Bowgentle said: MegaBee said: PiMacleod said: Um. Im not defending anyone here... But im real curious.What does everyone keep using the flag button for?Honestly, i only have ever dared to think about using it if someone was being insulting. Ive seen it a few times, but not towards me. I flag if someone's being blatantly insulting. Otherwise, I reserve it for spammers, and I haven't seen any of those here. We need an 'insane white knighting' flag.
MegaBee said: PiMacleod said: Um. Im not defending anyone here... But im real curious.What does everyone keep using the flag button for?Honestly, i only have ever dared to think about using it if someone was being insulting. Ive seen it a few times, but not towards me. I flag if someone's being blatantly insulting. Otherwise, I reserve it for spammers, and I haven't seen any of those here.
PiMacleod said: Um. Im not defending anyone here... But im real curious.What does everyone keep using the flag button for?Honestly, i only have ever dared to think about using it if someone was being insulting. Ive seen it a few times, but not towards me.
A_Wise_Man said: So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice. I don't really understand the logic behind this. First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you? That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another. If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it? I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it. If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several). Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game. If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision. If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop. Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down. If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision. If it's not, then I really dont understand at all.
dkffiv said: A_Wise_Man said: So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice. I don't really understand the logic behind this. First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you? That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another. If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it? I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it. If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several). Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game. If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision. If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop. Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down. If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision. If it's not, then I really dont understand at all. That is exactly the point. If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off. Highlighting predatory behavior is important. I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them.
A_Wise_Man said: dkffiv said: A_Wise_Man said: So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice. I don't really understand the logic behind this. First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you? That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another. If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it? I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it. If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several). Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game. If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision. If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop. Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down. If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision. If it's not, then I really dont understand at all. That is exactly the point. If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off. Highlighting predatory behavior is important. I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them. I'm sorry, I must be missing something. What events have been occurring every 2 weeks that require a $250 buy in to play? I must have missed those events.
dkffiv said: A_Wise_Man said: dkffiv said: A_Wise_Man said: So...I've seen the comment in this post and also elsewhere about giving the game a 1 star rating on the app store of your choice. I don't really understand the logic behind this. First, does this decision (the professor X HP release and being required next event) on it's own drag the game all the way down to a 1 star rating for you? That rating is typically used for faulty apps or I suppose for an app that you personally hated for one reason or another. If you actually hate the game and can't find any redeeming qualities to it, then why are you playing it? I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinely disliked something that much I would just stop doing it. If not, then your 1 star rating is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum over one decision you don't care for (or maybe several). Which is fine I suppose, if you're done with the game. If you're not done then doing so and recommending others to do so is a poor decision. If I were looking for a new game to play and I went searching in an app store and saw one I was interested in...but then saw it was rated 1.5 to 2 stars I wouldn't bother downloading it. If enough people actually followed your advice that's exactly what would happen, and new players would come in slower and slower or stop. Revenue would decrease and eventually the game would shut down. If that's what you're looking to do, I suppose that's your decision. If it's not, then I really dont understand at all. That is exactly the point. If you think about playing a game and then read multiple reviews stating you are expected to pay $250 every few weeks to completely play an event, that might scare you off. Highlighting predatory behavior is important. I've seen many people in my alliance family spend tons on 10/40 packs and end up burned and everyone is pissed.If the devs realize this was a mistake and figure out a way to compensate/make things right then all those people who wrote 1* reviews might go back and change them. I'm sorry, I must be missing something. What events have been occurring every 2 weeks that require a $250 buy in to play? I must have missed those events. If this is the new norm, theres a new 5* every month or so. I'm in a competitive PvE alliance family and a lot of members felt pressured into buying 10/40 packs to compete and are now worried about losing their slots because their scores will be lower without PX. Commanders might have to rearrange members to optimize scores and doing that is a lot of extra effort, especially when you factor in PvP end times and a boss event that will start on the last day. With big alliances you're also dealing with people all over the world with different time zones so managing all this is a ton of unnecessary stress.This was a flat out cash grab, plain and simple. If they simply added PX to tokens but did not immediately have a PvE requirement, it would overall be a positive but most people wouldn't notice/care (probably 5-10% would get a cover from free tokens / daily deals). Some people might buy packs but far fewer would buy than have done so thus far. I suppose it was just a coincidence that a few people decided to purchase stark salaries in my alliance in the last few days though, right?
A_Wise_Man said: Ok, but theres a couple problems with that argument. First of all, a 5 star every 4-6 weeks isn't every 2 weeks. Its every 4-6 weeks. Second, you don't need to spend $250 to play the event. You can play the whole event other than the 5E. Will this affect some people's scores? Of course it will. But, unless there's an alliance that's full of whales, most alliances can expect, on average, to experience about the same net loss of points due to people not having the 5E. If people stayed in their own alliances it would all pretty much even out. Besides that, most players aren't playing optimal or even near optimal or even making progression in the first place, so making higher ranks should remain about the same. Kicking people out because they didn't luck into a cover is a decision your alliance is making for this event. That's not something being forced on you. That's an alliance decision based on your alliance family's goals. Lastly...what is wrong with a company whose main goal is to make money making decisions that may make them money? I mean, I know I don't go to work to not get paid. I don't know why people expect game developers and publishers to design and publish games for free. I really don't see what the big deal is here.
dkffiv said: A_Wise_Man said: Ok, but theres a couple problems with that argument. First of all, a 5 star every 4-6 weeks isn't every 2 weeks. Its every 4-6 weeks. Second, you don't need to spend $250 to play the event. You can play the whole event other than the 5E. Will this affect some people's scores? Of course it will. But, unless there's an alliance that's full of whales, most alliances can expect, on average, to experience about the same net loss of points due to people not having the 5E. If people stayed in their own alliances it would all pretty much even out. Besides that, most players aren't playing optimal or even near optimal or even making progression in the first place, so making higher ranks should remain about the same. Kicking people out because they didn't luck into a cover is a decision your alliance is making for this event. That's not something being forced on you. That's an alliance decision based on your alliance family's goals. Lastly...what is wrong with a company whose main goal is to make money making decisions that may make them money? I mean, I know I don't go to work to not get paid. I don't know why people expect game developers and publishers to design and publish games for free. I really don't see what the big deal is here. You're the one who keeps saying every 2 weeks. I said "few" and 4-6 = few. Its obvious that you're new to the game so I'll try my best to explain how things happen in endgame PvE/PvP. Top 5/10/25 placement for alliances give higher rewards. In order to reach those goals, all 20 members need to contribute as much as possible. There are several high end alliance families that span multiple alliances so membership can be 100+. Normally these are broken up by different goals (575/800/900/1200 etc PvP scores for example) but sometimes members in higher alliances can't make their goals due to other obligations / IRL so swaps between alliances are made. Commanders need to keep track of these things and be on to gatekeep swaps. Members are generally reliable so swaps are kept to a minimum - with the randomness of how these 5* covers are given out that is completely out the window. I've been around long enough (day 2120+) to know this is a monumentally bad idea. Commander burn out can cause alliances to fall apart and drive some of the mega whales into retirement. Once you're off the hamster wheel its hard to jump back on - I know that if I quit its going to be for good. They're trying to drive sales through desperation instead of goodwill (I regard my purchases as rewarding the devs for creating something I enjoy and am willingly giving money to help keep the lights running). This last week I've seen far too many messages in alliance chat about people selling off their 3*'s to try to gather enough currency to buy 10/40 packs and ending up with nothing and that is what angers me. There's nothing wrong with making money, its the way they're doing it. I'm almost afraid to suggest this but if they redid the Legendary Resupply bundle with a Professor X cover instead of 5 legendary tokens for the same price/iso/hp (*but did NOT immediately force him into a PvE essential - they instead waited until he was BH'able and in Latest Tokens) I think they would have made a lot more money and there would not be the backlash there is now. If this coincided with him being in the event tokens too it would generally be seen as a positive move. I just really don't understand who green lit this and thought it was a good idea.
shardwick said: Sure, just like they did with Wins Only. A test here, a test there, then made it permanent and then due to backlash by the community they went back to the points only system until they finally went with a hybrid system.