As you probably found out, we made several modifications some days ago.
On the Market :
- Kate's purchase prices have been increased and simplified : common cards = 100 Clintz, uncommon cards = 250 Clintz, rare cards = 750 Clintz, starting cards = 25 Clintz. Kate still can't buy Ld's, Leaders and Cr's
- current uncommon and rare cards sales who had a price lower than Kate's have been canceled
- a private sale recipient must also have bought credits at least once (5 credits minimum at once, free offers also work) to finalise the sale, to avoid multiple accounts / theft abuses.
On the forum :
- the antispam filter has been tweaked (now 3 messages per 15s instead of 3 messages per minute)
- subscribers of a topic in a forum they cannot access anymore will no more receive notifications
- Guild admins / Founders have their Guild forum rights back
More corrections to come !
The leaders issue is easy to resolve.Accounts made from X date onward wouldn't be able to sell leaders. If you have more than one Leader you'd be able to cash them in for credits, but if you have extra copies past the date, you risk losing them(extra copies ) and getting nothing.if you don't have a copy of whatever Leader and are above the level to get it, the mission would be expired, but reactavating the mission would give you a copy of that card you're missing.
Legends don't need to be on the market, but if its going to be the repitive cycle of them being released I have an idea on that.
Now about those lower priced collectors...
I am in favor of the changes, they should definitely help the market stabilize.
Once again, I am going to recommend a double drop in score for any player in ELO who willing leaves a game. If you are that worried about time after a couple rounds, fine. But there are too many people dropping out on the last turn and again it makes that ELO KO mission nigh impossible. The last duel I had, against 7_Saw, he waited a good 45 seconds on the last turn before leaving the battle where there was a sure KO had he played out the turn after being on no pillz. That is not fair play, it is not sportsmanship, and it is sadly the normal in ELO. Of the 10 matches in ELO I played today, I won 6. All 6 are marked as won via forfeit. And it's not like it aids the person. I know a few times I played on my iPhone where I accidentally played 0 pillz on the last turn due to hitting the slider bar instead of the pillz bar, and they lost a victory because they quit. All in all it is a practice that helps no one, frustrates opponents and should be penalized accordingly.
I have limited time to play, and ELO is the only mode I like.
I don't care about missions.
I don't care about my level.
I play for the challenge and the miniscule but tantalizing shot of winning a Cr (or rather, the bragging rights I feel I've earned every time I score one.)
I resign instantly out of almost every lost game. If I didn't do that, I wouldn't ever have time to make 1300, much less 1400+. I know there are many, many players like me. If what you suggest would be implemented, I think it would simply be the death of ELO.
Don't let one guy who waited entirely too long to resign make you think every resignation is the product of malice. Most are the product of efficient and fair play (after all, I am giving my opponent more time to play ELO as well.)
While doubling the penalty would certainly make people stop, it's probably overkill for something that is, at worst, a mild annoyance. If such a penalty would be introduced, I don't think it would kill ELO (a different form of efficiency would be born in it's place, like trying to lose fast in DTs), but it certainly wouldn't kill the unending arguments about it.
Here's a way to curb frustration: imagine the person/people who quit on you to be throwing the computers against the wall or flipping a table because you beat them.
@Ghelas: I understand there are time constraints on some people, but what takes more effort on a final turn? Clicking twice to play your final card? Or clicking twice to quit out of a match? That's what I find frustrating, not getting rewarded for play that would get me one step closer to an added bonus. You talk of wanting to be rewarded for play over the meagre time you have. I get that. I just want it for one match. That's not too much to ask for is it? Just one match?
Now admittedly, my preferred way to do this would to be to have some kind of coding in place where if a player drops down to 0 pillz or something, that all but ends the match and it could tell if a KO would be achieved or not. That way the losing player could quit, the winning player would get the little tick in the mission, and everybody would be happy. However, I feel that's a lot farther away than the penalty option. It's not one I like taking, but I think if one side's not going to be fair about it, it's the option that should be taken.
P.S. Faced 7_Saw again 15 minutes ago. Exact same scenario. Beat him on third turn, would get KO with Romana, he leaves instead. The only solace I take in getting denied KOs twice by that player, is as DoomBug said, knowing that he is getting justly rewarded for his play.
Thaozal- never cared much for how many of a copy was in circulation,i care about it's cheapness,but i think i've mentioned this before,but limit the number of copies a card somebody can sell at once,because i think everyone knows this but won't admit it,but there's no justification for some moron to have 50 copies of a card out on the market,and i know there's no intent to sell there,because if there were otherwise,they would have done so in auctions.
But im getting off topic with these things;best to save the debate for a more appropriate topic.