@GrimSkald said: @meadowsweet said: @Daredevil217 said: 2* don’t have feeders. Incorrect: Pretty sure we're talking about a point of language here. No characters feed 2★s
@GrimSkald said:
@meadowsweet said: @Daredevil217 said: 2* don’t have feeders. Incorrect:
@meadowsweet said:
@Daredevil217 said: 2* don’t have feeders.
Incorrect:
Pretty sure we're talking about a point of language here. No characters feed 2★s
Correct. Feeders are those characters a tier below that feed a character a tier above. So 2* Storm is feeder for 3* Storm. But 2* Storm doesn’t have a feeder herself.
My point stands that 2*s don’t have feeders but are feeders themselves.
If they change Ares to feed a new 3*, wouldn't everyone complain it was unfair if they didn't award retro covers for him? How is that any different than the current retro debate?
@JoeHandle said: @Bowgentle said: Where are these hundreds of f2p people at the top of the leader boards? I'm seeing mostly paying players in t5 of pvp and pve. Have you checked the leaderboards of SCLs 1 through ... say ... 6 or 7? 😄
@JoeHandle said:
@Bowgentle said: Where are these hundreds of f2p people at the top of the leader boards? I'm seeing mostly paying players in t5 of pvp and pve.
Have you checked the leaderboards of SCLs 1 through ... say ... 6 or 7? 😄
How do I know whether the T10 in SCL 2 spent or are F2P?
@Daredevil217 said: @JoeHandle said: @Bowgentle said: Where are these hundreds of f2p people at the top of the leader boards? I'm seeing mostly paying players in t5 of pvp and pve. Have you checked the leaderboards of SCLs 1 through ... say ... 6 or 7? 😄 How do I know whether the T10 in SCL 2 spent or are F2P?
@Daredevil217 said:
Those players probably have spent, because super-smart players like you haven't taught them how to win everything for free yet. You should teach them!
@Daredevil217 said: My point stands that 2*s don’t have feeders but are feeders themselves.
I never claimed otherwise. That's why I never mentioned the sixteen separate copies of 1★ characters you need or the eight 1★ copies you need to get to Max Champ Level because they're feeders (because that doesn't exist.)
But further down the roster, we know that if you have a 5★ version of an Ascended 3★ character, you had at least 2 (and as many as 4) 3★ Max Champs - do you still treat that as a single Max Champ if retro rewards change? What about a 5★ Ascended from a 2★ which could have been anywhere from 4 - 8 Max Champ 2★s originally?
So... You felt the need to interrupt to disprove a point I never made?
And my point still stands: how many Max Champ 2★ equivalents should you credit towards an Ascended 5★?: 1? 4? 8?
@meadowsweet said: @Ptahhotep said: As I see it an ascended character should be seen as a max champed copy of that character. The other copy that was merged with it was “sold off” to effect the ascension. Covers added to an ascended character are rewarding levels above the maximum level available to the unascended character that don’t include shards or covers. So any retro rewards for an ascended character should be the same as those for an unascended max champed copy. That logic holds up pretty well for a 4★. We know you combined two characters and at least one of them had to be a Max Champ. The game doesn't track what level the second one was at, so the compromise is to just call it a wash and give them credit for one Max Champ only (more than they get today, but less than it may have actually been.) But further down the roster, we know that if you have a 5★ version of an Ascended 3★ character, you had at least 2 (and as many as 4) 3★ Max Champs - do you still treat that as a single Max Champ if retro rewards change? What about a 5★ Ascended from a 2★ which could have been anywhere from 4 - 8 Max Champ 2★s originally?
@Ptahhotep said: As I see it an ascended character should be seen as a max champed copy of that character. The other copy that was merged with it was “sold off” to effect the ascension. Covers added to an ascended character are rewarding levels above the maximum level available to the unascended character that don’t include shards or covers. So any retro rewards for an ascended character should be the same as those for an unascended max champed copy.
That logic holds up pretty well for a 4★. We know you combined two characters and at least one of them had to be a Max Champ. The game doesn't track what level the second one was at, so the compromise is to just call it a wash and give them credit for one Max Champ only (more than they get today, but less than it may have actually been.)
I miss the good old days when people played for fun and didn't care what billy bob got and what they didn't
@entrailbucket said: @Daredevil217 said: @JoeHandle said: @Bowgentle said: Where are these hundreds of f2p people at the top of the leader boards? I'm seeing mostly paying players in t5 of pvp and pve. Have you checked the leaderboards of SCLs 1 through ... say ... 6 or 7? 😄 How do I know whether the T10 in SCL 2 spent or are F2P? Those players probably have spent, because super-smart players like you haven't taught them how to win everything for free yet. You should teach them!
@entrailbucket said:
Ummm, I’ve said I’m a spender myself. I’ve said I think telling other people not to spend and calling them dumb for doing so is in fact dumb. So, I’m not quite sure this is meant for me or maybe you meant to quote someone else.
Anyway, I still would love to know the answer to my question. I don’t really know if the people in CL 1-7 are spenders or not and don’t know how to tell just by looking at their rosters. That’s a crowd I don’t really talk to much anymore. The people I converse with are mostly 9-10 players (and typically are spenders). It was a legit question.
@slidecage said: I miss the good old days when people played for fun and didn't care what billy bob got and what they didn't
Ever give the same desirable thing to more than one dog at the same time?
They are all instantly obsessed with what every other dog has.