Conquest - Just Can't Anymore... :(
I loved Conquest so much when it first came out. It felt like it really could live up to the promise of giving a use to the huge collections of toons that so many of us have cultivated (I have 10M+ G...
Forum Discussion
"Captain_Drogan;c-2440705" wrote:"Profit;c-2440703" wrote:"herd_nerfer;c-2440696" wrote:"LordDirt;c-2440662" wrote:
I blame everyone who buys the conquest passes for making conquest more grindy.
On the contrary - perhaps if more people bought it they wouldn't feel compelled to keep ramping up the frustration
This is such a wierd argument to me. Do you apply it in other settings or just this game? I mean this is a design choice, not a natural law. Personaly I avoid paying a vendor who frustrates me and instead turn to someone who offers to provide me with positives.
Say if a store who designes for frustration puts the apples i want to buy on a top shelf, out of reach for me, and then offered to rent me a ladder to reach them; I would simply not buy the apples. But with your argument the store would then draw the conclusion that they need to also put the babanas on that shelf to make the ladder more attractive, and you as a consumer then support the choice and say that if more people simply played for the ladder the store wouldn't be compelled to put the bananas there.
Im not trying to be snarky, judging people spending habits, nor questioning that some mba person at cg estimated this to be the best revenue route. I'm just curisous to how a consumer can view this as a more reasonable logic than the quoted one above I.e., if to few people buy the apples they move them back within reach to sell more of them
Lots of people enjoy the game mode (myself included). To use your own analogy, I enjoy finding new and creative ways to get my apples off the top shelf without having to pay for the ladder.
At the end of the day, make no mistake, enough people paid for the small ladder that they are now selling an even bigger ladder at an increased price.
Where did I state anything contradictory to what you are saying?
I wondered about this logic:
"On the contrary - perhaps if more people bought it they wouldn't feel compelled to keep ramping up the frustration"
this statement clearly indicate malintent in design and describes people paying as the remedy, rather than the original claim the poster qouted that "abstaining from paymemt would reduce malintent in design"
