Options

Trade In Store and Resource Hoarding Issue

13»

Comments

  • Options
    MenkentMenkent Posts: 889 ★★★★
    Funniest thing in this thread is the guy saying Brian Grant has an insane roster. I think my prestige is as good as his and if it isn't then it's only because I refuse to rank up surfer.
  • Options
    TheBoogyManTheBoogyMan Posts: 2,094 ★★★★★
    edited December 2021
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Gildenlow said:

    I try ro use as many resources as possible because I think that's a way to help kabam.

    You're supposed to use resources to help yourself. Using resources does not help Kabam in any way whatsoever. When they need to reduce the resource table space for crystals, they just force open them all and then delete them from the game's data.

    it is kind of weird seeing so many people all but threaten to hoard resources, as if this will force Kabam to change something. Whether you use all your awakening gems or none of them means nothing to Kabam except it changes a number on a dashboard. Players have zero leverage in this regard: the threat to hoard resources is no threat to the game.

    Kabam encourages players to use resources to prevent them from hurting their own progress through excessive hoarding. But if a player insists on hoarding resources and then complains they are short of resources, they have no one to blame but themselves, and the game has no obligation to make more resources available to feed hoarders who want to save everything for the future, or who only want to spend resources in certain specific narrow ways.
    Spoke like a true kabam representative. Cheers!
    I guess that's somewhat better than anonymously clicking on disagree and then running away giggling.

    Not by a lot, but a little.

    I'm not one to spam disagrees, nor do I "run away giggling".

    It's just that in older days few people had stepped up to represent the voice of the community, and let the voices of players be heard at kabam. Those people were trusted and relied upon to be unbiased towards both, players and kabam.

    Now, with time it's clear that the same people who used to be the voice of the community have turned into kabam reps, and will do anything to be kabam reps and be someone who gets to know insider news, instead of being unbiased reps of the community. And kabam is more than happy to have the same people as their reps because people perceive the older reps as trustworthy.

    Other people may not be able to see through the BS that people put up here, but I can, and I do. Thankfully for me, it's just a game and it will stay that way. Unlike many others who are forum police, or self proclaimed reps.
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
  • Options
    SearmenisSearmenis Posts: 1,547 ★★★★★
    Chovner said:

    Kabam finally responded and the answer was complete garbage and tone deaf.
    The store was built for people with a huge stack of resources they couldn't find a purposeful use? So why have us be able to re-roll a 6* AG with the possibility of getting the same AG back...
    3 days of silence and that response is a huge slap in the face.

    Indeed, the whole text is contradictory. "players who have accumulated a large amount of items" and the limit for t3 cat crystals for example is FIVE. Not to mention that they say TB players think 5* ag are a burden. Like, the difference between 5* maxed champs and 6* r3 ones is so big, that we will never need the 5* anymore. If that's the case, every month a new EQ starts, give us a free 5 star version of the new champs, not a 3 star one.
  • Options
    AverageDesiAverageDesi Posts: 5,260 ★★★★★

    This is close?
  • Options
    SearmenisSearmenis Posts: 1,547 ★★★★★


    This is close?

    Not before 6* r5 becomes available.
  • Options

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
  • Options
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
    Actually, I need to correct this: it is possible these discussions are in here somewhere given the timeline, but I don't have time to find them at the moment. But there should be something somewhere around, it just might take a lot of time to find I don't have at the moment.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,334 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
    Actually, I need to correct this: it is possible these discussions are in here somewhere given the timeline, but I don't have time to find them at the moment. But there should be something somewhere around, it just might take a lot of time to find I don't have at the moment.
    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/16207/6-stars-discussion-thread/p1
    There is the original discussion of 6*s coming.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31011/new-accounts-and-6-coming-soon-ish
    Here is an example of the same debate being had as far back as that.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,334 ★★★★★
    For what it's worth, DNA's views have been consistent. He neither sways them for the Players, or Kabam. To be honest, that entire perspective generates closed minds. It's not a competition between us and the game. People present their thoughts independently. That doesn't always mean they agree blindly on either side. That's an extension of the "shill" accusation as far back as I can remember. Let it be known. Kabam and its Staff don't even receive in-game incentives or perks for actually working for them, much less people on the Forum. People express their own opinions, and sometimes the truth isn't always what people WANT to hear.
  • Options
    ccrider474ccrider474 Posts: 654 ★★★


    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
    Actually, I need to correct this: it is possible these discussions are in here somewhere given the timeline, but I don't have time to find them at the moment. But there should be something somewhere around, it just might take a lot of time to find I don't have at the moment.
    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/16207/6-stars-discussion-thread/p1
    There is the original discussion of 6*s coming.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31011/new-accounts-and-6-coming-soon-ish
    Here is an example of the same debate being had as far back as that.
    These are not the same.

    Post should I use t5b and t2a to rank a 5 or a 6 still happen today, and you should do that depending your roster shared resources do that and warrant that discussion.

    This hoarding issue is should I have this nothing item for the purpose of destroying it for something better. It's not shared it cannot be used. To say a 5* awakening to some is valuable is a poor excuse as a 3* awakening to some is valuable as well.

    No way can I directly use this gem on a 6 but cats I can use on multiple versions of champs.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,334 ★★★★★


    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
    Actually, I need to correct this: it is possible these discussions are in here somewhere given the timeline, but I don't have time to find them at the moment. But there should be something somewhere around, it just might take a lot of time to find I don't have at the moment.
    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/16207/6-stars-discussion-thread/p1
    There is the original discussion of 6*s coming.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31011/new-accounts-and-6-coming-soon-ish
    Here is an example of the same debate being had as far back as that.
    These are not the same.

    Post should I use t5b and t2a to rank a 5 or a 6 still happen today, and you should do that depending your roster shared resources do that and warrant that discussion.

    This hoarding issue is should I have this nothing item for the purpose of destroying it for something better. It's not shared it cannot be used. To say a 5* awakening to some is valuable is a poor excuse as a 3* awakening to some is valuable as well.

    No way can I directly use this gem on a 6 but cats I can use on multiple versions of champs.
    That's an example of when the whole Resource hoarding movement started. As soon as 6*s were announced, people started swearing off 5*s, and it relates directly to the topic we're discussing.
  • Options
    ccrider474ccrider474 Posts: 654 ★★★


    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
    Actually, I need to correct this: it is possible these discussions are in here somewhere given the timeline, but I don't have time to find them at the moment. But there should be something somewhere around, it just might take a lot of time to find I don't have at the moment.
    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/16207/6-stars-discussion-thread/p1
    There is the original discussion of 6*s coming.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31011/new-accounts-and-6-coming-soon-ish
    Here is an example of the same debate being had as far back as that.
    These are not the same.

    Post should I use t5b and t2a to rank a 5 or a 6 still happen today, and you should do that depending your roster shared resources do that and warrant that discussion.

    This hoarding issue is should I have this nothing item for the purpose of destroying it for something better. It's not shared it cannot be used. To say a 5* awakening to some is valuable is a poor excuse as a 3* awakening to some is valuable as well.

    No way can I directly use this gem on a 6 but cats I can use on multiple versions of champs.
    That's an example of when the whole Resource hoarding movement started. As soon as 6*s were announced, people started swearing off 5*s, and it relates directly to the topic we're discussing.
    It doesn't really as hoarding these is without a doubt better for you. These items are so valuable that destroying them is what everyone is happy to do.

    Using shared between 2 different champs nothing is truly wasted worst case if you pull that champ as a 6 and rank them you have 2 ranked up worthy champs.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,334 ★★★★★


    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    This has happened before. The day Kabam announced that 6* champs were coming, a lot off high tier players said they were unfairly screwed by Kabam because they spent resources on 5* champs that could have been saved and put into 6* champs.

    Unless you’re speaking as cash as a resource here (which is outside the scope of saving resources for rank ups used in your examples and which the trade in store is about and is being discussed) that is not possible given the timeline of events and costs of ranking a 6 star.

    First the knowledge of 6s, August 2017 Kabam announces 6s are coming next year and starts awarding shards.

    Next the costs, in December 2017 5.4 is released making it possible for the first time ever to acquire the needed T5b to rank 5 a five star.

    Then in January (can call it February as it was the last day of Jan) the first 6 star crystal is available in game.

    It wouldn’t be for a number of months later that players would attain their 3rd T5b and be able to rank 3 a 6*.

    Players were well aware of 6s before they could even spend the shared resources used ranking a 6 to rank their 5s.

    Yes plenty of people were upset about the money/effort they put into acquiring their 5 star roster and sigging them up, because they felt that was soon to be obsolete, but as far as the rank up resources that didn’t happen.
    Not to question timeline, which appears to be accurate, but when I say that people complained about investing resources to rank up 5* champs when 6* champs were coming, I'm not saying I am assuming this happened because it is likely, I'm saying I participated in the threads in which this very argument was made. So whether it could have happened or not is not a debatable point: it did happen. I believe the flaw in your logic is assuming that the debate must have focused on T5B as the limiting resource for rank 3, when the other resources could just as easily have been depleted by players working their way up. In fact, when 6* champs first came out and for a long time afterwards there was a lot of discussion about whether the resources were better spent on 5* or 6*, and even what the correct perspective was on which rank ups were "more expensive" (which depended on whether you counted the non-overlapping rank ups for 5* champs to get them to R4 as part of the overall cost).
    Got a link to any of these discussions?
    I ask because hoarding any shared resources, at the time given how resources were doled out, to rank either was logistically ludicrous. T5b was the only resource that mattered as the rate players acquired it was the only relative factor, you would earn the t2a etc needed at a relative rate as the t5b and couldn’t do anything without the t5b.

    If you’re going to rank a 6 over a 5 the difference is 1ea T5b, t2a, t4c and the inconsequential 7 t4b. Given the rate at the which the items can be acquired you either spent them or let them expire because, at the time, there was no crystal allowing a player to subvert the inventory cap (Map 6 crystals were the closest thing and those had an inconsequential amount of t2a).
    All those discussions were on the old forums which don't exist anymore, and I can't find any saved copies at the moment. But I sort of agree with you in terms of whether it was reasonable to complain about those shared resources, as I disagreed with the complaint at the time myself. But I'm not arguing that the complaint was reasonable, only that it existed at the time. In fact, I'm arguing that the complaint wasn't reasonable then, and not really all that reasonable now.
    Actually, I need to correct this: it is possible these discussions are in here somewhere given the timeline, but I don't have time to find them at the moment. But there should be something somewhere around, it just might take a lot of time to find I don't have at the moment.
    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/16207/6-stars-discussion-thread/p1
    There is the original discussion of 6*s coming.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31011/new-accounts-and-6-coming-soon-ish
    Here is an example of the same debate being had as far back as that.
    These are not the same.

    Post should I use t5b and t2a to rank a 5 or a 6 still happen today, and you should do that depending your roster shared resources do that and warrant that discussion.

    This hoarding issue is should I have this nothing item for the purpose of destroying it for something better. It's not shared it cannot be used. To say a 5* awakening to some is valuable is a poor excuse as a 3* awakening to some is valuable as well.

    No way can I directly use this gem on a 6 but cats I can use on multiple versions of champs.
    That's an example of when the whole Resource hoarding movement started. As soon as 6*s were announced, people started swearing off 5*s, and it relates directly to the topic we're discussing.
    It doesn't really as hoarding these is without a doubt better for you. These items are so valuable that destroying them is what everyone is happy to do.

    Using shared between 2 different champs nothing is truly wasted worst case if you pull that champ as a 6 and rank them you have 2 ranked up worthy champs.
    I'm giving examples of when this entire concept started, when people started swearing off 5*s, wanting the Resources back they invested in lower Champs, and the whole Resource management question became prominent. Not really expressing my views. Just providing citation.

    FWIW, I don't consider any Rank a waste. I'm of a different mentality. Anything I use progresses my Account. That's neither here nor there.
Sign In or Register to comment.