Should selling champs be brought back?

Hey all, I first off wanna say that I support the removal of selling champs, but some people in my ally are VERY unhappy about it, they would sell a maxed 4* for shards when it was in the basic and then grind for and dump expiring sig stones into them. Has this effected anyone else? Cheers!

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

Kabam Zanzibar

Since this subject keeps coming up and keeps getting shut down, I'm going to ask everyone to keep the discussion civil and constructive or it will be closed like the others.

The_beast123

Why exactly do you care about 4 star sig stones? I've not tried, but if they're expiring, just sell them, or just dump them on champions whoever are not max sig yet. People just find reasons to blame, lol. This is one of the best things Kabam has done, and people immediately start getting disappointed about it.

unknown

This content has been removed.

SHIELD4AGENT

Why bring back a feature that never should have been in the game from the very start.
The concept of the game from the beginning was to Collect champions, grow your roster and not sell them.

TrashyPanda

No.

Pulyaman

Ok. I know why Kabam took away this option and I generally don't sell any champs. But, I want to look at it from another perspective.
The ability to sell the champions was an option given to the player. Some players used it and some did not. Why take away completely an option that was available in the game? There could have been an in-game message saying not to sell champs, there could have been a message in the tutorial for new players informing them that all rarities of champs will be useful, there could have been a warning message saying that some champs may not be acquirable after selling.
What I am saying is, I see many threads in the forums asking for generic 3-4 year based gem to be used other than the class based gem, even though class based gems are more restrictive. But, people want the option to use the gem that they want to use. Why not allow players to sell the champ too? It is considered as a pro-player move, but one way to look at it is to take the choice away from the players for their own good, but it was still a choice that every player had which we don't now, the same way we could change our In-game name by contacting support, which will cost us now if we do it more than once.

The_Sentry06

Ok. I know why Kabam took away this option and I generally don't sell any champs. But, I want to look at it from another perspective.
The ability to sell the champions was an option given to the player. Some players used it and some did not. Why take away completely an option that was available in the game? There could have been an in-game message saying not to sell champs, there could have been a message in the tutorial for new players informing them that all rarities of champs will be useful, there could have been a warning message saying that some champs may not be acquirable after selling.
What I am saying is, I see many threads in the forums asking for generic 3-4 year based gem to be used other than the class based gem, even though class based gems are more restrictive. But, people want the option to use the gem that they want to use. Why not allow players to sell the champ too? It is considered as a pro-player move, but one way to look at it is to take the choice away from the players for their own good, but it was still a choice that every player had which we don't now, the same way we could change our In-game name by contacting support, which will cost us now if we do it more than once.

I think they want to prevent more Variant 4 scenarios. This community will just jump at the chance to whine at anything.

Pulyaman

Ok. I know why Kabam took away this option and I generally don't sell any champs. But, I want to look at it from another perspective.
The ability to sell the champions was an option given to the player. Some players used it and some did not. Why take away completely an option that was available in the game? There could have been an in-game message saying not to sell champs, there could have been a message in the tutorial for new players informing them that all rarities of champs will be useful, there could have been a warning message saying that some champs may not be acquirable after selling.
What I am saying is, I see many threads in the forums asking for generic 3-4 year based gem to be used other than the class based gem, even though class based gems are more restrictive. But, people want the option to use the gem that they want to use. Why not allow players to sell the champ too? It is considered as a pro-player move, but one way to look at it is to take the choice away from the players for their own good, but it was still a choice that every player had which we don't now, the same way we could change our In-game name by contacting support, which will cost us now if we do it more than once.
I think they want to prevent more Variant 4 scenarios. This community will just jump at the chance to whine at anything.

Oh, I understand that. But, some forum posts should not be the reason behind a change which removes a choice for a player. But, one of the great things about this game is we have a choice on how to play this game. We can play optimally and rank up the best champs, sell what we think are useless champs and play content as per our choice. But, if Kabam comes up with a restriction saying you can only progress to the next act after exploring the previous one because we feel players don't get enough experience because of content rushing, would that be fine too? It is a pro-player move because exploring act 5 before going into act 6 is not a bad thing and it gives the players more game play time and resources. But, it takes away our option to get to cavalier sooner. So, even though this move is made with the player base in mind, there are some drawbacks too.

-sixate-

There's no reason to sell a champ. More dupes equals more shards and iso overall than selling.

ItsDamien

Ok. I know why Kabam took away this option and I generally don't sell any champs. But, I want to look at it from another perspective.
The ability to sell the champions was an option given to the player. Some players used it and some did not. Why take away completely an option that was available in the game? There could have been an in-game message saying not to sell champs, there could have been a message in the tutorial for new players informing them that all rarities of champs will be useful, there could have been a warning message saying that some champs may not be acquirable after selling.
What I am saying is, I see many threads in the forums asking for generic 3-4 year based gem to be used other than the class based gem, even though class based gems are more restrictive. But, people want the option to use the gem that they want to use. Why not allow players to sell the champ too? It is considered as a pro-player move, but one way to look at it is to take the choice away from the players for their own good, but it was still a choice that every player had which we don't now, the same way we could change our In-game name by contacting support, which will cost us now if we do it more than once.
I think they want to prevent more Variant 4 scenarios. This community will just jump at the chance to whine at anything.
Oh, I understand that. But, some forum posts should not be the reason behind a change which removes a choice for a player. But, one of the great things about this game is we have a choice on how to play this game. We can play optimally and rank up the best champs, sell what we think are useless champs and play content as per our choice. But, if Kabam comes up with a restriction saying you can only progress to the next act after exploring the previous one because we feel players don't get enough experience because of content rushing, would that be fine too? It is a pro-player move because exploring act 5 before going into act 6 is not a bad thing and it gives the players more game play time and resources. But, it takes away our option to get to cavalier sooner. So, even though this move is made with the player base in mind, there are some drawbacks too.

Player choice in video games is a fallacy. While you are given some choices that you can influence, you're still dictated by the rules of any game you play. And some choices need to be removed from the players hands for the betterment of said game.

Pulyaman

Ok. I know why Kabam took away this option and I generally don't sell any champs. But, I want to look at it from another perspective.
The ability to sell the champions was an option given to the player. Some players used it and some did not. Why take away completely an option that was available in the game? There could have been an in-game message saying not to sell champs, there could have been a message in the tutorial for new players informing them that all rarities of champs will be useful, there could have been a warning message saying that some champs may not be acquirable after selling.
What I am saying is, I see many threads in the forums asking for generic 3-4 year based gem to be used other than the class based gem, even though class based gems are more restrictive. But, people want the option to use the gem that they want to use. Why not allow players to sell the champ too? It is considered as a pro-player move, but one way to look at it is to take the choice away from the players for their own good, but it was still a choice that every player had which we don't now, the same way we could change our In-game name by contacting support, which will cost us now if we do it more than once.
I think they want to prevent more Variant 4 scenarios. This community will just jump at the chance to whine at anything.
Oh, I understand that. But, some forum posts should not be the reason behind a change which removes a choice for a player. But, one of the great things about this game is we have a choice on how to play this game. We can play optimally and rank up the best champs, sell what we think are useless champs and play content as per our choice. But, if Kabam comes up with a restriction saying you can only progress to the next act after exploring the previous one because we feel players don't get enough experience because of content rushing, would that be fine too? It is a pro-player move because exploring act 5 before going into act 6 is not a bad thing and it gives the players more game play time and resources. But, it takes away our option to get to cavalier sooner. So, even though this move is made with the player base in mind, there are some drawbacks too.
Player choice in video games is a fallacy. While you are given some choices that you can influence, you're still dictated by the rules of any game you play. And some choices need to be removed from the players hands for the betterment of said game.

That is not what I meant by choices. You cannot still use a mutant AG on a skill champ, you cannot enter into certain quests without certain progression levels, those are the rules that we play by and those cannot be changed. That is something even people asking for selling their champs understand and that is not the choice I am talking about.

How exactly has the game improved by removing the option to sell the champs?. The reason Kabam gave was that there will be some content in the future that will make use of these champs, keeping the option from selling does not prevent them from releasing content aimed at using any star. It's like a parent treating a kid, I am doing this for your own good.

ItsDamien

Ok. I know why Kabam took away this option and I generally don't sell any champs. But, I want to look at it from another perspective.
The ability to sell the champions was an option given to the player. Some players used it and some did not. Why take away completely an option that was available in the game? There could have been an in-game message saying not to sell champs, there could have been a message in the tutorial for new players informing them that all rarities of champs will be useful, there could have been a warning message saying that some champs may not be acquirable after selling.
What I am saying is, I see many threads in the forums asking for generic 3-4 year based gem to be used other than the class based gem, even though class based gems are more restrictive. But, people want the option to use the gem that they want to use. Why not allow players to sell the champ too? It is considered as a pro-player move, but one way to look at it is to take the choice away from the players for their own good, but it was still a choice that every player had which we don't now, the same way we could change our In-game name by contacting support, which will cost us now if we do it more than once.
I think they want to prevent more Variant 4 scenarios. This community will just jump at the chance to whine at anything.
Oh, I understand that. But, some forum posts should not be the reason behind a change which removes a choice for a player. But, one of the great things about this game is we have a choice on how to play this game. We can play optimally and rank up the best champs, sell what we think are useless champs and play content as per our choice. But, if Kabam comes up with a restriction saying you can only progress to the next act after exploring the previous one because we feel players don't get enough experience because of content rushing, would that be fine too? It is a pro-player move because exploring act 5 before going into act 6 is not a bad thing and it gives the players more game play time and resources. But, it takes away our option to get to cavalier sooner. So, even though this move is made with the player base in mind, there are some drawbacks too.
Player choice in video games is a fallacy. While you are given some choices that you can influence, you're still dictated by the rules of any game you play. And some choices need to be removed from the players hands for the betterment of said game.
That is not what I meant by choices. You cannot still use a mutant AG on a skill champ, you cannot enter into certain quests without certain progression levels, those are the rules that we play by and those cannot be changed. That is something even people asking for selling their champs understand and that is not the choice I am talking about.

How exactly has the game improved by removing the option to sell the champs?. The reason Kabam gave was that there will be some content in the future that will make use of these champs, keeping the option from selling does not prevent them from releasing content aimed at using any star. It's like a parent treating a kid, I am doing this for your own good.

You answered your own question. Keeping the option to sell won't stop Kabam creating star gated content. How many people have complained that they sold their 1* Hulk and had to buy a ridiculous amount of crystals just to acquire him again? The removal of selling champs is to our benefit and not to our detriment, and if Kabam has to treat some players as if they're children because they're "doing this for your own good" it's probably because it's for our own good.

They could have kept champ selling in the game, it benefitted them more than what it did the player base since it drove more crystal sales for those lower rarities.

When people have a child like mentality, they need a parental figure to step in and say "No". Unfortunately in all aspects of life there will always be someone who has to tell you "No" regardless of how old you get, or what you're doing with your life, from childhood to our deathbeds.

Gamer

Resone there remove it to make more constes where you use less ratings like 3 star ect but because make v4 there got blast from it and also there gates act6 to only 5 and above with in my eys was a mistake because that make believe 4 star no longer was need that’s let to the selling was okay to do but no I’m hav no support for that to ever com back regardless now if you get hackers you no longer can loss your champions furthermore the only there can do is use your unit with do suck but se the bigger picture.

Lvernon15

Since this subject keeps coming up and keeps getting shut down, I'm going to ask everyone to keep the discussion civil and constructive or it will be closed like the others.

So we should make these threads uncivil to get rid of them?

ThatGuyYouSaw235

Since this subject keeps coming up and keeps getting shut down, I'm going to ask everyone to keep the discussion civil and constructive or it will be closed like the others.
So we should make these threads uncivil to get rid of them?

Ayo I gotchu my man.

Mauled

It’s an option that shouldn’t really have been there in the first place, certainly once the game widened out a little bit. There’s no benefit to selling champions; this is a long recognised fact by experienced players but is unsurprisingly not something necessarily realised by our more junior counterparts who probably don’t realise how quickly you can flesh your roster out and how fast dupes start to come in.

Kabam Valkyrie

This thread appears to no longer be constructive. Information regarding the removal of this feature has already been discussed here