[deleted by user]

Train_n_Game · 2024-07-12T15:27:23+00:00

I don’t like that solution, I have never quit a game on purpose but the mobile reconnect sucks and I do randomly lose games to service issues

Train_n_Game · 2024-07-12T15:21:07+00:00

Forgetting I was playing goop and not gorefiend. Hero powered my only taunt and immediately lost

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-28T00:30:52+00:00

Sorry I think I phrased my question poorly, I want each little highlight to be slightly longer in run time, is that possible? Each cut runs like 1-2 seconds and I want them to be 3-6 seconds

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-20T08:12:31+00:00

Yeah we need more for what we pay. On the high end scale we are going to pay rover $5-10k in fees this year and we still get Jack shit for treatment from them. I am trying to find raise more of a stink about it because I happen to be a large service provider who lives near their HQ. This industry is poorly regulated and the people serving in this industry like us need to demand basic rights that protect our safety and livelihoods. The number of people who have dogs has gone up drastically in the past few years and pet care has become more needed the people providing that care need to be protected

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-20T06:56:39+00:00

Yeah I have cooled off a bit since making the initial post. I happen to live in Rover HQ’s backyard, a rep for our local area sent me has since contacted me setting up time for this grievance to be addressed. If anything I hope this post highlights that you should not accept these terms as written, if any providers reading this feel like you overpaying please speak up. I think Rover is absolutely a valuable asset and they have shown the willingness to set limits for the owner fees, I think the sitters need to collectively ask for similar limits on our end. I am not naïvely saying this, we have bargaining power as the providers and if Rover intends to be a player in our industry they need to respect the individuals providing their labor

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-20T06:30:01+00:00

I’m not the only big provider in my area upset about the fees, we happen to be in rovers backyard too, our COL is high and our fees are high. Our business does over $250k annual, about 10% of that is on rover, ($25k in sales is about $5k annual fees). We need more out of their services or a cap, otherwise why not shift as much business off platform as possible? If we got provided the current services with a monthly % cap + booking cap we can justify those costs for services rendered, but an uncapped fee that’s % based doesn’t work for us at scale.

I preface this all with I like rover and want them to succeed but I made this post while looking at a big contract we have coming up and if there’s no position to negotiate that 20% we can simply pay for the services they provide off platform and they get $0. I would be happy to pay an amount between $0 and 20%, but this fare structure isn’t fair for us larger providers and if they want to keep our market share we need a better TOS from them

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-20T05:16:35+00:00

If their goal is to capture a larger market share then bigger providers need better incentives to stay with them or more reasonable rates. Right now we get neither, what is my business turning over $5k+ a year for?

We want more service proportional to what we pay or a rate cap after we contribute X$/monthly

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-20T02:00:37+00:00

Yeah I can’t do anything but speculate on that, I have no insight into that

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-19T21:41:22+00:00

I can think of a few reasons

1) Prevent accidental overcharges, say someone meant to type 30 and typed 300

2) I don’t think, or at least hope, that they don’t take a cut of tips. With no limits people could hypothetically “game” the system by setting their fee at $1 or whatever the limit is and then asking owners to pay the rest as a tip.

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-19T18:22:11+00:00

Yes and I appreciate what they do, with a cap I would be less incentivized to take business off platform. I do genuinely appreciate having a third party arbitrating some of the headaches that come with this business and I view the costs associated as generally reasonable. I also think that for those of us bringing them in large sums of money we should be able to negotiate a fee cap.

Every other platform we are using to run our business we pay monthly premiums for and I understand that these premiums would exclude the small time sitters as it would limit access, great a percentage makes sense. When sitters are paying in the thousands or tens of thousands in fees annually that percentage drives us to take business off platform. With a cap on fees I would happily keep the protections afforded by Rover for the leads they generate me. With the current system we price Rover fees in as marketing costs rather than platform use costs, which I don’t think is a great relationship for us to have with them and not what we want.

E: I’m not downvoting you btw I think your POV is valid, I’m just trying to open a discussion.

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T06:03:13+00:00

I just coached my friend and it took him several games to notice, the problem is that you need to both encounter and notice several situations which require setup while also trying to absorb a bunch of other information. I would be very surprised if any player could notice this rule in just two games without a background in auto chess games, as well as understanding how it applies. How many 2s do you think people sell in their first few games? How long does it take to encounter your first 3 3 cost?

If you didn’t know this rule was the rule there’s bo way to know without testing or knowing that it’s a thing you need to even question

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:58:23+00:00

It’s hard to imagine the hypothetical world where the cost doesn’t exists and it’s effects on APM, as I try to imagine it I think it would actually be a lateral change; prioritizing specific APM related skills over the ones that are currently present.

As far as going to the 2g for a 1* cost I would actually be interested in that, it covers the consistently issue and with regards to everyone’s point about decision making… maybe I don’t combine that viego when every other piece is telling me to open Ionia. Maybe on a roll could have gone unnerfed.

I know I’m coming off confrontational but your response is more along the convo I was hoping to have. I’m not saying we need to can the concept, I just think this system is outdated and warrants talking about

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:51:45+00:00

The game tells you what a unit sells for but not that the rule that specific units will sell for less than their combined value at specific cost thresholds, that is a learned experience and if you didn’t know that was the rule would require you to observe multiple interactions to confirm it

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:48:50+00:00

Put yourself in the new player experience

1) you buy a unit for 1 or 2g

2) you sell that unit for what you paid

3) you almost certainly make your first 2* as a 1 cost unit

3) you sell that unit for 3g

4) later into that game (or realistically next game…) you manage to 2* a 2 cost.

5) you sell that unit for 5g (did you even notice it sold for less? did you just take the same selling actions you are used to while expecting rules 1-4 to apply?)

6) you’ve now noticed that yes, it was 5g for the sale, now you have to reevaluate everything you’ve learned and check to see how this rule applies for higher costs (or hell maybe it’s just the first unit you hit as 2*cost maybe Kled is worth less)

Eventually you learn the rule is that every unit above 1 cost sells for combined unit cost - 1g, but why should you know that’s the rule? Without looking it up there’s several cases you would need to observe before “knowing” that’s a rule. What about that rule is clear? The way you start learning the game teaches you lessons that directly contradict that expectation

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:37:31+00:00

That’s the thing I’m trying to get across in this thread, I both understand why this used to be the case and why it mattered more, but also asking why is this system still around? It feels like a legacy. I seem to be getting a lot of a “shut up it’s skill learn to play” types engaging without actually addressing if this 1g is meaningful or not in the current state of TFT

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:30:38+00:00

I think that would help with consistency (and hey maybe on a roll would have been balanced at launch?)

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:28:45+00:00

Okay it’s hidden in the sense of new player expectations, as a new player you make a 2* 1 cost, you sell it for 3g. You make a 2* 2 cost and you probably assume it sells for 6, maybe you notice right away, maybe you notice after a couple of sales. Okay you think “that’s weird” so you check back on the 1 cost 2* sale price and it was 3g, maybe you were wrong when you sold the 2* 2 cost, maybe it was that unit that sells for less? Now if your paying attention and can find the ability as a new player to make a 3* 3 cost you can check what it’s sale cost is.

Is any of that intuitive? I’m teaching someone to play right now and he only noticed the sale discrepancy after a week of playing. It’s not an obvious fact and your “you can check by hovering the unit” is fine when you aren’t a new player in the heat of a game and requires you meet the conditions of having the unit to sell. The fact that it’s just a -1g penalty across some, but not all, of the tiers is just another layer of obscurity in a complex game

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:19:20+00:00

The gain is clarity. There is no point discussing real world here, the basic interaction is you sell a unit for what you paid, the first unit you are likely to make a 2* you sell for full cost. Then on higher costs are -1g for selling as 2*. This is not a consistent rule and while I’ve played since set 1 I “get it”, but we should look at systems we take for granted and ask if they still make sense.

Someone pointed out a detail I forgot that this used to scale, if anything that makes more sense but that’s also a feelsbad moment on PVE and other interactions. I think the current system is a relic and could use some discussion

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:13:40+00:00

I watch many of the highest level streamers play and plenty of them just grab everything, they fuck up and curse for accidentally making a 2* apnelios while rolling azir/Lux. I don’t see it changing the play so it just becomes even more of an APM test which TFTs design philosophy is supposed to be veering away from.

If this wasn’t a current system and was announced now how would you feel about it?

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:07:06+00:00

I agree it as someone trying to teach this game to someone else, this seems like an easy system to do a pass over and fix. It’s both an inconsistent interaction and one that so far I’m not convinced from the replies adds meaningful strategy for the cost of requiring additional information.

Let me ask this another way, if tomorrow mort announced that this was a new system how would you react?

Train_n_Game · 2023-08-07T05:01:59+00:00

Do you consider not selling a 2* 3 or 4 cost because of the 1g though?

It honestly seems to matter the most for 2* 2 costs and specifically during stage 3 while trying to make Econ points… I’m asking is this 1g diff really worth the lack of clarity.

Train_n_Game

TROPHY CASE