Should we be able to sell high end rank up materials? (Poll)

Jeremy3186Jeremy3186 Member Posts: 308 ★★★
edited February 2022 in Suggestions and Requests
As many remember, we used to be able to sell T4CC... however, because many were doing so accidentally, Kabam took away this ability for player safety. While that was good at the time, the meta of the game has changed.

Today most veterans of the game have hundreds, if not thousands of T4CC crystals unable to be opened, and their overflows are filled with expiring T2A....

As such, in 2022, is it time to let us sell these items for next level up materials? Is it time for us to be able to sell T4CC, T2A, and T5B?

Should we be able to sell high end rank up materials? (Poll) 237 votes

No, these materials are still too important to sell
21% 52 votes
Yes, but only T4CC
24% 58 votes
Yes, we should be able to sell all rank up materials
53% 127 votes
Post edited by Kabam Porthos on
«1

Comments

  • Colonaut123Colonaut123 Member Posts: 3,091 ★★★★★
    I think it is too early for T5BC, T5CC and T2A, but not T4BC en T4CC.

    I understand the latter is because it would be an extra source of T5CC and Kabam want to push easier access to Thronebreaker as much to the future as they can. But meanwhile, players are hoarding T4CC crystals and shard crystals like a hermit because they get to overflow with no use whatsoever, cluttering the servers. They have to let go sometime, but probably not before rank 4 are more prevalent.
  • ShadowstrikeShadowstrike Member Posts: 3,110 ★★★★★
    There's still too much money to be made out of tier 5 catalysts.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Member Posts: 1,442 ★★★★
    I'm not a fan of selling too much stuff ... but since they put item caps on us, and expire old items .. yes, we should have option to sell anything that will/can expire ..

    And more importantly ... we should get something "worthwhile" out of it ... O.o (at moment, all we get is some laughably token gold ... O.o )
  • HoitadoHoitado Member Posts: 3,707 ★★★★★
    If we can spend money to get a 3-4 6* Rank Up Gem then we should definitely be allowed to have this
  • ShadowstrikeShadowstrike Member Posts: 3,110 ★★★★★
    Hoitado said:

    If we can spend money to get a 3-4 6* Rank Up Gem then we should definitely be allowed to have this

    But this isn't readily available to anybody for purchase like rank up gem have been in the past. This is an exclusive gem that's only going to be given to 30 people and it's literally at who can ever throw their life savings into it.

    I mean you have more of an argument if we're talking rank 1 to Rank 2 or even an a generic AG
  • Badass84Badass84 Member Posts: 317 ★★★
    You should at least be able to sell a T4CC for a T4B, same for T3CC for T3B or A1. This would be great.
  • GrandOldKaiGrandOldKai Member Posts: 788 ★★★★
    I have a few T2As in stash I wish I could just sell instead of letting expire...
  • ButtehrsButtehrs Member Posts: 5,673 ★★★★★

    You tell me 🤣
  • doctorbdoctorb Member Posts: 1,820 ★★★★
    The reason ppl hoard is because they don't have enough of everything they need to rank up a hero. And if they open all crystals, a whole bunch of stuff would just wasteful expire and can't be sold. I think kabam just needs to start letting ppl sell T4CC for T5CC shards. The T5CC has been out for a long time already.
  • doctorbdoctorb Member Posts: 1,820 ★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    cluttering the servers

    Crystals do not clutter servers. Crystal *types* clutter servers. If you can get every single player to sell *all* of their T4CC crystals and promise to *never* earn one ever again, you could delete the T4CC crystal definition and free resource space. But if even one single person holds a T4CC at any moment in time, the exact same amount of resources are spent as would be spent if everyone had a million of them.

    Think about it this way. Every player has some T4CC and the servers must track that. If you sell all of them, the server still must track that you have exactly zero of them. Whether the server has to remember that you have 100 or I have zero, the amount of server resources spent tracking that is exactly the same. But if T4CC crystals disappeared completely, the game would no longer have to track that at all, it could basically remove several million "zeroes" out of its databases, freeing space.

    That obviously cannot happen with T4CC crystals, so it doesn't matter how many players keep. It matters for things like one-off time limited crystals, which is why Kabam periodically forces them open and deletes them from player accounts. Every crystal type that exists is data it must track, multiplied by all the accounts that exist. And even though there might be a million active players, there's over a hundred million accounts. Every single one of those accounts has hundreds of crystals being tracked for it, of which that player probably has zero of them. But the game still has to track that the account has some number of them, and that number happens to be zero.
    I'm not even going to pretend I'm a coder... but I would assume having data on every account costs server space. Also, as I understand it, the reason Kabam servers are always full is because the game is run a very old engine... ie if they updated the engine and servers almost all issues (including bugs) would go away.
    Almost 100% wrong, but don't feel bad: people are constantly guessing wildly based on google searches and undergraduate textbooks and getting just as wrong.

    Server space isn't exactly the issue: the issue is the speed at which data can be manipulated, and that doesn't always scale linearly or predictably. And space issues are not due to "old engines." They may be due to deep architectural issues that were created at the beginning of time and cannot be easily changed, but that's not the same thing.

    In fact, systems are being upgraded all the time. The "parry timing" bugs that were introduced late last year and still plague the game today are not due to running an old engine, in fact they were introduced as part of a mandatory upgrade of the core Unity components Upgrading them created a discrepancy in how the higher level meta mechanics of the game worked and how the underlying engine processed them, creating timing issues that required them to completely rebuild those systems.

    This is not the first time something like this happened either. A Unity engine upgrade around the time of 12.0 created similar problems for the game that took months to resolve.

    I suspect you're probably using the words "engine" and "server" without really fully understanding what either of them refer to. "Engine" is a bit ambiguous. The game is built on Unity, which is a game system framework. It is often referred to as the core game engine. However, the "game engine" as a whole is a constellation of software with Unity at its core and the game's fundamental mechanics and systems constructed around it as interlocking software modules. But even that doesn't fully represent the entire game "servers" as the back end of the game runs within Google's cloud: there are Google cloud components that work with the Unity components to fully implement the back end of the game. That's why sometimes when Google's services have an outage, the game is also down or malfunctioning.

    All of this is the server side part of the game. The client side is completely separate. The part that runs on people's phones itself has a core "engine" that is also based on Unity but also has MCOC-specific additions and modifications. The game client is being modified and updated constantly, and it is primarily here where the "Parry Bug" resides.

    Some of the performance issues people see are due to server side issues or constraints, and some are due to client side issues, and some are due to a combination of both. Unless you understand how the game works and test diligently, it isn't easy to know which one you're looking at.
    can I ask your credentials? You made a few condescending points here that you were very wrong about (IE I know what a server vs engine is)... I've also had coders explain to me this game's biggest issues are server space and the old engine being used.

    In fact, in one of Brian Grant's recent videos he talks about a kabam dev telling him this exact same thing.

    So again.. where is your expertise to make assumptions about me personally?
    Well said!!
  • StarhawkStarhawk Member Posts: 633 ★★★
    I would like the introduction of awakening gem shards and the ability to sell 2* to 5* awakening gems if we want.

    You would get shards of the same class and as you go to a higher star level the shard amount increases to form an awakening gem...this would still make it much more work to get a 6* awakening gem than a 4* awakening gem
  • RasiloverRasilover Member Posts: 1,475 ★★★★
    What about something like trading t5b for t2a?
  • Wicket329Wicket329 Member Posts: 3,336 ★★★★★
    edited December 2021
    EDIT: Pulled wrong quote, ignore this one
  • Wicket329Wicket329 Member Posts: 3,336 ★★★★★
    edited December 2021

    doctorb said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    cluttering the servers

    Crystals do not clutter servers. Crystal *types* clutter servers. If you can get every single player to sell *all* of their T4CC crystals and promise to *never* earn one ever again, you could delete the T4CC crystal definition and free resource space. But if even one single person holds a T4CC at any moment in time, the exact same amount of resources are spent as would be spent if everyone had a million of them.

    Think about it this way. Every player has some T4CC and the servers must track that. If you sell all of them, the server still must track that you have exactly zero of them. Whether the server has to remember that you have 100 or I have zero, the amount of server resources spent tracking that is exactly the same. But if T4CC crystals disappeared completely, the game would no longer have to track that at all, it could basically remove several million "zeroes" out of its databases, freeing space.

    That obviously cannot happen with T4CC crystals, so it doesn't matter how many players keep. It matters for things like one-off time limited crystals, which is why Kabam periodically forces them open and deletes them from player accounts. Every crystal type that exists is data it must track, multiplied by all the accounts that exist. And even though there might be a million active players, there's over a hundred million accounts. Every single one of those accounts has hundreds of crystals being tracked for it, of which that player probably has zero of them. But the game still has to track that the account has some number of them, and that number happens to be zero.
    I'm not even going to pretend I'm a coder... but I would assume having data on every account costs server space. Also, as I understand it, the reason Kabam servers are always full is because the game is run a very old engine... ie if they updated the engine and servers almost all issues (including bugs) would go away.
    Almost 100% wrong, but don't feel bad: people are constantly guessing wildly based on google searches and undergraduate textbooks and getting just as wrong.

    Server space isn't exactly the issue: the issue is the speed at which data can be manipulated, and that doesn't always scale linearly or predictably. And space issues are not due to "old engines." They may be due to deep architectural issues that were created at the beginning of time and cannot be easily changed, but that's not the same thing.

    In fact, systems are being upgraded all the time. The "parry timing" bugs that were introduced late last year and still plague the game today are not due to running an old engine, in fact they were introduced as part of a mandatory upgrade of the core Unity components Upgrading them created a discrepancy in how the higher level meta mechanics of the game worked and how the underlying engine processed them, creating timing issues that required them to completely rebuild those systems.

    This is not the first time something like this happened either. A Unity engine upgrade around the time of 12.0 created similar problems for the game that took months to resolve.

    I suspect you're probably using the words "engine" and "server" without really fully understanding what either of them refer to. "Engine" is a bit ambiguous. The game is built on Unity, which is a game system framework. It is often referred to as the core game engine. However, the "game engine" as a whole is a constellation of software with Unity at its core and the game's fundamental mechanics and systems constructed around it as interlocking software modules. But even that doesn't fully represent the entire game "servers" as the back end of the game runs within Google's cloud: there are Google cloud components that work with the Unity components to fully implement the back end of the game. That's why sometimes when Google's services have an outage, the game is also down or malfunctioning.

    All of this is the server side part of the game. The client side is completely separate. The part that runs on people's phones itself has a core "engine" that is also based on Unity but also has MCOC-specific additions and modifications. The game client is being modified and updated constantly, and it is primarily here where the "Parry Bug" resides.

    Some of the performance issues people see are due to server side issues or constraints, and some are due to client side issues, and some are due to a combination of both. Unless you understand how the game works and test diligently, it isn't easy to know which one you're looking at.
    can I ask your credentials? You made a few condescending points here that you were very wrong about (IE I know what a server vs engine is)... I've also had coders explain to me this game's biggest issues are server space and the old engine being used.

    In fact, in one of Brian Grant's recent videos he talks about a kabam dev telling him this exact same thing.

    So again.. where is your expertise to make assumptions about me personally?
    Well said!!
    they seem to have ghosted after asking that
    I apologize, this is the quote I meant to pull. This really seems like you not dropping it to me.
  • Dash855Dash855 Member Posts: 239
    edited December 2021
    It’s your rank up materials. You should decide what you want to do with them. I’ve got so many t4ccs I don’t need in overflow
  • Doug4theWinDoug4theWin Member Posts: 197 ★★
    Enough with the coder dong comparison. Ridiculous attempt to flex.
  • Jake303AoSJake303AoS Member Posts: 306 ★★
    I've posted this in here before. We should get something for expiring resources. If they won't let us manually sell them, then they should just auto "sell" instead of expire to nothing.
  • Colonaut123Colonaut123 Member Posts: 3,091 ★★★★★

    I think it is too early for T5BC, T5CC and T2A, but not T4BC en T4CC.

    I understand the latter is because it would be an extra source of T5CC and Kabam want to push easier access to Thronebreaker as much to the future as they can. But meanwhile, players are hoarding T4CC crystals and shard crystals like a hermit because they get to overflow with no use whatsoever, cluttering the servers. They have to let go sometime, but probably not before rank 4 are more prevalent.

    We can already sell T4B... just not T4CC
    My mistake, I just don't sell T4bc. But I would sell T4cc, as I have 100+ crystals of those. But what I want is probably not in the interest of the game or Kabam. Kabam doesn't want too many R3 and R4 6*, so they artificially limit T5cc resources. Out of that scarcity, they profit. That's why I believe T4cc won't be able to be sold unless R4 6* are more prevalent. I think this will be in 2023.
  • Wozzle007Wozzle007 Member Posts: 1,005 ★★★★★
    I’ve had quite a few T2A expire. Think the item cap should be increased to 30 or should be able sell. Preferably do both.
Sign In or Register to comment.