Best Of

A shame clearly that all streamers went supersilent!

Just Lags inoffcially confirmed in a post that Brian left.

It’s not our business. If BG wants to stop, he can stop. If he told his friends in the community not to publish it, then it is good that they did not do that. I’m bummed to see him go, I really enjoyed his content. But it’s his life, and we should all respect his choice here.

Agreed, just let him be. If he’s done, he’s done and this is his final message.

Sure, it's his choice, but I think his many supporters on YouTube who have subscriptions should know if he is not coming back.

Cancelled my subscription 5 minutes into it. At the current state, I will not be subscribing again.

Good to see the 5-minute cancellation wasn't left open to interpretation.

As Kabam has stated recently, the negative feedback on the forum usually has no correlation to reality. The fact that there was so much web traffic yesterday to buy the Sigil shows that it was probably a huge success.

It's unfortunate that so many forumers are unhappy with the Sigil, I'm not thrilled about it either, I think it's more of a mixed bag. But then again, what else is new? Seems like the forum is mostly a place for disgruntled players to trash and complain whatever Kabam comes up with next. Some of the criticism is constructive, but overall the atmosphere is consistently negative. Makes one wonder why they keep playing the game and discussing it online. Addicted perhaps?

So where do you want feedback to come from?

Surveys? They already do that and those can take alot of time and volume already. If we all put in survey how we feel it would be the same

YouTubers? They voiced there concerns and those in community just like banquet event

Content creators? They give them feedback already, and look at champs like the leader who didn’t even get a buffed lol

People also voice there concerns in line chats but none of the people who work for kabam are there

and discord ? I’m pretty its the the same as forums people would still voice there concerns

It’s been years since Sigil was actually updated and now it’s here and they changed alot of good stuff to bad.

Like trading in gold for boost is not a thing now.

Cant even trade excess 5* shards for 6* shards, 1 step forward but also alittle step backwards aswel.

We ar going in baby steps.

DONT even get me started on a lot of events and rewards and outdated content in the game. Literally baby steps until we get new progress tier after valient lol.

Right. This forum is (at least theoretically) the *official* forum.

Which apparently isn’t representative of the player base, if what I read is correct. It’s just a batch of long-time player-customers who happen to be particularly passionate about the game—nothing special really.

Dr. Zola

Dr. Zola, those aren't my views, it's just what Kabam has said the data shows.
Is the forum "special"? It has to be "special" in Kabam's eyes, for them to engage so much with it despite it being negligible in the overall financial scheme.

And I don’t think you were saying that—that sentiment (or something close) was apparently expressed by the team recently.

Express arena via Sigil may be sufficient for a significant number of players. As someone who rarely grinds arena anymore, that feature doesn’t shift the calculus for me. Perhaps that comprises a large number of satisfied players?

Perhaps it’s like so many subscription products—with a high level of churn—that the team really doesn’t care if players keep it long-term as long as new buyers emerge?

Perhaps it’s just the icing on the cake of revenue flows the game already generates reliably?

I have zero inside information. My data point is a very simple one: it used to be attractive, it gradually became outdated, I was interested to see the changes, and now I don’t care about it beyond the month I paid for (to be able to swap T3a for T4a).

Dr. Zola

Its kinda funny, we are here criticizing a feature in game in a mobile game forum, while this guy is criticizing the people... And someohow the people criticizing the feature are in the wrong...

Am I missing something here?
Kabam decided to make a monthly recurring payment subscription feature that is better to buy intermittently? Let me explain, the only way to squeeze the most juice out of this new Sigil is if you have gathered everything to trade in the Black ISO store and manage to get the items within their reset timers. For example if you are at 50k 6* shards that trade for 1 7* crystal at 150k shards is worthless unless you manage to get 100k more within the month. And that goes for every single item that has better value in trade.

If you're thinking in terms of relative to the usual purchases, it's more value than the Star Lord Loot Bag for example.
Now, in terms of the 6* Featured leaving, I'm not sure why that was removed, or the Shard trade-in. That would make more sense to keep and just gate the 7* Crystals if the concern was choices. That much I'm not sure of.
I think the overall idea is to have some higher-end value that Players can save towards and some smaller value on an ongoing basis. Which this certainly achieves.
It's only 10 dollars USD a month, after all.

I am not thinking on unit value. I am comparing old sigil to this one. This is a monthly renewed subscription that is better to buy whenever you have the most items to trade and cancel when you don't. This is completely backwards.

I'm talking the total value. The previous Sigil didn't even have anything to appeal to Valiant besides the 7* Crystal and the usual building lower Items up.

This one doesn't have much either....

It has a Titan, an extra 7* to trade in for, and a T4A.

Yes, so it has crapshoots on a 1 month timer, except for the t4a that is the only certain item.
Would have made more sense to be able to buy everything in shards for instead of full crystal.

What do you expect? Access to a Titan and another 7* every month for $10?

So you just omit the part where it says access to shards instead of full crystals?
I mean you also say 1 titan and an extra 7* as if earning those was easy to buy together, its more of 1 or the other. And if you are talking about the trade you gotta have the 150k 6* shards to actually do the trade, They could have made it 10k 6* shards for 1k 7* shards.

Having Shards and a one-stop trade-off is counterintuitive to promoting a subscription. Of course people can cancel at any time, but I suspect they want to encourage people to maintain a subscription over time with the biggest Rewards being cumulative, rather than a few Shards here and there.

Counterintuitive, interesting. So it takes what to grab a Titan crystal? Like 9 months or so? I mean you get 75 credits if you do it by the webstore on renewal. 700 credits for a Titan crystal.
What you might call counterintuitive, actually has better value. I much rather top off the shards I already have in a monthly bases than wait a whole bunch of months looking at a store of things I can't buy yet. The sigil looks good right now cause we got the marks to spend. Next month it will be just a store of items you can't buy or trade until the 3rd month or so.

You do know how incentivizing works, don't you?

Actually, I'm going to have to side with Popcorn on this one. I'm fine with the price of the Titan, but I believe the devs erred in making the trades so "chunky." 700 credits for a Titan and, say, 150k 6* shards for a 7* shard are in my opinion reasonable costs, but there's the separate matter to consider about how frequently you can make that trade.

It shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter to a robot, but most humans would see more value from more engagement. A thing you can only do once per year is not a psychologically satisfying return for something you have to pay for every month. No one more than I constantly tries to remind people that the devs aren't about trying to sell as much stuff as possible, it is to sell as little as possible. But it is precisely because of this that they should try to make the things they sell as psychologically appealing as possible. 700 credits for a Titan is economically identical to 70 credits for 2000 Titan shards. But I suspect the latter would be perceived as having higher value, because a) you end up using the trade more often, providing engagement activity on a more frequent timescale, and b) there's the separate psychological impact of being able to "top off" your shards. 2000 shards is 2000 shards and on a spreadsheet 2000 shards is always worth 2000 shards, but the value to a player who has 18000 shards is far different than one who has 1800 shards.

Incentivizing is not just about value. It is about perceived value, and smaller trade options have more perceived value, because they are perceived to be more engaging (we just plain do them more often) and they offer more time sensitive use options (even if those average out in the end). The game must obey the economic realities of design balance, but it must also remember it is designed for humans to play, not economic androids.

This is really about agency. People value agency more than they value actual things. A smaller trade provides more agency - more things to ponder, more options to consider, more events to look forward to. And when you are trying to sell as little as possible, you have to wrap those things up in the best possible way. In my opinion, the Sigil doesn't do that in these cases.

I wasn't arguing against his suggestion. I was offering an explanation as to why I thought they went the direction they did. There are a few things that have been changed that I think is curious, and I have no objections to the current prices of Tokens or Shards, but I also said getting rid of the Shard exchange was somewhat negative. So I'm in agreement for the most part. I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between personal expectation and what the goal is, and I also made the point that for $10 a month, I don't expect a mind-blowing value.

I can't say the designer wasn't thinking in terms of lock in when they designed those trades: I haven't discussed it with whomever did the design and no basis upon which to speculate, but I'm still going to have to side with Popcorn that this is not something that's likely to work. You can try to force people to subscribe continuously for a year to get things of value, but I believe that is likely to backfire by reducing the perceived value of the subscription. You can't lock people in if they don't subscribe in the first place. I don't see the net incentivizing power of that design choice myself.

Well of course, it's a long time to wait for a payout, with 60 Credits upfront each month, and little to motivate between. I've felt lackluster myself, afrer the T4A and picking up the 7* SW I was ready for pre-revision. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I haven't begun to form my suggestions or thoughts on what's missing. I would agree with your point of view overall on the lack of drive. Even with the Test of the Valiant, that was something to look forward to each week. Now it's just a deposit each month and a waiting game.