DrZola wrote: » None of the above because I didn't buy. I swore to myself last week I wouldn't even buy a generic 5* AG offer at $0.99. Then when I saw the offers, I went back and forth and decided to use units to spin a GMC and let the RNGenie determine whether I would get the Odin. Result? Dupe of my 4* Loki. Just not good enough... I've lived without a dupe of my 5* SL or Magik for nearly two years now (or, for that matter, someone worth the skill and cosmic 5* AGs on ice in my inventory). Pretty sure I can make it for the foreseeable future. What is disappointing, however, is that the game team elevates in-game spend over loyal and frequent gameplay to achieve meaningful progression. And even that in-game spend is all but certain to bring an undesirable result. Predictable, but disappointing. Dr. Zola
DNA3000 wrote: » DrZola wrote: » None of the above because I didn't buy. I swore to myself last week I wouldn't even buy a generic 5* AG offer at $0.99. Then when I saw the offers, I went back and forth and decided to use units to spin a GMC and let the RNGenie determine whether I would get the Odin. Result? Dupe of my 4* Loki. Just not good enough... I've lived without a dupe of my 5* SL or Magik for nearly two years now (or, for that matter, someone worth the skill and cosmic 5* AGs on ice in my inventory). Pretty sure I can make it for the foreseeable future. What is disappointing, however, is that the game team elevates in-game spend over loyal and frequent gameplay to achieve meaningful progression. And even that in-game spend is all but certain to bring an undesirable result. Predictable, but disappointing. Dr. Zola How is it possible that Kabam simultaneously rewards spending over game play, and always gives undesirable results to spending. That seems logically impossible.
ZzyzxGuy wrote: » I know this isn't official... but it does seem odd that science is twice as many as the others.
Drummer16 wrote: » Yea, wtf is this cosmic BS....never spend again. Unless it's generic for 29.99, it's not worth it. The only reason I spent for the like 1st time ever is because I wanted to possibly get a tech or mutant AND get the units I know I would have needed in the future. Of course, I spun some GM crystals and got all 3* like usual, and back to being salty AF.
Zerov wrote: » I have 3 Science, and 4th one would have sent me into permanent retirement..
DrZola wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » DrZola wrote: » None of the above because I didn't buy. I swore to myself last week I wouldn't even buy a generic 5* AG offer at $0.99. Then when I saw the offers, I went back and forth and decided to use units to spin a GMC and let the RNGenie determine whether I would get the Odin. Result? Dupe of my 4* Loki. Just not good enough... I've lived without a dupe of my 5* SL or Magik for nearly two years now (or, for that matter, someone worth the skill and cosmic 5* AGs on ice in my inventory). Pretty sure I can make it for the foreseeable future. What is disappointing, however, is that the game team elevates in-game spend over loyal and frequent gameplay to achieve meaningful progression. And even that in-game spend is all but certain to bring an undesirable result. Predictable, but disappointing. Dr. Zola How is it possible that Kabam simultaneously rewards spending over game play, and always gives undesirable results to spending. That seems logically impossible. You seem like a smart guy. It isn't. "Elevates" doesn't mean the same thing as "rewards." And "always" doesn't mean the same thing as "all but certain." And while I'm assuming you're simply trying to be cute, I think you've probably played the game long enough to understand what I mean. Dr. Zola
DrZola wrote: » @DNA3000 Ask mutamatt or Nemsa what “elevating” but “all but certain to be undesirable” looks like... Dr. Zola
DNA3000 wrote: » DrZola wrote: » @DNA3000 Ask mutamatt or Nemsa what “elevating” but “all but certain to be undesirable” looks like... Dr. Zola That's word games through indirection. If you're saying that someone who gets something that could theoretically have high value but is worthless to them situationally is "elevating" that falls explicitly into the problem I specified: it misleadingly characterizes something as "elevating" in theory when it doesn't actually elevate in practice. If Kabam has deliberately designed the system to provide theoretically high value items in a way that makes them impossible to use in a way that unlocks their value, that's just a clever way of making cosmetically valuable items valueless. And that's an explicit way of punishing, not elevating, spending.