Dormammu said: Don't feel bad. I've stated opinions on these forums and gotten shredded by people who disagree. You know what I do? I click on the little thumbs-up and 'liked' their post, and replied in a way that let them know I had no hard feelings.After that, I noticed them starting to 'like' my opinions on other matters. The truth was, sometimes my opinion or idea was way off base and I had earned their respect by owning it.We don't always agree here, and sometimes we even get snarky with one another - that's the internet for ya. But we are a community and those of us who disagreed with your idea did so out of love for this game and the desire to share our passion on these forums - not because we dislike you. We don't dislike you, we just disagree with you on this one point.
Jwallyr said: It would be nice not to have to choose between knowingly playing suboptimally and engaging with a tedious chore that seems to be unintentional in the game design, but nonetheless confers a minor benefit if you choose to engage in the tedium. It's not by any stretch the biggest problem in the game currently, but would be a QOL benefit for OCD players like myself.
broll said: Jwallyr said: It would be nice not to have to choose between knowingly playing suboptimally and engaging with a tedious chore that seems to be unintentional in the game design, but nonetheless confers a minor benefit if you choose to engage in the tedium. It's not by any stretch the biggest problem in the game currently, but would be a QOL benefit for OCD players like myself. You're exaggerating quite a bit here. 1* farming is only optimal up to a certain SR and even then the benefits are marginal. If you don't like it, don't do it... I stopped it before the SR number because it was boring and it certainly hasn't hurt me.
broll said: My 20 tab spreadsheet
broll said: My concerns with the request are:1. You're asking them to expend development time, a limited resource, on this which means in turn other QOL things that are wanted/needed by larger numbers of players would need to be put on hold to do this.2. The possibility of them changing the sale prices at all levels when they make this change and breaking actual optimal 2* strats.3. The president of making a request that even the requester or admits is only needed because of his own quirks.4. (EDIT) Because you're asking for choice to be taken away from others because you're not opting to use the choice you really want to use. I will always fight against the removal of choice as it's too rare in this game as it is.Anyway I've more than said my peace on this subject so I'll stop now..
Sim Mayor said: 4) The choices we have already aren't bad for anyone but you. Nobody else is complaining about this. Everybody either sells the covers or farms them for experience without making an issue of it.And if you're stunned by how much time and energy other people are putting into the argument, you must be shocked, shocked I say, at how much you're putting in to respond to them all.Now for a quick personal note before I bow out, please stop referring to this as your OCD. I know people with OCD. They have a very real psychological disorder. You just want a better return on time you're already choosing to spend playing a game.
AardvarkPepper said:1. I agree it's never good to trivialize work required to accomplish a task. However in this case, couldn't it simply be a matter of changing the numbers already in place, to effectively end 1* farming? Changing the XP from 10 to 1, for example, would effectively end it.
I am not sure the designers intended 1* iso farming, or perhaps even farming in general. Mind they might have, but I don't see that it makes sense. Suppose you're even farming 2*s repeatedly, if you're developed enough to champion 4*s, all the 2* farming you're doing is doing nothing but inflating your SHIELD rank artificially and giving some iso and HP gains, right? Has nothing to do with roster strength, and doesn't SHIELD rank affect minimal PvP rank so *should* tie to practical roster strength?
AardvarkPepper said: First, the self-harm argument as I think that's the most easily resolved. You did state it happens "when you reach the SL saturation point". But as another poster wrote, to that point at least you are making iso gains that you invest in your characters. And players will not reach the point that 1* becomes iso-unprofitable for quite some time.To use an analogy, you're driving up a mountain in a slow but reliable car enjoying the scenery on the way, while someone else is taking a faster less reliable car that maybe is leaking a little bit of oil just trying to get where they're going. If you're only moving a short distance then your car cost less to operate and the time difference is not much so you come out the clear winner. If it's taking a month and you're going over multiple mountains, though, in a couple months you're going to be wherever you are, while the other driver's a mountain ahead. By the time a couple years later the other car finally breaks down and the other person is walking, it's still taking you a long time to make up the distance. Which is perfectly fine by you, as you're enjoying the scenery and you like managing a tight economy. But in the meantime, the other driver has reached their destination more or less, and is now leaning back and enjoying the scenery a bit. Sure they were wasteful, sure the return trip won't be as economical - *but what if the other driver doesn't care about the return trip*? What if they just cared about making the destination as soon as possible?In farming terms - you champion a few select 3*s and you can do the things 3*s let you do; you champion a few select 4*s and you can do the things 4*s let you do. In the long term, yes, a character that's 1* farming won't have the same iso, but that's likely years off, and in the meantime, more iso means leveled characters and earning rewards faster and easier. In practice, sure, I would say you should *carefully select* which characters to level up; just blowing iso on whatever characters doesn't help. But there is that point at which you have characters with a good number of covers, then you'll start thinking about all that short-term iso you're missing out on, right?So on the one hand certainly one can argue that in the long term it's better to accumulate the most possible iso overall. But on the other hand I think there's a real case to be made for short-term iso gains.
Dormammu said: you can't convince me that farming 1-stars is allowing anyone to make short-term significant gains over someone who isn't because that simply isn't true.
Dormammu said:after subtracting the value of the 1-star covers, isn't even enough to champ a single 2-star, after doing so for a year (I've done the math, see an earlier post I made). But the ISO loss from selling all those 1-stars over all that time would be enough to champ a couple of 5-stars.
AardvarkPepper said: Ah come on now. A 1* sells for 100 iso. Championing a 5* costs 220,000 and raising it and leveling it initially 553,929. I mean I get you're saying it's a lot, and I believe it's a lot. But how many 1*s are you pulling anyways?