there should be honor as extra choice just in case you don't either want any of them (...)
There should be and there is honour, namely 550 honour (no matter what choice you take) if you want none of them. DB doesn't even need to give you an "extra" choice, you already have the choice if you want/need none of them.
I suspect that what you actually mean to say is "there should be more honour, I want more than 550, give me more honour".
there should be honor as extra choice just in case you don't either want any of them (...)
There should be and there is honour, namely 550 honour (no matter what choice you take) if you want none of them. DB doesn't even need to give you an "extra" choice, you already have the choice if you want/need none of them.
I suspect that what you actually mean to say is "there should be more honour, I want more than 550, give me more honour".
We understand that players would like to earn more Honor for dismissing crew, but Honor was designed to be accrued gradually over time.
I think what @ErisTheVorta meant was 3 beholds or a fourth option being honor. Personally I'd rather be able to airlock crew directly from a Behold saves me having to go into crew quarters scroll and dismiss from there
I think what @ErisTheVorta meant was 3 beholds or a fourth option being honor. Personally I'd rather be able to airlock crew directly from a Behold saves me having to go into crew quarters scroll and dismiss from there
I'm not going to put words in Eris' mouth.
But I'd be surprised if Eris and you were happy in the eventuality that DB put a button that reads "give me 550 Honour directly". Or would you? Is that the only thing that needs to happen to solve all of the Behold frustration?
I was indeed suggesting to get more Honor than for airlucking a gold crew member, because even getting a BeGold (gold behold) is super rare. And usually you don't get these without spending either money or immortalization dilithium on event or normal 10x pulls. If 550 Honor is the only reward you can get out of a BeGold, then there is no need to wonder why people spend less and less cash for STT ... and let's face it, STT is the only game right now that keeps DB alive. I love Star Trek and I like the concept of STT, and I'd love to stay and also keep spending sometimes if it's worf the effort (pun intended for next event).
"Everything about the Jem'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris (ST-DS9 Episode 2x26 "The Jem'Hadar")
I was indeed suggesting to get more Honor than for airlucking a gold crew member, because even getting a BeGold (gold behold) is super rare. And usually you don't get these without spending either money or immortalization dilithium on event or normal 10x pulls. If 550 Honor is the only reward you can get out of a BeGold, then there is no need to wonder why people spend less and less cash for STT ... and let's face it, STT is the only game right now that keeps DB alive. I love Star Trek and I like the concept of STT, and I'd love to stay and also keep spending sometimes if it's worf the effort (pun intended for next event).
I don't think much will change as there's no other Star Trek game available on mobile apart from Trexels to drive competition and Trexels is terrible.
If 550 Honor is the only reward you can get out of a BeGold, then there is no need to wonder why people spend less and less cash for STT
Source needed. Before trying to explain why people spend less, we should maybe know if people spend less, and how much less.
Estimates say that STT makes $33K per day, which is a huge amount of money especially for a game study that recently downsized. If this amount of money is more than what DB expects to make, then they have no reason to change their monetization.
and let's face it, STT is the only game right now that keeps DB alive.
Source needed. Please submit all the data comparing the revenue of STT and the revenue of GoT:A, an older game that was able to pay for itself and the development of STT.
I mean, the total number of app downloads and of reviews seem to favour STT, which isn't surprising due to the 50-year brand recognition associated with Star Trek (which aSoIaF can't match), but STT being "the only game right now that keeps DB alive" seems a bit too much. DB managed to survive on GoT:A alone, and I see no reason to assume this wouldn't be the case now.
Hey, don't misunderstand. I'm in favour of "give us more honour, give us more, we want more, we want it all". I'm just saying that we have to convince DB, and arguments that are 50% speculation and 50% unsupported conclusions aren't going to convince DB.
I'd take dismiss crew now option on a Behold regardless if honor changed or not rather than go scroll and dismiss from crew quarters maybe they could see and use the data better of who and how many times a Behold is discarded
I'd take dismiss crew now option on a Behold regardless if honor changed or not rather than go scroll and dismiss from crew quarters maybe they could see and use the data better of who and how many times a Behold is discarded
I think we'd all agree on this small modification of the game UI. It probably deserves its own thread
I wonder if these concerns from high value players 500k-2m+ VIP will ever get addressed when they regularly get immortalised crew on all 3 beholds of 5* rarity. When I look at my in game friends list it's like a graveyard of whales who have left the game never to return
No, they won't.
Why would they? They farm whales. More will be along later.
The only change that I've ever seen made in card-collecting games is the producer selling exact cards at hugely inflated rates to allow collectors to fill sets. To my knowledge this has only ever happened in limited-time sales.
This is a gambling game. You have a tiny percent chance to win the card you want. That chance shrinks every time you get one you want. You keep playing. DB wins. You're asking them to.... stop winning?
I only had 20 golds immurrtalized when these two happened. Now it's 22, butt still only a little bit of the 150+ available. I find this really bad, there should be honor as extra choice just in case you don't either want any of them or can't use any of them anymore.
Ouch that **tsk tsk**. With 20 out of 150 that is around 14% chance of pulling a FF character if my Maths is correct?
When I pull a behold, when one character is 4/5*, I have chosen a different character just to avoid/delay running into this problem.
The only change that I've ever seen made in card-collecting games is the producer selling exact cards at hugely inflated rates to allow collectors to fill sets. To my knowledge this has only ever happened in limited-time sales.
If 550 Honor is the only reward you can get out of a BeGold, then there is no need to wonder why people spend less and less cash for STT
Source needed. Before trying to explain why people spend less, we should maybe know if people spend less, and how much less.
Estimates say that STT makes $33K per day, which is a huge amount of money especially for a game study that recently downsized. If this amount of money is more than what DB expects to make, then they have no reason to change their monetization.
and let's face it, STT is the only game right now that keeps DB alive.
Source needed. Please submit all the data comparing the revenue of STT and the revenue of GoT:A, an older game that was able to pay for itself and the development of STT.
I mean, the total number of app downloads and of reviews seem to favour STT, which isn't surprising due to the 50-year brand recognition associated with Star Trek (which aSoIaF can't match), but STT being "the only game right now that keeps DB alive" seems a bit too much. DB managed to survive on GoT:A alone, and I see no reason to assume this wouldn't be the case now.
Hey, don't misunderstand. I'm in favour of "give us more honour, give us more, we want more, we want it all". I'm just saying that we have to convince DB, and arguments that are 50% speculation and 50% unsupported conclusions aren't going to convince DB.
I'd also say source needed for your DB income estimate.
Estimates say that STT makes $33K per day, which is a huge amount of money especially for a game study that recently downsized. If this amount of money is more than what DB expects to make, then they have no reason to change their monetization.
I'd also say source needed for your DB income estimate.
I was hoping someone would ask.
Source for the only figure I'm offering is here. As a critique of the source, it is an estimate that is not confirmed by DB, but it's the best source I can find.
I will add that, according to that website, STT has enjoyed a somewhat consistent revenue in the last month, seeing that it maintains a place around ~150-160 in the ranking. The data past that can't be seen without an account.
If you have a better source, please share it with us.
As for my statement that DB lived on GoT:A for years, that is a matter of record. GoT:A was launched in 2013; STT in 2016, leaving GoT:A the sole source of revenue for three years. I did not try to quantify the amount of money made by GoT:A (the website up there doesn't have data); however I feel justified in noting that GoT:A is a proven source of money and STT isn't the sole source of revenue of DB.
I hope you are satisfied with my source management.
Estimates say that STT makes $33K per day, which is a huge amount of money especially for a game study that recently downsized. If this amount of money is more than what DB expects to make, then they have no reason to change their monetization.
I'd also say source needed for your DB income estimate.
I was hoping someone would ask.
Source for the only figure I'm offering is here. As a critique of the source, it is an estimate that is not confirmed by DB, but it's the best source I can find.
I will add that, according to that website, STT has enjoyed a somewhat consistent revenue in the last month, seeing that it maintains a place around ~150-160 in the ranking. The data past that can't be seen without an account.
If you have a better source, please share it with us.
As for my statement that DB lived on GoT:A for years, that is a matter of record. GoT:A was launched in 2013; STT in 2016, leaving GoT:A the sole source of revenue for three years. I did not try to quantify the amount of money made by GoT:A (the website up there doesn't have data); however I feel justified in noting that GoT:A is a proven source of money and STT isn't the sole source of revenue of DB.
I hope you are satisfied with my source management.
It shows where things are but like you said, without an account you cannot go back further. One month isn't a trend unfortunately and does not show us where things were leading up to the downsizing, so we really don't know the impact of any of the items either alleged or potentially refuted in the thread.
We just know x amount for a small snapshot, which gives a picture of better health than some estimate, but not enough to speculate the truth or fiction of prior statements in the thread.
One source I located was more DB verified with a wide range:
Which shows 10-25 million per year earnings, making a 35k/day roughly 12mil and thus on the small side of their estimated yearly income. This after in February of this year they stated "300% growth" primarily due to Timelines:
Which shows 10-25 million per year earnings, making a 35k/day roughly 12mil and thus on the small side of their estimated yearly income.
It sounds like the sources are compatible one with the other. I think we have an agreement on tens of thousands of dollars per day. It being on the small side of their estimate means little in the context of the extremely broad estimate done by glassdoor: it might indicate a reduction of the revenue, but there's absolutely no way of knowing.
There is a quick fix for the issue that DB surely has nothing against:
They need to check the behold if it's all duplicates before showing the screen. If they are all duplicate --> do not open behold screen and directly show first draw.
There is a quick fix for the issue that DB surely has nothing against:
They need to check the behold if it's all duplicates before showing the screen. If they are all duplicate --> do not open behold screen and directly show first draw.
Sadly not. You'll just get loads of whiners who come to the forums saying "wah wah, I got a legendary crew whom I already have, wah wah, why didn't I get a Behold, at least I'd have had a chance at someone else, rotten RNG, give me Beholds instead of giving me stuff I have maxed".
We are used to most Legendary crew coming via Beholds. Hell, I have seen threads opened by people who seemed to think that 10-packs guarantee an Epic Behold. You just know that if DB hid the Beholds you'd get loads of people whining about it.
There is a quick fix for the issue that DB surely has nothing against:
They need to check the behold if it's all duplicates before showing the screen. If they are all duplicate --> do not open behold screen and directly show first draw.
Sadly not. You'll just get loads of whiners who come to the forums saying "wah wah, I got a legendary crew whom I already have, wah wah, why didn't I get a Behold, at least I'd have had a chance at someone else, rotten RNG, give me Beholds instead of giving me stuff I have maxed".
We are used to most Legendary crew coming via Beholds. Hell, I have seen threads opened by people who seemed to think that 10-packs guarantee an Epic Behold. You just know that if DB hid the Beholds you'd get loads of people whining about it.
Not true I didn't come to the old forum whining when I spent €500 and didn't get a 5* crew pulling in consecutive packs last year. Got the sorry about bad luck it's a loot table response that's sent out. I just used it to see how many I could pull on a bad streak. I wasn't the only one some other friends in game went 30-50 packs no golds that didn't complain either. I'd rather not get a Behold now than have several with all options FF as there more frustrating to receive than none.
I'm currently playing the South Park game the most expensive bundle is $49.99 which gets me two gold packs which is guaranteed 10 super rare and 6 Epic cards or better they're guaranteeed in a pack not depending on RNG.
I don't have a professional source, I've heard that from players who've been around a lot longer than I have. If there are still other games that generate more income for DB than STT, then of course I'm happy, because that indirectly also guarantees the survival of STT, so yeah.
Anyway, getting such BeGolds doesn't encourage to buy more 10-pulls just to get another usless BeGold. ^^
"Everything about the Jem'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris (ST-DS9 Episode 2x26 "The Jem'Hadar")
Anyway, getting such BeGolds doesn't encourage to buy more 10-pulls just to get another usless BeGold. ^^
I think we all agree. We all agreed before starting this thread. Those of us who played one year and a half ago probably agreed about this one year and a half ago.
No one, including every single person in DB's marketing department, would find this a surprising statement.
I think a free 4* citation is a lot to ask for, because a Behold is random and a citation you can use on the one you want. However, giving a moderate amount of Honor as 4th choice in a Behold would be a serious option in my opinion, let's say 2000 Honor (a 4* citation costs 18000 Honor).
However, the Citation makes perfect sense if it appears ONLY when you get a Behold that is ALL FULLY FUSED. 4* Citation for 4* Behold. 5* Citation for 5* Behold. Fractional amount of Honor instead is rather insulting, on top of the first insult of offering you a choice of three Fully Fused.....
Just saying......
Scott
Why was Vicki not expelled from Greendale after she literally stabbed Pierce in the face with a pencil?!?!?
It would be nice with the character choices to have a citation choice as well. I am to the point where I don’t need more toons, the ones I have will do just fine. I do not have all of them, nor do I need them all.
“A committee is a cul-de-sac, down which good ideas are lured and quietly strangled.” —Mark TwainMEMBER: [BoB] Barrel of Bloodwine... We are recruiting and putting the “curv” in scurvy! Best Event Finish: #3 Honor Debt: Inconceivable...Honor Bank Account: Slowly building...
However, the Citation makes perfect sense if it appears ONLY when you get a Behold that is ALL FULLY FUSED. 4* Citation for 4* Behold. 5* Citation for 5* Behold. Fractional amount of Honor instead is rather insulting, on top of the first insult of offering you a choice of three Fully Fused.....
Just saying......
Scott
I would be purrfectly fine with that, butt I don't think it's ever gunna happen.
"Everything about the Jem'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris (ST-DS9 Episode 2x26 "The Jem'Hadar")
It's interesting to see this topic, the discussion and these possible solutions come up again. This particular iteration, the idea of a citation as 4th option or some greater amount of honor, is essentially just asking for a change of honor value for duplicate dismissals. It has been proposed several times before on the old forums, with the accompanying discussion following a familiar pattern.
For what it's worth, I just thought I'd provide reference to an official response on the related topic of honor values and some links to some of the older discussions. Mostly as a sort of evidence of the duplicate and honor value issue still being unresolved and the heaps of time and effort the community has put into asking for a solution.
Q15: Are you planning on reviewing honor costs, so we either get more honor for dismissing crew or citations/etc cost less?
A15: We're not planning on any changes to Honor costs. Our goal with the Honor Hall was to allow players greater value (compared to before) when dismissing crew and allow players new paths to collect and invest in their favorite crew. We understand that players would like to earn more Honor for dismissing crew, but Honor was designed to be accrued gradually over time. With that said, we do keep a close eye on how Honor is earned and redeemed.
...Another goal of Honor was to reduce the player frustration we recognize has been occurring when Captains open Time Portal packs and find a bunch of duplicate crew...
Does the team also consider the current dismissal rates to adequately address the problem of duplicate crew and the resulting disincentive for pack sales and increase in player frustration?
I understand the point about accruing honor gradually over time, which makes sense. Though I am curious for what segment of the player base are the current rates calibrated for or modeled on? From my perspective as a monthly card player, the time horizon on immortalizing even a couple legendary crew is arduous to say the least.
Given that there was some consensus around a 10:1 (2345) or better ratio, I suggested something like this:
For those interested, there is a wealth of discussion on the topic on the old forums, most of which is linked to from the OP of that poll and elsewhere in that thread. My view remains that the exchange rate ought to be far more equitable than it is now, with a win-win type of solution, such that pack sales are encouraged and captains are happier with the exchange rate.
Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
My view remains that the exchange rate ought to be far more equitable than it is now, with a win-win type of solution, such that pack sales are encouraged and captains are happier with the exchange rate.
I guess that most players are in favor of the "give us more we want more give us more" proposal. And most know that the "give us 90 times more we want 90 times more (under certain conditions)" proposal has little chances to be accepted.
However I reckon that the reason behind DB's inaction is that they don't agree it's a win-win solution. As simple as that. We are all capable of half-baking an unsupported argument like "give us more and we'll buy more", but this argument has never been anything more than the opinion of a random person on the Internet.
I think going to a 10:1 scheme without even changing the cost of the citations is still a good idea. It has never bothered me that you have to go through thousands of 1 stars to get a 5 star. What bothers me is having to go through 90 4 or 5 stars to get a 4 or 5 star but only 10 2 stars to get a 2 star.
Or expressed another way; if a 5 star is worth 100 times a 2 star when new, a used 5 star should also be worth 100 times a used 2 star.
I find it interesting that there is, and has been since honor was introduced in version 1.9, broad consensus that the exchange rates aren't working for the majority of captains across the spending spectrum. If one looks into the heaps of previous conversation on the topic, there is also ample evidence and good discussion about how this isn't working in DB's favor either. This policy of milking new whales rather than showing much interest in retaining long term players isn't lossless, as many a captain from basically all of the top fleets can, and have attested to.
There seems to be those few Captains who are bent on arguing against their own self interest, and choose to disparage their fellow captains for advocating for change in this game mechanic. To them, I'd just like for them to consider that most of the ad hominem and strawman arguments have been made before, and have been counter argued ad nauseam. To perpetuate those willful misperceptions only demonstrates an ignorance of the ongoing conversation and/or compulsive cynicism and pessimism.
Most comments of that ilk, are far from being useful or constructive criticism that adds to the conversation. Soliciting and listening to negative feedback is important, when it's is relevant, well considered and has something to offer toward finding a workable solution. Disregarding or maligning the communities feedback that the current system isn't working is a sort of denialism at odds with the kind of rational thought required for useful skepticism and critical thinking. Contrarianism for sake of itself isn't demonstrative of intelligence, it's antithetical.
The honor exchange rates, and the frustration of duplicates which result in lower pack sales and player burn out are real issues with the game. That said, maybe none of the solutions yet proposed can solve for those issues in an equitable and agreeable way. What I'd like to suggest is to help find a solution, if all you have to offer is cynicism, pessimism and disrespect of your fellow captains, then consider the option of just keeping that non-contribution to yourself and staying out of the way of those of us who are trying to improve the situation.
That said, the community hasn't exactly stayed focused on this topic, and even though there is broad consensus that there is a problem, we don't have consensus on a solution. We as players, don't need consensus on the solution, just need a very vocal and participatory consensus that there is still a problem and to indicate the direction that a solution needs to take.
Additionally, threads which bring up this topic are strewn about the forums both old and new, which dilutes and obfuscates our collective voice on the matter. Even those threads which have gained thousands of views and hundreds of hours of participation get buried and forgotten, then these same conversations get played out again in a new thread.
So to the silent majority lurking, please take the time to make your voice heard. If not on this thread then on the one which will likely follow it. Otherwise those relatively few of us advocating on your behalf will have had their efforts wasted. All it takes is a couple trolls to derail a constructive conversation and majority remaining silent, and nothing will likely change. And that, will complete the cycle of the pessimist's self fulling prophecy.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Most comments of that ilk, are far from being useful or constructive criticism that adds to the conversation. Soliciting and listening to negative feedback is important, when it's is relevant, well considered and has something to offer toward finding a workable solution. Disregarding or maligning the communities feedback that the current system isn't working is a sort of denialism at odds with the kind of rational thought required for useful skepticism and critical thinking. Contrarianism for sake of itself isn't demonstrative of intelligence, it's antithetical.
If that's about me, I'd like to point out that you continue to completely misconstrue my point of view
My criticism is that, basically, the people at DB's marketing department aren't stupid - or, even if you think they are, we shouldn't treat them like they are. If we want to argue that a change is a win-win, then we have to prove that it's a win for DB. Otherwise it's an unsupported claim that DB's marketing people will have no problem in ignoring.
You know all of this, I'm sure - it's all really simple stuff. "Give more and some players will need to buy less" is at the grasp of everyone, with all of its consequences: "DB will get less money from those players" is an easy corollary, and "DB will make a win only if the other players compensate" is an easy conclusion.
You are certainly clever enough to see this, as are the people at DB.
Of course, the purchase of packs is going to be encouraged. You will convince DB that it's a win for them if you manage to show that this "encouragement" is substantial enough. This does require either an estimate of the current purchase profile, a prediction of the purchase profile of the playerbase after the price alteration, of at least some substantial sampling.
If you don't have any of these things, your use of terms such as "win-win" is disingenuous and would work only if the people at DB are really stupid (which I don't think they are) or they know the numbers less than you do (which isn't the case).
Pointing out the weaknesses in a proposal is a required step to improve the proposal. It's a necessary, in light of those values of skepticism and critical thinking that you seem to appreciate (unless the skepticism is directed against what you write).
But what do I expect? I comment on the fact that some statements are obviously half-baked, and I get - from a supposed champion of critical thinking - a long wounded-sounding tirade that contains no defence of the argument (not even an attempt), and a series of ad-persona attacks.
But don't worry. I have received your long personal attack with the utmost serenity, and it has in no way diminished the opinion I have of you
For the love of critical thinking, I will never invite (order? injunct? command? beg?) you to be silent. On the contrary, I invite you to lay down your reasoning for the benefit of DB. Please do demonstrate the tangible revenue ("win") that you claim DB would make: it would be extremely convincing.
Comments
There should be and there is honour, namely 550 honour (no matter what choice you take) if you want none of them. DB doesn't even need to give you an "extra" choice, you already have the choice if you want/need none of them.
I suspect that what you actually mean to say is "there should be more honour, I want more than 550, give me more honour".
And guess what?
I think what @ErisTheVorta meant was 3 beholds or a fourth option being honor. Personally I'd rather be able to airlock crew directly from a Behold saves me having to go into crew quarters scroll and dismiss from there
I'm not going to put words in Eris' mouth.
But I'd be surprised if Eris and you were happy in the eventuality that DB put a button that reads "give me 550 Honour directly". Or would you? Is that the only thing that needs to happen to solve all of the Behold frustration?
I don't think much will change as there's no other Star Trek game available on mobile apart from Trexels to drive competition and Trexels is terrible.
I told you so, Q
Source needed. Before trying to explain why people spend less, we should maybe know if people spend less, and how much less.
Estimates say that STT makes $33K per day, which is a huge amount of money especially for a game study that recently downsized. If this amount of money is more than what DB expects to make, then they have no reason to change their monetization.
Source needed. Please submit all the data comparing the revenue of STT and the revenue of GoT:A, an older game that was able to pay for itself and the development of STT.
I mean, the total number of app downloads and of reviews seem to favour STT, which isn't surprising due to the 50-year brand recognition associated with Star Trek (which aSoIaF can't match), but STT being "the only game right now that keeps DB alive" seems a bit too much. DB managed to survive on GoT:A alone, and I see no reason to assume this wouldn't be the case now.
Hey, don't misunderstand. I'm in favour of "give us more honour, give us more, we want more, we want it all". I'm just saying that we have to convince DB, and arguments that are 50% speculation and 50% unsupported conclusions aren't going to convince DB.
I think we'd all agree on this small modification of the game UI. It probably deserves its own thread
No, they won't.
Why would they? They farm whales. More will be along later.
The only change that I've ever seen made in card-collecting games is the producer selling exact cards at hugely inflated rates to allow collectors to fill sets. To my knowledge this has only ever happened in limited-time sales.
This is a gambling game. You have a tiny percent chance to win the card you want. That chance shrinks every time you get one you want. You keep playing. DB wins. You're asking them to.... stop winning?
Captain level 50, approaching 100 immortals
All you need to know about Disruptor Beam
When I pull a behold, when one character is 4/5*, I have chosen a different character just to avoid/delay running into this problem.
15,000 dilithium for a 5* in the faction stores.
I'd also say source needed for your DB income estimate.
I was hoping someone would ask.
Source for the only figure I'm offering is here. As a critique of the source, it is an estimate that is not confirmed by DB, but it's the best source I can find.
I will add that, according to that website, STT has enjoyed a somewhat consistent revenue in the last month, seeing that it maintains a place around ~150-160 in the ranking. The data past that can't be seen without an account.
If you have a better source, please share it with us.
As for my statement that DB lived on GoT:A for years, that is a matter of record. GoT:A was launched in 2013; STT in 2016, leaving GoT:A the sole source of revenue for three years. I did not try to quantify the amount of money made by GoT:A (the website up there doesn't have data); however I feel justified in noting that GoT:A is a proven source of money and STT isn't the sole source of revenue of DB.
I hope you are satisfied with my source management.
It shows where things are but like you said, without an account you cannot go back further. One month isn't a trend unfortunately and does not show us where things were leading up to the downsizing, so we really don't know the impact of any of the items either alleged or potentially refuted in the thread.
We just know x amount for a small snapshot, which gives a picture of better health than some estimate, but not enough to speculate the truth or fiction of prior statements in the thread.
One source I located was more DB verified with a wide range:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Disruptor-Beam-EI_IE558411.11,25.htm
Which shows 10-25 million per year earnings, making a 35k/day roughly 12mil and thus on the small side of their estimated yearly income. This after in February of this year they stated "300% growth" primarily due to Timelines:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/02/disruptor-beam-series-b/
So not exactly roses, but not exactly Houston either.
It sounds like the sources are compatible one with the other. I think we have an agreement on tens of thousands of dollars per day. It being on the small side of their estimate means little in the context of the extremely broad estimate done by glassdoor: it might indicate a reduction of the revenue, but there's absolutely no way of knowing.
After a 300% growth we would have 25% of the revenue due to GoT:A and 75% due to STT. STT is a large part of its revenue, but not the sole source.
(This doesn't include the Walking Dead game, but it seems to be much smaller).
I'm glad that you agree with my initial assessment with your additional sources.
They need to check the behold if it's all duplicates before showing the screen. If they are all duplicate --> do not open behold screen and directly show first draw.
Sadly not. You'll just get loads of whiners who come to the forums saying "wah wah, I got a legendary crew whom I already have, wah wah, why didn't I get a Behold, at least I'd have had a chance at someone else, rotten RNG, give me Beholds instead of giving me stuff I have maxed".
We are used to most Legendary crew coming via Beholds. Hell, I have seen threads opened by people who seemed to think that 10-packs guarantee an Epic Behold. You just know that if DB hid the Beholds you'd get loads of people whining about it.
Not true I didn't come to the old forum whining when I spent €500 and didn't get a 5* crew pulling in consecutive packs last year. Got the sorry about bad luck it's a loot table response that's sent out. I just used it to see how many I could pull on a bad streak. I wasn't the only one some other friends in game went 30-50 packs no golds that didn't complain either. I'd rather not get a Behold now than have several with all options FF as there more frustrating to receive than none.
I'm currently playing the South Park game the most expensive bundle is $49.99 which gets me two gold packs which is guaranteed 10 super rare and 6 Epic cards or better they're guaranteeed in a pack not depending on RNG.
Anyway, getting such BeGolds doesn't encourage to buy more 10-pulls just to get another usless BeGold. ^^
You: "STT is the only game that keeps DB alive".
Me: "GoT:A's revenue is probably a third of STT's and was enough to keep DB alive for two years."
You: "I'm happy that other games generate more income".
Can we just abandon this topic before we get even more inaccurate statements?
I think we all agree. We all agreed before starting this thread. Those of us who played one year and a half ago probably agreed about this one year and a half ago.
No one, including every single person in DB's marketing department, would find this a surprising statement.
However, the Citation makes perfect sense if it appears ONLY when you get a Behold that is ALL FULLY FUSED. 4* Citation for 4* Behold. 5* Citation for 5* Behold. Fractional amount of Honor instead is rather insulting, on top of the first insult of offering you a choice of three Fully Fused.....
Just saying......
Scott
I would be purrfectly fine with that, butt I don't think it's ever gunna happen.
For what it's worth, I just thought I'd provide reference to an official response on the related topic of honor values and some links to some of the older discussions. Mostly as a sort of evidence of the duplicate and honor value issue still being unresolved and the heaps of time and effort the community has put into asking for a solution.
From: October Timelines Q&A
Thanks for the update on this. Yet, I would like to ask a follow up question, in terms of this statement which was made very early on in terms of the intent for the honor hall, from: STAR TREK TIMELINES: What is the Honor Hall?
Does the team also consider the current dismissal rates to adequately address the problem of duplicate crew and the resulting disincentive for pack sales and increase in player frustration?
I understand the point about accruing honor gradually over time, which makes sense. Though I am curious for what segment of the player base are the current rates calibrated for or modeled on? From my perspective as a monthly card player, the time horizon on immortalizing even a couple legendary crew is arduous to say the least.
From: Erin/Shan: Please look into the honour points for dismissed crew again
These are the current exchange ratios:
This is a poll from 1.9/2.0 Ratio of dismissed crew to equivalent rarity honorable citation which was done on the old forums, before voyages and fleet targets.
Given that there was some consensus around a 10:1 (2345) or better ratio, I suggested something like this:
For those interested, there is a wealth of discussion on the topic on the old forums, most of which is linked to from the OP of that poll and elsewhere in that thread. My view remains that the exchange rate ought to be far more equitable than it is now, with a win-win type of solution, such that pack sales are encouraged and captains are happier with the exchange rate.
Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I guess that most players are in favor of the "give us more we want more give us more" proposal. And most know that the "give us 90 times more we want 90 times more (under certain conditions)" proposal has little chances to be accepted.
However I reckon that the reason behind DB's inaction is that they don't agree it's a win-win solution. As simple as that. We are all capable of half-baking an unsupported argument like "give us more and we'll buy more", but this argument has never been anything more than the opinion of a random person on the Internet.
Or expressed another way; if a 5 star is worth 100 times a 2 star when new, a used 5 star should also be worth 100 times a used 2 star.
There seems to be those few Captains who are bent on arguing against their own self interest, and choose to disparage their fellow captains for advocating for change in this game mechanic. To them, I'd just like for them to consider that most of the ad hominem and strawman arguments have been made before, and have been counter argued ad nauseam. To perpetuate those willful misperceptions only demonstrates an ignorance of the ongoing conversation and/or compulsive cynicism and pessimism.
Most comments of that ilk, are far from being useful or constructive criticism that adds to the conversation. Soliciting and listening to negative feedback is important, when it's is relevant, well considered and has something to offer toward finding a workable solution. Disregarding or maligning the communities feedback that the current system isn't working is a sort of denialism at odds with the kind of rational thought required for useful skepticism and critical thinking. Contrarianism for sake of itself isn't demonstrative of intelligence, it's antithetical.
The honor exchange rates, and the frustration of duplicates which result in lower pack sales and player burn out are real issues with the game. That said, maybe none of the solutions yet proposed can solve for those issues in an equitable and agreeable way. What I'd like to suggest is to help find a solution, if all you have to offer is cynicism, pessimism and disrespect of your fellow captains, then consider the option of just keeping that non-contribution to yourself and staying out of the way of those of us who are trying to improve the situation.
That said, the community hasn't exactly stayed focused on this topic, and even though there is broad consensus that there is a problem, we don't have consensus on a solution. We as players, don't need consensus on the solution, just need a very vocal and participatory consensus that there is still a problem and to indicate the direction that a solution needs to take.
Additionally, threads which bring up this topic are strewn about the forums both old and new, which dilutes and obfuscates our collective voice on the matter. Even those threads which have gained thousands of views and hundreds of hours of participation get buried and forgotten, then these same conversations get played out again in a new thread.
So to the silent majority lurking, please take the time to make your voice heard. If not on this thread then on the one which will likely follow it. Otherwise those relatively few of us advocating on your behalf will have had their efforts wasted. All it takes is a couple trolls to derail a constructive conversation and majority remaining silent, and nothing will likely change. And that, will complete the cycle of the pessimist's self fulling prophecy.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
If that's about me, I'd like to point out that you continue to completely misconstrue my point of view
My criticism is that, basically, the people at DB's marketing department aren't stupid - or, even if you think they are, we shouldn't treat them like they are. If we want to argue that a change is a win-win, then we have to prove that it's a win for DB. Otherwise it's an unsupported claim that DB's marketing people will have no problem in ignoring.
You know all of this, I'm sure - it's all really simple stuff. "Give more and some players will need to buy less" is at the grasp of everyone, with all of its consequences: "DB will get less money from those players" is an easy corollary, and "DB will make a win only if the other players compensate" is an easy conclusion.
You are certainly clever enough to see this, as are the people at DB.
Of course, the purchase of packs is going to be encouraged. You will convince DB that it's a win for them if you manage to show that this "encouragement" is substantial enough. This does require either an estimate of the current purchase profile, a prediction of the purchase profile of the playerbase after the price alteration, of at least some substantial sampling.
If you don't have any of these things, your use of terms such as "win-win" is disingenuous and would work only if the people at DB are really stupid (which I don't think they are) or they know the numbers less than you do (which isn't the case).
Pointing out the weaknesses in a proposal is a required step to improve the proposal. It's a necessary, in light of those values of skepticism and critical thinking that you seem to appreciate (unless the skepticism is directed against what you write).
But what do I expect? I comment on the fact that some statements are obviously half-baked, and I get - from a supposed champion of critical thinking - a long wounded-sounding tirade that contains no defence of the argument (not even an attempt), and a series of ad-persona attacks.
But don't worry. I have received your long personal attack with the utmost serenity, and it has in no way diminished the opinion I have of you
For the love of critical thinking, I will never invite (order? injunct? command? beg?) you to be silent. On the contrary, I invite you to lay down your reasoning for the benefit of DB. Please do demonstrate the tangible revenue ("win") that you claim DB would make: it would be extremely convincing.