This game is like a broken machine that needs to be rebuilt or salvaged for scrap, but curiosity kicks-in and you keep running it to see just how broken it can get

Sure, there’s a possibility you can overhaul it, and some of the components can be salvaged, but the gearbox is a case of pulverized metal with a few contaminated gears that still work, and since the engine + gearbox are sold as a set and can’t really be salvaged, you crank-up the speed to see just how much more broken it can get.

I hear the sickening clatter of that shattered gearbox binding and tearing itself up every time I hit “Battle,” and I can only conclude that it’s curiosity about what’ll happen when the engine finally seizes.

We’ve had three weeks to get used to this failed one-two punch of overpowered stat boosts and miscalculated team strength/trophies/matchups, and it’s not getting one bit better.

12 Likes

Yep, feel the same way

1 Like

Can you imagine if I had even MORE character spaces? I might be able to take over the whole space above the fold!

Brevity is the soul of wit, except when it’s not, like when the subtlety is disadvantaged by the setting. When I’m Jefferson, I’m Jefferson; otherwise, Pascal.

1 Like

Hahaha I like your style your cool enough.

Don’t like your post but do like yer style

I appreciate that. Forum rhetoric is its own thing, for a dozen reasons, so my feeling is that it often calls for a certain rhetorical structure, which often means packaging posts as complete thoughts, although I’m the master at using a thousand words when a hundred will (might) do.

As for not liking my post, well, your posts stand out, and I’m aware of your enthusiastically contrarian position on things (e.g. it seems like you like 1.7 because it’s something of an egalitarian update, whereas I feel the opposite, that it’s moving the goalposts in an unfair way to all, P2W or F2P). And while I value and embrace constructive contrarianism very much, I find that I disagree almost fully, nearly always, with your positions. Nearly. But, every time I find myself stretching my hands about to type a response in order to debate you, I stop, and it’s because the intensity of your contrarianism suggests that ethos would supersede reason. That’s not intended as an ad hominem, just an observation.

BTW, I’m not sure why your snarky-but-tame response to me originally was flagged. I thought it was totally in-bounds.

7 Likes

I know that I come off contrary. Im not really I just say what I think. And I’d like to say that if confronted with resin and proof I will admit being wrong and apologize. But in matters of opinion I reserve as I do extend the right to others to have it not change during the discourse.

I’m actually looking up egalitarian… Lol it’s been a while since I’ve had to do that…

Yup you about summed it up. Btw I also liked 1.6 1.5. 1.4. and 1.3(when I started I think)

Thanks for giving me the benefit of patience

Well, being a contrarian at heart and saying what you think aren’t mutually exclusive, but I get what you’re saying. And I’m glad we have a new respect (or, I’ve gained it).

As for 1.6, 1.5, 1.4, I’ve been pretty vocal about why I liked them so much (I’ve made a bunch of posts and replies explaining why I liked them as compared to 1.7). Simply put, Ludia made MAJOR rebalancing moves in a short period of time that were thoughtful, measured, helpful, and interesting. It was impressive, and I even sent messages of admiration to their team, because I know how big it is to make such large-scale changes. And, as much as I liked the excellence of the updates, I liked the way they communicated their intentions in the release notes. Other companies are vague about the intentions, but Ludia straight-up stated what they intended to shake up, and why. Very cool.

And that’s part of what’s so frustrating about 1.7 - it was horribly conceived, executed, and deployed, in a way that was just at odds with what they did before. I understand the “why” behind stat boosts, but their implementation is just… pure filth. So this Ludia, well, I don’t know this Ludia (although I give them HUGE praise for the massive, bold, and brave fix on Friday, but the half they got right was vaporized by the half they got wrong).

Thier Friday fix was… Well to obscurely quote a short man with out dropping too much spoilers…

“No body is entirely happy so I guess it means it’s a good compromise.”

Which is about how I feel on boosts in general. I love that I can tweak my Dino’s (who were always obscure) in to relevance for my team.
But …

I do see that they are problematic in the short term for people who have to battle against the boosted meta Dino’s.

I’m just of the opinion that in the long term it will even out.

I find the trophy system flaws to just be a class issue as it were. Which tickles my sense of irony to no end especially as the game upper class has constantly and arrogantly, stridently ,and obstinately responded to the rest of our issues (which in fact now boil down to the same as they are issuing) with the message

“Just suck it up”

If you catch my drift

Well, as for the axiom that a good deal is one where no one’s happy, my feeling is that it only applies to negotiations or pareto efficiency situations that address some sort of unjust inequality. 1.7 is neither of those things.

Now, per the whole “suck it up” matter, I’ve read many posts over the last five days where people state that it’ll settle down in time, and that this chaos is just a temporary part of the game related to change. I’ve argued the same many times over the last eight (?) months, in my alliance, Discord, and here, that over multiple trials, players will normalize to a place that’s appropriate to their respective levels of skill and teams. I usually remind people of this at the beginnings of tournaments, when it’s a bloodbath as the order shakes-out. Change causes some friction. So, the premise is correct…

… but the predicate is wrong. The predicate here is that the changes are awful because they reflect a sharp and dramatic change in the rules that punishes players who diligently built teams over an entire year. All of a sudden, the countless hours of grinding and spending of real money are suddenly usurped by a new order that allows players with much, much less progression to build teams that are far more powerful than yours for a fraction of the cost in time and money.

That’s utter and complete garbage. It’s moving the goalposts unfairly, and that’s just a reality that exists without regard to player category (whale-to-win, pay-to-win, pay-something-but-grind-a-lot-to-win, or free-to-play). It doesn’t matter whether everyone has access to the same stat boosts, it’s the fact that the sudden change negates the efforts of game progress over the last year.

And it’s not the same as changing small rules, such as nerfing Stegod to eliminate DSR, or remove bleed cleansing; that’s a situation that might have been a bit frustrating for some, but it was good overall and it was small in the scheme of things. A small move in a bigger picture that had balance, and was “just,” and it was reasonable to expect players to adjust. The one-two punch of boosts and trophies have upended this game, leaving it unbalanced, so the hate and vitriol toward it is appropriate and justified.

So, your view of the trophy board being a reflection of a class system… of course it is, but it’s actually irrelevant in this discussion, because of the predicate I mention. Your sense of satisfaction here is misplaced because of the predicate - that it’s a sharp, dramatic change in the rules, and it purely isn’t fair to allow players to skip the line, regardless of how much people in line did, or didn’t, pay. If we were at endgame for the majority of players, and the upper-tier players were cawing about not having an advantage, then yeah, I think you’d be justified in your view. But 1.7 is not that.

I accept that it’s a class system, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing that it’s a class system. Immediately upon opening this game, it was abundantly clear that the upper tiers were P2W. And, at the time, progression itself was disgustingly P2W, and I didn’t think I’d be around long, since it was mathematically impossible to make any progress without spending real money. Then, they released Strike Events and coin boxes, and all of a sudden, progression was within reach with a reasonable amount of time spent grinding. Then, with the introduction of Alliance Rewards, and increasing the encounter radius for Supply Drops, the game became far, far more accessible to players who can’t/won’t P2W, and its appeal to me grew significantly. There’d still be a class stratification in the arena and in completion of the collection, sure, but I was fine with battling in my bracket and my rate of progress, knowing that there’d be tiers, and I’d be able to settle-in to where my team/talents/time battling should place me. Not so, now, and I reject the “suck it up” arguments because they’re predicated on an unfair rules change.


Oh, and BTW, I fall in the third category above. I’ve spent a fairly modest amount on this game, with the overwhelming majority of my resource spend in time, not money. Aside from VIP for me, and my son, I haven’t put any money into this game since early January, when I exchanged a few small gift cards for hardcash that I’ve been hoarding until recently, when half of the aged hardcash balance went to a relatively small number of boost packs.

Not to not pick or come off as contrary though what I’m about to say will sound like it. …

I categorically reject the hard work argument (stipulation)

In my life making money (work) has almost always involved sweat, stitches, broken bones (mine or others) , and multitudes of contusions strains sprains etc.

It’s a game and I do see the “feeling of nullification of effort and progress”

But to my mind it’s not as bad as it is felt to be as all of that effort is still there to be built upon. If the Dino’s in question are LVL 25 or lower. If they are 25 plus and you made it to the high arena I can definitely feel the pain expressed.

By the way. And for what it’s worth. I have today absolutely reversed my position on boosts. If ludia can’t do them slowly and with out the massive s.n.a.f.u situation they should be gone. Period.

I didn’t say “hard work,” or even “work;” I said “time,” and “grinding.” It’s a distinction with a difference. Further, it’s a distortion to even compare it to real hard work, since the whole thing is limited to within the constraints of the game, not life. But even if we accept the distortion, it’s beside the point, because the change is not fair or reasonable within the constraints of the game. And, BTW, my average dino level on the A-team is 26.7, with two dinos within one fusion (<100 DNA) of hitting L30, and two more within the same range of L29.

As for “all that effort is there to be built on,” the fact that there are a bunch of usurpers who played by a different set of rules means that the satisfaction is diminished to a very low point. Making progress now feels like a Sisyphean chore, made abundantly worse by the new scoring nonsense.

Let’s say I want to be a mountain climber, and aspired to climb the most technical faces that only the most experienced, advanced climbers could access. If I’m a novice, but suddenly have a robot assist, and climb those faces and my time of ascent is counted in the all-time records, and sometimes I get a big time bonus, then you better believe the experienced climbers are gonna be upset. The comparison has flaws, but you see my point.

[EDIT] Regarding a change in your position on boosts, I have to say it’s unsurprising given the state of battling. Enough mathematically impossible to win battles will do that to ya.

2 Likes

I do see your point of view. And I do reconize that it is legitimate…

In fact quite correct. Especially the sisyphean (know I spelled it wrong) situation but that applies to all games that dont have a clear cut ending to them. It is unfortunately the case with mobile games.

(No intention of talking down or pontificating)

By the way thank you. This has been a very nice conversation.

The machine has been throwing bolts and rattling gears loose for awhile now. It’s gonna fall apart very soon.

To acknowledge your point, I absolutely do think there should be leveling mechanisms in games where players with less resource (time & money) can have reasonably fair matchups against better-resourced players. This is why the new Tournament format is such a major bit of awesomeness, since it strips-out hybrids and leveling, and becomes a game of wits (under the RNG umbrella, of course).1

I also applaud elements that allow underdogs to have a shot at beating higher-level players, with big points rewards for underdog wins. I welcome those instances when I’m truly outplayed by underdogs, with good team selection, judicious swaps, and outwitting me with things like Tryko/Dioraja/Sucho/KoolaG2 vs. Indo or whatever. I’ve posted about this a lot, mostly around the game’s flawed/inappropriate use of an Elo Rating system to determine points awards/losses in matchups. I think that a comprehensive total damage potential score, calculated at the time of pairing and team selection, should be like upwards of 80% (?) of the total score determinant when the disparity in TDP is more than 30% (?). Use of trophy score (Elo) is inappropriate with so many other variables, as reflected in TDO. If this sounds familiar, well, yeah, it’s exactly what Ludia tried - and failed - to do in 1.7… failures, including clearly not accounting for total team strength properly (underweighting crit machines like Thor, and the impact of SIA from Dracoparasite), and what I presume is equal-weighting the lowest team members with the highest team members (not everyone gets a 1).2

With Draco, though; those players should be limited to 10pt wins. Iif you wanna use such a disgusting tactic, you can, but you get a points nerf. No, I’m not kidding. Draco is an affront to fair play.

BTW, we have a new understanding, so your statements don’t come across as pontificating. And wholeheartedly agreed - I’m enjoying the discussion too.


1. The key weakness of tournaments, though, is that they still over-reward the time resource, because you can only win if you battle lots and lots. I’ve been working on a proposed solution for that, though, and it incorporates brackets for number of battles (e.g. <100, <200, Unlimited), with winners in each bracket, and rankings based on a weighted win:loss ratio that adjusts your score for rankings (i.e. you have to prove your win/loss ratio over more trials, up-to the total number of battles in that bracket. Weighting would be non-linear, and based on average battles by everyone within the bracket). Brackets would reset every [ x ] hours/day, with the exception of the top bracket, which would run throughout the tournament. You’d be able to elect to stay in your current bracket, or level-up to Unlimited. Each bracket would have prizes that are significantly greater , and winners would be determined based on your standings from each period. The purpose of weightings is to make players prove their skill over more trials, rather than simply having a lucky streak and dropping out. It sounds complicated, but I actually think it could be communicated easily. This format means there’s a prize pool for the hardcore set with a ton of time, but smaller pools for participants who can’t devote the same amount of time as the brackets above. It ain’t perfect, but it’s WIP in the right direction.

2. I’ve actually done a lot of math on this, to come up with a crit-adjusted damage score, along with weightings for special abilities and the like, so I have a rudimentary algorithm. Not only math, analyzing match results in a SIM that another player/friend [anonymous] built, and refining the algorithm based on our observations. Not to reverse-engineer anything about JWA, mind you, but to create a fully-contemplated proposal to refine battle scoring and matchups. 1.7 + boosts took the momentum outta that plan, not because it was harder, but because it seemed completely futile when Ludia was making decisions like those in 1.7.

Heh, yep.

Someone needs to do the “El Risitas” meme next (the squealing-laughing dude on Spanish TV, with his front teeth gone).

1 Like

I would really love it if they fixed the crashing on Iphone 6s

They still havent fixed that yet?

Agreed. My 8yo son plays on my old iP6, and it’s… frustrating…

Plays, well, I should say, played, because he gave up prior to 1.7 due to terrible match scoring. Now, we’ve lost the impetus for a fun 6am hunt we used to do (but, we’ll replace it with something more substantial, like finding real wildlife).

Harry Potter supposed to be coming out soon… Supposed to have real nice a.r. functionality. I’m preregisterd :slight_smile: