Maxed-level players: "New players shouldn't get free Negan tokens that I don't get. It's not FAIR! It should be same for everyone!"
Maxed-level players, again: "My challenge advancement shouldn't follow the same rules as everybody else. I should start at same RSL as people a level below me and get all the same repeats so i get a distinct advantage, even though advancing through every other survivor level follows the old rules equally. It's not FAIR!"
Mabiki you went off the rails here and brought some ire onto yourself by giving all Max-level players the same voice. If you had said:
@tabernac sez: "New players shouldn't get free Negan tokens that I don't get. It's not FAIR! It should be same for everyone!"
and then has the self entitled temerity to then say:
"My challenge advancement shouldn't follow the same rules as everybody else. I should start at same RSL as people a level below me and get all the same repeats so i get a distinct advantage, even though advancing through every other survivor level follows the old rules equally. It's not FAIR!"
I'm just using myself as an example. I don't hold those views nor am I Maxed-level.
By not using specifics you came off as hyperbolic and Straw Man-ish (not sure if that's a word), what else did you think was going to happen?
If at first you don't succeed.... Not sure if Rodents have that issue though
I think what is decently clear as that something should be changed so that we would be encouraged to upgrade all of our survivors. I only upgraded 2 this time and am doing better already without optimal gear.
Cool! ...so penalized has nothing to do with "penis"?
"Always be yourself unless you can be a capybara. Then always be a capybara". --> Do you need a guild? ...send me a Private Message. My Recruiting den and my "Art Objects" in the Next Games Collection.
This thread is spot on. An incentive (which is the opposite of penalization) would be great as a motivator to upgrade my survivors. At minumum neither an incentive or penalization would be good.
My Lvl 21 survivors made it to RSL 27 this week. Basically anyone with lvl 20 survivors have put a lot of time into this game. We play towards our own individual strategies and the game gives everyone different types of enjoyment.
But let's look at facts here.
What can a player with Lvl 22 survivors attain that a player with Lvl 21 survivors cannot?
Since at camp level 63 it's advised gear in TG crates guarantee Lvl 22 gear anyone can get Lvl 63 camp without having Lvl 22 survivors. If I want me end game to remain at Lvl 21 gear then I'll just not upgrade my training grounds so I won't hit Lvl 63. Is that what NG intended?
I don't consider myself an elite player by any means (knowledgable in mathematical strategical formulas yes but I gold spending mission winning beast I am not). Anyone who faces RSL 23+ has a chance at Lvl 22 base gear so survivor levels matter not in challenge mission rewards regarding level of gear.
Both can get radios, gold, supplies and XP as a reward in crates. Both probably have a relatively easy time playing easy scavenger missions. Both do well against Lvl 19 types of walkers in outposts.
But those who continue the grind of leveling things and playing to find more gear to upgrade and run more scavenger supply missions spending more money on the game get less stars (76 to be exact because cmon; when you're Lvl 21 or Lvl 22... Lvl 20.2 and 20.3 is easy street)
I will upgrade every building except training grounds which will keep me under Lvl 63 camp so I won't get Lvl 22 gear guaranteed in the shop. If I choose to down the road I will upgrade it when I have plenty of good gear otherwise I will upgrade pieces at my leisure.
Typically games give you incentive to continue on. NG penalizes you for moving forward. As a mathematic prodigy of the forum I cannot compute the reasoning behind such de motivating penalization of stars. I have tried many times and the "you should go farther in the challenge" answer is negated by the obvious loss of stars that is presented.
| OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
What @jester ?? Are you suggesting me to date with her???
"Always be yourself unless you can be a capybara. Then always be a capybara". --> Do you need a guild? ...send me a Private Message. My Recruiting den and my "Art Objects" in the Next Games Collection.
Keep the system as is for levels 20 and lower. From levels 21-25, keep the start level at 15 and the triple rounds at level -2. At levels 26-30, make the start level 20 and triple rounds still at level -2.
This way there is no penalty for increasing survivor level at each level, only the one time when there is a bump to that next tier at level 26, and players will be forewarned that there is an impending start level bump. Also at this start level bump, make it so that the bump occurs with the first survivor leveled up to 26. If we, as players, get bigger tiers to work with, then we should have less of a buffer when that start level bump happens.
This will force more levels to grind, but everyone's gripe seems to be about losing stars. Having a static starting level while having survivor levels increase will provide more stars for people to collect. Unless NG is will to provide bigger freebie stars for completing sets, I don't see how this system can divorce itself from the necessary grind to collect large amounts of stars.
"I always say, if you must mount the gallows, give a jest to the crowd, a coin to the hangman, and make the drop with a smile on your lips." -Birgitte Silverbow, The Fires of Heaven, The Wheel of Time
"Death is lighter than a feather. Duty, heavier than a mountain." - al'Lan Mandragoran, The Great Hunt, The Wheel of Time
I would like to add on a dilemma which has arisen from this. I was an end game player with all lvl 20 survivors when update 2.5 came out. After the mayhem over survivors upgrade, many like me (I believe) chose not to upgrade survivors to 21.
Within 2 months, update 2.6 came out and being not an end game player now, I can only draw survivors gear from a range of lvl 20 - lvl 22 from the TG shop. I am "so called forced" (what use do I have for lvl 21,22 gear?) to upgrade the majority of my survivors to lvl 21 while keeping two survivors at lvl 22 in order not to lose out any "easy stars" along the way
My dilemma is this now, there is no guaranteed way for me to get lvl 21 gear neither at camp 61,62 nor 63 except for 12.5k TG crates. I believe this is an overlook in the the design on the game and I hoped to see something that can worked out in any future updates.
I think you'd have to assess that on a case-by-case basis.
Bad Pig Bad to the bone! The Notorious P.I.G. "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on" "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
Exactly like my friend @tdiddy I had every one of my survivors and heros at level 21 before the last update and had just accepted the 106 star penalty. This time around I upgraded only two of my team to level 22 because I am not willing to take another 76 star hit on my weekly challenge scores. It's a sad state where any game takes actions that encourage their max player base NOT to upgrade their team in order to perform better in the weekly challenges. What's wrong with this picture NG????
> @Teeceezy said:
> Great feedback guys, it's very much appreciated.
>
No probs @Teeceezy , anytime, we are always happy to talk about penises and vaginas.
This issue doesn't seem to make any sense from NG's revenue generating perspective. Why give players a disincentive to upgrade their survivors? I think we can assume that survivor upgrades mean more dollars for NG as players seek new equipment for their upgraded survivors. Players artificially keeping their survivors below their maximum level can't be a good thing for NG.
Perhaps, we can only guess that NG has data that shows only a small percentage of players are not upgrading their teams? Even if so, there is little doubt that this fiasco has cost NG in terms of player satisfaction and revenue.
This is a shining example of complex software design completely run amok. Once can only wonder how much money NG has spent in just discussing this issue internally, implementing it, and dealing with the results in customer support. Sometimes, I guess bright people just feel the need to design complex solutions when easier ones are staring them in the right in the face.
If NG would just let players choose what level they want to start challenges, they'd increase customer satisfaction, increase revenue, and decrease expenses for complex software maintenance and decrease expenses in customer support. In retrospect, was it really worth it to try to limit challenge stars and rewards for the players? The only cost would be a few extra rewards. No need for complex formulas to determine the starting level, or difficult to design repeating levels. Lower the value of each reward if you believe that allowing a player to select their own starting level if you feel this throws off the balance in the game. (which I seriously doubt anyway)
There are too many cases in this game where it feels like players are manipulated into playing exactly the way NG wants us to play. Loosening up the reigns on the players, and letting each player play this game the way they want to play might actually be a good thing for NG. As this case shows, players will do their best to defeat these restrictions anyway. Give more player freedom a try NG - you might be pleasantly surprised by the results.
So I only upgraded ONE survivor to 22, and my hard scavenge mission went to RSL 25. Seriously? So I will lose stars, and only be able to do easy scavenge missions. yay!
@Heisenberg I think (and hope for you) that you'll still start callenges with RSL 15 (repeats at RSL 20). But RSL 25 for scavenge is a bummer and not cool. That's so not cool!
Problem NG have and always have had is they overcomplicate things that should be simple. Due to this little thought is given to moving forward, so a simple level bump makes the system falls appart.
Way I would do it is this.
Scrap incremental levels they just make a dragged out challenge even longer.
The player is allowed to choose their starting level up to the level of their highest survivor. (This is more a QoL feature for those that like wading though the unchallenging stuff)
If you start at level 22 (highest possible level survivor as of 2.6) you don't start on zero * you get all * you could have earned if you started at the lowest possible level earning all rewards which come with that instantly. (Let face it dropping * vs equal enemies is highly unlikly).
This makes eveyone equal currently and going forward too.
When you upgrade 1 survivor from 21 to 22 your scavenger mission goes up. That's as designed. When you upgrade 2 survivors from 21 to 22 nothing changes (as that's what's said by Teeceezy. When you upgrade 3 survivors from 21 to 22 your triple round starts at RSL 21 (instead of 20 netting a loss of 76 stars)
It's intended when you raise the level of 1 survivor your scavenger RSL goes up by 1 but not your challenge triple round.
Hope that clears things up.
| OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
This thread was kicking around in my head and I thought it up like this. (Please correct me if my math or logic is wrong, it is quite possible since I'm not terribly good at math).
Let's assume that with lvl 21 survivors with lvl24 gear you get every single star up to rsl 25.3.
The formula used here is: stars from maps + bonus stars = stars from this round + stars from previous rounds= total stars.
At this point, let's say that you start to drop stars.
Now if I was able to get up to rsl25 without dropping stars with a lvl21 crew, your crew of lvl22 survivors outfitted with lvl25 gear should get every star up to rsl 26.3 (because your survivors are stronger):
At this point, let's say that you start to drop stars.
While at rsl26 with lvl22 survivors you are getting 76 less stars than at rsl26 with lvl21 survivors, your survivors should be able to get one round further, so you increase my star count by 56 before you start dropping stars. If you level up your survivors with gear ready for them, you should be able to get at least 56 more stars.
Personally I'm not going to upgrade a full team to lvl22 right now because I don't have the gear and don't have the time/motivation to grind for xp and gear the way I was for lvl20 to lvl21 survivors, but unless there's something extraordinarily wrong with what I laid out here there is no penalty for upgrading your entire crew.
Upgrading two survivors under the current system can help you get more stars total, but different maps are better suited to different classes, so there's not necessarily a guarantee that you'll get all of the stars you would have if you leveled up your entire crew.
I'm sure as hell not speaking on behalf of NG on this (feel free to check out my normally critical posts), but I think this is what they may have been thinking when choosing to implement this in the update.
I'll take this space down here to say that the number of retirement tokens for an epic-made-legendary survivor should get the old retirement value of 365 tokens instead of the new 237 tokens. The 128 token nerf is ridiculous, is a thumb in the eye of all players (new and veteran), and NG needs to change it back to pre-2.6 numbers because we don't like having our hard-earned tokens stolen.
I have so much respect for the time and thought many people in this thread have put into trying to help NG come up with solutions to one of the many issues facing endgamers.. (in this thread and countless others) I did it myself for quite some time .
Perhaps though this is much more simple than everyone thinks.. the lack of raised reward values for pushing the challenge limits , the ridiculous trade in value for survivors, the constant game changes that hurt the most loyal and longtime players , the adding of new traits without a feasible and non ridiculous spending way for people to try them out .. perhaps this is a simple matter of analytics and players "lifetime playing value" .
Perhaps it benefits NG more for players to make that grind to endgame and then leave or keep spending and complaining / trying to help find solutions within the forums ? Perhaps a recycled player base is what drives this IAP game now and the hundreds of thousands of players not on the forums and spending to play with their favorite walking dead characters every day are delegating the decisions made ? Perhaps we are being appeased and have been for quite some time on here ?
Have any of you ever played a video game where there isnt a benefit to "leveling up" , or where rewards didnt get better the more you played, the better you got, and the higher your characters became?
I upgraded only 2 survivors to lvl 21. Now I get more stars than the bulk of my guild that upgraded their full compliment. Is that fair? No! Not to them.
I will start by saying that yes, it is weird how the game becomes more difficult immediately following a survivor upgrade.
But this seems to be another case where max-level players have forgotten how this game goes. It has been the same for literally EVERY PREVIOUS LEVEL (except maybe 1 --> 2). We are always penalized in the short term, but get stronger in the long term. Perhaps you all sat at level 20 for too long and forgot, but this is not new. NG did not come up with some new way to screw you out of stars. This is how it's always been.
Does it suck? Yes, every single time. I also realize it takes longer and longer to get back to "normal" with each higher difficulty. But it's not some new tweak that came with level 21. It's always been this way, and they really have no grounds to fix it. It's not a change; it's just as strange as it's always been.
Comments
@tabernac sez:
"New players shouldn't get free Negan tokens that I don't get. It's not FAIR! It should be same for everyone!"
and then has the self entitled temerity to then say:
"My challenge advancement shouldn't follow the same rules as everybody else. I should start at same RSL as people a level below me and get all the same repeats so i get a distinct advantage, even though advancing through every other survivor level follows the old rules equally. It's not FAIR!"
I'm just using myself as an example. I don't hold those views nor am I Maxed-level.
By not using specifics you came off as hyperbolic and Straw Man-ish (not sure if that's a word), what else did you think was going to happen?
--> Do you need a guild? ...send me a Private Message. My Recruiting den and my "Art Objects" in the Next Games Collection.
You should talk to my wife.
I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
My Lvl 21 survivors made it to RSL 27 this week. Basically anyone with lvl 20 survivors have put a lot of time into this game. We play towards our own individual strategies and the game gives everyone different types of enjoyment.
But let's look at facts here.
What can a player with Lvl 22 survivors attain that a player with Lvl 21 survivors cannot?
Since at camp level 63 it's advised gear in TG crates guarantee Lvl 22 gear anyone can get Lvl 63 camp without having Lvl 22 survivors. If I want me end game to remain at Lvl 21 gear then I'll just not upgrade my training grounds so I won't hit Lvl 63. Is that what NG intended?
I don't consider myself an elite player by any means (knowledgable in mathematical strategical formulas yes but I gold spending mission winning beast I am not). Anyone who faces RSL 23+ has a chance at Lvl 22 base gear so survivor levels matter not in challenge mission rewards regarding level of gear.
Both can get radios, gold, supplies and XP as a reward in crates. Both probably have a relatively easy time playing easy scavenger missions. Both do well against Lvl 19 types of walkers in outposts.
But those who continue the grind of leveling things and playing to find more gear to upgrade and run more scavenger supply missions spending more money on the game get less stars (76 to be exact because cmon; when you're Lvl 21 or Lvl 22... Lvl 20.2 and 20.3 is easy street)
I will upgrade every building except training grounds which will keep me under Lvl 63 camp so I won't get Lvl 22 gear guaranteed in the shop. If I choose to down the road I will upgrade it when I have plenty of good gear otherwise I will upgrade pieces at my leisure.
Typically games give you incentive to continue on. NG penalizes you for moving forward. As a mathematic prodigy of the forum I cannot compute the reasoning behind such de motivating penalization of stars. I have tried many times and the "you should go farther in the challenge" answer is negated by the obvious loss of stars that is presented.
MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
| My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |
Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
--> Do you need a guild? ...send me a Private Message. My Recruiting den and my "Art Objects" in the Next Games Collection.
Keep the system as is for levels 20 and lower. From levels 21-25, keep the start level at 15 and the triple rounds at level -2. At levels 26-30, make the start level 20 and triple rounds still at level -2.
This way there is no penalty for increasing survivor level at each level, only the one time when there is a bump to that next tier at level 26, and players will be forewarned that there is an impending start level bump. Also at this start level bump, make it so that the bump occurs with the first survivor leveled up to 26. If we, as players, get bigger tiers to work with, then we should have less of a buffer when that start level bump happens.
This will force more levels to grind, but everyone's gripe seems to be about losing stars. Having a static starting level while having survivor levels increase will provide more stars for people to collect. Unless NG is will to provide bigger freebie stars for completing sets, I don't see how this system can divorce itself from the necessary grind to collect large amounts of stars.
"Death is lighter than a feather. Duty, heavier than a mountain." - al'Lan Mandragoran, The Great Hunt, The Wheel of Time
You have my support @rfg1982
Within 2 months, update 2.6 came out and being not an end game player now, I can only draw survivors gear from a range of lvl 20 - lvl 22 from the TG shop. I am "so called forced" (what use do I have for lvl 21,22 gear?) to upgrade the majority of my survivors to lvl 21 while keeping two survivors at lvl 22 in order not to lose out any "easy stars" along the way
My dilemma is this now, there is no guaranteed way for me to get lvl 21 gear neither at camp 61,62 nor 63 except for 12.5k TG crates. I believe this is an overlook in the the design on the game and I hoped to see something that can worked out in any future updates.
Bad to the bone!
The Notorious P.I.G.
"I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
"I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
> This thread is spot on. An incentive (which is the opposite of penalization) would be great as a motivator
Hold on: is an incentive then a vagina?
Check out the DMZ guild. We're recruiting. Here.
I think you'd have to assess that on a case-by-case basis.
Morbid Survivors are looking for you! If you are looking for a new guild, PM me.
Admin note: Please keep in mind Rule #4: Treat fellow forum members with respect. Opinions can and will always differ but let's be civil about it.
> Great feedback guys, it's very much appreciated.
>
No probs @Teeceezy , anytime, we are always happy to talk about penises and vaginas.
Check out the DMZ guild. We're recruiting. Here.
How many times do we have to have this conversation? This has been going on for months.... why is this so hard for NG?
Receiving a handicap for levelling up a survivor is 100% UNACCEPTABLE!
It's just plain wrong!
Perhaps, we can only guess that NG has data that shows only a small percentage of players are not upgrading their teams? Even if so, there is little doubt that this fiasco has cost NG in terms of player satisfaction and revenue.
This is a shining example of complex software design completely run amok. Once can only wonder how much money NG has spent in just discussing this issue internally, implementing it, and dealing with the results in customer support. Sometimes, I guess bright people just feel the need to design complex solutions when easier ones are staring them in the right in the face.
If NG would just let players choose what level they want to start challenges, they'd increase customer satisfaction, increase revenue, and decrease expenses for complex software maintenance and decrease expenses in customer support. In retrospect, was it really worth it to try to limit challenge stars and rewards for the players? The only cost would be a few extra rewards. No need for complex formulas to determine the starting level, or difficult to design repeating levels. Lower the value of each reward if you believe that allowing a player to select their own starting level if you feel this throws off the balance in the game. (which I seriously doubt anyway)
There are too many cases in this game where it feels like players are manipulated into playing exactly the way NG wants us to play. Loosening up the reigns on the players, and letting each player play this game the way they want to play might actually be a good thing for NG. As this case shows, players will do their best to defeat these restrictions anyway. Give more player freedom a try NG - you might be pleasantly surprised by the results.
I think (and hope for you) that you'll still start callenges with RSL 15 (repeats at RSL 20). But RSL 25 for scavenge is a bummer and not cool. That's so not cool!
Way I would do it is this.
Scrap incremental levels they just make a dragged out challenge even longer.
The player is allowed to choose their starting level up to the level of their highest survivor. (This is more a QoL feature for those that like wading though the unchallenging stuff)
If you start at level 22 (highest possible level survivor as of 2.6) you don't start on zero * you get all * you could have earned if you started at the lowest possible level earning all rewards which come with that instantly. (Let face it dropping * vs equal enemies is highly unlikly).
This makes eveyone equal currently and going forward too.
It's intended when you raise the level of 1 survivor your scavenger RSL goes up by 1 but not your challenge triple round.
Hope that clears things up.
MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
| My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |
Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
Let's assume that with lvl 21 survivors with lvl24 gear you get every single star up to rsl 25.3.
The formula used here is:
stars from maps + bonus stars = stars from this round + stars from previous rounds= total stars.
rsl 15: 18+15= 33
rsl 16: 18+16= 34 +33 = 67
rsl 17: 18+17= 35 +67= 102
rsl 18: 18+18= 36 +102= 138
rsl 19: 18+19= 37 +138= 175
rsl 20: 54+60= 114 +175= 289
rsl21: 54+63= 117 +289=406
rsl22: 54+66= 120 +406=526
rsl23: 54+69= 123 +526=649
rsl24: 54+72= 126 +649=775
rsl25: 54+75=129 +775= 904
At this point, let's say that you start to drop stars.
Now if I was able to get up to rsl25 without dropping stars with a lvl21 crew, your crew of lvl22 survivors outfitted with lvl25 gear should get every star up to rsl 26.3 (because your survivors are stronger):
rsl 15: 18+15= 33
rsl 16: 18+16= 34 +33 = 67
rsl 17: 18+17= 35 +67= 102
rsl 18: 18+18= 36 +102= 138
rsl 19: 18+19= 37 +138= 175
rsl 20: 18+20=38 +175= 213
rsl21: 54+63= 117+213= 330
rsl22: 54+66= 120+330= 450
rsl23: 54+69= 123+450= 573
rsl24: 54+72= 126+573= 699
rsl25: 54+75=129+699= 828
rsl26: 54+78= 132+828= 960
At this point, let's say that you start to drop stars.
While at rsl26 with lvl22 survivors you are getting 76 less stars than at rsl26 with lvl21 survivors, your survivors should be able to get one round further, so you increase my star count by 56 before you start dropping stars. If you level up your survivors with gear ready for them, you should be able to get at least 56 more stars.
Personally I'm not going to upgrade a full team to lvl22 right now because I don't have the gear and don't have the time/motivation to grind for xp and gear the way I was for lvl20 to lvl21 survivors, but unless there's something extraordinarily wrong with what I laid out here there is no penalty for upgrading your entire crew.
Upgrading two survivors under the current system can help you get more stars total, but different maps are better suited to different classes, so there's not necessarily a guarantee that you'll get all of the stars you would have if you leveled up your entire crew.
I'm sure as hell not speaking on behalf of NG on this (feel free to check out my normally critical posts), but I think this is what they may have been thinking when choosing to implement this in the update.
I'll take this space down here to say that the number of retirement tokens for an epic-made-legendary survivor should get the old retirement value of 365 tokens instead of the new 237 tokens. The 128 token nerf is ridiculous, is a thumb in the eye of all players (new and veteran), and NG needs to change it back to pre-2.6 numbers because we don't like having our hard-earned tokens stolen.
*edited for a typo
Perhaps though this is much more simple than everyone thinks.. the lack of raised reward values for pushing the challenge limits , the ridiculous trade in value for survivors, the constant game changes that hurt the most loyal and longtime players , the adding of new traits without a feasible and non ridiculous spending way for people to try them out .. perhaps this is a simple matter of analytics and players "lifetime playing value" .
Perhaps it benefits NG more for players to make that grind to endgame and then leave or keep spending and complaining / trying to help find solutions within the forums ? Perhaps a recycled player base is what drives this IAP game now and the hundreds of thousands of players not on the forums and spending to play with their favorite walking dead characters every day are delegating the decisions made ? Perhaps we are being appeased and have been for quite some time on here ?
Have any of you ever played a video game where there isnt a benefit to "leveling up" , or where rewards didnt get better the more you played, the better you got, and the higher your characters became?
Just some food for thought
But this seems to be another case where max-level players have forgotten how this game goes. It has been the same for literally EVERY PREVIOUS LEVEL (except maybe 1 --> 2). We are always penalized in the short term, but get stronger in the long term. Perhaps you all sat at level 20 for too long and forgot, but this is not new. NG did not come up with some new way to screw you out of stars. This is how it's always been.
Does it suck? Yes, every single time. I also realize it takes longer and longer to get back to "normal" with each higher difficulty. But it's not some new tweak that came with level 21. It's always been this way, and they really have no grounds to fix it. It's not a change; it's just as strange as it's always been.