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.
As I stated in both of my other posts in this thread, you would find several different proposed models for how recalibrating the honor exchange values could be more favorable, maybe even win-win, to both DB and the player base, within the many discussions had about this topic, particularly on the old forums.
In short, building from those previous conversations, given that we do not have access to specific pack sales figures from DB for STT, or those sales figures broken down between new and older players, most have tended to argue based upon industry standard behavior as correlated from similar games. This is an argument based mostly on analogy and path dependency which may not accurately track to the realities of the STT player base. It certainly doesn't serve as an unquestionable proof against to what is possible with different game systems.
1. Without those sales figures, it would be impossible to make a tangible revenue argument.
Likewise, we do not know the total revenue lost from players quitting due to frustration over this game system, and we can only speculate about the total packs not sold to long term players due to the duplicate issue. However we have had many of the highest spending captains as well as others with more moderate discretionary income state conclusively that this issue has stymied their spending. In addition it has impacted the goodwill the player base has with the developer.
2. Without an accurate accounting for how much the current honor exchange rate and duplicates mechanic has costs DB in lost revenue, and lost good-will which results in more lost revenue, it is impossible to make a conclusive and tangible revenue argument.
Either way, we know the plural of anecdote is not data and analogy is not necessarily the best method for deriving systems. Without an accurate accounting for and modeling of both 1 and 2, any captains perspective is speculation and guesswork, or "half-baked" at best, as you posited earlier.
What I think is instructive, is that typically people who are arguing the "business as usual" approach disregard or minimize the lost revenue considerations. Likewise, they there is this tendency to mischaracterise any advocacy for less variability in pack value as "wanting things for free" or not understanding that DB needs to make money. Both perceptions are condescending at best, and certainly not well reasoned counter arguments. Broadly speaking, I think it's far more likely that other captains have a grasp of basic economics and we are all invested in DB's being successful and keeping their doors open.
As for the argument I can make, and have made, half-baked as it is due to lack of data, is that by recalibrating the honor exchange rate or some other solution for the duplicate problem, DB could recoup some portion of that lost revenue and good will. In this way, they make money, players are more happy. Hence at least the possibility of finding a win-win solution.
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.
First of all, thank you for addressing the actual criticism and applying some thinking, and not just venting some ad-personam attack like your previous message. I appreciate your participation in civil discourse.
1. Without those sales figures, it would be impossible to make a tangible revenue argument.
Likewise, we do not know the total revenue lost from players quitting due to frustration over this game system, and we can only speculate about the total packs not sold to long term players due to the duplicate issue.
You are perfectly correct. Yet stressing our ignorance once more only weakens further the strength with which you call this a "win" for DB.
My argument has never been that raising the amount of honour (or whatever equivalent solution) could never be a win for DB. My point is just that we are arguing from a position of ignorance, and trying to convince someone in a position of knowing, and trying to sell them our assessments (such as "this is a win for you, DB"). Furthering our position of ignorance is not going to make our case stronger.
However we have had many of the highest spending captains as well as others with more moderate discretionary income state conclusively that this issue has stymied their spending.
You are perfectly correct. No need to tell me: I stopped paying one year and eight months ago because of my perception of the monetization as completely unincentivizing.
But you know as well as I do that it's not that simple. Player retention, and purchase retention, are taken into account by marketing departments. Given the choice between "take money over a long period of time from a high-retentive playerbase" or "take MOAR money over a shorter period of time from a low-retention playerbase", I suspect they'd take the "take MOAR money" option.
And with that I'm not saying I have proof that they are making more money. I'm just saying that it is conceivable for DB to make a win from choosing a monetization scheme that "quickly" burns players.
Without an accurate accounting for and modeling of both 1 and 2, any captains perspective is speculation and guesswork, or "half-baked" at best, as you posited earlier.
I'm glad that you now agree to a statement that previously prompted you to write a long personal attack.
Likewise, they there is this tendency to mischaracterise any advocacy for less variability in pack value as "wanting things for free"
For free? We are talking of the paying packs. Asking for better quality for our investment is not "wanting things for free".
That is why I characterise these views not as "give us free stuff" but "give us more", a characterisation that very clearly points out how we are already getting something, and that we find it unsatisfying.
As for the argument I can make, and have made, half-baked as it is due to lack of data, is that by recalibrating the honor exchange rate or some other solution for the duplicate problem, DB could recoup some portion of that lost revenue and good will. In this way, they make money, players are more happy. Hence at least the possibility of finding a win-win solution.
I perfectly accept and agree with that especially now that you agree that it is made from a position of ignorance. My initial response to you, which prompted your furious invite for me to never speak again (I still find that rather sweet), was merely a pointing out this very fact.
If I may suggest a change in terminology, rather than a "win-win solution", what we are looking for is an optimum - the sweet spot where the player are the happiest while DB has the most reliable revenue. If you want, moving in the direction of the optimum is a "win-win" move.
Of course, maybe it is possible to find a better win-win solution. From our position of ignorance, we don't know where the optimum lies. DB's marketing, and Erin in her last intervention just a couple weeks ago, implicitly state that the optimum lies at 90:1. From our position of ignorance, how do we prove them wrong? We can't. All we have is our opinion that the optimum is at 10:1, and we won't trick DB into agreeing with us just by calling it a "win-win".
The only remaining question, to me, is what to do: the answer is quite trivial, yet it is impossible to enforce.
@Astrometrics You may want to consider that what I wrote initially in this thread was mostly about providing context of previous conversation. My follow up post had a lot more to do with addressing some of the unhelpful kinds of prevailing attitudes and ongoing conversation which has been had about this topic, throughout this thread and many others by both active (those who post) and passive (the silent majority) captains. My intent was to point out how those thoughts and behaviors are unhelpful.
I suggested, that if captains found, for themselves, they only had unhelpful things to offer, that perhaps they could consider either finding some more constructive way to participate or opting out of creating more noise (as in signal to noise).
If it was my intent to offer you feedback and criticism directly I would have done so. Thus far I have only been addressing ideas. If you find yourself employing those ideas and feel attacked, that is not the same thing as ad hominem. You will notice, that I have previously ignored responding to those parts of your post where you have taken it personally because I had hoped you would at some point realize your misperception on this point.
If I may suggest a change in terminology, rather than a "win-win solution", what we are looking for is an optimum - the sweet spot where the player are the happiest while DB has the most reliable revenue. If you want, moving in the direction of the optimum is a "win-win" move.
This is exactly what a win-win situation is, the terminology is fine because that's what it means, and it what has been advocated for since the beginning of my participation in this topic.
Of course, maybe it is possible to find a better win-win solution. From our position of ignorance, we don't know where the optimum lies.
Although we don't have the data necessary to derive the optimum for ourselves. What we can do, is advocate for our position. We can establish and articulate clearly that their current solution isn't even meeting their own stated design goals for the game system in question. We can work together on building consensus of the direction that they could go in. This is why I did that poll of the old forum and why I have shared it since. The solution, that optimum, is in the direction of a 10:1 ratio or toward players being happier with the duplicates situation and honor exchange rates. Where exactly that optimum is, is another matter.
Now I don't know if my post in particular had anything to do with the changes that were made, the timing is at least interesting though. One will notice that what I proposed was far more robust than what was implemented. Yet the rationale I offered for a change being necessary and reasonable, was in highlighting the importance of acknowledging the null result or "I think at very least, that crew would have learned something from that failed mission".
On this topic one simple argument for change is that many players are still frustrated and unhappy with the current system.
DB's marketing, and Erin in her last intervention just a couple weeks ago, implicitly state that the optimum lies at 90:1. From our position of ignorance, how do we prove them wrong? We can't. All we have is our opinion that the optimum is at 10:1, and we won't trick DB into agreeing with us just by calling it a "win-win".
We can prove them wrong. The current ratio at 90:1 hasn't succeed in meeting their stated design goals. As I am not in the habit of assuming malice and duplicity, I take them at their word.
...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...
Of course, how much "reduce" means is open to interpretation.
As to the other statements, I have not proposed that the win-win optimum is at 10:1. That was the average as derived from the poll, which didn't have nearly enough participation to even be considered the consensus among the player base. I think, however, it does serve to indicate agreement as to the direction of and need for change.
Furthermore, certainly not I, and I'd go as far to say nobody, is trying to "trick" DB into agreeing. I would really encourage you to consider why you would even think that is the case.
It's been said that we have no data about pack sales. It seems to me that's something we should be able to gather.
Where my design breaks down is packs not sold. We can say anecdotally that "but for whatever" we would have bought a pack, but how do you really know?
Any ideas?
Gathering data on packs not sold could serve as a evidence for our financial counter argument against the current exchange ratio and duplicates system. Thus far we can only speculate based on anecdote. We would certainly need people to be specific as to their reasoning for why not, and honest in their reporting of how many packs they would have actually bought otherwise.
I suppose if one was so inclined they could do a forum poll which tries to capture some lost revenue data. Would it be more valuable to capture historical data: "About how many packs have you not bought due to the current system?" or would it be better to capture what if data, "How many more packs would you buy if the current system was less stingy?"
Something to that effect maybe?
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.
The current ratio at 90:1 hasn't succeed in meeting their stated design goals. As I am not in the habit of assuming malice and duplicity, I take them at their word.
...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...
Of course, how much "reduce" means is open to interpretation.
Of course DB can say "there was frustration, and now we think there is less. We never said we could eliminate it, and we can't, and we won't. Mission accomplished." Entirely invalidating your argument. Which you have already admitted.
Your statement that the current ratio hasn't succeeded is your evaluation. As I said in a previous post, "the opinion of a person on the internet".
If you want to convince them that they are wrong, your argument has to be better than "I have the feeling you're wrong". It also has to be better than "but there's still frustration in the playerbase".
I think, however, it does serve to indicate agreement as to the direction of and need for change.
No it's not. It serves to indicate the wishes of the playerbase (the wishes being "give us more give us more"). There is no proof that the wishes of the playerbase indicate the direction of and need for change.
Furthermore, certainly not I, and I'd go as far to say nobody, is trying to "trick" DB into agreeing. I would really encourage you to consider why you would even think that is the case.
Then why do you obstinate yourself to say things like "this indicates agreement as to the direction of and the need of change"? You are not fooling DB. No one at DB will look at your data and think "oh this shows the direction we have to move towards, such compelling marketing, I'd never have thought that the playerbase would want more". This does not indicate the direction of anything, if not our dreams.
The only remaining question, to me, is what to do: the answer is quite trivial, yet it is impossible to enforce.
Care to share your answer?
Of course. Withhold (or minimize) all spending until things have improved enough.
Actions speak louder as words: we have to vote with our purses. Today we have an estimated 30K dollar of votes for "yes more of this, maybe we don't like it but we still will buy it". It's been around 30K for the last months, nice and stable, and DB's lack of action about it indicates that they are satisfied.
If we want change, we have to vote for change with our money.
And that's why it's unenforceable. Or, at least, the last person to manage to call a boycott has been Quinn. So good luck to anyone who wants to measure their charisma against Quinn's.
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.
Marketing doesn’t actually manage how beholds work, or pricing. That’s in the production team's ballpark, which Erin leads. I am not the one to make a case to.
Though we are involved in promoting the packs and providing feedback.
That said, any well-thought-out argument is likely to be seen by all, particularly if there's a good balance of objectivity and assumptions. The recent feedback thread on crew art is a great example, or many of the discussions on favoritism (or lack thereof) of certain crew in events.
However, be aware that that there are a wealth of factors that go into decision-making, and not all of them will be visible to players.
And lastly, we're not fans of mass dismissing pack/portal crew one-by-one either. There is absolutely no intentional inconvenience or clever scheme behind the current implementation. It's a pain, and we really want to fix it.
Hosun Lee Civilian, Brand and Marketing Ex-Disruptor Beam
Of course. Withhold (or minimize) all spending until things have improved enough.
Since my attempts at building consensus and reporting on it are just "the opinion of a person on the internet" and "obstinate", I would like to know:
1. What direction should that improvement take?
2. How will you, alone, determine when there has been enough improvement for everyone else?
3. On what basis do you argue that any improvement needs to take place?
4. How does your asking for "improvement" differentiate from the way you have misconstrued other peoples thoughts as being some overly simplistic plea to "give us more"?
5. How will you advocate for this improvement?
And that's why it's unenforceable. Or, at least, the last person to manage to call a boycott has been Quinn. So good luck to anyone who wants to measure their charisma against Quinn's.
Since you aren't Quinn, and by your reasoning Quinn or greater is required for a boycott, then what is your plan?
That said, any well-thought-out argument is likely to be seen by all, particularly if there's a good balance of objectivity and assumptions. The recent feedback thread on crew art is a great example, or many of the discussions on favoritism (or lack thereof) of certain crew in events.
However, be aware that that there are a wealth of factors that go into decision-making, and not all of them will be visible to players.
And lastly, we're not fans of mass dismissing pack/portal crew one-by-one either. There is absolutely no intentional inconvenience or clever scheme behind the current implementation. It's a pain, and we really want to fix it.
@Black Pebble Given the wealth of posts on this topic since patch 1.9, on both the old forums and new, I am curious if any of those have qualified as "well-thought-out arguments"? If so, what could be done to improve them? If not, understanding that there are "a wealth of factors" which will remain invisible to us, could you offer any advice on achieving a "good balance of objectivity and assumptions", such that our feedback on the matter is considered?
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.
And lastly, we're not fans of mass dismissing pack/portal crew one-by-one either. There is absolutely no intentional inconvenience or clever scheme behind the current implementation. It's a pain, and we really want to fix it.
How will you, alone, determine when there has been enough improvement for everyone else?
I will never be so arrogant as to, alone, decide that there's been "enough" improvement for everyone else. I am very aware of my limitations and do not hide them.
Anyone who even just suggests the prospect of someone being able, alone, to determine the satisfaction of everyone else, is just full of air.
On what basis do you argue that any improvement needs to take place?
I advocate in favour of a game that I enjoy more. Oh, I do enjoy it a great deal, but it can be improved in my opinion. Therefore I do argue.
However I do not hide that the basis is personal. I do not ascribe my feelings to the whole community, nor do I try to argue that DB's optimum "happens" to coincide my opinion, or with the opinion of a hundred people who agree with me. To say that would be once again arrogant.
How does your asking for "improvement" differentiate from the way you have misconstrued other peoples thoughts as being some overly simplistic plea to "give us more"?
I might have reduced the plea to its essence, but haven't you notice that I am actually in favour of "give us more"? I am and I have already stated so many times.
The way I am different? I try to avoid bad arguments like "with no data, based on anecdotal evidence, from my position of ignorance, with no authority, and aware that DB didn't say how much frustration, I hereby declare that DB has failed their goal of reducing frustration". And I point out bad arguments when I see them.
Since you aren't Quinn, and by your reasoning Quinn or greater is required for a boycott, then what is your plan?
Doing my small part in not encouraging the current monetization scheme, and encouraging other players to vote with their money, and by generally engaging in the discussion.
Aside from that I feel that a change in the monetization must be part of a movement started by the biggest alliances and by the wealthiest players.
@Astrometrics If I understand your feedback correctly, and I probably don't, you consider it arrogant and dishonest of me to collect data and then report on it?
Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma?
"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option."
It is at least possible, that the suggestions and observations I have made, based on the data I've collected and the time I've invested in this topic since patch 1.9, are different than you perceive them to be.
Do with that what you will.
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.
@Astrometrics If I understand your feedback correctly, and I probably don't, you consider it arrogant and dishonest of me to collect data and then report on it?
No, you don't understand it correctly. You framed your questions in a way that specifically asked me to evaluate things on my own, which I'd never do because it would be extremely arrogant.
Other things that I will never do are, for instance, inviting fellow players to abandon the discussion. Or loosely diagnosing them with mental illness.
Your data is in many things the best the data has collected, and of extreme high quality. Extrapolating from a survey of the playerbase to a plan that tells us where the game has to go, however, is an intellectually fallacious and unsatisfying method: it is completely unconvincing, and it weakens the survey by attaching it to something fallacious and unsatisfying.
And if you want something fallacious, for instance take your argument that I have re-written as "from my position of ignorance, with no authority, and aware that DB didn't say how much frustration, I hereby declare that DB has failed their goal of reducing frustration". Or, in your words, "We can prove them wrong. The current ratio at 90:1 hasn't succeed in meeting their stated design goals. (...) Of course, how much "reduce" means is open to interpretation."
@Astrometrics I could continue to respond, but I honestly don't see any point in doing so. I have tried to treat you with respect and respond to your, perceptions, in efforts to clarify my thoughts such that we might achieve some understanding. This has unfortunately proven to be a lot of wasted effort.
At some point, you might find it interesting to actually read what I've written, rather than just projecting what you think I've said.
Best of luck with your plan to alleviate behold frustration.
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.
@Astrometrics I could continue to respond, but I honestly don't see any point in doing so. I have tried to treat you with respect and respond to your, perceptions, in efforts to clarify my thoughts such that we might achieve some understanding.
I feel exactly the same way, but I knew it would end like this.
But hey, I would never call this a waste. You were moderately entertaining.
I can see why DB wouldn't want to give out citations on beholds. I think 25k honor as a fourth choice on a 5* behold would be fair. Or 9k honor on a 4* behold. I think something like that might make everyone very happy. The players would be happy and DB would incentivize people to keep spending. It's a win for everyone.
The players would be happy and DB would incentivize people to keep spending. It's a win for everyone.
No. DB would increase the number of paying customers and decrease the revenue for person. There is no proof that these two things would work out so that it's a win for everyone: DB might be losing money.
The players would be happy and DB would incentivize people to keep spending. It's a win for everyone.
No. DB would increase the number of paying customers and decrease the revenue for person. There is no proof that these two things would work out so that it's a win for everyone: DB might be losing money.
There is no proof that it would work exactly in that manner, as we do not have sales averages per person to work with, nor is there proof either way that it would be a win or not.
Neither side of the argument has anything other than base speculation to work with and assumptions based on economic models that may or may not apply.
Neither side of the argument has anything other than base speculation to work with and assumptions based on economic models that may or may not apply.
As far as I am concerned there's two sides that have spoken up: the sides that says "this is a win-win scenario, or at least we'll keep saying so" and the side that says "we have no proof of this being a win-win scenario, the only who have the data to decide is DB".
One of the two sides is being intellectually honest, the other is never going to fool DB no matter how hard they keep repeating their unsupported claim.
Neither side of the argument has anything other than base speculation to work with and assumptions based on economic models that may or may not apply.
As far as I am concerned there's two sides that have spoken up: the sides that says "this is a win-win scenario, or at least we'll keep saying so" and the side that says "we have no proof of this being a win-win scenario, the only who have the data to decide is DB".
One of the two sides is being intellectually honest, the other is never going to fool DB no matter how hard they keep repeating their unsupported claim.
A subcategory of False Dichotomy, the Perfect Solution Fallacy is arguing that a course of action is no good because it is not perfect. This essentially assumes the opposite of the Golden Mean Fallacy; rather than assuming the extremes cannot exist and the middle is correct, it assumes the middle cannot exist and a solution is either absolutely perfect or entirely undesirable. This is then used to argue that the hypothetical perfect solution must be used, or that a solution is useless because some part of the problem will remain after it has been implemented.
1. Please define "this" and "claim" as I have highlighted in your quote above. Then prove that "this" and "claim" is universally held by one of the two sides you have fabricated for sake of your narrative.
2. After you have defined "this" and "claim", and proven it to be a universal, then prove that it has also been offered not as a suggestion toward an optimum, but as the optimum itself.
3. Articulate how polarizing this conversation into "sides", is something other than a false dilemma, and explain how it is helpful in terms of working toward improving the situation.
4. Is your opinion that there is absolutely no possible win-win scenario, no spectrum of improvements which could be iterated upon toward a better situation than the current one?
5. Is it also your opinion that everyone who has offered a suggestion toward improving the situation is being "intellectually dishonest" and trying to "fool" DB?
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.
Come on, Ambassador, you are now sounding like a parody of yourself. Do you want to convince us that you don't even read? You pick two words and find three wikipedia articles that seem to be connected. Or a TV trope page, in this case.
In the case I need to write it plainly:
- I have never said that the "give us 10 times more" (or whatever number) couldn't be a win-win solution.
- I have never advocated against it.
- I have never said I am against it.
- I have never said that it's flawed because it's just a middle ground.
- I have never said that I will only be happy with a perfect solution.
- I have never said that we need another solution.
I have merely said that we can't claim it's a win-win because it requires knowledge that we don't have. Because saying "it's a win-win solution" is a claim. It's not a suggestion.
And I think it's silly to call it a "win-win" as if DB didn't know better. As far as we know it's a win-lose. And calling it otherwise won't negate this possibility. It's disingenuous when you don't realize the consequences of what you are saying, and it's dishonest if you do realize and still call it a win-win.
I am going to just ignore your five questions. None of them has anything to do with the only point that I wanted to make.
I have merely said that we can't claim it's a win-win because it requires knowledge that we don't have. Because saying "it's a win-win solution" is a claim. It's not a suggestion.
Firstly, define it's so we can be clear and understand your feedback, as there have been lots of different ideas presented in this thread and others on the topic. So, which idea exactly, are you referring to and making generalizations about?
Secondly, there is a difference between observing and stating that a win-win is possible, and claiming that a particular solution is itself a win-win. This is why I linked the perfect solution fallacy, splitting and black and white thinking. and in previous posts I have offered clarity and links to prior discussions on this point as example. Yet you persist in continuing to conflate these things, and using that as justification for disparaging and insulting other people.
Thirdly, to the best of my recollection the vast majority of suggestions I have read on this topic has been presented just as that, a suggestion. Some more succinctly than others. More often, those suggestions are even framed as a question "could we do something like this?" which is implicitly asking for feedback and simply offering an idea, not a making a claim.
And I think it's silly to call it a "win-win" as if DB didn't know better. As far as we know it's a win-lose. And calling it otherwise won't negate this possibility. It's disingenuous when you don't realize the consequences of what you are saying, and it's dishonest if you do realize and still call it a win-win.
Firstly, define it's so we can be clear and understand your feedback, as there have been lots of different ideas presented in this thread and others on the topic. So, which idea exactly, are you referring to and making generalizations about?
Here again, you are conflating an undefined suggestion with a perceived claim and using it as an excuse to accuse other people of being "disingenuous" and "dishonest".
Who exactly has claimed to have found the optimized solution? Who exactly has demonstrated this "disingenuous" and "dishonest" behavior? Which solution is it? Is it recalibrating honor exchange rate? Is it removing duplicates from beholds and pack pulls? Is it adding citations? Is it adding greater portions of honor or citations? Is it a reroll option for beholds? Is it allowing you to pick from factions? Some other idea that I'm missing in this rhetorical list? Then which version, or possible iteration, of any of these solutions and suggestions are the one to which you are referring? Which of these ideas have been presented in such a way as to set you on this mission to make this point?
I am going to just ignore your five questions. None of them has anything to do with the only point that I wanted to make.
How about this one since it certainly does have something to do with the point you keep on making.
5. Is it also your opinion that everyone who has offered a suggestion toward improving the situation is being "intellectually dishonest", and "silly" and "disingenuous", and is trying to "fool" DB?
That said, maybe I missed your point, that "only point" you were trying to make.
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.
I think a lot of little / moderate adjustments
Could go a long way.
I think there needs to be changes not just to the honor rates but also to the creativeness and fluidity of the packs themselves
So a multi pronged attack.
Prong 1
I like the idea of a greater sum of honor
In general per character across the board..
Let's say for a minute that they'll raise the rates by (and if it were single prong, should be much higher) about 10% to ask star levels.
(Save for 1*s , 27.5 honor is annoying so it's 30)
So you have 30, 55 ,110, 220 & 605 honor pending rarity.
Prong 2
Rerolls
I had more full houses today then in my last 50 10 packs combined.
Maybe I had amazing luck.. maybe today was very unlucky.. don't care.
I think there should be 2 levels of Re-Rolls
(With "are you sure ?" dialogs)
- Behold Reroll, up to 2 times per behold 50 Dilithium for the 1st, 75 for the second
- Entire pack Reroll
Pulled Romulan troi on a straight pull for the 8th time and sick of her ?
Re roll the entire pack for 100 Dilithium 1 time per pack.
Now, this means for DB that we could very well pull equally horrible to see again Temporal Agent 7 of 9 and you've made an extra 100 Dilithium from us..
It could also mean the Reroll gives us double Legendary beholds..
The slight increase in honor in prong 1, helps based on your current values to equalize the ratio of honor versus cost and having both implemented I would believe improve customer satisfaction. It would mine, that's for sure.
Prong 3.
Fluidity in pack types and styles.
6500 Dilithium = a legendary and rares and is super amazing blah blah blah.
I'm never ever ever going to buy one of those.
It just costs Waaaayyy too much.
650, 10 pack, guaranteed super rare in every pack.
Ok.. well it's getting stale.
That's why we're all here throwing ideas around
To make it more palatable.
We want you to make more money
We want the game to continue for long a long time to come. And we want to enjoy it in the process.
There needs to be more price options that yeild better results.
Something simple like..
800 Dilithium for a 10 pack that guarantees
At least 2 suoer rares // that guarantees at least 2 Beholds // which includes 10 shuttle speed boosts 3* or greater //
Prong 4
Legendarys.
So.. we all know that power creep is a giant pain in the butt. It's a quasi requirement because you can't market the new big bad if the new big bad had the same stats as the guy you released last year. I get it.
You need to maintain or continually escalate the value of the characters with each event to maintain the " oh crap, I need 7 in red !"
This leaves some older 5* looking pretty horrible. Don't wanna toss them because hey, it's a 5* how stupid will you feel if you space it then pull a second next week ?
I think you should put together a pool of older 5*s (like how you have kept the newer 4*s out of Voyages) and create a regular / semi regular sale for them.
There are around 150 Legendarys in the game right now..
Take the first 50, create a pack.
Not a 10 pack filled with 3 blues and useless schematics.
It would be a 3 pack, guaranteed 1 Legendary behold. Other slots could yeild anything from two more legendarys to super rares or multi packs of shuttle boosts, an honor bomb, a supply kit.. x big number of chronitons.
5. Is it also your opinion that everyone who has offered a suggestion toward improving the situation is being "intellectually dishonest", and "silly" and "disingenuous", and is trying to "fool" DB?
FFS. Do you love feeling attacked and offended? Do you like to polarize people around you implying that they are insulting everyone? Why do you do it? Is it easier for you to then rationalize your own behaviour?
I'll try to write it in a way that you might understand.
Who exactly has claimed to have found the optimized solution?
The person who wrote "my view remains that the exchange rate ought to be far more equitable than it is now, with a win-win type of solution". As far as we know making the exchange rate more equitable could very well result in DB losing money. The person who assumed the result would be a win-win made a claim about an economical reality they have no idea about.
That said, maybe I missed your point, that "only point" you were trying to make.
Don't worry. You're probably still missing it now.
Just as you never conceded the point that some people might be unhappy if you start speculating whether people who disagree with you do it out of psychological problems.
The person who wrote "my view remains that the exchange rate ought to be far more equitable than it is now, with a win-win type of solution". As far as we know making the exchange rate more equitable could very well result in DB losing money.
Definition of equitable
1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned
- an equitable settlement of the dispute
Definition of win-win
: advantageous or satisfactory to all parties involved
- a win-win situation
- a win-win deal
By definition, an equitable and win-win solution would result in DB gaining money, or it wouldn't be equitable or win-win. You will also notice, that I simply suggested that such a solution to the situation was possible, I did not and have not claimed to have found that solution.
Just as you never conceded the point that some people might be unhappy if you start speculating whether people who disagree with you do it out of psychological problems.
What I actually wrote is available for anyone to read. It is unfortunate that you insist on maintaining and reiterating those misinterpretations. It seems that you're still offended from another thread perhaps? Might I suggest that you consider not fighting proxy battles and projecting that onto this discussion? For sake of clarity, my suggestion, which is substantiated by mountains of research, the internet as it is, and world history, is that just as anyone (and not just "people who disagree with me") who has eyes is prone to seeing optical illusions, anyone who has a brain is going to be prone to cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
Near as I can tell, that's everyone who's likely reading this and the person who's typing it (given that I am within the set of everyone). It is my view, that exploring these concepts and gaining awareness of their potential influence is valuable and interesting. If that's not your cup tea, or you don't like the way I attempt to communicate it, that's your prerogative. It is however, unnecessary and unhelpful to malign and distort my intent, and disregard every effort I have made to clear up this misunderstanding.
I think a lot of little / moderate adjustments could go a long way. I think there needs to be changes, not just to the honor rates, but also to the creativeness and fluidity of the packs themselves.
So a multi pronged attack.
The multi pronged idea is interesting, as there are many angles to consider and the potential merit of any idea has a lot to do with how it is applied within the larger context of the other systems which it interacts with.
Ok.. well it's getting stale.
That's why we're all here throwing ideas around
To make it more palatable.
We want you to make more money
We want the game to continue for long a long time to come. And we want to enjoy it in the process.
There needs to be more price options that yeild better results.
I like the concept of openly throwing around ideas, working on a mutually beneficial solution through collaboration and an iterative process.
---
Yes, you're right, my statements were very general and didn't address any of your specific suggestions. Sorry about that. I am attempting to transition this post to be back on topic, so thanks for posting something which helped me find a way to do this. For those playing the at home game, this is called a segue and probably a failed attempt at humor.
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.
And lastly, we're not fans of mass dismissing pack/portal crew one-by-one either. There is absolutely no intentional inconvenience or clever scheme behind the current implementation. It's a pain, and we really want to fix it.
This was a hallelujah moment I missed! Can’t wait for this momentum stealing game closing garbage to change... The frustrating feeling this causes virtually everyday I open STT is the exact reason I don’t spend nearly what I’m willing to in a better environment.
There are some definite good ideas floating around, but lets be honest. Anything that remotely cuts into their profit margin you know will be out of the question. People will leave and new players will come.
Yes, but existing long term games can be quite intimidation to join for new players and if they don't work on these issues now it will be harder on the future.
Player retention is just as vital as player Acquisitions, and retention helps build new player confidence.
If I joined a game and all I saw was "this is crap" "I'm paying for nothing" I'm uninstalling it before I'm in too deep.
In any discourse between adults, I expect that criticism will lead to an improvement of the suggestions. Hence I will keep doing it.
Every time that I see a proposal like "give us a free legendary citation instead of a duplicate", I will translate it into "give us 90 times more (under certain conditions)" because it is a trivial mathematical equality. I will equally translate similar proposals in term of how many more times we want stuff.
I will also keep pointing out that "this is a win-win" is an unsupported statement. It is up to DB to decide whether they'd win or lose money, and they're not being swayed by our repeating "win-win" and "incentivize spending" like a mantra. I will also keep pointing out that "I propose that we should find a win-win scenario" is otherwise an empty statement, a banality, a triviality.
You are free to do whatever you want. You want to take umbrage when I point out trivial equalities? Be my guest.
You want to think that the only people who can criticize an idea are the people who are against it? Be my guest.
You want to start long debates, or go into half-personal attacks when you read criticism? Be my guest, I always expect critical thought to be unappreciated when the criticism is self-reflected.
You want to invite other players to stay silent and keep their opinions to themselves? Be my guest, I do not expect people on the internet to appreciate freedom of speech and opinion.
Dear Ambassador,
You want to invite other players to stay silent and keep their opinions to themselves? Be my guest, I do not expect people on the internet to appreciate freedom of speech and opinion.
For those interested, what I actually wrote can found here, I even tried to offer it with some humor. After a different version of the feedback above was offered, I then attempted to clarified my meaning here. As I am being accused, yet again of stating something that I did not, I will attempt to once more clarify my meaning.
What I at least attempted to suggest, is to ask people to reflect on how they were interacting with others and conducting themselves on the forums. To consider, that they might be inadvertently engaging in unhelpful modes of conversation, and if they found themselves to be doing so, to consider finding another way of participating more constructively or opting out of obstructing efforts to improve things. I also, encouraged the silent majority to speak up so we have a better sense of what the community actually thinks about things.
However poorly I may have expressed these ideas; of not bullying and trolling people, and of more people speaking up, that was my meaning. Criticism and feedback is useful and appreciated when it is relevant to the ideas actually being presented. When it is offered again and again, without concern for it's accuracy and when it's willfully immune to being updated with further evidence or considering context, it is at best, unhelpful.
That said, and hopefully clarified so there is understanding and I won't have to endure my thoughts being misconstrued further, I would like to state that it was not my intent to be any part of derailing a constructive conversation about potential solutions to behold frustrations.
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.
Comments
As I stated in both of my other posts in this thread, you would find several different proposed models for how recalibrating the honor exchange values could be more favorable, maybe even win-win, to both DB and the player base, within the many discussions had about this topic, particularly on the old forums.
In short, building from those previous conversations, given that we do not have access to specific pack sales figures from DB for STT, or those sales figures broken down between new and older players, most have tended to argue based upon industry standard behavior as correlated from similar games. This is an argument based mostly on analogy and path dependency which may not accurately track to the realities of the STT player base. It certainly doesn't serve as an unquestionable proof against to what is possible with different game systems.
1. Without those sales figures, it would be impossible to make a tangible revenue argument.
Likewise, we do not know the total revenue lost from players quitting due to frustration over this game system, and we can only speculate about the total packs not sold to long term players due to the duplicate issue. However we have had many of the highest spending captains as well as others with more moderate discretionary income state conclusively that this issue has stymied their spending. In addition it has impacted the goodwill the player base has with the developer.
2. Without an accurate accounting for how much the current honor exchange rate and duplicates mechanic has costs DB in lost revenue, and lost good-will which results in more lost revenue, it is impossible to make a conclusive and tangible revenue argument.
Either way, we know the plural of anecdote is not data and analogy is not necessarily the best method for deriving systems. Without an accurate accounting for and modeling of both 1 and 2, any captains perspective is speculation and guesswork, or "half-baked" at best, as you posited earlier.
What I think is instructive, is that typically people who are arguing the "business as usual" approach disregard or minimize the lost revenue considerations. Likewise, they there is this tendency to mischaracterise any advocacy for less variability in pack value as "wanting things for free" or not understanding that DB needs to make money. Both perceptions are condescending at best, and certainly not well reasoned counter arguments. Broadly speaking, I think it's far more likely that other captains have a grasp of basic economics and we are all invested in DB's being successful and keeping their doors open.
As for the argument I can make, and have made, half-baked as it is due to lack of data, is that by recalibrating the honor exchange rate or some other solution for the duplicate problem, DB could recoup some portion of that lost revenue and good will. In this way, they make money, players are more happy. Hence at least the possibility of finding a win-win solution.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
You are perfectly correct. Yet stressing our ignorance once more only weakens further the strength with which you call this a "win" for DB.
My argument has never been that raising the amount of honour (or whatever equivalent solution) could never be a win for DB. My point is just that we are arguing from a position of ignorance, and trying to convince someone in a position of knowing, and trying to sell them our assessments (such as "this is a win for you, DB"). Furthering our position of ignorance is not going to make our case stronger.
You are perfectly correct. No need to tell me: I stopped paying one year and eight months ago because of my perception of the monetization as completely unincentivizing.
But you know as well as I do that it's not that simple. Player retention, and purchase retention, are taken into account by marketing departments. Given the choice between "take money over a long period of time from a high-retentive playerbase" or "take MOAR money over a shorter period of time from a low-retention playerbase", I suspect they'd take the "take MOAR money" option.
And with that I'm not saying I have proof that they are making more money. I'm just saying that it is conceivable for DB to make a win from choosing a monetization scheme that "quickly" burns players.
I'm glad that you now agree to a statement that previously prompted you to write a long personal attack.
For free? We are talking of the paying packs. Asking for better quality for our investment is not "wanting things for free".
That is why I characterise these views not as "give us free stuff" but "give us more", a characterisation that very clearly points out how we are already getting something, and that we find it unsatisfying.
I perfectly accept and agree with that especially now that you agree that it is made from a position of ignorance. My initial response to you, which prompted your furious invite for me to never speak again (I still find that rather sweet), was merely a pointing out this very fact.
If I may suggest a change in terminology, rather than a "win-win solution", what we are looking for is an optimum - the sweet spot where the player are the happiest while DB has the most reliable revenue. If you want, moving in the direction of the optimum is a "win-win" move.
Of course, maybe it is possible to find a better win-win solution. From our position of ignorance, we don't know where the optimum lies. DB's marketing, and Erin in her last intervention just a couple weeks ago, implicitly state that the optimum lies at 90:1. From our position of ignorance, how do we prove them wrong? We can't. All we have is our opinion that the optimum is at 10:1, and we won't trick DB into agreeing with us just by calling it a "win-win".
The only remaining question, to me, is what to do: the answer is quite trivial, yet it is impossible to enforce.
Where my design breaks down is packs not sold. We can say anecdotally that "but for whatever" we would have bought a pack, but how do you really know?
Any ideas?
I suggested, that if captains found, for themselves, they only had unhelpful things to offer, that perhaps they could consider either finding some more constructive way to participate or opting out of creating more noise (as in signal to noise).
If it was my intent to offer you feedback and criticism directly I would have done so. Thus far I have only been addressing ideas. If you find yourself employing those ideas and feel attacked, that is not the same thing as ad hominem. You will notice, that I have previously ignored responding to those parts of your post where you have taken it personally because I had hoped you would at some point realize your misperception on this point.
This is exactly what a win-win situation is, the terminology is fine because that's what it means, and it what has been advocated for since the beginning of my participation in this topic.
Although we don't have the data necessary to derive the optimum for ourselves. What we can do, is advocate for our position. We can establish and articulate clearly that their current solution isn't even meeting their own stated design goals for the game system in question. We can work together on building consensus of the direction that they could go in. This is why I did that poll of the old forum and why I have shared it since. The solution, that optimum, is in the direction of a 10:1 ratio or toward players being happier with the duplicates situation and honor exchange rates. Where exactly that optimum is, is another matter.
As an example, of the apparent optimum being different than a proposal, and yet also a change from the status quo, I invite you and everyone to consider this example: Scaled success/failure spectrum for shuttle/faction missions
Now I don't know if my post in particular had anything to do with the changes that were made, the timing is at least interesting though. One will notice that what I proposed was far more robust than what was implemented. Yet the rationale I offered for a change being necessary and reasonable, was in highlighting the importance of acknowledging the null result or "I think at very least, that crew would have learned something from that failed mission".
On this topic one simple argument for change is that many players are still frustrated and unhappy with the current system.
We can prove them wrong. The current ratio at 90:1 hasn't succeed in meeting their stated design goals. As I am not in the habit of assuming malice and duplicity, I take them at their word.
Of course, how much "reduce" means is open to interpretation.
As to the other statements, I have not proposed that the win-win optimum is at 10:1. That was the average as derived from the poll, which didn't have nearly enough participation to even be considered the consensus among the player base. I think, however, it does serve to indicate agreement as to the direction of and need for change.
Furthermore, certainly not I, and I'd go as far to say nobody, is trying to "trick" DB into agreeing. I would really encourage you to consider why you would even think that is the case.
Care to share your answer?
Gathering data on packs not sold could serve as a evidence for our financial counter argument against the current exchange ratio and duplicates system. Thus far we can only speculate based on anecdote. We would certainly need people to be specific as to their reasoning for why not, and honest in their reporting of how many packs they would have actually bought otherwise.
I suppose if one was so inclined they could do a forum poll which tries to capture some lost revenue data. Would it be more valuable to capture historical data: "About how many packs have you not bought due to the current system?" or would it be better to capture what if data, "How many more packs would you buy if the current system was less stingy?"
Something to that effect maybe?
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Of course DB can say "there was frustration, and now we think there is less. We never said we could eliminate it, and we can't, and we won't. Mission accomplished." Entirely invalidating your argument. Which you have already admitted.
Your statement that the current ratio hasn't succeeded is your evaluation. As I said in a previous post, "the opinion of a person on the internet".
If you want to convince them that they are wrong, your argument has to be better than "I have the feeling you're wrong". It also has to be better than "but there's still frustration in the playerbase".
No it's not. It serves to indicate the wishes of the playerbase (the wishes being "give us more give us more"). There is no proof that the wishes of the playerbase indicate the direction of and need for change.
Then why do you obstinate yourself to say things like "this indicates agreement as to the direction of and the need of change"? You are not fooling DB. No one at DB will look at your data and think "oh this shows the direction we have to move towards, such compelling marketing, I'd never have thought that the playerbase would want more". This does not indicate the direction of anything, if not our dreams.
Of course. Withhold (or minimize) all spending until things have improved enough.
Actions speak louder as words: we have to vote with our purses. Today we have an estimated 30K dollar of votes for "yes more of this, maybe we don't like it but we still will buy it". It's been around 30K for the last months, nice and stable, and DB's lack of action about it indicates that they are satisfied.
If we want change, we have to vote for change with our money.
And that's why it's unenforceable. Or, at least, the last person to manage to call a boycott has been Quinn. So good luck to anyone who wants to measure their charisma against Quinn's.
Marketing doesn’t actually manage how beholds work, or pricing. That’s in the production team's ballpark, which Erin leads. I am not the one to make a case to.
Though we are involved in promoting the packs and providing feedback.
That said, any well-thought-out argument is likely to be seen by all, particularly if there's a good balance of objectivity and assumptions. The recent feedback thread on crew art is a great example, or many of the discussions on favoritism (or lack thereof) of certain crew in events.
However, be aware that that there are a wealth of factors that go into decision-making, and not all of them will be visible to players.
And lastly, we're not fans of mass dismissing pack/portal crew one-by-one either. There is absolutely no intentional inconvenience or clever scheme behind the current implementation. It's a pain, and we really want to fix it.
Civilian, Brand and Marketing
Ex-Disruptor Beam
Since my attempts at building consensus and reporting on it are just "the opinion of a person on the internet" and "obstinate", I would like to know:
1. What direction should that improvement take?
2. How will you, alone, determine when there has been enough improvement for everyone else?
3. On what basis do you argue that any improvement needs to take place?
4. How does your asking for "improvement" differentiate from the way you have misconstrued other peoples thoughts as being some overly simplistic plea to "give us more"?
5. How will you advocate for this improvement?
Since you aren't Quinn, and by your reasoning Quinn or greater is required for a boycott, then what is your plan?
@Black Pebble Given the wealth of posts on this topic since patch 1.9, on both the old forums and new, I am curious if any of those have qualified as "well-thought-out arguments"? If so, what could be done to improve them? If not, understanding that there are "a wealth of factors" which will remain invisible to us, could you offer any advice on achieving a "good balance of objectivity and assumptions", such that our feedback on the matter is considered?
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Thanks for sharing this info
We will be eager to see positive changes!
I wish to get more, of course. "Give us more". However I do not hide that this is my wish, no matter by how many other people share my opinion.
I will never be so arrogant as to, alone, decide that there's been "enough" improvement for everyone else. I am very aware of my limitations and do not hide them.
Anyone who even just suggests the prospect of someone being able, alone, to determine the satisfaction of everyone else, is just full of air.
I advocate in favour of a game that I enjoy more. Oh, I do enjoy it a great deal, but it can be improved in my opinion. Therefore I do argue.
However I do not hide that the basis is personal. I do not ascribe my feelings to the whole community, nor do I try to argue that DB's optimum "happens" to coincide my opinion, or with the opinion of a hundred people who agree with me. To say that would be once again arrogant.
I might have reduced the plea to its essence, but haven't you notice that I am actually in favour of "give us more"? I am and I have already stated so many times.
The way I am different? I try to avoid bad arguments like "with no data, based on anecdotal evidence, from my position of ignorance, with no authority, and aware that DB didn't say how much frustration, I hereby declare that DB has failed their goal of reducing frustration". And I point out bad arguments when I see them.
By withholding my spending until I am not incentivized to spend, and by explaining why on the forums.
Doing my small part in not encouraging the current monetization scheme, and encouraging other players to vote with their money, and by generally engaging in the discussion.
Aside from that I feel that a change in the monetization must be part of a movement started by the biggest alliances and by the wealthiest players.
Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma?
"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option."
It is at least possible, that the suggestions and observations I have made, based on the data I've collected and the time I've invested in this topic since patch 1.9, are different than you perceive them to be.
Do with that what you will.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
No, you don't understand it correctly. You framed your questions in a way that specifically asked me to evaluate things on my own, which I'd never do because it would be extremely arrogant.
Other things that I will never do are, for instance, inviting fellow players to abandon the discussion. Or loosely diagnosing them with mental illness.
Your data is in many things the best the data has collected, and of extreme high quality. Extrapolating from a survey of the playerbase to a plan that tells us where the game has to go, however, is an intellectually fallacious and unsatisfying method: it is completely unconvincing, and it weakens the survey by attaching it to something fallacious and unsatisfying.
And if you want something fallacious, for instance take your argument that I have re-written as "from my position of ignorance, with no authority, and aware that DB didn't say how much frustration, I hereby declare that DB has failed their goal of reducing frustration". Or, in your words, "We can prove them wrong. The current ratio at 90:1 hasn't succeed in meeting their stated design goals. (...) Of course, how much "reduce" means is open to interpretation."
At some point, you might find it interesting to actually read what I've written, rather than just projecting what you think I've said.
Best of luck with your plan to alleviate behold frustration.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I feel exactly the same way, but I knew it would end like this.
But hey, I would never call this a waste. You were moderately entertaining.
No. DB would increase the number of paying customers and decrease the revenue for person. There is no proof that these two things would work out so that it's a win for everyone: DB might be losing money.
There is no proof that it would work exactly in that manner, as we do not have sales averages per person to work with, nor is there proof either way that it would be a win or not.
Neither side of the argument has anything other than base speculation to work with and assumptions based on economic models that may or may not apply.
As far as I am concerned there's two sides that have spoken up: the sides that says "this is a win-win scenario, or at least we'll keep saying so" and the side that says "we have no proof of this being a win-win scenario, the only who have the data to decide is DB".
One of the two sides is being intellectually honest, the other is never going to fool DB no matter how hard they keep repeating their unsupported claim.
@Astrometrics Perfect solution fallacy
1. Please define "this" and "claim" as I have highlighted in your quote above. Then prove that "this" and "claim" is universally held by one of the two sides you have fabricated for sake of your narrative.
2. After you have defined "this" and "claim", and proven it to be a universal, then prove that it has also been offered not as a suggestion toward an optimum, but as the optimum itself.
3. Articulate how polarizing this conversation into "sides", is something other than a false dilemma, and explain how it is helpful in terms of working toward improving the situation.
4. Is your opinion that there is absolutely no possible win-win scenario, no spectrum of improvements which could be iterated upon toward a better situation than the current one?
5. Is it also your opinion that everyone who has offered a suggestion toward improving the situation is being "intellectually dishonest" and trying to "fool" DB?
Reference material for those interested:
Cognitive Distortion: How Does Black-and-White Thinking Hurt Us?
Splitting (psychology)
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Come on, Ambassador, you are now sounding like a parody of yourself. Do you want to convince us that you don't even read? You pick two words and find three wikipedia articles that seem to be connected. Or a TV trope page, in this case.
In the case I need to write it plainly:
- I have never said that the "give us 10 times more" (or whatever number) couldn't be a win-win solution.
- I have never advocated against it.
- I have never said I am against it.
- I have never said that it's flawed because it's just a middle ground.
- I have never said that I will only be happy with a perfect solution.
- I have never said that we need another solution.
I have merely said that we can't claim it's a win-win because it requires knowledge that we don't have. Because saying "it's a win-win solution" is a claim. It's not a suggestion.
And I think it's silly to call it a "win-win" as if DB didn't know better. As far as we know it's a win-lose. And calling it otherwise won't negate this possibility. It's disingenuous when you don't realize the consequences of what you are saying, and it's dishonest if you do realize and still call it a win-win.
I am going to just ignore your five questions. None of them has anything to do with the only point that I wanted to make.
Firstly, define it's so we can be clear and understand your feedback, as there have been lots of different ideas presented in this thread and others on the topic. So, which idea exactly, are you referring to and making generalizations about?
Secondly, there is a difference between observing and stating that a win-win is possible, and claiming that a particular solution is itself a win-win. This is why I linked the perfect solution fallacy, splitting and black and white thinking. and in previous posts I have offered clarity and links to prior discussions on this point as example. Yet you persist in continuing to conflate these things, and using that as justification for disparaging and insulting other people.
Thirdly, to the best of my recollection the vast majority of suggestions I have read on this topic has been presented just as that, a suggestion. Some more succinctly than others. More often, those suggestions are even framed as a question "could we do something like this?" which is implicitly asking for feedback and simply offering an idea, not a making a claim.
Firstly, define it's so we can be clear and understand your feedback, as there have been lots of different ideas presented in this thread and others on the topic. So, which idea exactly, are you referring to and making generalizations about?
Here again, you are conflating an undefined suggestion with a perceived claim and using it as an excuse to accuse other people of being "disingenuous" and "dishonest".
Who exactly has claimed to have found the optimized solution? Who exactly has demonstrated this "disingenuous" and "dishonest" behavior? Which solution is it? Is it recalibrating honor exchange rate? Is it removing duplicates from beholds and pack pulls? Is it adding citations? Is it adding greater portions of honor or citations? Is it a reroll option for beholds? Is it allowing you to pick from factions? Some other idea that I'm missing in this rhetorical list? Then which version, or possible iteration, of any of these solutions and suggestions are the one to which you are referring? Which of these ideas have been presented in such a way as to set you on this mission to make this point?
How about this one since it certainly does have something to do with the point you keep on making.
5. Is it also your opinion that everyone who has offered a suggestion toward improving the situation is being "intellectually dishonest", and "silly" and "disingenuous", and is trying to "fool" DB?
That said, maybe I missed your point, that "only point" you were trying to make.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Could go a long way.
I think there needs to be changes not just to the honor rates but also to the creativeness and fluidity of the packs themselves
So a multi pronged attack.
Prong 1
I like the idea of a greater sum of honor
In general per character across the board..
Let's say for a minute that they'll raise the rates by (and if it were single prong, should be much higher) about 10% to ask star levels.
(Save for 1*s , 27.5 honor is annoying so it's 30)
So you have 30, 55 ,110, 220 & 605 honor pending rarity.
Prong 2
Rerolls
I had more full houses today then in my last 50 10 packs combined.
Maybe I had amazing luck.. maybe today was very unlucky.. don't care.
I think there should be 2 levels of Re-Rolls
(With "are you sure ?" dialogs)
- Behold Reroll, up to 2 times per behold 50 Dilithium for the 1st, 75 for the second
- Entire pack Reroll
Pulled Romulan troi on a straight pull for the 8th time and sick of her ?
Re roll the entire pack for 100 Dilithium 1 time per pack.
Now, this means for DB that we could very well pull equally horrible to see again Temporal Agent 7 of 9 and you've made an extra 100 Dilithium from us..
It could also mean the Reroll gives us double Legendary beholds..
The slight increase in honor in prong 1, helps based on your current values to equalize the ratio of honor versus cost and having both implemented I would believe improve customer satisfaction. It would mine, that's for sure.
Prong 3.
Fluidity in pack types and styles.
6500 Dilithium = a legendary and rares and is super amazing blah blah blah.
I'm never ever ever going to buy one of those.
It just costs Waaaayyy too much.
650, 10 pack, guaranteed super rare in every pack.
Ok.. well it's getting stale.
That's why we're all here throwing ideas around
To make it more palatable.
We want you to make more money
We want the game to continue for long a long time to come. And we want to enjoy it in the process.
There needs to be more price options that yeild better results.
Something simple like..
800 Dilithium for a 10 pack that guarantees
At least 2 suoer rares // that guarantees at least 2 Beholds // which includes 10 shuttle speed boosts 3* or greater //
Prong 4
Legendarys.
So.. we all know that power creep is a giant pain in the butt. It's a quasi requirement because you can't market the new big bad if the new big bad had the same stats as the guy you released last year. I get it.
You need to maintain or continually escalate the value of the characters with each event to maintain the " oh crap, I need 7 in red !"
This leaves some older 5* looking pretty horrible. Don't wanna toss them because hey, it's a 5* how stupid will you feel if you space it then pull a second next week ?
I think you should put together a pool of older 5*s (like how you have kept the newer 4*s out of Voyages) and create a regular / semi regular sale for them.
There are around 150 Legendarys in the game right now..
Take the first 50, create a pack.
Not a 10 pack filled with 3 blues and useless schematics.
It would be a 3 pack, guaranteed 1 Legendary behold. Other slots could yeild anything from two more legendarys to super rares or multi packs of shuttle boosts, an honor bomb, a supply kit.. x big number of chronitons.
1000 Dilithium.
@FutureImperfecta
FFS. Do you love feeling attacked and offended? Do you like to polarize people around you implying that they are insulting everyone? Why do you do it? Is it easier for you to then rationalize your own behaviour?
I'll try to write it in a way that you might understand.
NO.
For more reading: "no".
The person who wrote "my view remains that the exchange rate ought to be far more equitable than it is now, with a win-win type of solution". As far as we know making the exchange rate more equitable could very well result in DB losing money. The person who assumed the result would be a win-win made a claim about an economical reality they have no idea about.
Don't worry. You're probably still missing it now.
Just as you never conceded the point that some people might be unhappy if you start speculating whether people who disagree with you do it out of psychological problems.
By definition, an equitable and win-win solution would result in DB gaining money, or it wouldn't be equitable or win-win. You will also notice, that I simply suggested that such a solution to the situation was possible, I did not and have not claimed to have found that solution.
What I actually wrote is available for anyone to read. It is unfortunate that you insist on maintaining and reiterating those misinterpretations. It seems that you're still offended from another thread perhaps? Might I suggest that you consider not fighting proxy battles and projecting that onto this discussion? For sake of clarity, my suggestion, which is substantiated by mountains of research, the internet as it is, and world history, is that just as anyone (and not just "people who disagree with me") who has eyes is prone to seeing optical illusions, anyone who has a brain is going to be prone to cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
Near as I can tell, that's everyone who's likely reading this and the person who's typing it (given that I am within the set of everyone). It is my view, that exploring these concepts and gaining awareness of their potential influence is valuable and interesting. If that's not your cup tea, or you don't like the way I attempt to communicate it, that's your prerogative. It is however, unnecessary and unhelpful to malign and distort my intent, and disregard every effort I have made to clear up this misunderstanding.
The multi pronged idea is interesting, as there are many angles to consider and the potential merit of any idea has a lot to do with how it is applied within the larger context of the other systems which it interacts with.
I like the concept of openly throwing around ideas, working on a mutually beneficial solution through collaboration and an iterative process.
---
Yes, you're right, my statements were very general and didn't address any of your specific suggestions. Sorry about that. I am attempting to transition this post to be back on topic, so thanks for posting something which helped me find a way to do this. For those playing the at home game, this is called a segue and probably a failed attempt at humor.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
This was a hallelujah moment I missed! Can’t wait for this momentum stealing game closing garbage to change... The frustrating feeling this causes virtually everyday I open STT is the exact reason I don’t spend nearly what I’m willing to in a better environment.
Player retention is just as vital as player Acquisitions, and retention helps build new player confidence.
If I joined a game and all I saw was "this is crap" "I'm paying for nothing" I'm uninstalling it before I'm in too deep.
Here's what I'll do.
In any discourse between adults, I expect that criticism will lead to an improvement of the suggestions. Hence I will keep doing it.
Every time that I see a proposal like "give us a free legendary citation instead of a duplicate", I will translate it into "give us 90 times more (under certain conditions)" because it is a trivial mathematical equality. I will equally translate similar proposals in term of how many more times we want stuff.
I will also keep pointing out that "this is a win-win" is an unsupported statement. It is up to DB to decide whether they'd win or lose money, and they're not being swayed by our repeating "win-win" and "incentivize spending" like a mantra. I will also keep pointing out that "I propose that we should find a win-win scenario" is otherwise an empty statement, a banality, a triviality.
You are free to do whatever you want. You want to take umbrage when I point out trivial equalities? Be my guest.
You want to think that the only people who can criticize an idea are the people who are against it? Be my guest.
You want to start long debates, or go into half-personal attacks when you read criticism? Be my guest, I always expect critical thought to be unappreciated when the criticism is self-reflected.
You want to invite other players to stay silent and keep their opinions to themselves? Be my guest, I do not expect people on the internet to appreciate freedom of speech and opinion.
I will see you around.
All interesting ideas
I do hope that DB thinks them over a bit. The reroll of packs in particular has, in my opinion, quite some good promise and could be picked up.
For those interested, what I actually wrote can found here, I even tried to offer it with some humor. After a different version of the feedback above was offered, I then attempted to clarified my meaning here. As I am being accused, yet again of stating something that I did not, I will attempt to once more clarify my meaning.
What I at least attempted to suggest, is to ask people to reflect on how they were interacting with others and conducting themselves on the forums. To consider, that they might be inadvertently engaging in unhelpful modes of conversation, and if they found themselves to be doing so, to consider finding another way of participating more constructively or opting out of obstructing efforts to improve things. I also, encouraged the silent majority to speak up so we have a better sense of what the community actually thinks about things.
However poorly I may have expressed these ideas; of not bullying and trolling people, and of more people speaking up, that was my meaning. Criticism and feedback is useful and appreciated when it is relevant to the ideas actually being presented. When it is offered again and again, without concern for it's accuracy and when it's willfully immune to being updated with further evidence or considering context, it is at best, unhelpful.
That said, and hopefully clarified so there is understanding and I won't have to endure my thoughts being misconstrued further, I would like to state that it was not my intent to be any part of derailing a constructive conversation about potential solutions to behold frustrations.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.