starfall said: Irishme said: I for one would really like some information on this. Was this planned to basically screw those who played more? Do they plan to correct the levels for those who got screwed? Do they even know there’s a problem? I don't think they were planning to screw us, so much as they wanted to flatten out the distribution of player levels and didn't think through the implications.The implications are not good, and the situation needs fixing.
Irishme said: I for one would really like some information on this. Was this planned to basically screw those who played more? Do they plan to correct the levels for those who got screwed? Do they even know there’s a problem?
Brigby said: Hi Everyone. I just wanted to pop in and let everyone know that we're certainly not ignoring the sentiment nor the questions. We've been having some back and forth discussions, and we're currently trying to schedule a call so that our team can discuss this topic in further detail.I understand that a lot of players may be confused or frustrated by the questions still floating around, but we will be sure to bring them up during this call, so we can construct and provide an informative response for players. Thank you for your patience and understanding!
Laeuftbeidir said: I don't think anybody wanted to screw even a single player. It's more likely they underestimated how many of us pointlessly mastered their cards. And, once again, that magic players are a bit special.
I don't think anybody wanted to screw even a single player. It's more likely they underestimated how many of us pointlessly mastered their cards. And, once again, that magic players are a bit special.
Tremayne said: Laeuftbeidir said: I don't think anybody wanted to screw even a single player. It's more likely they underestimated how many of us pointlessly mastered their cards. And, once again, that magic players are a bit special. If you run that data together it should quickly yield an answer, so if we assume that Octagon actually tested the effect of the chosen model by using the this data. The conclusion I arrive at is that they didn’t have a better solution that what they implemented.
ManiiNames said: Personally I think the goal was to give us something new to do. If those who had mastered a zillion cards already were placed at L98 or whatever then they would have nothing left to strive for, and the goal of something new would be already eclipsed.Main thing people seem to be tinykitty about is rewards. But really, for those w a big collection the packs are likely to yield nothing but orbs.
I’m not a “veteran” player. When I started playing QB was long gone, crafting was already a thing, and I started way behind in terms of runes and orbs. I’ve played catch up by playing every single event, grinding HE 30+ times a day, and spending quite a bit of money. During this process I mastered cards because doing HE over and over is boring and it gave me something to do.
Anyone who mastered a lot of cards before 3.2 like myself got screwed. Wether it was intentional or not it still happened. So to my thinking it’s either it was done on purpose and that’s that. Or it was a mistake and they are working to correct it. So far we’ve heard nothing either way.
The former means the “veteran” players are being punished for playing to long, playing to much, and spending to much to give new players a better chance to play against them. I for one will never spend another dime on this game if we got “balanced”. What would be the point? If trying to get ahead gets you penalized for getting ahead I’ll take that as they don’t want me to play so much or spend any money, this way new players can compete.
If it’s the later why not just say so? Coding problem, this or that set was left out, we’re working on it.