AW Offseason and the AW Burnout Issue

1234689

Comments

  • Grandpajb50Grandpajb50 Posts: 8
    I’ve seen very low participation during holidays such as Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, and Easter.

    I’d prefer Seasons work around these and similar events.
  • project314project314 Posts: 66
    If season 7 needed to end by a specific date, you could have simply made the season itself shorter and kept the off-season 2 weeks...

    I remember the special event quest that introduced Loki, it was a much shorter duration than our regular monthlies. Just adapt the season rewards in consequence.

    And it's not a player preference so much as a player need for some downtime. And I know not everyone feels like a break is required, but there are a lot of players who feel it is.
  • WayntosWayntos Posts: 283
    A longer break is need especially with the events that are coming up and you have 13 champs locked into AQ and AW and trying to do the events it takes its toll.... the struggle is real! As said before by someone we are tied to the game after all its a free game right. Right?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,897 Guardian
    My suggestion to make war more enjoyable and less stressful would be simple. Make it similar to AQ. Every week include milestones for points earned that provide war crystals/other rewards and give rank rewards based on your point total. The points will be reset every week. It gives alliances the choice week to week to decide how much resources they should put into AW. Also, seasons put a psychological strain on alliances. Get rid of titles and advertised tiers. If god forbid an alliance drops down to gold 1, the alliance can't recruit anyone of value. People leave after the season is over causing chaos to replace quality members before the next season. This system would put an end to that.

    For all its faults I see zero point to making AW more like AQ. We already have AQ. The whole point of AW is to provide content to the players that want more direct and stronger competition. That doesn't mean the setting of that competition is perfect or couldn't be improved, but eliminating direct competition - which includes by necessity competition pressure - as the primary design motivation for *all* aspects of AW is.

    It is pointless to have a pale shadow of competition in AW. Either we accept that the whole point to AW is that competitive pressure - which does NOT mean that the current system implements that competitive pressure in the best possible way for the game - or we be honest and say that the players that want it don't get to have it, because the cost it extracts on everyone else is too high to let them have it.

    That's honest game design. You are never going to please everyone, and it is silly and futile to pretend otherwise. You say you feel it is a good idea to provide that style of gameplay to the segment of the playerbase that wants it, and you expect that those who do not enjoy it as much are capable of managing their gameplay appropriately, or you say the players that want it are not a priority for you to address with suitable content.

    Fact is, either you narrowcase your content targeting all of it at one narrow slice of all players, or you try to give something for everyone even if much of it isn't appealing to most of them. Personally, dungeons aren't my thing: I rarely participate in them. But that's not because I think they are intrinsically bad, they are just problematic for me personally. I would never advocate changing them to be specifically to my liking just because I don't play them much, nor do I think it is wrong for the game to include things that might not be my cup of tea. If I liked everything, that would imply to me the game was casting too narrow a net.

    Whether the breaks should be longer or shorter doesn't intrinsically change the fundamental nature of AW competition. You can want that competition and still want longer breaks or even no breaks. But the solution to problems within the competition can NEVER be to eliminate that competition, while simultaneously claiming that it makes alliance war "better." Eliminating the focus on direct competition and competitive pressure doesn't make it better, it replaces it with something completely different. You might as well simply eliminate Alliance War. And if you do, have the guts to tell the players that like alliance war that they don't matter, that what they want they can't have, not even in just one segment of the game, because it makes other players sad.
  • RixobRixob Posts: 505 ★★
    I think they messed this up. like why is AQ still going on? We got a lot of ppl in limbo right now and a lot of people who are in alliances they plan on leaving because of AQ. this really sucks.
  • rwhackrwhack Posts: 915 ★★★
    Longer break is flat better. I assume AQ is changing and AW will be secondary. The short break makes it a pain especially after the Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve AW.

    Every season brings retirement and guys wanting a break. They need to be replaced. One week isn’t enough time nor does it allow us to practice other lanes.

    Love the fact that no one from HQ has chimed in.

    I give this a day until a boycott thread shows LOL
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 2,070 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    My suggestion to make war more enjoyable and less stressful would be simple. Make it similar to AQ. Every week include milestones for points earned that provide war crystals/other rewards and give rank rewards based on your point total. The points will be reset every week. It gives alliances the choice week to week to decide how much resources they should put into AW. Also, seasons put a psychological strain on alliances. Get rid of titles and advertised tiers. If god forbid an alliance drops down to gold 1, the alliance can't recruit anyone of value. People leave after the season is over causing chaos to replace quality members before the next season. This system would put an end to that.

    For all its faults I see zero point to making AW more like AQ. We already have AQ. The whole point of AW is to provide content to the players that want more direct and stronger competition. That doesn't mean the setting of that competition is perfect or couldn't be improved, but eliminating direct competition - which includes by necessity competition pressure - as the primary design motivation for *all* aspects of AW is.

    It is pointless to have a pale shadow of competition in AW. Either we accept that the whole point to AW is that competitive pressure - which does NOT mean that the current system implements that competitive pressure in the best possible way for the game - or we be honest and say that the players that want it don't get to have it, because the cost it extracts on everyone else is too high to let them have it.

    That's honest game design. You are never going to please everyone, and it is silly and futile to pretend otherwise. You say you feel it is a good idea to provide that style of gameplay to the segment of the playerbase that wants it, and you expect that those who do not enjoy it as much are capable of managing their gameplay appropriately, or you say the players that want it are not a priority for you to address with suitable content.

    Fact is, either you narrowcase your content targeting all of it at one narrow slice of all players, or you try to give something for everyone even if much of it isn't appealing to most of them. Personally, dungeons aren't my thing: I rarely participate in them. But that's not because I think they are intrinsically bad, they are just problematic for me personally. I would never advocate changing them to be specifically to my liking just because I don't play them much, nor do I think it is wrong for the game to include things that might not be my cup of tea. If I liked everything, that would imply to me the game was casting too narrow a net.

    Whether the breaks should be longer or shorter doesn't intrinsically change the fundamental nature of AW competition. You can want that competition and still want longer breaks or even no breaks. But the solution to problems within the competition can NEVER be to eliminate that competition, while simultaneously claiming that it makes alliance war "better." Eliminating the focus on direct competition and competitive pressure doesn't make it better, it replaces it with something completely different. You might as well simply eliminate Alliance War. And if you do, have the guts to tell the players that like alliance war that they don't matter, that what they want they can't have, not even in just one segment of the game, because it makes other players sad.

    Making seasons shorter wouldn't take the competition out of the game. It would greatly lessen the pressure for many people while still allowing those looking to push competition to do so.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,897 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    My suggestion to make war more enjoyable and less stressful would be simple. Make it similar to AQ. Every week include milestones for points earned that provide war crystals/other rewards and give rank rewards based on your point total. The points will be reset every week. It gives alliances the choice week to week to decide how much resources they should put into AW. Also, seasons put a psychological strain on alliances. Get rid of titles and advertised tiers. If god forbid an alliance drops down to gold 1, the alliance can't recruit anyone of value. People leave after the season is over causing chaos to replace quality members before the next season. This system would put an end to that.

    For all its faults I see zero point to making AW more like AQ. We already have AQ. The whole point of AW is to provide content to the players that want more direct and stronger competition. That doesn't mean the setting of that competition is perfect or couldn't be improved, but eliminating direct competition - which includes by necessity competition pressure - as the primary design motivation for *all* aspects of AW is.

    It is pointless to have a pale shadow of competition in AW. Either we accept that the whole point to AW is that competitive pressure - which does NOT mean that the current system implements that competitive pressure in the best possible way for the game - or we be honest and say that the players that want it don't get to have it, because the cost it extracts on everyone else is too high to let them have it.

    That's honest game design. You are never going to please everyone, and it is silly and futile to pretend otherwise. You say you feel it is a good idea to provide that style of gameplay to the segment of the playerbase that wants it, and you expect that those who do not enjoy it as much are capable of managing their gameplay appropriately, or you say the players that want it are not a priority for you to address with suitable content.

    Fact is, either you narrowcase your content targeting all of it at one narrow slice of all players, or you try to give something for everyone even if much of it isn't appealing to most of them. Personally, dungeons aren't my thing: I rarely participate in them. But that's not because I think they are intrinsically bad, they are just problematic for me personally. I would never advocate changing them to be specifically to my liking just because I don't play them much, nor do I think it is wrong for the game to include things that might not be my cup of tea. If I liked everything, that would imply to me the game was casting too narrow a net.

    Whether the breaks should be longer or shorter doesn't intrinsically change the fundamental nature of AW competition. You can want that competition and still want longer breaks or even no breaks. But the solution to problems within the competition can NEVER be to eliminate that competition, while simultaneously claiming that it makes alliance war "better." Eliminating the focus on direct competition and competitive pressure doesn't make it better, it replaces it with something completely different. You might as well simply eliminate Alliance War. And if you do, have the guts to tell the players that like alliance war that they don't matter, that what they want they can't have, not even in just one segment of the game, because it makes other players sad.

    Making seasons shorter wouldn't take the competition out of the game.

    Thanks for agreeing? I guess?
  • ArcDeAngelusArcDeAngelus Posts: 205
    The obvious point some people seem to be missing - You don't have to compete in seasons. If the one week break isn't enough this season then go easy or don't compete at all, you don't have to push every time. The rewards are pretty good but not so great that missing out on them once is going to leave you stranded.

    That's great in theory. The reality is that deciding to not run the season would cause many alliances to have even more turnover or break up entirely as many would go to alliances that were running the season.

    That just sounds like you're refusing to accept your limitations. Either play or pay more to keep up, or accept where you are in the game and adjust accordingly. There are plenty of alliances out there with great people who go at all different paces.
  • NiteAndDaeNiteAndDae Posts: 588 ★★★
    What about shortening war season to 3 weeks? Then we can have a week off and it will fit nicely inside a month to coordinate with other content releases that are also usually monthly.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,897 Guardian
    NiteAndDae wrote: »
    What about shortening war season to 3 weeks? Then we can have a week off and it will fit nicely inside a month to coordinate with other content releases that are also usually monthly.

    That would come with a proportional decrease in rewards, just as the prior shortening of the season did. I'm sure that would cause a major uproar.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 8,897 Guardian
    Well here's the thing, now that we many have voiced their desire for a longer break, the data needs to back that up. One way would be to encourage your alliance to not partake in the first of week of AW and give yourselves a break. If the data doesn't show that players need to take a break, then Kabam has little to go on when it comes to actually giving the player base a break.

    I'm not sure what Kabam should specifically look for in the data that would demonstrate that burnout was something that needed to be addressed. You can't just focus on individual alliances, taking note of when they disband or stop participating, say, because there are lots of potential reasons for that which aren't necessarily the fault of the game design. But if you look at too broad of a statistical view the problem could be completely obscured. Consider that burnout is likely to be much more prevalent among alliances currently in the higher brackets - Gold 1 and higher, say, and certainly Gold and higher. But they represent only a small percentage of all alliances, maybe 10%. If a percentage of them burn out, that's a very small percentage of all players. And it is difficult to see that a larger percentage of high bracket alliances are burning out because the brackets are mandatorilly filled with rankings. In other words, whether the burn out rate is 2% or 20% or even 90% among the high bracket alliances, next season there will still be exactly 1500 alliances gold or higher. There will always be 1500 alliances gold or higher. There will always be 20 master alliances, even if all the "current" master alliances literally quit cold turkey tomorrow.

    To put it another way, we might participate more or less but unless the change is catastrophically large (which is very unlikely) Kabam will be handing out the same amount of rewards to the same amount of alliances next season. That can hide any damage that burn out is causing. Even season by season comparisons would have to be very clever to quantify the problem in statistical and not anecdotal terms.

    I've always been skeptical about datamining these kinds of things, not because I think datamining gives the wrong answers but rather because I don't often see game developers using it correctly. I don't trust anecdotes either, but anecdotes might be the best insight we currently have into the problem. Not necessarily good insight, just the best available.
  • Just adding our voice to the choir. 1 week break isn't sufficient. We are gold 1 and wouldn't want to go any higher than that. Not with the current state of AW. Too much stress and BS without enough reward. But, we do it for gold 1 so that it can be more forgiving and less stress. The break is needed to recharge, regroup, and recruit. 1 week doesn't cut it, plain and simple.....
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    There is absolutely no logical reason given as to why we need a shorter down time this off-season. Weigh the lack of benefit against the cost to your player base and the decision is obvious.

    AW rewards are getting less and less valuable every seasom FYI. You can't keep pushing the player base forever :)
  • unknownunknown Posts: 378
    Still no response from kabam?
  • JR_SlanderJR_Slander Posts: 6
    edited January 4
    I completely agree. As a leader/officer it is next to impossible to keep my alliance motivated without a break. Theyre all sick of the pressure and the spending necessary to compete. Please just give us an extra week at the very least. The game has been great lately. There's a lot of new content. We just played all the way through the holidays. We need the down time to keep players interested.
  • AkslavelaborAkslavelabor Posts: 2
    This makes me reconsider leaving my Alliance. Mcoc is no longer fun and just a second job right now. Plz go back to 2 week breask between Seasons
  • caligarelinquocaligarelinquo Posts: 212
    The feeling is mutual and the burnout is real.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 3,783 ★★★★★
    Simple solution is just to accept the fact that deaths are inevitable and there’s no need to 100% every map as long as the boss goes down.

    So much self inflicted agony for rewards. What’s the use of getting rewards when you burn out and quit shortly?
  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 840 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Well here's the thing, now that we many have voiced their desire for a longer break, the data needs to back that up. One way would be to encourage your alliance to not partake in the first of week of AW and give yourselves a break. If the data doesn't show that players need to take a break, then Kabam has little to go on when it comes to actually giving the player base a break.

    I'm not sure what Kabam should specifically look for in the data that would demonstrate that burnout was something that needed to be addressed. You can't just focus on individual alliances, taking note of when they disband or stop participating, say, because there are lots of potential reasons for that which aren't necessarily the fault of the game design. But if you look at too broad of a statistical view the problem could be completely obscured. Consider that burnout is likely to be much more prevalent among alliances currently in the higher brackets - Gold 1 and higher, say, and certainly Gold and higher. But they represent only a small percentage of all alliances, maybe 10%. If a percentage of them burn out, that's a very small percentage of all players. And it is difficult to see that a larger percentage of high bracket alliances are burning out because the brackets are mandatorilly filled with rankings. In other words, whether the burn out rate is 2% or 20% or even 90% among the high bracket alliances, next season there will still be exactly 1500 alliances gold or higher. There will always be 1500 alliances gold or higher. There will always be 20 master alliances, even if all the "current" master alliances literally quit cold turkey tomorrow.

    To put it another way, we might participate more or less but unless the change is catastrophically large (which is very unlikely) Kabam will be handing out the same amount of rewards to the same amount of alliances next season. That can hide any damage that burn out is causing. Even season by season comparisons would have to be very clever to quantify the problem in statistical and not anecdotal terms.

    I've always been skeptical about datamining these kinds of things, not because I think datamining gives the wrong answers but rather because I don't often see game developers using it correctly. I don't trust anecdotes either, but anecdotes might be the best insight we currently have into the problem. Not necessarily good insight, just the best available.

    Well we have given them the feedback, if the data shows a drop off in play and drop off in item use, drop off in logins ect it sends the message they have "missed the mark" and will be more likely to take suggestions more seriously.

    Keep in mind one of the ratings for how popular a game is in their respective stores is the login count. How many times a day a person logs in contributes to the popularity ratings of a game.

    A drop off in the number of alliances match making will show in the data fewer alliances are doing aw especially if there's not a matching drop off in AQ.



  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 840 ★★★
    @mostlyharmlessn - that's nice in theory. But here's the reality. It's simply not gonna happen. No one wants to go into the season 1 week behind points wise. You skip even 1 war, you might as well skip the whole of it because you just shot yourself in the foot points wise.

    No one wants to, but the reality is if the points and rewards really mean that much then it really doesn't matter what Kabam does.

    Taking part is simply condoning what they are doing.
  • RO53TT1RO53TT1 Posts: 171
    My alliance is not a hugely competitive alliance but I hate alliance wars, I avoid them when at all possible but the first couple of aw seasons we tried to get in the mix, but starting it after only 1 week is just crazy, kabam u realize we still have lives, families, responsibilities that we have to take care of, as much as you'd like it the game is not our lives, for most of us, I think a 2 week break isn't even enough, I say take a month break from wars, between seasons, if kabam was creative and thought this thru they could schedule new different content in the month off and we'd have the time to play and enjoy the new content, but instead u want us to do alliance quests, dungeons, the monthly quest, side quests, possible act 4 or 5, realm of Legends, labrynth of Legends and alliance wars, plus grinding in arenas and grinding catalysts for ranking up champions and trying to come up with gold, for some of us that's still a problem. I'd love to check out the dungeons, don't have time, still haven't finished act 4, don't have time, still trying to get uncollected, DON'T HAVE TIME!!! KABAM IF U WANNA KEEP UR SUMMONER, GIVE US THE BREAKS WE NEED.
  • RO53TT1RO53TT1 Posts: 171
    Also u give us something great like the the 2* arena to get 5* shards, which is a grind, but we appreciate that, but then u always turn around with a backhand slap like announcing only 1 week between seasons, it seems like it's the gang that can't shoot strait at the offices of kabam, does 1 floor not speak to the other floor, just curious.
Sign In or Register to comment.