Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
This is such a dead discussion. It's only the conversation rate you are Talking about. It's pointless If they give you 135 or 500 units for 5$. Kabam would adjust the ingame prices and nothing changed. So whats the point?
Did u know the Big Mac Index? U can't buy a big mac around the world for the Same price. Why should this be different in online games from different countries?
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
Thats why you can buy T4 CC for 20 Units and you needed a lot more units to do it before and only in offers
They reduced cost to accommodate for the changing meta. Good! Lowering the cost of certain items is just as good as raising the amount of units so that we can obtain said items. I’m fine with that, doesn’t change the fact that there’s a ton of other areas where units get put into.
This is such a dead discussion. It's only the conversation rate you are Talking about. It's pointless If they give you 135 or 500 units for 5$. Kabam would adjust the ingame prices and nothing changed. So whats the point?
Did u know the Big Mac Index? U can't buy a big mac around the world for the Same price. Why should this be different in online games from different countries?
Same argument that I’ve already responded to but with food. Go look through the thread
Kabam also has deals released multiple times a week with a price point attached to them so you can keep throwing out food all you want but there are ways to literally quantify the value of each item in the game so saying $5 should be 500 units already has a value attached to it. Why would that change the price of items that are already here? Like I said earlier it’s no different than Kabam reducing the cost of what we are spending units on as time progresses.
So basically, kabam should give us 500 units for $5, and then proceed to raise the cost of featured cavs from 300 units to 1111 units to accommodate for inflation?
If kabam really wanted they could just give us 5 units for 5 dollars and lower the price of everything accordingly and give much less units in the game. Also every other game you mentioned is way younger than mcoc, so imo they should change their standard to follow mcoc proportions of premium currency instead.
So basically, kabam should give us 500 units for $5, and then proceed to raise the cost of featured cavs from 300 units to 1111 units to accommodate for inflation?
If kabam really wanted they could just give us 5 units for 5 dollars and lower the price of everything accordingly and give much less units in the game. Also every other game you mentioned is way younger than mcoc, so imo they should change their standard to follow mcoc proportions of premium currency instead.
You saying “adjust for inflation” is hilarious! Pay attention, even if you disagree with raising the amount of units that they’re giving us the game is already LOWERING THE COST OF ITEMS to accommodate for the progression of the game. Which means no.. they don’t have to RAISE the price of certain items if they give us more units. They just wouldn’t have to continue to LOWER the items In the game that are already being adjusted
This isn’t among the hundred biggest issues with this game right now.
Since when is money not a top ranked issue? Since when are units not an essential commodity in the game? All of you guys do me a favor and dump all of your units. Go ask Kabam for a refund on a purchase and put yourself in unit jail. Spend all of your units on two stars and spend the rest of this month owning zero or negative units and then tell me how irrelevant this issue is.
There are plenty of people who are completely free to play and do quite well for themselves. So no. It’s not “essential” and even more so it’s not “essential” to pay for them either.
Good for them, I didn’t say paying for units is an essential aspect of the game. I said that if everything in the game is being buffed then why wouldn’t the unit store also be included in that. Stop with the strawman arguments. All that you’re really saying is “well I don’t spend so I don’t care” then why are you here?
it would be nice to get more units from spending bc obviously it makes it easier getting units. but the reason other resources in the game have been buffed is bc of progression. gold is easier to obtain in late game due to the fact you need more gold to level and rank up champions. certain catalysts that were once harder to obtain are now easier to obtain according to your progression level. units haven’t been buffed bc the value of units have not changed and there’s nothing preventing your progression due to units when you can always go into arenas and get hundreds-thousands of units depending on how much you want to grind. the only relevant use for units after you’ve set up your masteries properly is really only if you want to buy energy refills or potions, which you can obtain both those items from other in game content
But here’s the thing… units are now a big part of progression one way or another. You can buy rank materials with units, you can buy victory tracks and shields with units, you can buy gold with units, you can level up champions with units, you can earn relics with units, UNITS ARE HUGE RIGHT NOW! Back when these price points were created the only thing people would use them for was team revives. Now we’re at a point where it’s actually a part of the culture of the game. In pretty much every single mode. HELL you can even skip through AQ and AW with units. UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS! I mean it’s weird to even think about how we’ve progressed in just a year
everything you listed is just options to shortcut the game. having units to spare to spend on the occasional rank up bundles in the store are completely optional. lack of units isn’t halting anyone’s progression. you can get gold, iso, and rank up materials from so many different places now like eq, sq, eop, bg, the glory store, and even the loyalty store. even if you really want to take full advantage of the catalyst store or the occasional rank up bundles you can very easily get lots of units from arena, which majority of players do. and ik grinding arenas can get boring but it’s still optional and isn’t stopping anyone from progressing further
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
I stated that just because the dollar buys different amounts in two separate games, doesn’t mean that the perceived value in one should equate to another. You then retorted with “well 100 dollars isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago!”
This isn’t among the hundred biggest issues with this game right now.
Since when is money not a top ranked issue? Since when are units not an essential commodity in the game? All of you guys do me a favor and dump all of your units. Go ask Kabam for a refund on a purchase and put yourself in unit jail. Spend all of your units on two stars and spend the rest of this month owning zero or negative units and then tell me how irrelevant this issue is.
There are plenty of people who are completely free to play and do quite well for themselves. So no. It’s not “essential” and even more so it’s not “essential” to pay for them either.
Good for them, I didn’t say paying for units is an essential aspect of the game. I said that if everything in the game is being buffed then why wouldn’t the unit store also be included in that. Stop with the strawman arguments. All that you’re really saying is “well I don’t spend so I don’t care” then why are you here?
it would be nice to get more units from spending bc obviously it makes it easier getting units. but the reason other resources in the game have been buffed is bc of progression. gold is easier to obtain in late game due to the fact you need more gold to level and rank up champions. certain catalysts that were once harder to obtain are now easier to obtain according to your progression level. units haven’t been buffed bc the value of units have not changed and there’s nothing preventing your progression due to units when you can always go into arenas and get hundreds-thousands of units depending on how much you want to grind. the only relevant use for units after you’ve set up your masteries properly is really only if you want to buy energy refills or potions, which you can obtain both those items from other in game content
But here’s the thing… units are now a big part of progression one way or another. You can buy rank materials with units, you can buy victory tracks and shields with units, you can buy gold with units, you can level up champions with units, you can earn relics with units, UNITS ARE HUGE RIGHT NOW! Back when these price points were created the only thing people would use them for was team revives. Now we’re at a point where it’s actually a part of the culture of the game. In pretty much every single mode. HELL you can even skip through AQ and AW with units. UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS! I mean it’s weird to even think about how we’ve progressed in just a year
everything you listed is just options to shortcut the game. having units to spare to spend on the occasional rank up bundles in the store are completely optional. lack of units isn’t halting anyone’s progression. you can get gold, iso, and rank up materials from so many different places now like eq, sq, eop, bg, the glory store, and even the loyalty store. even if you really want to take full advantage of the catalyst store or the occasional rank up bundles you can very easily get lots of units from arena, which majority of players do. and ik grinding arenas can get boring but it’s still optional and isn’t stopping anyone from progressing further
Having a bad loyalty store isn’t “stopping” anyone’s progress either. Neither is having a terrible glory store or the entirely optional black iso market but yet here we are
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
I stated that just because the dollar buys different amounts in two separate games, doesn’t mean that the perceived value in one should equate to another. You then retorted with “well 100 dollars isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago!”
Therefore, strawman. Checkmate.
Accept my statement isn’t false I’m the one who introduced the topic therefore you’re the one giving a non sequitar by mentioning an argument that doesn’t actually refute mine. Which is why I gave it to you straight. Economies change over time, the rewards in this game change over time, the currencies of this game changes over time. The usage of units changes over time. And so to should our access to these units. Also chess is overrated
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
I stated that just because the dollar buys different amounts in two separate games, doesn’t mean that the perceived value in one should equate to another. You then retorted with “well 100 dollars isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago!”
Therefore, strawman. Checkmate.
Accept my statement isn’t false I’m the one who introduced the topic therefore you’re the one giving a non sequitar by mentioning an argument that doesn’t actually refute mine. Which is why I gave it to you straight. Economies change over time, the rewards in this game change over time, the currencies of this game changes over time. The usage of units changes over time. And so to should our access to these units. Also chess is overrated
Again your argument was that DIFFERENT games give DIFFERENT value for their DIFFERENT in game economies. You then pivoted when I pointed out that it isn’t uncommon or unusual to saying “well the dollar isn’t worth what it was 20 years ago”. That is the straw man. That is the problem. An obvious flaw in your argument was presented and you tried to change the argument. You lose. You’re done. Your argument is done. You’re wrong. GGEZ. Game over.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
I stated that just because the dollar buys different amounts in two separate games, doesn’t mean that the perceived value in one should equate to another. You then retorted with “well 100 dollars isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago!”
Therefore, strawman. Checkmate.
Accept my statement isn’t false I’m the one who introduced the topic therefore you’re the one giving a non sequitar by mentioning an argument that doesn’t actually refute mine.
You are the one introducing the topic THEREFORE he's the one giving a non sequitar [sic]... non sequitur as I'm sure you are aware means literally it does not follow. Your point about the change in the value of money over time may be relevant to the discussion about the change in the game economy, but it didn't have anything to do with his argument, which is why he (correctly) called it a straw man. After pedantically making him prove he knew what a straw man was, you made the above statement that you introduced the topic therefore he was the one making a non sequitur. That doesn't follow from your premise, so in making the statement, you made a non sequitur while at the same time misspelling non sequitur. That's fantastic on so many levels.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
I stated that just because the dollar buys different amounts in two separate games, doesn’t mean that the perceived value in one should equate to another. You then retorted with “well 100 dollars isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago!”
Therefore, strawman. Checkmate.
Accept my statement isn’t false I’m the one who introduced the topic therefore you’re the one giving a non sequitar by mentioning an argument that doesn’t actually refute mine.
You are the one introducing the topic THEREFORE he's the one giving a non sequitar [sic]... non sequitur as I'm sure you are aware means literally it does not follow. Your point about the change in the value of money over time may be relevant to the discussion about the change in the game economy, but it didn't have anything to do with his argument, which is why he (correctly) called it a straw man. After pedantically making him prove he knew what a straw man was, you made the above statement that you introduced the topic therefore he was the one making a non sequitur. That doesn't follow from your premise, so in making the statement, you made a non sequitur while at the same time misspelling non sequitur. That's fantastic on so many levels.
Except his argument is literally a response to my original argument so no this is wrong and everything after that point is irrelevant. Unbelievable
Your original argument was about both the change in the game economy and the idea that based on the way other games sell in-game currency we should be getting more units for our dollars. His argument was relevant to the latter point. Your response was relevant to the former. The fact that you can't or refuse to see that is what is unbelievable.
His argument was relevant to "Most games already use a ratio that’s closer to a 1:1 scale. Meaning that $5 should be getting us about 400-500 units instead of 100 (135)".
"so no this is wrong"
You ought to bone up on that whole non sequitur thing lol
Your original argument was about both the change in the game economy and the idea that based on the way other games sell in-game currency we should be getting more units for our dollars. His argument was relevant to the latter point. Your response was relevant to the former. The fact that you can't or refuse to see that is what is unbelievable.
Hmm…Maybe that’s the problem. Perhaps I didn’t clarify well enough. My original point was that Kabam should raise our amount of units. I then gave a suggestion on what other games do as an option for how much they should raise the units if they were to buff the deals. I don’t care about other countries or other games. Hence why I said reducing the cost of items is just as good (almost as good. Technically it isn’t as good but I’m not gonna get into that)
Talking about Ratio is senseless when the value of the ingame money (units) differs between games as what you can buy in game is different and has different values, its senseless to buff units when you can just get them playing, as you dont get them only by paying, you cant compare it to other games where you have 2 or more kinds of money, the one you earn by playing and the one you get by paying, so as I say, its senseless to talk about buffs in units
U wanna talk about ratio? The OP is getting ratio'd non stop here lol
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
You’d have to readjust all units gained in the game to reflect the change as well as do the same to people’s stash not to devalue what they’ve earned or will earn in the future. Seriously, I think the game has way bigger issues than adjusting to currency. And then which one would you use, USD seems pretty standard yet Kabam in a Canadian company. And Netmarble is South Korean.
Seriously, why complicate something that is a non issue for 99.99% of the player base?
1:1 ratio. For 500 units you need to spend $500! Be careful guys! He secretly is asking for a unit NERF!
No because a unit isn’t a 1:1 metric with a dollar. In the scenario that I literally laid out it would actually be worth a penny. But I’m the one that doesn’t know economics 🙄 I mean did you literally not read the post I sent you earlier 😒 maybe this discussion isn’t for you. Like even in my original message that wouldn’t be the case I mean how bad at math can you be? How the hell can $5 get you 500 units if a unit is worth a dollar? Holy hell
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
Your $100 doesn’t equal my £100. If I go to your Walmart I’ll walk away with more value after conversion than what you’ll get from spending $100 here. That’s the argument you literally made when comparing different game economies. It’s a redundant argument.
$100 20 years ago doesn't even get you the same prices as it does today. And no I don’t mean in a different country I mean in this one
For calling out strawman arguments earlier, you should look in the mirror. This is the biggest strawman argument so far. Your argument is comparing one currency (dollars) across two different games (in my argument countries). Just because you can buy more with your dollars in one game doesn’t mean you can expect the same perceived “value” in another.
It’s not a strawman. Do you know what a straw man is? Define it for me
Follow the arrow to find your definition.
I mean at this point someone should just call Webster's and make it official.
What part of what I just said was confusing to you?
What is the 1:1 ratio that you mentioned?
Basically most game have a currency system where the amount of dollars that you spend is around equal to the Virtual currency that you receive and than items that you can purchase are also that same price value. So a cavalier crystal in the game costs more than $10 a team revive costs slightly less than 5 dollars. I could also see Kabam making the $5 deal closer to 300 units. But either way $5 for around 100 units is bizarre and a terrible value for todays game
What part of what I just said was confusing to you?
What is the 1:1 ratio that you mentioned?
Basically most game have a currency system where the amount of dollars that you spend is around equal to the Virtual currency that you receive and than items that you can purchase are also that same price value. So a cavalier crystal in the game costs more than $10 a team revive costs slightly less than 5 dollars. I could also see Kabam making the $5 deal closer to 300 units. But either way $5 for around 100 units is bizarre and a terrible value for todays game
“They called me a madman”
Oh you still are. This is just a bump for the weekend, this isn't The New Normal
With the economy of the game changing year to year, and with units now being more of a factor in the game than ever (literally has direct control over our progression and is essential in many events including “gifting”) why haven’t we received even an Acknowledgment that the cost of the game has gone up? Because in case you haven’t noticed it has.
Most games already use a ratio that’s closer to a 1:1 scale. Meaning that $5 should be getting us about 400-500 units instead of 100 (135)
Comments
It's only the conversation rate you are Talking about. It's pointless If they give you 135 or 500 units for 5$. Kabam would adjust the ingame prices and nothing changed. So whats the point?
Did u know the Big Mac Index?
U can't buy a big mac around the world for the Same price. Why should this be different in online games from different countries?
If kabam really wanted they could just give us 5 units for 5 dollars and lower the price of everything accordingly and give much less units in the game. Also every other game you mentioned is way younger than mcoc, so imo they should change their standard to follow mcoc proportions of premium currency instead.
I stated that just because the dollar buys different amounts in two separate games, doesn’t mean that the perceived value in one should equate to another. You then retorted with “well 100 dollars isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago!”
Therefore, strawman. Checkmate.
"so no this is wrong"
You ought to bone up on that whole non sequitur thing lol
Follow the arrow to find your definition.
Seriously, why complicate something that is a non issue for 99.99% of the player base?
Problem solved?