"CaptainRex;c-1548446" wrote:
"FerLandrossa;c-1547008" wrote:
Is there any legitimate reason to not change rewards to a system like this?
From a business side, yes, which is why it will probably never be changed. Doing so would result in a net increase of crystals for everybody.
Did I miss a business analysis from CG that states that if they did any change to arena payout it would reduce revenue? I'm only asking because this type of argument, the same that @Kyno makes, is purely speculation. (Please note, I'm not trolling, this isn't a snarky attack question, I apologize if it reads that way.)
Quite frankly, you have zero proof to make this assertion other than speculating that the extra crystals for a very small percentage of people: the top 50 is literally the top 0.005% of a shard. Yes, that's 5
thousandths of a percent.
It's highly unlikely that anyone outside of the top 50 is going to fight to #1 with a "dynamic" payout based on a person's best rank in 24 hours.
Furthermore, only the top 27 can reach #1 ranking without a refresh. That's the top 0.0027%.
27 people. Anyone outside the top 27 it requires them to spend crystals to get to #1.
Frankly, I don't know if all shards as cool as my shard, but this type of change would do near zero to alter the amount of crystals flowing into the economy because they get #1 in their payouts and the ones that have many people rotate 1-2-3 daily, which is 100 crystal difference.
I just don't see how, if you look at the top 27, introducing an extra 100-200 crystals for such a low percentage of people is going to "damage the economy" of a game. Perhaps it's more of an ego and prestige thing.
Bottom line, why do you personally care if someone else gets 100 more crystals than they did yesterday if it doesn't impact you =p?
