Credit Crunch
Sitting on ~4 MM in promotions...not spending 1 penny on credit packs. I already paid for the shards.... This needs to change. 7* - Mace, Rex, Phasma 6* - Clone Searge 4* - NS Init, Han, Resistan...
Forum Discussion
"Qeltar;183539" wrote:"Nonemo;183530" wrote:
Didn't you start posting in this thread about how the developers intentionally choked credit flows by removing the gear selling option? Then I point out the ridiculously low profit from those sales, and now you say that the problem was that they should have sold for more? If they sold for too little (as I showed), removing them wouldn't impede the credit flow. Which was your original contention. Make up your mind.
The circular reasoning was actually theirs. They said "hardly anyone uses this because it doesn't pay very much for the items." And many people said "fine, so make it pay a reasonable amount." A few said "even at the low prices, it's better than nothing."
They ignored all of this and just removed it. And yes, I believe one reason was to remove it as a credit source, however meager. The 8400 they are paying out now is not exactly dramatically better than what you could get selling excess challenge materials.
Ok, so you're comparing 8,400 for 24 energy spent, with 4,000-8,000 for at the very least 1,200 energy spent. Just wanted to point that out.
"Qeltar;183539" wrote:"Nonemo;183530" wrote:
They changed this event because so very few were even using it, bud. We both know this. The "many" of which you speak is just a rhetorical figure now, handy for making points about how much better everything was back in the day.
Very few were using it because the payout wasn't very good. They made it 6x worse.
If you want to justify that, go ahead, I'm not wasting any more time on this, it is self-evident to everyone that they are dramatically worse than before, and why they did this. It's laughable to even try to rationalize.
To repeat again: they said they would make it better. It is not better. It sucks.
I feel that I responded to this in another reply.
"Qeltar;183539" wrote:"Nonemo;183530" wrote:
Gonna have to disagree with you here. You are definitely calling them greedy. That you didn't call them greedy "in all respects" and that you try to be fair, is just lawyer talk to my ears.
Are you serious? It's not "lawyer talk", it's simple logic and proper use of the English language.
Yes, I am calling them greedy when it comes to the credit situation. I said that already multiple times. YOU however generalized that as follows: "Next time, if you want to discuss the evil and greed of the developers, at least make a small attempt to make a fair case. Don't just pile up all the negative and then jump to malicious conclusions."
And that is why I pointed out that my criticism is specific, and that I have been fair to them in other areas.
I even PMed John Salera to thank him for the aurodium packs, even though I never bought one.
Don't try to pigeonhole me, it won't work.
I certainly didn't address you specifically in my first post. Not that I wasn't fairly certain you'd respond though. ;) Oh, and I'm also of the philosophy that you should owe up to your words even if you have at other times stated something different.
I do interpret your argumentation here as at least partially downright malicious, and filled with rhetoric where you create big issues out of thin air (like the gear selling) or make extremely lopsided arguments (like not presenting the ways in which the game has simultaneously increased the amount of credits we earn). Just like a really skilled lawyer.
