THEMAGICkMAN said: yes, not everyone has an abundance of runes. that's only a small group of players, and now for the rest of us they're harder to get.With the reward updates its pretty obvious they want people to slow down, and to move quicker you have to spend money.
Justyce said: What I really want now is actual value for money. I have lots of disposable income and now I'm waiting for the chance to buy real advantages. I don't want crystals and runes bundles. I want advantages that will put me above people that don't want to pay. Lots of games do it and it's about time this started that road.
Ohboy said: Many have stated it. Many are wrong. https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15
gruntface said: Ohboy said: Many have stated it. Many are wrong. https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15 This is an interesting article and I tend to agree. I see this type of proportion as an aspirational state for the game runners and in getting there, they have to trim quite a lot of fat, ergo the changes we have seen lately. It doesn't help the profit margins to enable a lot of players to sit at or near the top having spent little to nothing in game. From a business perspective it is crazy. Thinking back, most other games I have played evem cap the amount of playing time you can productively have without spending and mtgpq has been different in that respect with only pw charges being a barrier to massive qb sessions and that is workable with a decent zoo deck including life gain (uh oh, that's another thing for d3h to exploit, pay for playing more than a few fights a day.....)All the changes are a step away from enabling the f2p players from being able to be top players and towards enabling the mega spenders (recognizable by their posts in fb about what they got from their third elite pack of the week).So players like myself who have barely spent, are not the future, in fact we are a direct problem because we blur the lines of p2w. Time to actively discourage our playing time (it's working btw) and put increasing numbers of cards behind a paywall. Thin the herd and embrace the full p2w model at last. Sure there will be some collateral damage in the middle but whales for the most part will continue and new whales are waiting to be caught. So thanks for the article, depressing as the conclusion may be. For a 20,000 strong player base, 0.15% is what, 30 players? That may be too light but people spend staggering amounts of cash on mobile games so nothing would surprise me.
Ohboy said: gruntface said: Ohboy said: Many have stated it. Many are wrong. https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15 This is an interesting article and I tend to agree. I see this type of proportion as an aspirational state for the game runners and in getting there, they have to trim quite a lot of fat, ergo the changes we have seen lately. It doesn't help the profit margins to enable a lot of players to sit at or near the top having spent little to nothing in game. From a business perspective it is crazy. Thinking back, most other games I have played evem cap the amount of playing time you can productively have without spending and mtgpq has been different in that respect with only pw charges being a barrier to massive qb sessions and that is workable with a decent zoo deck including life gain (uh oh, that's another thing for d3h to exploit, pay for playing more than a few fights a day.....)All the changes are a step away from enabling the f2p players from being able to be top players and towards enabling the mega spenders (recognizable by their posts in fb about what they got from their third elite pack of the week).So players like myself who have barely spent, are not the future, in fact we are a direct problem because we blur the lines of p2w. Time to actively discourage our playing time (it's working btw) and put increasing numbers of cards behind a paywall. Thin the herd and embrace the full p2w model at last. Sure there will be some collateral damage in the middle but whales for the most part will continue and new whales are waiting to be caught. So thanks for the article, depressing as the conclusion may be. For a 20,000 strong player base, 0.15% is what, 30 players? That may be too light but people spend staggering amounts of cash on mobile games so nothing would surprise me. This is why top players who think they are whales are overrating their influence on the income stream(even though it IS a negative influence).When you're a top player, you're going to spend a couple of hundred here and there over a few months. You're not the whales the game needs to survive on. The game has given you so much free stuff there's simply not enough things for you to buy even if you want to be a whale. Crystals? You've banked up 2k. New cards? Cool, you spend a hundred a month, maybe? Previously exclusive cards? Look at how many boosters you've already banked! Top tier players simply cannot be whales. And that was a problem. A whale is someone always looking to buy more crystals to buy more boosters. That's the only scalable income source in this game. If you're not someone constantly doing that, you're not a whale.Not going to beat a dead horse, but suffice to say the old system wasn't a good move for their income stream. Not only do the whales at the top stop being whales, the wannabe whales at the bottom are discouraged because of the monstrous hill they would have to climb to get to the top. These games reel them in by giving the semblence of progress with each purchase made. The game's progression from mid tier to top tier at it's current state is like an insurmountable cliff. Things need to change, or income dries up, servers go unpaid, and the game ends.If you like this game you should be rallying to break down the cliff right now, because it's a big problem for the game in future. That's why I'm always frustrated by people demanding more rewards to continue reinforcing this cliff. It's survival mode now, not high score mode. The fact that the devs are willing to face this backlash means their hands are forced, and it's getting really bad.
So basically, you don’t care at all about the health of the game nor how to make it fun, you just want a pay to win game.
Justyce said: Wasn't the reasoning for reducing prizes was to share the original prize pool. Before brackets were 3k now they are 1 k meaning 3 times the players will receive top 50 rewards so halving the rewards is actually a gain when 2 thirds more get the rewards. But most people don't care about distribution of rewards they usually just care about what they are getting. It was hard for me to come to those terms as was getting so many rewards before but now I do see it as being fair
You’ve been spreading the same misinformation that Ohboy has been spreading. You’ve both failed to mention that before the 3k brackets, there were more brackets, like there is now, (yes there was more than 1 Platinum bracket) but the devs merged them together. So in fact we’re only back to what it used to be, and yet they cut the reward by 3 again, and not the opposite. Please stop this non-sense about ’since there’s 3 brackets now the rewards need to be cut by 3!” In reality, they have been at the very least cut by 9 (3x3, I can do fancy math too!) already.
Also, what you both never mention either is while there’s more and more players in Platinum, as it’s the maximum progression you can get and naturally tend toward as you master your new cards, we were still stuck at the same amount of bracket, while there should be a number of brackets proportional to this new number of players.
There's no justice, fairness, nor equity in what you are suggesting.
Justyce said: Lots of successful games work in a pay to win basis, clash of clans being one of them. Free to play players stand no chance against people who pay and that game makes tonnes of money everyday. Candy crush also does the same thing lots of things you can buy that makes it easier than waiting for your lives to recover. Of course it sounds bad but if the in game rewards are going south let's not try to get it back but make purchasing more rewarding.
Justyce said: @DuskPaladin I'm not sure what you are implying but your answer is exactly what I was saying. Say if 3 brackets in plat got rewards now there are 9 so there are 3 times more people getting top 50 rewards. So logically to share the original prize pool between the extra winners everyone has to get less at the top end.