broll said: Wow. So you had to gut the new system on day 3? Everyone who fought for this and are happy about it, think about why this changed so quickly, when so many other changes took weeks, months, years. Because this is in the developers favor. Oh the players want a worse deal? Sure give it to the right away so we can keep 5* rate down while also looking like heroes. I'm so beyond angry right now... Worst change to a new system since Wins based PvP got gutted after a single season.
tiomono said: broll said: Wow. So you had to gut the new system on day 3? Everyone who fought for this and are happy about it, think about why this changed so quickly, when so many other changes took weeks, months, years. Because this is in the developers favor. Oh the players want a worse deal? Sure give it to the right away so we can keep 5* rate down while also looking like heroes. I'm so beyond angry right now... Worst change to a new system since Wins based PvP got gutted after a single season. Usually I give the dev's the benefit of the doubt and stay away from the tin foil hat.I can not agree with this more. I wish I could like it more than once.
broll said: tiomono said: broll said: Wow. So you had to gut the new system on day 3? Everyone who fought for this and are happy about it, think about why this changed so quickly, when so many other changes took weeks, months, years. Because this is in the developers favor. Oh the players want a worse deal? Sure give it to the right away so we can keep 5* rate down while also looking like heroes. I'm so beyond angry right now... Worst change to a new system since Wins based PvP got gutted after a single season. Usually I give the dev's the benefit of the doubt and stay away from the tin foil hat.I can not agree with this more. I wish I could like it more than once. Several of us on Discord has a decent discussion with a few of them last night. They insist that they are trying to get better and quicker at responding to player feedback and based on how candid they were I'm backing off and giving them the benfit of the doubt.Also one of them asked for some of @Hadronic predictive models to bring to a meeting tomorrow. I'm pushing for them to consider keeping the 3:1 trade, but also keeping the bank 5 so we have the best of both worlds. We'll see if they tweak it again to that or any other tweaks. We can only hope.
huktonfonix said: @Brigby @IceIX @Demiurge_Will For 5* players, the cover bank is a nice feature. The swap, whether it is 3:1 or 5:1 or anything whatsoever other than 1:1 is something that we will go to great lengths to avoid. A 5* cover is simply too precious to waste in this way. The change to 3:1 is obviously a well-intentioned attempt to ease the sting of wasting this precious resource, but the way it is being implemented is more of a nerf. The size of the cover bank matters much more than the exchange rate. If I had a horrible streak of luck I'd happily bank 15 of the same cover as eventual champ levels if permitted rather than exchange them even at a 2:1 rate.3:1 is better than 5:1, but absolutely not at the cost of fewer 5* "bank" slots. 5* land is where we need those slots the most!
Smart80 said: broll said: tiomono said: broll said: Wow. So you had to gut the new system on day 3? Everyone who fought for this and are happy about it, think about why this changed so quickly, when so many other changes took weeks, months, years. Because this is in the developers favor. Oh the players want a worse deal? Sure give it to the right away so we can keep 5* rate down while also looking like heroes. I'm so beyond angry right now... Worst change to a new system since Wins based PvP got gutted after a single season. Usually I give the dev's the benefit of the doubt and stay away from the tin foil hat.I can not agree with this more. I wish I could like it more than once. Several of us on Discord has a decent discussion with a few of them last night. They insist that they are trying to get better and quicker at responding to player feedback and based on how candid they were I'm backing off and giving them the benfit of the doubt.Also one of them asked for some of @Hadronic predictive models to bring to a meeting tomorrow. I'm pushing for them to consider keeping the 3:1 trade, but also keeping the bank 5 so we have the best of both worlds. We'll see if they tweak it again to that or any other tweaks. We can only hope. Ok, sounds fair. Do they also see it would be useful to do this in advance? Before implementing it, get a feel for possible issues people might have..But is there really nobody there that can make a predictive model themselves? That would perhaps explain a thing or two....FTR, I’d take 5 saved covers over 3:1 any day, cause i rather take a little longer to finish than waste covers by swapping worse than 1:1...
Hadronic said: Clearly they did not look at my plot.3 is the worst possible value they could have chosen
udonomefoo said: Hadronic said: Clearly they did not look at my plot.3 is the worst possible value they could have chosen Somebody please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like the difference between 3 vs 5 is 0.05 wasted covers per character. So 1 out of every 20 5* characters covered will have one wasted cover vs the 5:1 system. Are the "no waste" purists really this upset about 0.05 covers per character? Is that not worth the tradeoff for those who don't care about waste and just want to get those missing covers filled?
Smart80 said: FTR, I’d take 5 saved covers over 3:1 any day, cause i rather take a little longer to finish than waste covers by swapping worse than 1:1...
thedarkphoenix said: Man I thought the 3:1 trade was going to be with the 5 bank...it literally never crossed my mind that they would reduce the bank to 3