Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.
There is a package in there you can purchase weekly (I think) for free that has the equivalent of the Test of the Valiant stuff.
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.
It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.
Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.
This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.
I wasn't arguing against his suggestion. I was offering an explanation as to why I thought they went the direction they did. There are a few things that have been changed that I think is curious, and I have no objections to the current prices of Tokens or Shards, but I also said getting rid of the Shard exchange was somewhat negative. So I'm in agreement for the most part. I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between personal expectation and what the goal is, and I also made the point that for $10 a month, I don't expect a mind-blowing value.
I can't say the designer wasn't thinking in terms of lock in when they designed those trades: I haven't discussed it with whomever did the design and no basis upon which to speculate, but I'm still going to have to side with Popcorn that this is not something that's likely to work. You can try to force people to subscribe continuously for a year to get things of value, but I believe that is likely to backfire by reducing the perceived value of the subscription. You can't lock people in if they don't subscribe in the first place. I don't see the net incentivizing power of that design choice myself.
Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.
So you were just trolling my suggestion with your mental gymnastics?... You haven't thought about it, form your own suggestions, or even think about it; but i was the one doing mental gymnastics. What a joke
No one is trolling anyone. You've been on the offensive with every damn word I've said.
Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.
There is a package in there you can purchase weekly (I think) for free that has the equivalent of the Test of the Valiant stuff.
I was speaking more to the act of waiting for it and doing it. At least it felt like something to wait for. There's not much doing in making a purchase.
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.
It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.
Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.
This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.
I wasn't arguing against his suggestion. I was offering an explanation as to why I thought they went the direction they did. There are a few things that have been changed that I think is curious, and I have no objections to the current prices of Tokens or Shards, but I also said getting rid of the Shard exchange was somewhat negative. So I'm in agreement for the most part. I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between personal expectation and what the goal is, and I also made the point that for $10 a month, I don't expect a mind-blowing value.
I can't say the designer wasn't thinking in terms of lock in when they designed those trades: I haven't discussed it with whomever did the design and no basis upon which to speculate, but I'm still going to have to side with Popcorn that this is not something that's likely to work. You can try to force people to subscribe continuously for a year to get things of value, but I believe that is likely to backfire by reducing the perceived value of the subscription. You can't lock people in if they don't subscribe in the first place. I don't see the net incentivizing power of that design choice myself.
Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.
So you were just trolling my suggestion with your mental gymnastics?... You haven't thought about it, form your own suggestions, or even think about it; but i was the one doing mental gymnastics. What a joke
No one is trolling anyone. You've been on the offensive with every damn word I've said.
I wonder why? Cause it was all speculation and not thought out as you admitted. I don't want you to agree with me; but this if this is a discussion forum I would expect the person discussing with me to actually put some thoughts in it instead of give me pure speculations based on nothing. I have been in the offensive?.. You are the one who tried to ridicule my post by saying "so you want a Titan crystal every month? Stop victimizing youself. I did not disrespect you, I only countered your narrative with examples.
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.
It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.
Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.
This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.
I wasn't arguing against his suggestion. I was offering an explanation as to why I thought they went the direction they did. There are a few things that have been changed that I think is curious, and I have no objections to the current prices of Tokens or Shards, but I also said getting rid of the Shard exchange was somewhat negative. So I'm in agreement for the most part. I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between personal expectation and what the goal is, and I also made the point that for $10 a month, I don't expect a mind-blowing value.
I can't say the designer wasn't thinking in terms of lock in when they designed those trades: I haven't discussed it with whomever did the design and no basis upon which to speculate, but I'm still going to have to side with Popcorn that this is not something that's likely to work. You can try to force people to subscribe continuously for a year to get things of value, but I believe that is likely to backfire by reducing the perceived value of the subscription. You can't lock people in if they don't subscribe in the first place. I don't see the net incentivizing power of that design choice myself.
Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.
So you were just trolling my suggestion with your mental gymnastics?... You haven't thought about it, form your own suggestions, or even think about it; but i was the one doing mental gymnastics. What a joke
No one is trolling anyone. You've been on the offensive with every damn word I've said.
I wonder why? Cause it was all speculation and not thought out as you admitted. I don't want you to agree with me; but this if this is a discussion forum I would expect the person discussing with me to actually put some thoughts in it instead of give me pure speculations based on nothing. I have been in the offensive?.. You are the one who tried to ridicule my post by saying "so you want a Titan crystal every month? Stop victimizing youself. I did not disrespect you, I only countered your narrative with examples.
You're literally jumping on everything I say and claiming I'm playing the victim. There's a word for that. That comment was sarcasm, and you know it. I'm not bothering with the argument about speculation. Your word isn't any more fact than mine. If you want to have an actual discussion with me, then stop making the attacks and talk to me with some respect. Otherwise I'm not engaging with you any further. All you're doing is making things personal and I could care less if you like me or not.
I just need to know how to cancel the subscription? Total waste of $10. Whoever was in charge of this project failed miserably!
If you purchased in the Web Store, there should be a button. If you used Apple or Android, then you need to find it in managing subscriptions with them.
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.
It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.
Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.
This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.
I wasn't arguing against his suggestion. I was offering an explanation as to why I thought they went the direction they did. There are a few things that have been changed that I think is curious, and I have no objections to the current prices of Tokens or Shards, but I also said getting rid of the Shard exchange was somewhat negative. So I'm in agreement for the most part. I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between personal expectation and what the goal is, and I also made the point that for $10 a month, I don't expect a mind-blowing value.
I can't say the designer wasn't thinking in terms of lock in when they designed those trades: I haven't discussed it with whomever did the design and no basis upon which to speculate, but I'm still going to have to side with Popcorn that this is not something that's likely to work. You can try to force people to subscribe continuously for a year to get things of value, but I believe that is likely to backfire by reducing the perceived value of the subscription. You can't lock people in if they don't subscribe in the first place. I don't see the net incentivizing power of that design choice myself.
Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.
So you were just trolling my suggestion with your mental gymnastics?... You haven't thought about it, form your own suggestions, or even think about it; but i was the one doing mental gymnastics. What a joke
No one is trolling anyone. You've been on the offensive with every damn word I've said.
I wonder why? Cause it was all speculation and not thought out as you admitted. I don't want you to agree with me; but this if this is a discussion forum I would expect the person discussing with me to actually put some thoughts in it instead of give me pure speculations based on nothing. I have been in the offensive?.. You are the one who tried to ridicule my post by saying "so you want a Titan crystal every month? Stop victimizing youself. I did not disrespect you, I only countered your narrative with examples.
You're literally jumping on everything I say and claiming I'm playing the victim. There's a word for that. That comment was sarcasm, and you know it. I'm not bothering with the argument about speculation. Your word isn't any more fact than mine. If you want to have an actual discussion with me, then stop making the attacks and talk to me with some respect. Otherwise I'm not engaging with you any further. All you're doing is making things personal and I could care less if you like me or not.
Yeah yeah poor Groundedwisdom, 2 pages going back and foward and you didn't even put time to evaluate or think about it. For someone who didn't want the mental gymnastics you got the gold in the mental olympics. Why don't you go ahead and actually put some though on it, evaluate and come back with a decent discussion other than trying to be sarcastic about my thoughts?
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.
It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.
Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.
This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.
Ever since I read Crashed recap of banquet where he acknowledges that “it didn’t feel good” to open the crystals, I’ve been thinking how much the economy team would benefit from a shot in the arm of behavioral economic theory. Who knows, maybe that’s actually how the economy team is trained, but it doesn’t feel like it these days. Things like banquet and Sigil appear to have been engineered with an economic outcome in mind and not much consideration for the player experience.
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
if you think a Titan crystal every 10 months is incentivizing you and I are playing a completely different game. What would incentive more people to buy it and keep it active? Omg I am missing 6K titan shards I can buy from the sigil store!!... Or buy a Titan shard in 10 monthly payments?
I’m thinking “Installment Payment Titan” doesn’t sell as well as “Sigil”…
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
if you think a Titan crystal every 10 months is incentivizing you and I are playing a completely different game. What would incentive more people to buy it and keep it active? Omg I am missing 6K titan shards I can buy from the sigil store!!... Or buy a Titan shard in 10 monthly payments?
I’m thinking “Installment Payment Titan” doesn’t sell as well as “Sigil”…
Dr. Zola
Titan Crystal layaway might be catchy for some, not me though...
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
if you think a Titan crystal every 10 months is incentivizing you and I are playing a completely different game. What would incentive more people to buy it and keep it active? Omg I am missing 6K titan shards I can buy from the sigil store!!... Or buy a Titan shard in 10 monthly payments?
Am I missing something here? Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.
If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example. Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of. I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves. It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.
I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.
I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.
This one doesn't have much either....
It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.
Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item. Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.
What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?
So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals? I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.
Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.
Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal. What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.
You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?
Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.
It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.
Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.
This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.
Ever since I read Crashed recap of banquet where he acknowledges that “it didn’t feel good” to open the crystals, I’ve been thinking how much the economy team would benefit from a shot in the arm of behavioral economic theory. Who knows, maybe that’s actually how the economy team is trained, but it doesn’t feel like it these days. Things like banquet and Sigil appear to have been engineered with an economic outcome in mind and not much consideration for the player experience.
I think the design team does think about this in general, but this is not an easy thing to get right consistently. It was in fact trying to respond to a behavioral idea that caused the design team to shift rewards from the crystals to the milestones in an attempt to reduce the overall impact of RNG on the event. And this worked: if you look at the overall rewards players got, this was much less subject to RNG than it was in the past. But this came at the expense of making the actual act of spinning crystals, which was the actual engagement activity, too unrewarding.
You could argue the problem was the devs listened to the players instead of the science. The players say they hate RNG. But the science says RNG is far more engaging, which is why there is no game of chance that *lowers* the impact of randomness to improve engagement. The more impact "luck" has, the more players engage with it, regardless of whether they complain about it or not.
In fact, the sentiment of microtransactions in general is that players hate it. The science says the exact opposite. The studios that listen to the players fail, and the ones that listen to the science tend to succeed more often. That's the ultimate challenge of incorporating player feedback. You have to respond to it, but you can't just do what it asks. You have to find a way to follow the science while still addressing the feedback, even if in a roundabout way. And sometimes you just have to sit back and let the players call you a moron while still playing the game, instead of trying to make them think you're a genius while walking out the door.
So where's the discount for paying automatically every month? I wish i was kidding but overall this makes this less of a deal than previously. at least for me. I used to be able to stretch a single month to just under 5 weeks which obviously cannot be done anymore.
Kabam is really trying to make it hard to want to spend money on this game.
in case anyone is wondering no i wasn't cheating. i just let my month expire and wouldn't renew until the following Monday....i figure i saved over time at least one or two subs
They closed a loophole, there is no discount for recurring payments. What you are asking is a bit ridiculous.
It's not just that. Typically there is a discount to a subscription service versus one you pay month to month. Personally I'm not going to spend a dime on the subscription model which imo is a worst deal loophole or not. Go ahead pay for it if you want it's your money and that's fine
So where's the discount for paying automatically every month? I wish i was kidding but overall this makes this less of a deal than previously. at least for me. I used to be able to stretch a single month to just under 5 weeks which obviously cannot be done anymore.
Kabam is really trying to make it hard to want to spend money on this game.
in case anyone is wondering no i wasn't cheating. i just let my month expire and wouldn't renew until the following Monday....i figure i saved over time at least one or two subs
They closed a loophole, there is no discount for recurring payments. What you are asking is a bit ridiculous.
It's not just that. Typically there is a discount to a subscription service versus one you pay month to month. Personally I'm not going to spend a dime on the subscription model which imo is a worst deal loophole or not. Go ahead pay for it if you want it's your money and that's fine
There was never any discount to begin with. People found a way to get an extra Test now and then. That's more a matter of the calendar than anything.
I'm trying to figure out how to get the sigil credit things. I can't find them anywhere
They are in the subscription/renewal bonus bundle. 300 units and 60 Sigil credits if you sign up in-game, 375 units and 75 Sigil credits if you sign up on the webstore.
so, in summary, things to return to the store to make people want it again: -6 star featured crystal -lower shard for higher shard trade in -boosts for gold instead of credits -raise or remove the purchase limit for most items -HP potion trade in for higher potions
Missing anything?
This is a great summary of what people/players/customers want!
So where's the discount for paying automatically every month? I wish i was kidding but overall this makes this less of a deal than previously. at least for me. I used to be able to stretch a single month to just under 5 weeks which obviously cannot be done anymore.
Kabam is really trying to make it hard to want to spend money on this game.
in case anyone is wondering no i wasn't cheating. i just let my month expire and wouldn't renew until the following Monday....i figure i saved over time at least one or two subs
They closed a loophole, there is no discount for recurring payments. What you are asking is a bit ridiculous.
It's not just that. Typically there is a discount to a subscription service versus one you pay month to month. Personally I'm not going to spend a dime on the subscription model which imo is a worst deal loophole or not. Go ahead pay for it if you want it's your money and that's fine
There was never any discount to begin with. People found a way to get an extra Test now and then. That's more a matter of the calendar than anything.
Sorry I should have clarified...I mean in the world outside of this game.
Putting primordial dust into Sigil is a step in the right direction, I’m glad they listened to me.
The 1 piece per month limit on a lot of these items however, is crazy.
If I want to buy 10 4 star crystals and 100 Tier 1 primordial dust, I should be able to do it without a purchase limit, providing I have enough credits.
Get this portion control tf outta here, and ffs let’s do a 180 from this charging Sigil credits for boosts and health items.
Nobody who plays this game wants to share currency between health items and champion acquisition materials.
And yes, I was joking about the kabam listening to me part, haha. They don't listen to anyone.
They occasionally somewhat listen to the privileged elite. Definitely not the hoi polloi, though. Ew.
Putting primordial dust into Sigil is a step in the right direction, I’m glad they listened to me.
The 1 piece per month limit on a lot of these items however, is crazy.
If I want to buy 10 4 star crystals and 100 Tier 1 primordial dust, I should be able to do it without a purchase limit, providing I have enough credits.
Get this portion control tf outta here, and ffs let’s do a 180 from this charging Sigil credits for boosts and health items.
Nobody who plays this game wants to share currency between health items and champion acquisition materials.
And yes, I was joking about the kabam listening to me part, haha. They don't listen to anyone.
They occasionally somewhat listen to the privileged elite. Definitely not the hoi polloi, though. Ew.
Actually, they have been listening to the issues brought up on the forums and elsewhere regarding the changes to the Sigil (at least, the more thoughtful and rational ones), and have been discussing ways to incorporate that feedback into the Sigil moving forward. I have no specific information on what they are considering or what changes might be made, but I do know they are explicitly discussing changes.
So where's the discount for paying automatically every month? I wish i was kidding but overall this makes this less of a deal than previously. at least for me. I used to be able to stretch a single month to just under 5 weeks which obviously cannot be done anymore.
Kabam is really trying to make it hard to want to spend money on this game.
in case anyone is wondering no i wasn't cheating. i just let my month expire and wouldn't renew until the following Monday....i figure i saved over time at least one or two subs
They closed a loophole, there is no discount for recurring payments. What you are asking is a bit ridiculous.
It's not just that. Typically there is a discount to a subscription service versus one you pay month to month. Personally I'm not going to spend a dime on the subscription model which imo is a worst deal loophole or not. Go ahead pay for it if you want it's your money and that's fine
There was never any discount to begin with. People found a way to get an extra Test now and then. That's more a matter of the calendar than anything.
Sorry I should have clarified...I mean in the world outside of this game.
Can't say that's been my experience. Only discount I get paying for Amazon Prime is the satisfaction of supporting an oligarch. Lol
Putting primordial dust into Sigil is a step in the right direction, I’m glad they listened to me.
The 1 piece per month limit on a lot of these items however, is crazy.
If I want to buy 10 4 star crystals and 100 Tier 1 primordial dust, I should be able to do it without a purchase limit, providing I have enough credits.
Get this portion control tf outta here, and ffs let’s do a 180 from this charging Sigil credits for boosts and health items.
Nobody who plays this game wants to share currency between health items and champion acquisition materials.
And yes, I was joking about the kabam listening to me part, haha. They don't listen to anyone.
They occasionally somewhat listen to the privileged elite. Definitely not the hoi polloi, though. Ew.
Actually, they have been listening to the issues brought up on the forums and elsewhere regarding the changes to the Sigil (at least, the more thoughtful and rational ones), and have been discussing ways to incorporate that feedback into the Sigil moving forward. I have no specific information on what they are considering or what changes might be made, but I do know they are explicitly discussing changes.
This is the type of thing that the community cares about, knowing that the things that matter to the community are being heard and seriously consider implementing. We want the game to do well, especially when it comes to value for our money.
Comments
I have been in the offensive?.. You are the one who tried to ridicule my post by saying "so you want a Titan crystal every month? Stop victimizing youself. I did not disrespect you, I only countered your narrative with examples.
Whoever was in charge of this project failed miserably!
That comment was sarcasm, and you know it. I'm not bothering with the argument about speculation. Your word isn't any more fact than mine.
If you want to have an actual discussion with me, then stop making the attacks and talk to me with some respect. Otherwise I'm not engaging with you any further. All you're doing is making things personal and I could care less if you like me or not.
Ever since I read Crashed recap of banquet where he acknowledges that “it didn’t feel good” to open the crystals, I’ve been thinking how much the economy team would benefit from a shot in the arm of behavioral economic theory. Who knows, maybe that’s actually how the economy team is trained, but it doesn’t feel like it these days. Things like banquet and Sigil appear to have been engineered with an economic outcome in mind and not much consideration for the player experience.
Dr. Zola
You could argue the problem was the devs listened to the players instead of the science. The players say they hate RNG. But the science says RNG is far more engaging, which is why there is no game of chance that *lowers* the impact of randomness to improve engagement. The more impact "luck" has, the more players engage with it, regardless of whether they complain about it or not.
In fact, the sentiment of microtransactions in general is that players hate it. The science says the exact opposite. The studios that listen to the players fail, and the ones that listen to the science tend to succeed more often. That's the ultimate challenge of incorporating player feedback. You have to respond to it, but you can't just do what it asks. You have to find a way to follow the science while still addressing the feedback, even if in a roundabout way. And sometimes you just have to sit back and let the players call you a moron while still playing the game, instead of trying to make them think you're a genius while walking out the door.
This is not easy.
This is the type of thing that the community cares about, knowing that the things that matter to the community are being heard and seriously consider implementing. We want the game to do well, especially when it comes to value for our money.
T4A catalysts are arguably one of the most valuable resources in the game right now, and they have an option to trade T3A for it.
The option is already there to trade T1B Alloys for T2B, and T2B for T3B.
Why did they choose to completely ignore the option to trade T3B for T4B Alloys?
The game team has made a very conscious decision to ignore this in another thread. @DNA3000 perhaps you could make some inquiries.