RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

[Melcho]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Not sure why you guys are still at it lol. They've said countless times the tax is staying and the season rewards will stay.

I admire the determination, but at this point you guys are just rustling each others jimmies for nothing?


Sent from my C64

[ActionJack]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Not sure why you guys are still at it lol. They've said countless times the tax is staying and the season rewards will stay.

I admire the determination, but at this point you guys are just rustling each others jimmies for nothing?


Sent from my C64

We weren't even talking about the tax or season rewards.

This must be what it feels like to talk with a congressional Republican. Like... you know deep down that they're smart enough to know they're bull****ting, but they're just so committed to it, that they have to keep the BS up.

[eVizions]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

We weren't even talking about the tax or season rewards.

This must be what it feels like to talk with a congressional Republican. Like... you know deep down that they're smart enough to know they're bull****ting, but they're just so committed to it, that they have to keep the BS up.

That's funny. I was just thinking that this is what it must be like to be a special education teacher.

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

That's funny. I was just thinking that this is what it must be like to be a special education teacher.

Haaaaa ... Differnce is they get payed

[ocwng]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Haaaaa ... Differnce is they get payed

And this is a game where you tap a screen for virtual cards. Not exactly worthy of lengthy dissertations.

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

And this is a game where you tap a screen for virtual cards. Not exactly worthy of lengthy dissertations.

Are you proud of yourself? Having to look up 5 syllable words just to make yourself feel like you belong? Im sorry that was harsh. My2K is not really worth our attention yet it does somehow. This seems to be a reoccurring trend. People are getting upset about players having debates about some concerning topics regarding My2K. If it upsets you so bad then get out. Nobody is forcing you to participate. I personally like to hear other players ideas no matter if I agree or disagree. It gets me to think more as a group rather then one side of the equation.

[ocwng]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

I'm not upset at all but the past 4 pages was not about improving RTTC but rehashing old arguements between a few users that both sides were set in their opinions. At this point were beating a dead horse here.

[Dextro]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Not sure why you guys are still at it lol. They've said countless times the tax is staying and the season rewards will stay.

I admire the determination, but at this point you guys are just rustling each others jimmies for nothing?


Sent from my C64

Remember the day, when NW said that the RC Star has to be a current player? And this is the reason why we get a Crappy Nick Young Star card?
Take a look at the Bucks RC and tell me how thrustful this statement was?
Maybe it is worth the time to show our opinion on it - don't say that it is right, but it might be worth the time that they think about it.

As we do play the game all day and can tell our experiences.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[ActionJack]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

I'm not upset at all but the past 4 pages was not about improving RTTC but rehashing old arguements between a few users that both sides were set in their opinions. At this point were beating a dead horse here.

Again... not sure what you were reading, but that's 100% not what was being discussed.

People were discussing the cost and odds of Proing RttC rewards, and that moved into calculating real world value of the cards.

The conversation had zero to do with older topics discussed like the tax, the overall economy, minimums or anything else.

It was a completely new conversation about card valuation. It was relevant, and important when discussing a rewards structure. If you don't care about that, fine (I guess).. but you're misunderstanding what was being discussed.

[SmartForce]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

it's an interesting question. i don't know if we'll ever see that, as we give away a lot of free credits and millions of cards everyday.

Can you define what "a lot" means? My best guess is that up to 10% (but probably significantly less) of all credits that have ever entered the system originated from mechanisms which create credits for zero money (daily VC prize, season rewards).

Where ActionJack has a point is that the AH isn't a 100% tax situation, so someone can buy credits and spend on the AH, and only 30% of what they spent goes away. There are some maths that can describe this relationship and spit out an actual real world cost (that someone paid) for each HoF pack purchased, but without knowing a few variables, there's no way to arrive at a conclusion.

You guys and some of your more ardent defenders seem very intent on pointing out that the 1:1 value ratio vanished with the release of the AH, and that's true; however, without actual data, there's no way to properly value things, other than to look at what the credits cost to purchase and value it that way.

Any other attempt to assign a value to packs is just moonlogic. Without knowing the percentage of credits in the system that originated from cash purchases, and without knowing how many times credits change hands (on average) and are subject to the 30% tax before they exit the system in a pack purchase, there is literally no way to assign a value that can at all line up with whatever reality is.

Only CatDaddy has the numbers to know those pieces of data. If I had that data, I could run the math and assign actual values to things. My best guess is that credits are exiting the system fast enough so that purchased credits are devalued by no more than 1/2 to 2/3 of the original purchase value (and that's assuming that the credits go through the AH several times before they exit into card purchases).

In the absence of actual data, the only price point we have to look at is what it would cost to purchase credits directly, and that's where the $67 number comes from.

You just love being wrong, don't you? And you seem to live fighting losing battles, just to do it.

The $67 price tag is clearly make believe.

I've bought upwards of 20 MVP packs, and I spent less than $5 in total. Again, I don't think I'm necessarily representative, but at least I'm talking reality. You guys just keep harping about bull**** that doesn't actually happen.

The way the game ACTUALLY works, people aren't spending $67 per HOF pack. They're just not.

I swear, if you just acknowledged reality, based your arguments of that, and went from there, your arguments would be so much better. As they are, it's hard not to just flatly dismiss it.

There's a reason all that you can say is that the $67 isn't an accurate value tag. That's because you lack the data to know. CatDaddy, who have the data, don't share it at all. They simply do what you do and dismiss the only point of reference people have.

They could easily run the numbers and in a few minutes have the necessary info to come tell us that, on average, credits exiting the system for packs are made up of X% free credits and Y% paid for credits, and the credits have cycled through the AH on average Z times, resulting in a final ratio of f(x):1, giving us a realistic value to compare to.

They don't do that. In some virtual economies, the data is freely available to anyone who wants to analyze it, and in some it is treated like a state secret. We are using an app where the latter is true.

The takeaway for me is that CD emphasizes that people can get credits "for free" to downplay the fact that the majority of credits enter the system via monetary purchase, and my sense of it is that they don't give any data that would allow for a real valuation of packs, because that number is probably higher than they're comfortable admitting.

CD is under no obligation to share the data or give any estimate of the "real" value of stuff, but at the same time, it seems disingenuous of them to withhold the only data that could change people's minds, and then chide people for comparing to the only hard data that is available.

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of the point you're trying to make, ActionJack, will readily agree. The more times purchased credits cycle through the AH before they exit to pay for packs, the farther from a 1:1 ratio with real world cost they get, and thus the more diluted their value.

That doesn't change the plain fact that looking at the amount of free credits flowing into the system and looking at the prices of things makes it very clear that the vast majority of credits in the system entered via cash purchase.

The only data that would allow you to make any point other than "It can't be $67 per HoF pack unless someone buys credits and directly purchases the pack" isn't available. You and I both have no data from which to derive an answer. We can give examples of possible scenarios but that's all.

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

That....was.....intense

[ActionJack]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Yeah, but that's the thing. I haven't even tried to give a valuation, because I recognize that I can't. The only point I've made as it pertains to valuation, is that $67 is wrong. Again, it just is. You may say it's the best number we can come up with, and while that's true, it's still just wrong. You decide to keep using it; I decide that it's better to just not use a number. I don't think there's value in using numbers we know to be wrong, in the absence of better info.

Trying to make decisions based on info we KNOW to be wrong doesn't make sense. It makes far more sense to take a tempered approach, acknowledging the limitations caused by our ignorance of the facts.

So again, arguing "this is a $67 card, so x, y, or z need to happen!" is fundamentally flawed, because we all (except this one dude that just loves being wrong) recognize that it isn't really a $67 card.

Is it HARD to Pro top level RttC rewards? Absolutely. Would it cost me $67 x however many HOFs there are, in REAL money out of my pocket, to dupe it? Even if it took down to the last card, absolutely not, and we all know that. Pretending otherwise doesn't serve any purpose.

It's my belief that perhaps the BEST cards in the game (which is what these HOF/P&P cards are now) shouldn't be easy to Pro. It SHOULD cost a prohibitive amount of money, so that people can't do it easily. CD obviously likes it this way, because it makes people pay obscene amounts of money on RC, to try to get Top 25. Maybe that's not a bad thing for the game's life.

[Illmatic1909]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Can you define what "a lot" means? My best guess is that up to 10% (but probably significantly less) of all credits that have ever entered the system originated from mechanisms which create credits for zero money (daily VC prize, season rewards).

Where ActionJack has a point is that the AH isn't a 100% tax situation, so someone can buy credits and spend on the AH, and only 30% of what they spent goes away. There are some maths that can describe this relationship and spit out an actual real world cost (that someone paid) for each HoF pack purchased, but without knowing a few variables, there's no way to arrive at a conclusion.

You guys and some of your more ardent defenders seem very intent on pointing out that the 1:1 value ratio vanished with the release of the AH, and that's true; however, without actual data, there's no way to properly value things, other than to look at what the credits cost to purchase and value it that way.

Any other attempt to assign a value to packs is just moonlogic. Without knowing the percentage of credits in the system that originated from cash purchases, and without knowing how many times credits change hands (on average) and are subject to the 30% tax before they exit the system in a pack purchase, there is literally no way to assign a value that can at all line up with whatever reality is.

Only CatDaddy has the numbers to know those pieces of data. If I had that data, I could run the math and assign actual values to things. My best guess is that credits are exiting the system fast enough so that purchased credits are devalued by no more than 1/2 to 2/3 of the original purchase value (and that's assuming that the credits go through the AH several times before they exit into card purchases).

In the absence of actual data, the only price point we have to look at is what it would cost to purchase credits directly, and that's where the $67 number comes from.



There's a reason all that you can say is that the $67 isn't an accurate value tag. That's because you lack the data to know. CatDaddy, who have the data, don't share it at all. They simply do what you do and dismiss the only point of reference people have.

They could easily run the numbers and in a few minutes have the necessary info to come tell us that, on average, credits exiting the system for packs are made up of X% free credits and Y% paid for credits, and the credits have cycled through the AH on average Z times, resulting in a final ratio of f(x):1, giving us a realistic value to compare to.

They don't do that. In some virtual economies, the data is freely available to anyone who wants to analyze it, and in some it is treated like a state secret. We are using an app where the latter is true.

The takeaway for me is that CD emphasizes that people can get credits "for free" to downplay the fact that the majority of credits enter the system via monetary purchase, and my sense of it is that they don't give any data that would allow for a real valuation of packs, because that number is probably higher than they're comfortable admitting.

CD is under no obligation to share the data or give any estimate of the "real" value of stuff, but at the same time, it seems disingenuous of them to withhold the only data that could change people's minds, and then chide people for comparing to the only hard data that is available.

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of the point you're trying to make, ActionJack, will readily agree. The more times purchased credits cycle through the AH before they exit to pay for packs, the farther from a 1:1 ratio with real world cost they get, and thus the more diluted their value.

That doesn't change the plain fact that looking at the amount of free credits flowing into the system and looking at the prices of things makes it very clear that the vast majority of credits in the system entered via cash purchase.

The only data that would allow you to make any point other than "It can't be $67 per HoF pack unless someone buys credits and directly purchases the pack" isn't available. You and I both have no data from which to derive an answer. We can give examples of possible scenarios but that's all.

You wrote this much to say that we can use $67 as a estimate? All you had to say was that in the absence of data, we have to use a conservative estimate. This is just long-winded and a waste of time.

There is an easy way to get a sense of how much CD has given away. Take all the credits you have now, and then use CONSERVATIVE estimates for all of the assets you have...then subtract how many credits you have purchased via CD.

I've spent $300 bucks, which equates to about 45K in credits (I'll even use a conservative estimate). Of the auctionable cards I have, I have Star Pros who are top 2-3 at their position with on average 2 ultra rare enhancement per...I would say a conservative estimate for all Star Pros would be 7000 after AH tax). That's 77K right there, and that doesn't include the over 50K I have banked right now, and the value of my RC cards, which are valuable even though they can't be sold. So let's just use a number of 127K that I have in net worth right now. Subtract the 45K I spend and CD has allowed me about 82K in credits...and I'm in the middle of the spectrum.

It's as bold for you to say that $67 can be used as it is to assume that it can't be used. Now let's just end this argument for the sake of our eyes and time, because it has more to do with playground fighting than it does with the original intent of this thread. Your points have been heard, CD didn't agree...but they took the time to give you feedback. There is nothing more you can ask for.

[SmartForce]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

It was just a thought exercise, mate.

Prior to the AH, a pack that yielded a guaranteed star card was around $50. CD set pack prices that were pretty high and those prices pre-date the AH and mechanisms for the credits purchased by the whales to filter down to the folks like you and I who spend way less.

If I valued my current collection at 5,000 credits per star and 2,500 credits per Legendary and per epic (the pack prices), then what I have personally spent to get what I have is way less than the credit value.

The only thing I was trying to say, really, was that someone paid the money for most of the credits. It's not really something that extends beyond an interesting discussion, at least for me.

I'd love to have access to the actual numbers, because I like knowing things, and the time spent with the actual data would be fascinating and enjoyable.

I fully admit I'm an abnormal person though. I work in higher education and research things from thousands of years ago for a career. Any description of me that tries to suggest my mind is normal is a clear failure. I'm totally aware of that and quite fine with it. What makes us unique should be celebrated. I'm happy to be an oddball who can get lost in the grammar of a language that hasn't been spoken in two millennia, or in the legal system of an empire that collapsed four thousand years ago.

Or in a bit of maths that would serve no purpose more than sharpening my mind and wits.

Sometimes (or pretty much all the time for me), knowing is the motivation. I just want to know ... that's all. Basic curiosity. The day I lose my curiosity and the feeling of wonder at learning new things ... well, let's just say I don't anticipate that day ever arriving.

[eVizions]

Re: RttC re-balancing thoughts (Attn: Brad, NWGD)

Yeah, but that's the thing. I haven't even tried to give a valuation, because I recognize that I can't. The only point I've made as it pertains to valuation, is that $67 is wrong. Again, it just is. You may say it's the best number we can come up with, and while that's true, it's still just wrong. You decide to keep using it; I decide that it's better to just not use a number. I don't think there's value in using numbers we know to be wrong, in the absence of better info.

Trying to make decisions based on info we KNOW to be wrong doesn't make sense. It makes far more sense to take a tempered approach, acknowledging the limitations caused by our ignorance of the facts.

So again, arguing "this is a $67 card, so x, y, or z need to happen!" is fundamentally flawed, because we all (except this one dude that just loves being wrong) recognize that it isn't really a $67 card.

Is it HARD to Pro top level RttC rewards? Absolutely. Would it cost me $67 x however many HOFs there are, in REAL money out of my pocket, to dupe it? Even if it took down to the last card, absolutely not, and we all know that. Pretending otherwise doesn't serve any purpose.

It's my belief that perhaps the BEST cards in the game (which is what these HOF/P&P cards are now) shouldn't be easy to Pro. It SHOULD cost a prohibitive amount of money, so that people can't do it easily. CD obviously likes it this way, because it makes people pay obscene amounts of money on RC, to try to get Top 25. Maybe that's not a bad thing for the game's life.

It's an exercise, man. Whether I agree with someone's ideas or philosophies or not, I want to hear what they have to say and what evidence they have to support it. This is what you call critical thinking and it's what people do - often together - to improve themselves and the products and companies they're involved with. I don't know what it is that you do, but this is in my wheelhouse. I've worked for start-ups and Fortune 50 companies. I've architected and built solutions that have run hundreds of millions of dollars through them. I'm paid to solve problems, both actual and potential. So, while you seem to have tagged me as the "one dude that just loves to be wrong", I think my track record shows otherwise. My suggestion: don't immediately assume someone else is wrong just because their philosophy doesn't align with yours.

Some people use the anonymity of the internet to puff themselves up bigger than what they are. I like to use it to challenge my critical thinking skills by engaging and interacting with others. Clearly, there are others here that like to do the same and their feedback has helped change my preconceptions about what the game needs. I also appreciate Danan and Brad giving us insight into the game and into CD's corporate and development philosophies. Maybe we provide valuable feedback and suggestions or maybe we just provide noise to them. I don't know, but - to me - this is the reason that Al Gore created the internet.

Back to the actual game. Who said the best cards in the game shouldn't be difficult/costly to acquire and pro? We all agree that this game would get really stale really fast if everyone had a lineup full of HOF Pros tomorrow. Nobody here is looking to get everything for free, but the idea that, because it's no longer 1:1 we have to throw out the notion that packs have actual, real-world prices isn't true. The world is full of valuation systems that run on incomplete data. Hell, the basis of a stock market is an estimated value based primarily on public opinion. Just because we don't have all of the data and can't come up with an exact number doesn't mean we should just give up.