Neither one of us implied that we were the most intelligent people in the Thread. I can't speak for DNA. I expressed my views and the counter to them was to question whether we work for Kabam, and to point out that we don't know for sure. Which I've expressed myself. I have a pretty good understanding on the general subject, and DNA has more experience in the field than I do. I respect his input. All I'm doing is sharing my thoughts on the subject.
Neither one of us implied that we were the most intelligent people in the Thread. I can't speak for DNA. I expressed my views and the counter to them was to question whether we work for Kabam, and to point out that we don't know for sure. Which I've expressed myself. I have a pretty good understanding on the general subject, and DNA has more experience in the field than I do. I respect his input. All I'm doing is sharing my thoughts on the subject.
When you say "we" did anyone suggest that DNA works for Kabam?
@Axo4545 I must've missed that. Thought GW who gets asked that all the time was just trying to lump them together lol.
Nah, they just seem to forget that people might have different opinions than they do and when you press GW on anything to do with his he deflects and says he's moving on.
You're not presenting any actual counters to my thoughts. You're just questioning what I'm saying to try and prove me wrong. There's a difference. You've decided for yourself, admittedly, that I argue for the sake of being contrary, and have taken it upon yourself to dispute me the same way you perceive I function. I'm not a contrarian. I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I present points not currently being considered. That's what usually happens in a debate. I fully encourage people to challenge my thoughts in a respectful way. I don't have much time to do it aimlessly, or just for the sake of mental sparring.
@Axo4545 I must've missed that. Thought GW who gets asked that all the time was just trying to lump them together lol.
GW gets asked that all the time because I'm yet to see him not defend Kabam. (Feel free to point me to a thread were that's the case and I'm fine with being wrong). Kabam is not always wrong and so I don't see an issue with defending them in those instances.
DNA has not said anything that would indicate that he has insider knowledge, it's industry knowledge. He can take a best guess and there is a very good chance he will be right, but he has no more proof of the specifics of the metrics that they are using/gathering to make choices than anyone else. This is not a dig at him, I"m just saying that I don't see any reason to believe he works for them.
Support and the forum mods have been shown to be incorrect on previous occasions and on many occasions a lack of how changes impact players and what motivates players.
I don't believe in all instances that it is willful misdirection and In some instances I would certainly point at a knowledge gap between what they believe to be what was intended by the system and what has been implemented by the dev team, which is why you often have them tell us they are taking it to the dev team.
It is quite possible that their understanding of what decision making process was used to choose the champs in the featured crystals is very different from what the actual process was. Or we can be suspicious and assume that's the spin they've been told to tell us.
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
Здравствуйте. У меня был 2 аккаунта. Первую я связал с Кабам. Вторую не связал не с Кабам , не с Гоогле игры. И у меня пропал этот аккаунт. Как я могу ее вернуть? Пожалуйста помогите!
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
@Axo4545 I must've missed that. Thought GW who gets asked that all the time was just trying to lump them together lol.
Nah, they just seem to forget that people might have different opinions than they do and when you press GW on anything to do with his he deflects and says he's moving on.
You're not presenting any actual counters to my thoughts. You're just questioning what I'm saying to try and prove me wrong. There's a difference. You've decided for yourself, admittedly, that I argue for the sake of being contrary, and have taken it upon yourself to dispute me the same way you perceive I function. I'm not a contrarian. I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I present points not currently being considered. That's what usually happens in a debate. I fully encourage people to challenge my thoughts in a respectful way. I don't have much time to do it aimlessly, or just for the sake of mental sparring.
Yeah the points you present that are not being considered are because 99% of the time you have no experience in them but feel the need to act like you do
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game.
The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player.
If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness".
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game.
The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player.
If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness".
That's not obtuse at all. You're suggesting that the Featured Crystal needs to reflect one specific demographic. It does not. The Featured 5* and the 5* Crystals are for all Players that have enough Shards to open them. These days, you can get them from logging in over a particular amount of time. That statement about all Offers not applying to all Players is not the same context at all. Offers are varied and spread out over the year. These Crystals are available for anyone that has enough Shards. You're implying that these Crystals are directed more towards those that need Top Tier Champs to compete. This is not true. It may be true in the case of the GMCs, but there is also a requirement to have access to those which means the Players would typically be in a similar range after completing it.
Anyone who has 15,000 Shards can choose to go for the Featured 5*, and that doesn't mean they have to be on the higher end of things. In fact, the only indication we have is that they're trying to avoid including the ones which perform the poorest. Which most likely means overall, not at one particular area of the game.
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game.
The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player.
If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness".
That's not obtuse at all. You're suggesting that the Featured Crystal needs to reflect one specific demographic. It does not. The Featured 5* and the 5* Crystals are for all Players that have enough Shards to open them. These days, you can get them from logging in over a particular amount of time. That statement about all Offers not applying to all Players is not the same context at all. Offers are varied and spread out over the year. These Crystals are available for anyone that has enough Shards. You're implying that these Crystals are directed more towards those that need Top Tier Champs to compete. This is not true. It may be true in the case of the GMCs, but there is also a requirement to have access to those which means the Players would typically be in a similar range after completing it.
Anyone who has 15,000 Shards can choose to go for the Featured 5*, and that doesn't mean they have to be on the higher end of things. In fact, the only indication we have is that they're trying to avoid including the ones which perform the poorest. Which most likely means overall, not at one particular area of the game.
No it's not what I said, if anything what I said is closer to excluding a particular demographic, not including a particular demographic.
As they stand the new featured crystals provide almost no benefit over a basic crystal and cost 50% more, unless you've come to conclusion that the 50% premium is worth avoiding "ineffective" champs. The problem is if their metrics include data from low skill conditions, it's not really a good measure of "effectiveness" is it?
If you are an emerging player that ONLY has 15k shards, the premium of buying a 15K crystal for a mediocre champ makes no sense. Just because something is technically applicable doesn't mean that is the target. I have arms and legs and can ride a bike and a disposable income, but that doesn't mean I'm the target for people trying to sell bikes. I would hate to see you write a business plan.
I am quite sure that Kabam did think about which segments the crystal was applicable to, otherwise it is you that are giving them less credit than they deserve. They might not end up with the same conclusions as the player base, but I'm sure they thought about it.
Certain Moderators have other roles besides moderating the Forum. I'm not denying that some cases have crossed wires. I think this specific case is a misinterpretation of what the comment was. Mainly because of popular opinion. The Player opinion of what is effective is not necessarily a reflection of what the data shows. Which is the very reason they're relying on the data, as per the Announcement. I think the real question about credibility is because those who don't like Champs like Cyclops can't see how he could be considered effective. What makes a Champ effective is not necessarily what people use at the Top Tier. Any specific point for that matter. There's a common thought that because the Top use certain Champs, they are the best/moat effective, and the rest aren't effective/less effective. Logically, if you're looking at efficiency in data, you would have to look at broader factors than End-Game alone.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game.
The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player.
If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness".
That's not obtuse at all. You're suggesting that the Featured Crystal needs to reflect one specific demographic. It does not. The Featured 5* and the 5* Crystals are for all Players that have enough Shards to open them. These days, you can get them from logging in over a particular amount of time. That statement about all Offers not applying to all Players is not the same context at all. Offers are varied and spread out over the year. These Crystals are available for anyone that has enough Shards. You're implying that these Crystals are directed more towards those that need Top Tier Champs to compete. This is not true. It may be true in the case of the GMCs, but there is also a requirement to have access to those which means the Players would typically be in a similar range after completing it.
Anyone who has 15,000 Shards can choose to go for the Featured 5*, and that doesn't mean they have to be on the higher end of things. In fact, the only indication we have is that they're trying to avoid including the ones which perform the poorest. Which most likely means overall, not at one particular area of the game.
No it's not what I said, if anything what I said is closer to excluding a particular demographic, not including a particular demographic.
As they stand the new featured crystals provide almost no benefit over a basic crystal and cost 50% more, unless you've come to conclusion that the 50% premium is worth avoiding "ineffective" champs. The problem is if their metrics include data from low skill conditions, it's not really a good measure of "effectiveness" is it?
If you are an emerging player that ONLY has 15k shards, the premium of buying a 15K crystal for a mediocre champ makes no sense. Just because something is technically applicable doesn't mean that is the target. I have arms and legs and can ride a bike and a disposable income, but that doesn't mean I'm the target for people trying to sell bikes. I would hate to see you write a business plan.
I am quite sure that Kabam did think about which segments the crystal was applicable to, otherwise it is you that are giving them less credit than they deserve. They might not end up with the same conclusions as the player base, but I'm sure they thought about it.
There is no target is what I'm telling you. They're not aiming the Crystals towards any level of progression. Whether it makes sense for someone to go for a Featured with their first 15k or not doesn't matter. They are able to.
It's not about a specific Tier of Champ or a particular level of growth or demographic. They're not editing the Champs based on where anyone is at. They're looking at the data and not including those that perform the poorest.
If the argument is that there must be a better caliber of Champs for incetive to go for it, I'm afraid you're missing the purpose of having a Crystal to begin with. It's a roll. The extra Shards are for a chance at a Featured Champ. Whether people want to venture that chance is entirely up to them. We can't expect them to edit the Crystal based on who we think is best suited to where we are at in the game.
@GroundedWisdom
A "featured" champion isn't necessarily better than a basic champ, it's just newer. With that in mind, straight up question - forget about how Kabam have curated the list of basics and all the other stuff in this discussion. Do you honestly think this crystal is better than the existing one and if so why?
@GroundedWisdom
A "featured" champion isn't necessarily better than a basic champ, it's just newer. With that in mind, straight up question - forget about how Kabam have curated the list of basics and all the other stuff in this discussion. Do you honestly think this crystal is better than the existing one and if so why?
Better depends on the perspective. If you are looking at the odds of pulling one specific Champ, as in the one running alongside the Arena release, then no. I believe we've established that the chance will be lower.
Better in terms of getting Champs as soon as they're released? Perhaps not.
Better in terms of being more fair and in line with the probability of other Crystals? Yes. It was the only Crystal that had that high of a rate for one particular Champ, for a long time. For a while, that may have been necessary because they literally ran twice, and Shards were much more limited. Things gave changed.
Better in terms of Duping other Champs? Yes. There will be greater possibility of such.
Better in terms of making our own personal decisions? Yes. The pool is more specific and less cluttered. People will have a better idea what's in it and be able to make more informed decisions.
Better in terms of slowing down the amount of Featured Champs that flow through the game? Yes. The flow was too high. Especially with Shards becoming more available.
It's really all a matter of perspective as to whether it's better, but I see it as a viable decision and I understand the reasoning behind it. That may not be in tandem with what people want, but it rarely is when something changes that means less access to something.
@GroundedWisdom Distilling your answer. I read "Better... Yes" more times than I read "Better... No", so I take it on the whole you consider it a better crystal. It was relatively straightforward question.
@Axo4545 The fact there are so many opinions here should give them at least the idea that we are unhappy with the change and should consider a different approach. Here's my constructive idea: On the basis that we get two new champs per month.
1) Rotate the two new champs through a 3 month life cycle, removing the oldest two featured champs at the end of each month. So the featured champs are still in there a total of 3 months.
2) Change the pool of basic champs each month
3) Reduce the basic pool down to 12 champs, making the total pool 18 champs
This means that the basic pool doesn't become stale and I feel makes the "featured" crystal worth the 50% premium based on the increased odds of pulling a champ you are looking for.
@GroundedWisdom Distilling your answer. I read "Better... Yes" more times than I read "Better... No", so I take it on the whole you consider it a better crystal. It was relatively straightforward question.
@Axo4545 The fact there are so many opinions here should give them at least the idea that we are unhappy with the change and should consider a different approach. Here's my constructive idea: On the basis that we get two new champs per month.
1) Rotate the two new champs through a 3 month life cycle, removing the oldest two featured champs at the end of each month. So the featured champs are still in there a total of 3 months.
2) Change the pool of basic champs each month
3) Reduce the basic pool down to 12 champs, making the total pool 18 champs
This means that the basic pool doesn't become stale and I feel makes the "featured" crystal worth the 50% premium based on the increased odds of pulling a champ you are looking for.
That's an oversimplified summary of what I said. I didn't say it was better. I said it was a viable option and I understand the reasons behind it. Better depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.
@GroundedWisdom Distilling your answer. I read "Better... Yes" more times than I read "Better... No", so I take it on the whole you consider it a better crystal. It was relatively straightforward question.
@Axo4545 The fact there are so many opinions here should give them at least the idea that we are unhappy with the change and should consider a different approach. Here's my constructive idea: On the basis that we get two new champs per month.
1) Rotate the two new champs through a 3 month life cycle, removing the oldest two featured champs at the end of each month. So the featured champs are still in there a total of 3 months.
2) Change the pool of basic champs each month
3) Reduce the basic pool down to 12 champs, making the total pool 18 champs
This means that the basic pool doesn't become stale and I feel makes the "featured" crystal worth the 50% premium based on the increased odds of pulling a champ you are looking for.
That's an oversimplified summary of what I said. I didn't say it was better. I said it was a viable option and I understand the reasons behind it. Better depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.
Yeah, and I find it funny that you can't give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, which makes me think that you're dodging the question. On the whole do you think the crystal is better or worse than the current one? Forget it depends on your perspective, people have a gut reaction as to whether this is better or worse, what is yours? I'm doing you the courtesy of being straightforward and you're dancing around. What do you actually think?
Comments
When you say "we" did anyone suggest that DNA works for Kabam?
You're not presenting any actual counters to my thoughts. You're just questioning what I'm saying to try and prove me wrong. There's a difference. You've decided for yourself, admittedly, that I argue for the sake of being contrary, and have taken it upon yourself to dispute me the same way you perceive I function. I'm not a contrarian. I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I present points not currently being considered. That's what usually happens in a debate. I fully encourage people to challenge my thoughts in a respectful way. I don't have much time to do it aimlessly, or just for the sake of mental sparring.
GW gets asked that all the time because I'm yet to see him not defend Kabam. (Feel free to point me to a thread were that's the case and I'm fine with being wrong). Kabam is not always wrong and so I don't see an issue with defending them in those instances.
DNA has not said anything that would indicate that he has insider knowledge, it's industry knowledge. He can take a best guess and there is a very good chance he will be right, but he has no more proof of the specifics of the metrics that they are using/gathering to make choices than anyone else. This is not a dig at him, I"m just saying that I don't see any reason to believe he works for them.
Support and the forum mods have been shown to be incorrect on previous occasions and on many occasions a lack of how changes impact players and what motivates players.
I don't believe in all instances that it is willful misdirection and In some instances I would certainly point at a knowledge gap between what they believe to be what was intended by the system and what has been implemented by the dev team, which is why you often have them tell us they are taking it to the dev team.
It is quite possible that their understanding of what decision making process was used to choose the champs in the featured crystals is very different from what the actual process was. Or we can be suspicious and assume that's the spin they've been told to tell us.
If I could figure out how to block people....
Let’s get back to the topic at hand instead of being derailed by GW every time he post some ridiculous response....
Let me help you. Go to my Profile, click the drop down, and select Ignore.
The lack of transparency or qualification on that statement is what is hurting Kabam at the moment. It is where I have been critical of Kabam in the past. They have a tendency to say something and never revisit it. They could save themselves a lot of pain by not going silent in threads.
It has been pointed out multiple times, we don't know what their metrics for measuring effectiveness are nor what their sample is drawn from.
I can see Cyclops being effective if you're in low tier/skill AW. Put him on unblockable SP1/SP2 and he could wreck players that can't yet evade. But if you're talking about players that are at the point of the game where they have enough 5* shards to go for featured crystals, these are not those players. That is why I have said that not all sampling bias is bad bias. Your empirical data should represent who you are targeting and not necessarily be the entire population, which is how I would account for the choices they have made in the new crystal.
Technically, the only target is anyone with 15,000 5* Shards.
Ty so much. The most helpful post you have ever written.
Yeah the points you present that are not being considered are because 99% of the time you have no experience in them but feel the need to act like you do
Hmmm - there you go providing an intentionally obtuse post again. I might have just blown all my shards on 5* pulls, does that exclude me? No it doesn't. Or you might as well have said they are targeting anyone who has ever had or is ever capable of getting 15k 5* shards. It's not just about what you have but also about where you are in the game.
The point is that casual gamers and high end gamers do not have the same requirements for their roster. The game is segmented, that's why not every deal they release is for every player. Just like not every crystal is for every player.
If you're a player that is 6 months in and hasn't got a 5* champ or doesn't even have enough shards to obtain one. Don't include that data to establish "effectiveness".
That's not obtuse at all. You're suggesting that the Featured Crystal needs to reflect one specific demographic. It does not. The Featured 5* and the 5* Crystals are for all Players that have enough Shards to open them. These days, you can get them from logging in over a particular amount of time. That statement about all Offers not applying to all Players is not the same context at all. Offers are varied and spread out over the year. These Crystals are available for anyone that has enough Shards. You're implying that these Crystals are directed more towards those that need Top Tier Champs to compete. This is not true. It may be true in the case of the GMCs, but there is also a requirement to have access to those which means the Players would typically be in a similar range after completing it.
Anyone who has 15,000 Shards can choose to go for the Featured 5*, and that doesn't mean they have to be on the higher end of things. In fact, the only indication we have is that they're trying to avoid including the ones which perform the poorest. Which most likely means overall, not at one particular area of the game.
No it's not what I said, if anything what I said is closer to excluding a particular demographic, not including a particular demographic.
As they stand the new featured crystals provide almost no benefit over a basic crystal and cost 50% more, unless you've come to conclusion that the 50% premium is worth avoiding "ineffective" champs. The problem is if their metrics include data from low skill conditions, it's not really a good measure of "effectiveness" is it?
If you are an emerging player that ONLY has 15k shards, the premium of buying a 15K crystal for a mediocre champ makes no sense. Just because something is technically applicable doesn't mean that is the target. I have arms and legs and can ride a bike and a disposable income, but that doesn't mean I'm the target for people trying to sell bikes. I would hate to see you write a business plan.
I am quite sure that Kabam did think about which segments the crystal was applicable to, otherwise it is you that are giving them less credit than they deserve. They might not end up with the same conclusions as the player base, but I'm sure they thought about it.
There is no target is what I'm telling you. They're not aiming the Crystals towards any level of progression. Whether it makes sense for someone to go for a Featured with their first 15k or not doesn't matter. They are able to.
It's not about a specific Tier of Champ or a particular level of growth or demographic. They're not editing the Champs based on where anyone is at. They're looking at the data and not including those that perform the poorest.
If the argument is that there must be a better caliber of Champs for incetive to go for it, I'm afraid you're missing the purpose of having a Crystal to begin with. It's a roll. The extra Shards are for a chance at a Featured Champ. Whether people want to venture that chance is entirely up to them. We can't expect them to edit the Crystal based on who we think is best suited to where we are at in the game.
A "featured" champion isn't necessarily better than a basic champ, it's just newer. With that in mind, straight up question - forget about how Kabam have curated the list of basics and all the other stuff in this discussion. Do you honestly think this crystal is better than the existing one and if so why?
Better depends on the perspective. If you are looking at the odds of pulling one specific Champ, as in the one running alongside the Arena release, then no. I believe we've established that the chance will be lower.
Better in terms of getting Champs as soon as they're released? Perhaps not.
Better in terms of being more fair and in line with the probability of other Crystals? Yes. It was the only Crystal that had that high of a rate for one particular Champ, for a long time. For a while, that may have been necessary because they literally ran twice, and Shards were much more limited. Things gave changed.
Better in terms of Duping other Champs? Yes. There will be greater possibility of such.
Better in terms of making our own personal decisions? Yes. The pool is more specific and less cluttered. People will have a better idea what's in it and be able to make more informed decisions.
Better in terms of slowing down the amount of Featured Champs that flow through the game? Yes. The flow was too high. Especially with Shards becoming more available.
It's really all a matter of perspective as to whether it's better, but I see it as a viable decision and I understand the reasoning behind it. That may not be in tandem with what people want, but it rarely is when something changes that means less access to something.
@Axo4545 The fact there are so many opinions here should give them at least the idea that we are unhappy with the change and should consider a different approach. Here's my constructive idea: On the basis that we get two new champs per month.
1) Rotate the two new champs through a 3 month life cycle, removing the oldest two featured champs at the end of each month. So the featured champs are still in there a total of 3 months.
2) Change the pool of basic champs each month
3) Reduce the basic pool down to 12 champs, making the total pool 18 champs
This means that the basic pool doesn't become stale and I feel makes the "featured" crystal worth the 50% premium based on the increased odds of pulling a champ you are looking for.
Yeah, and I find it funny that you can't give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, which makes me think that you're dodging the question. On the whole do you think the crystal is better or worse than the current one? Forget it depends on your perspective, people have a gut reaction as to whether this is better or worse, what is yours? I'm doing you the courtesy of being straightforward and you're dancing around. What do you actually think?