovered that there were no units. When the Cav quest came out, they nerfed Uncollected and added units. Presumably when we get TB or Paragon difficulty, they will nerf the Cav quest and add units and the new difficulty won't have any.
They just dont want to increase the number of units. I believe they said in the past it would be game breaking
No. Lol. Cav has top end rewards where UC and below do not. Just like when UC was at the top, it has no units because it has better rewards.
I just quoted the explanation they gave when people asked why UC difficulty didn't had units when it launched. They inly added lwter on because of the removal of the beginner difficulty
They just dont want to increase the number of units. I believe they said in the past it would be game breaking
They think everything is "game breaking." If I open more than a single 3 star crystal in a day, that's "game breaking."
To be honest, the term "game-breaking" is abused by the players vastly more often than it is used at all by the developers. Players are fond of saying "it isn't game breaking" to talk about something they want, as if that matters. That's like me demanding you do something because it won't kill you. That's not a reason to do something. If it would kill you, that would be a good reason to *not* do it, but the mere fact that it won't kill you isn't especially convincing.
When developers talk about things being "something-breaking" they are usually talking about the specific parameters of specific components of the game, like the game economy. Certain things can be economy breaking without being game breaking. They just break the rules set forth by the internal designers to govern how the game economy should run. Breaking those rules doesn't automatically break the game, but that doesn't mean you can just break those rules whenever you want. They are there for a reason. The unit economy, for example, is budgeted by the internal game economy rules. You can't just add more units somewhere arbitrarily. Doing so would break the unit economy. Would that break the game? Not necessarily. But the fact that players think they should be allowed to have whatever they want as long as no one can prove it doesn't "break the game" is precisely why you never see economy designers having open conversations with their playerbase, here or in basically any other game.
I'm sure this post will get its share of disagrees. And every single one of them is sending the message that economy designers should never, ever try to have this discussion openly. I've had this discussion with more than one developer of more than one game. I strongly doubt a single one of them would ever attempt to have an open conversation about these topics, because they know what to expect.
Comments
Besides, the units of lower difficulties exist for anyone to grab.
The "increased" rewards of CavEQ offsets the inexistence of units
But that would mean Normal/Heroic would not be the same anymore across all players.
Or they could do that while removing the lower levels quests completely for higher players.
But it's always nice having low ones to just auto-fight for objectives or event milestones.
So, it is what it is.
When developers talk about things being "something-breaking" they are usually talking about the specific parameters of specific components of the game, like the game economy. Certain things can be economy breaking without being game breaking. They just break the rules set forth by the internal designers to govern how the game economy should run. Breaking those rules doesn't automatically break the game, but that doesn't mean you can just break those rules whenever you want. They are there for a reason. The unit economy, for example, is budgeted by the internal game economy rules. You can't just add more units somewhere arbitrarily. Doing so would break the unit economy. Would that break the game? Not necessarily. But the fact that players think they should be allowed to have whatever they want as long as no one can prove it doesn't "break the game" is precisely why you never see economy designers having open conversations with their playerbase, here or in basically any other game.
I'm sure this post will get its share of disagrees. And every single one of them is sending the message that economy designers should never, ever try to have this discussion openly. I've had this discussion with more than one developer of more than one game. I strongly doubt a single one of them would ever attempt to have an open conversation about these topics, because they know what to expect.