Vintage Heroic Packs (3/30/17)

Alsmir

Just a quick observation:

Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working.


Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed.
Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face).
Random crashes - not fixed.
Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile.


Good to know, that you have your priorities straight.

Quebbster

Alsmir wrote:

Just a quick observation:

Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working.


Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed.
Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face).
Random crashes - not fixed.
Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile.


Good to know, that you have your priorities straight.

A new token store is presumably a fairly easy fix and Quick to set up as the structure for that is already in the game. The other issues are presumably more complex to fix, I am sure the devs would have loved to have fixed them already if they could do it without screwing something else up even more.
Besides, I do Believe Brigby said the Vintage packs was not the only solution the developers were looking at. It's probably just the fastest fix they could come up with to at least mitigate the issue a bit.

NewMcG

Vhailorx wrote:

What's wrong with speculating about how this new vaulting mechanic may affect new players. Vaulting certainly irritated me the last time they tried it when I was still trying to build out my 3* roster. I don't see any reason to think it's a better deal now.

As for high level champs, getting everyone to 370 may have been unrealistic for most players. But getting everyone to 310 or 320 was a whole lot more feasible. And the champ rewards at those levels are pretty damn good. Also remember that roster progress in this game has always been a positive feedback loop. Having a stronger roster allows you to access better rewards and progress even faster. It takes a long time to build up a first 3* or first 4* character. And the pace of cover acquisition really picks up once you get a critical mass of characters covered/leveled for any given tier.

It's silly to be outraged on behalf of others, because if they were actually as outraged as they're being made out to be, they'd seek something like this forum out and actually make that complaint for themselves.

And if you're "only" shooting for 40-50 levels on all the old 4*'s, then we can call it just a scant 5-6 years or so instead of a decade? Let's not kid ourselves, vaulted or not, without spending exorbitant amounts of money, that's the glacial pace at which those covers would be trickling in, should every 4* get thrown back into the pool tomorrow. (And that's if you have the entire 4* roster champed and never have to waste a 4* pull, which would put you in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority in the first place.)

Ayasugi-san

Hi, new(er) player making the transition into 4* territory here. Pissed about vaulting. Have no problem with others being outraged on my behalf. Am annoyed at you for telling them they shouldn't be.

Alsmir

Quebbster wrote:

Alsmir wrote:

Just a quick observation:

Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working.


Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed.
Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face).
Random crashes - not fixed.
Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile.


Good to know, that you have your priorities straight.

A new token store is presumably a fairly easy fix and Quick to set up as the structure for that is already in the game. The other issues are presumably more complex to fix, I am sure the devs would have loved to have fixed them already if they could do it without screwing something else up even more.
Besides, I do Believe Brigby said the Vintage packs was not the only solution the developers were looking at. It's probably just the fastest fix they could come up with to at least mitigate the issue a bit.

Faster and easier than adding a token with same odds as we used to have in classic LTs? Don't make me laugh.

Quebbster

Alsmir wrote:

Quebbster wrote:

Alsmir wrote:

Just a quick observation:

Brand new token that fixes nothing - in game and working.


Expiring countdown tiles dealing damage - not fixed.
Buggy ennemy powers in big enichilada - not fixed. (once again I used an ability to clear entire set of first 3 characters, then 3 new, including 2* storm appear and I get 3 raging tempests into my face).
Random crashes - not fixed.
Overall drop of performance since the last patch (since I was forced to play on older PC for two days (Core 2 Duo 3 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD7770). Currently MPQ is more laggy than Path of Exile.


Good to know, that you have your priorities straight.

A new token store is presumably a fairly easy fix and Quick to set up as the structure for that is already in the game. The other issues are presumably more complex to fix, I am sure the devs would have loved to have fixed them already if they could do it without screwing something else up even more.
Besides, I do Believe Brigby said the Vintage packs was not the only solution the developers were looking at. It's probably just the fastest fix they could come up with to at least mitigate the issue a bit.

Faster and easier than adding a token with same odds as we used to have in classic LTs? Don't make me laugh.

Some options are just not on the table. That seems to be one of them.

TheIncredibleClick

2* covers already drop like candy, why on earth would I pay to get more of them? You want people to spend more on vaults? Remove the 2*s. I guarantee your revenue will increase. Simple.

In the meantime, message received. Since I'm not going to get any more covers for 4s or 5s, I'll stop rostering them and stick with 2 and 3*s. I'll also just stick with Deadpool Dailies, no point in grinding other events for toons I'll never fully cover.

broll

Brigby wrote:

Please stay on topic and keep all discussion civil and constructive. You are certainly encouraged to express your opinions, however I must ask that you please do not deviate from the original topic, and to keep all feedback constructive. I have removed several posts that did not fall under this category. Thank you for understanding.

Can you ask the devs to reciprocate and make their changes constructive? More often that not their changes of late seem to be destructive (either intentionally or unintentionally)

Jexman

Have the developers ever responded with any completeness to our questions? We have a simple question: why not add a legendary token for 20CP that only gives vaulted 4 stars and "classic" 5 stars? Saying they're going to "study" this is worthless: we want to know why this isn't an option. Acting like politicians and saying blah blah blah instead of honestly explaining how this affects their long term plans (including how they're going to make money off of us) is disappointing, after 3+ years of playing.

I would also like a clear answer on why PVE is still mostly Dark Avengers. The staleness of PVE is the single biggest factor pushing me to stop playing after 3+ years.

Crowl

New McG wrote:

All the long-timers talk about "how am I supposed to get my 4* to high champ levels when you take them out of legendaries". Well, realistically, that wasn't happening anyway. I have about a dozen champed 4*. Even if I had everyone champed, and pulled legendaries from the old pool of 50+ 4s, that's 5,000 legendary pulls to get everyone maxed out at 370. I play quite a bit, and probably average around 1 legendary a day, whether it's the every 5 day DDQ token or tallying 20 CP. At one a day, that would be roughly 13 years to finish them off. Maybe there's some top 10 finishes factored in, so a few odd levels here and there, so let's call it 10 years? (And this is barring any other characters ever being released again.) Given the reality of how slow any form of progress was with the diluted token pool, is this what the actual outcry is about? It isn't like the theoretical "vintage legendary" pool of 4* would be getting any less diluted on a monthly basis.

The point about pulling from the entire pool of covers is that while dilution may harm your chances of a specific character your roster steadily improves to the point where you are wasting almost no covers and at the same time your champion rewards are also improving in quality too, so your roster progresses faster due to those rewards.

Under the new system, you do not get these gradual but continuous improvements, both the chances of wasting covers and champ reward income will become more cyclical.

Vhailorx

New McG wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

What's wrong with speculating about how this new vaulting mechanic may affect new players. Vaulting certainly irritated me the last time they tried it when I was still trying to build out my 3* roster. I don't see any reason to think it's a better deal now.

As for high level champs, getting everyone to 370 may have been unrealistic for most players. But getting everyone to 310 or 320 was a whole lot more feasible. And the champ rewards at those levels are pretty damn good. Also remember that roster progress in this game has always been a positive feedback loop. Having a stronger roster allows you to access better rewards and progress even faster. It takes a long time to build up a first 3* or first 4* character. And the pace of cover acquisition really picks up once you get a critical mass of characters covered/leveled for any given tier.

It's silly to be outraged on behalf of others, because if they were actually as outraged as they're being made out to be, they'd seek something like this forum out and actually make that complaint for themselves.

And if you're "only" shooting for 40-50 levels on all the old 4*'s, then we can call it just a scant 5-6 years or so instead of a decade? Let's not kid ourselves, vaulted or not, without spending exorbitant amounts of money, that's the glacial pace at which those covers would be trickling in, should every 4* get thrown back into the pool tomorrow. (And that's if you have the entire 4* roster champed and never have to waste a 4* pull, which would put you in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority in the first place.)

Your hypothetical timeframe is wrong for the following reasons:

(1) Almost no one has their entire 4* roster at the same level. It might take a long time to get EVERY 4* to level 320+, but getting 10-15 of them will still make a difference, and will take much less time.

(2) Mid tier 4* vets like myself earn more covers than your stated rate. IMHB was my first champ in January 2016. He is currently at 297 (he was at 296 when BH rolled out), and could have been a bit higher if I had played every PVP that offered him as a prog cover or had him set as a BH right now. My cover rate was fairly steady at a bit under 30 covers per year per character last year (my resource acquisition rate increased throughout the year, which offset the downward pressure of token dilution). And bear in mind that I am only a semi-hardcore player. I pve and pvp events off with some frequency (likely to the consternation of my alliance commanders!). The real grinders had their IMHBs up to 310+ when BH went live. At that rate it would have taken less than a year for me to get several 4* champs up to the really good champ rewards.

And what the hell is wrong with being concerned on behalf of others? Do we live in some sort of Ayn Rand-ian objectiveist dystopia? Well then fine, let me recast my outrage in purely objectivist terms. I can't compete with the top-end rosters in the game; they will curb stomp me without even really noticing. So I want lots of baby seal new players coming into the game on a regular basis so I can club them at will. This change makes it harder for new players to really break into the game (because they will have a harder time getting essential characters), which may well leave the game with a significantly lower number of new players. That in turn leaves me with fewer baby seals to club. Which hurts MY gaming experience.

There, now you can comfortably relax secure in the knowledge that absolutely no altruism is present on the board! (Phew! That was a close one, right? People were almost being nice to each other for a second there. . .)

GurlBYE

A players with 12 champed 4 stars telling me that I can't be worried about new players not having access to required characters,

in addition to my own stable of old 4's from 8-11 covers, which bonus hero's hasn't helped. (with the only 2 champs I have being from a random cover given from d3 on valentines day (LOL yeah that'll happen again) and a boss fight, along with the character having 10 covers from already being someone who the random Classic legend pulls favored)

And criticism is now outrage.


I'd understand if this system improving hurt anyone or took something away from others.

But if it's a net gain for all players for it to be as strong as possible, I'm confused as why you'd even go back and forth with others for nothing.

"Ugh it's good enough, stop wanting a reasonable way besides bonus heros to get old heros and random heroics for one week, which were the worst way to get 4's in the first place. Who cares that your ability to improve all your 4's 20 CP at a time was taken away. This is better. Why? Because I said so. And you can cover the characters you have 0-5 covers of a lot faster now, even though improving the way of getting classics wouldn't interfere with this unless you, as the player chose to go that route"

I'm officially done debating this point with others. I'll help clarify but at this point I've explained enough.

astrp3

GurlBYE wrote:

A players with 12 champed 4 stars telling me that I can't be worried about new players not having access to required characters,
...And criticism is now outrage.

"Ugh it's good enough, stop wanting a reasonable way besides bonus heros to get old heros and random heroics for one week, which were the worst way to get 4's in the first place. Who cares that your ability to improve all your 4's 20 CP at a time was taken away. This is better. Why? Because I said so. And you can cover the characters you have 0-5 covers of a lot faster now, even though improving the way of getting classics wouldn't interfere with this unless you, as the player chose to go that route"

If you don't like people exaggerating your position and making straw man arguments, don't do the same thing. McG never said you shouldn't be concerned for new players. He clearly stated what his issue was (and it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or his feelings on altruism). I think his point was that a non-newbie claiming that the newbies won't like the change isn't good evidence that they won't - at least not nearly as much as the newbies saying so themselves (which presumably they would). As a 3* player, I think the change benefits me enormously in the short run (though a third "vintage" store wouldn't hurt). I am still concerned about being able to get older top-shelf 4*s in the long-term, but had the change not been made at all, it would have been enormously difficult with the constant influx of 4*s.

Vhailorx

astrp3 wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

If you don't like people exaggerating your position and making straw man arguments, don't do the same thing. McG never said you shouldn't be concerned for new players. He clearly stated what his issue was (and it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or his feelings on altruism). I think his point was that a non-newbie claiming that the newbies won't like the change isn't good evidence that they won't - at least not nearly as much as the newbies saying so themselves (which presumably they would). As a 3* player, I think the change benefits me enormously in the short run (though a third "vintage" store wouldn't hurt). I am still concerned about being able to get older top-shelf 4*s in the long-term, but had the change not been made at all, it would have been enormously difficult with the constant influx of 4*s.

McG said "it's silly to be outraged on behalf of others. . ." I am very confortable paraphrasing that statement as "you shouldn't be concerned about other players; let them take care of themselves."

As for your opinion on thr changes: it's great that you like these changes. Really. But even you acknowledge that there are sime problems. Other players (like me) are more concerned about the problems and less excited about the positives. Debate is great. What has been irritating me (and i think gurl) is that McG seems to he telling us that our concerns don't matter at all, either because they are concerns about players other than ourselves, or because any forum opinion is a minority. That seems silly to me.

GurlBYE

astrp3 wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

A players with 12 champed 4 stars telling me that I can't be worried about new players not having access to required characters,
...And criticism is now outrage.

"Ugh it's good enough, stop wanting a reasonable way besides bonus heros to get old heros and random heroics for one week, which were the worst way to get 4's in the first place. Who cares that your ability to improve all your 4's 20 CP at a time was taken away. This is better. Why? Because I said so. And you can cover the characters you have 0-5 covers of a lot faster now, even though improving the way of getting classics wouldn't interfere with this unless you, as the player chose to go that route"

If you don't like people exaggerating your position and making straw man arguments, don't do the same thing. McG never said you shouldn't be concerned for new players. He clearly stated what his issue was (and it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or his feelings on altruism). I think his point was that a non-newbie claiming that the newbies won't like the change isn't good evidence that they won't - at least not nearly as much as the newbies saying so themselves (which presumably they would). As a 3* player, I think the change benefits me enormously in the short run (though a third "vintage" store wouldn't hurt). I am still concerned about being able to get older top-shelf 4*s in the long-term, but had the change not been made at all, it would have been enormously difficult with the constant influx of 4*s.

First, I'd advise rereading.

second my post wasn't about them liking changes.

It's about facts.

You can like the changes as much as you want, that won't suddenly make you able to do a node you don't have a character for.

But let's just leave this here. This only tangentially related with the packs being a not so great solution to the issue at hand. Everything besides that is details we've gone over.

They need work. Thats pretty much /thread.

astrp3

Vhailorx wrote:

As for your opinion on thr changes: it's great that you like these changes. Really. But even you acknowledge that there are sime problems. Other players (like me) are more concerned about the problems and less excited about the positives. Debate is great. What has been irritating me (and i think gurl) is that McG seems to he telling us that our concerns don't matter at all, either because they are concerns about players other than ourselves, or because any forum opinion is a minority. That seems silly to me.

I do agree (as others have noted) that this change seems to most negatively impact those who have well-developed 4* rosters. I am not in 4* land yet, but it seems to me that if I had a lot of 4*s already champed, dilution wouldn't be as big an issue for me because it wouldn't matter as much what 4* cover I got, since they all give the same rewards (3*s are a bit different since they give specific 4*s). I also agree (sorry to rehash) that this would especially be the case for those who were just getting their 4*s to 330 when the good rewards kick in (I'd probably be upset too if I'd invested all that time, effort, and resources into getting them there only to fell like I'd been stopped in my tracks).

And sorry if I mischaracterized your position, but I took it that you were at least implying the McG had objectivist tendencies (again, if not, I apologize).

As for not having 4*s for required nodes, I also admit that that will be an issue for newbies, but I don't see it as a huge one. True, you can't do Behemoth Burrito without the 4*, but for PvE, you can get the 4* as a progression reward quite easily. You might not be competitive for placement, but that would only be for the first PvE featuring the character - and in my brackets, I have been able to finish top 50 in PvE without having the required 4* at the start. Top ten would be out of the question, but that isn't exactly easy anyway without a deep 3* roster (at least not when you play every event like I do).

I can't speak for McG or anyone else, but a large part of the reason I sometimes rush to the "defense" of D3 is the sheer volume/frequency of complaints (the phrase "you'd complain if they hanged you with a new rope" seems tailor made for us), the tendency to go category-12 ape-poo about every change (OK, I'm exaggerating here myself - it's really only category 10), and posts filled with exaggerated claims that go far beyond the evidence ("virtually the entire player base sees through the blatant cash grab and has expressed their displeasure", "basic logic makes it clear that the developers are lying", etc.), condescension and insults, contradictory claims ("the devs are clueless dolts who don't know what they're doing/the devs are Machiavellian liars and cash-grabbers who know exactly what they're doing"), chicken-little pronouncements, and sarcasm. Yes, there have been calm and reasoned arguments as well, but they seem far too rare to me (though maybe that's just confirmation bias).

Sarcasm (which has been abundant in this discussion) especially sets me off, since it adds absolutely nothing to the argument and is often used in place of real arguments. And it may just be my bias, but I see it as a way to say "I'm so much smarter than the poor, deluded, dimwits who don't see the obvious correctness of my opinion that I don't need to bother to provide actual arguments against them or respond with basic civility."

And again, if I have been guilty of incivility, I apologize.

Vhailorx

Astrp3:

No apology necessary.

I have no idea what McG's opinion of ayn rand might be. But i know that the argument he or she was making sounded very objectivist. So i attempted to illustrate the flaws in the argument with humor. As with most attempted humor, ymmv. I certainly cannot say that have never made a snarky or sarcastic post, but i do try to keep such things light hearted, rather than mean. Alas, tone doesn't always translate well in text.

With respect to new players getting essential characters, you seem to be forgetting about clearance levels. I dont think the 4* prog rewards show up until CL7. So new players can't easily get 4* essentials until they hit rank 32, right? How long does that take (seriously, i have no idea since i was a 4* player when CLs went live)? That means that new players have to rely on bonus heroes and lucky vault pulls to get vintage essential 4* covers for quite some time until they can even begin ti collect them via prog rewards. I dont think that is a very good development for the game.

revskip

Vhailorx wrote:

As for your opinion on thr changes: it's great that you like these changes. Really. But even you acknowledge that there are sime problems. Other players (like me) are more concerned about the problems and less excited about the positives. Debate is great. What has been irritating me (and i think gurl) is that McG seems to he telling us that our concerns don't matter at all, either because they are concerns about players other than ourselves, or because any forum opinion is a minority. That seems silly to me.

That sword cuts both ways though. There are people who dislike the vaulting and have explained why. There are people who like the vaulting and have explained why. There are also people who like to pretend that no one likes the vaulting because it fits the narrative they are trying to put forward. There has been a fair amount of that on the boards.

I actually agree that the packs are not a great move forward in addressing one of the problems vaulting created. I think that as part of a multi-layered solution they have a place at the table but I don't think they do enough to fundamentally change the problem of getting covers for the vaulted characters.

Debate is great when it is on the merits of the thing being discussed. Throwing in Ayn Rand references as attacks do not actually help anything.

astrp3 wrote:

I can't speak for McG or anyone else, but a large part of the reason I sometimes rush to the "defense" of D3 is the sheer volume/frequency of complaints (the phrase "you'd complain if they hanged you with a new rope" seems tailor made for us), the tendency to go category-12 ape-poo about every change (OK, I'm exaggerating here myself - it's really only category 10), and posts filled with exaggerated claims that go far beyond the evidence ("virtually the entire player base sees through the blatant cash grab and has expressed their displeasure", "basic logic makes it clear that the developers are lying", etc.), condescension and insults, contradictory claims ("the devs are clueless dolts who don't know what they're doing/the devs are Machiavellian liars and cash-grabbers who know exactly what they're doing"), chicken-little pronouncements, and sarcasm. Yes, there have been calm and reasoned arguments as well, but they seem far too rare to me (though maybe that's just confirmation bias).

So much this. Pretty much encapsulates how I feel reading this forum most of the time.

smkspy

"Tito, can you get me a tissue?"

NewMcG

Vhailorx wrote:

Astrp3:

No apology necessary.

I have no idea what McG's opinion of ayn rand might be. But i know that the argument he or she was making sounded very objectivist. So i attempted to illustrate the flaws in the argument with humor. As with most attempted humor, ymmv. I certainly cannot say that have never made a snarky or sarcastic post, but i do try to keep such things light hearted, rather than mean. Alas, tone doesn't always translate well in text.

With respect to new players getting essential characters, you seem to be forgetting about clearance levels. I dont think the 4* prog rewards show up until CL7. So new players can't easily get 4* essentials until they hit rank 32, right? How long does that take (seriously, i have no idea since i was a 4* player when CLs went live)? That means that new players have to rely on bonus heroes and lucky vault pulls to get vintage essential 4* covers for quite some time until they can even begin ti collect them via prog rewards. I dont think that is a very good development for the game.

I laughed out loud hard enough to startle the blind dog I'm watching at the moment at the Ayn Rand thing, if that tells you anything. What I was referring to was the "oh, but what of the children?" vibe that politicians trot out on a constant basis, and how this theoretical new player argument reeks of it. We aren't talking about "giving a voice to the voiceless" of an oppressed class over a vital social issue. We're talking about a group made up entirely of people playing a match-3 game on their phones, tablets, or computers. (God help me, I almost didn't mention the Steam people. That was close.) That's why the hysteria involved is so over the top.

I've seen plenty of other giant flaps along these lines in other formats. World of Warcraft had a big uproar when they changed some core system in the game, and a VERY vocal portion of the player base had a hissy fit, Blizzard basically said "trust us, we know what we're doing" and it turns out, hey, they did. Magic the Gathering made some sweeping changes ages ago that also had huge uproar, but they ended up being better for the game in the long run, and wouldn't have stayed implemented if the most vocal group had gotten their way. These kinds of things evolve, and the most die-hard in the middle of it will be the most opposed, because they like what's there, and don't want something different, no matter how minimal. (I mean, some people found a way to complain when they basically locked out the prologue in the game. THE PROLOGUE!!! The thing people aspire to slog through to get to the ACTUAL GAME and never look back!)

There's no winning for D3/Demiurge with any change. They could offer players a free 4* of their choice at the completion of every event for every player, and the same people who right now are saying "what about the new guys" would be screaming "Oh, so now someone who's played for 4 months will have the same roster I've worked 2 and a half years for? What a waste of my time this has been!" People who has spent a lot of time and money on something have their idea of what a game should be, and when something doesn't fit within that view, they get mad. Then they accuse the developers of sinister plots to steal their money from them, etc.

There's an easy solution to this, or any other "fun" pursuit that gets anyone so emotional: Take a break. If the game has you this angry or annoyed, just take some time away from it. I did exactly that on two different occasions. They are the reason I'm at day 920ish and not "whatever 1-3 days after launch is at this point" on the resupply, and they're the only reason I can still play it now. I can tell you the exact reason I took my last break, which lasted for about 5-6 months: Civil War. When they announced that there were 4 characters launching in a 3 week span, it made me mad because it was such a ramping up of releases, so I told my alliance I was jumping out for a while, and just DID IT. I didn't yell on the forum, as therapeutic as it may have felt, because I knew it wasn't going to change anything. The game had become something beyond the "fun little distraction" that this kind of game should be, and after I figured that out, not playing for a while made all the sense in the world. I came back after a chunk of time, had a bunch of characters I was missing, (and still am quite behind on, seeing how poorly the Winter Soldier DDQ is going for me today.) but when I came back, it felt like a fun game again.

I realize it's hard to walk away from such a time and/or money investment, but the point is, if you take a short break, this will be here when you come back. You may play catch-up for a while, but if it isn't fun, then you're doing it wrong. It's a matching game, and nobody, including the devs, intends for playing this to be your whole life. Do what it takes to make it fun again, and maybe it's a week off, maybe a month, maybe half a year. (That's what it took me.) I think there's a lot of people whose overly emotional response to this maybe points toward needing something else to occupy their time, at least for a little while.