The sigils in event prizes really must be increased, especially in breeding. Branches currently cost around 37K sigils in total, and the amount of sigils required per branch is ever-increasing. I’m not going to say too much, or be negative about it, but the sigil prizes need to be tweaked. Breeding sigil payouts would be a great start.
I agree 100%. If prices for a line are going up and the amount of keys needed for a mythic is going up, why shouldn’t the amount of ways we can get sigils also go up? Also, it’s great that you pointed out breeding. What’s up with breeding having 2k less sigils in the personal prizes than the other minor event, fort?
Totally I wonder what will have too do too make this happen and have the sigils be 1.5 times as much as now?
Or, alternatively, leave sigil payouts the same, but reduce the cost of the lines back to something that feels more ‘reasonable.’ End results are similar, but reduced line costs would probably benefit more players than buffing sigil payouts in event prizes (because I could see those sigil payouts being added to the upper end of prizes, where less players are likely to obtain them).
That would be great but it’ll be a breezy autumn day in hell before they ever reduce line costs. At least not without gutting the hell out of the lines
The odds for that happening are very slim unless it’s a discount
PG will just get greedier for their wallets until they see that prices need too either drop or they have too increase discounts by one and the prizes themselves
I also feel that it is likely that only key prizes would gain extra sigils so prefer your idea that lines get reduced. Faster prize progression also incentivises working for more prizes.
In addition, the middle section of some lines average about 8k between keys and it feels like those sections just drag on and on. I feel a return to more evenly distributing the cost along a line will be beneficial for a similar reason.
Yeah, the middle is usually the part that drags, especially the second halve of the second page. Thankfully after that, it’s just a gradual decline in cost but it is painful, I get what you mean.
Yeah the distribution varies with different lines but is very roughly 6.5k for first two keys, 8k for the next two then a sharp decline to 4k for the last two. Makes that last part feel like it zooms!
Riders get expensive on Page 2 20k sigils = you get almost all the chests though but I’d recommend get all the branch if you like that rider or get the rider if you like him / her.
I would like to stress I am not against a reduction of sigil cost or a buff of sigil payout.
But I do wonder if we need it? Getting a single mythic with low effort at a relatively ok level (200+) is really easy. Even with the increased cost it seems getting a mythic every season plus change is almost expected. And that’s with zero spending. Hell I am fairly confident I could skip 3 events total and still get a mythic without trouble.
Maybe that is less in platinum and gold. I haven’t been that rank for a while so I can’t speak for there. So maybe this is something for them. But do we need mythics to be even more common?
To be clear. If they were to tweak it so sigil lines are cheaper or we we got more sigils from events I would not complain. And if breeding offers significantly less sigils this should be fixed and they should be brought up to match other events.
This would speed up content consumption and speed the pace of our already rapidly advancing meta while it would be nice for players it’s not something pg will like as it would reduce the need to spend and doesn’t support the spending play style.
That gap in prizing between breed and fort is intended and is part of the balance pg uses to keep us building and pushing in fort
The imbalances are intentionally placed by pg and sadly I don’t see them changing unless something massive is adjusted in our meta to warrant the change in Pgs perspective!
Why would giving players more sigils speed up the meta? More sigils does mean players can collect more prizes, but meta will always be gated by tower levels and the highest dragon tier, both things that are released at regular intervals. Also, the reasoning behind there being more prizes in fort than breeding is a little weird (to me at least). Why would pg want people to progress their base at a faster rate than they progress their dragons? Both events have a very similar premise to each other, with more planning than active progression and use of more passively gained resources (timers and tokens), so they should have a similar prize structure.
I always thought meta was not always endgame rather a group of very intelligent players. Not always endgame players.
To encourage spending And control content consumption.
Edit changed slow consumption of content to control consumption of content.
It’s more accurate.
We’re both half wrong, meta is the way people play the game, usually dictated by the game balance in conjunction with the intelligent players who find the best way to do things (usually endgame or more experienced players)
But is there a way too prove this? By chance I do trust it but I need too figure out something here.
Well I believe forts always paid better.
Keeps us building and growing so we can breed these dragons.
Hmmm just seems a logical balance to maintain …would be to keep players just ahead of their breeding so they don’t stall out growth wise.
So fort pays a little better to encourage a little more activity.
The faster we grow the quicker we will reach a point where will feel the need to spend.
It’s a good balance
Then what about breedings layout being increased a tiny bit?
Well I’d say they could balance the two but they would only adjust the game somehow elsewhere to create the same effect it would only be the illusion of balance.
This is called adjusting a secondary mechanic and while sometimes helpful often unnecessary.
Now let’s look at the base of our economy and adjust that instead and suddenly we aren’t that concerned with a small discrepancy that promotes growth!
And so we have to identify the base of the economy in this case it’s chests and chest drop that are the back bone of our economy.
Chest drop is controlled by rate of drop which is how many monuments will drop on any given run.
Drop density which is how many chests will drop per monument destroyed.
And finally we have composition of chest type on any given run …composition is wether it drops a silver a bronze or a gold not to be confused with prize composition which is actually what’s in the chests.
Of these factors density is the only one that safely offers a way to adjust drop without really impacting catch up mechanics and do so while supporting activity based play styles and it won’t directly negatively impact spending play styles as they utilize spending to add to their activity if not replace the need to grind completely.
And if pg were to bracket and improve density by player level it could be used to balance our economy at all levels of play and without players crying for more while also improving player retention at the highest and lowest levels of play.
Yes I’ve thought about this for a while and have presented this many times in player retention threads in the old and the new forum.
If we want a stable economy that supports a more balanced group of play styles and the long term health and growth of this game we will need to bracket by level and adjust drop by bracketing and improving density! Versus trying to adjust prizing.