Map 7, New Milestones, Rank Rewards, Glory Store Update, Reduced cost for Map 4 - 6 Discussion

1235710

Comments

  • DocJCDocJC Posts: 74
    “Extreme”
  • DiablosUltimateDiablosUltimate Posts: 1,021 ★★★
    edited February 2019
    Love reduced cost of maps, ascendancy buffs and glory prices drop, thank you
  • DocJC wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double.
    Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000.

    Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout.
    Somewhat yeah.

    But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct.
    77666 is less donos.
    77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs.
    77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold.
    And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold.

    Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced.



    I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts.

    At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion.
    While the loyalty costs to run 7x5 are beyond what an individual can earn in a week. I have to ask are you opening your war crystals? They contain a significant amount of loyalty which would make your loyalty rate artificially low.

    What are other loyalty expenditures you’ve had in the past?

    Should it be 7x5 and war boosts? Could it be 7x5 or war boosts? Or like all areas of the game (most games), if you want to do everything you’re going to need a lot of time or money.







    Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out.

    You've brought up some really good points today, and I want to tell you that we've already started discussing your concerns here. I don't have any more to add than that right now, but just wanted you to know that we're not ignoring you or your concerns, and are going to discuss this more after we look into some stuff.

    @Kabam Miike You guys said the same thing last time map costs were brought up. You still haven’t addressed the original reason why Map 6 costs were so high (which has since been eliminated).

    There is no reason Map 7 costs should be this exhorbitant.

    Like I pointed out earlier, if the Kabam team actually takes the time to see how much the cost per map translates to time, you will realize it is not close to reasonable.

    It’s about time Kabam actually does something that’s for the player base. You won’t reduce energy timers for whatever reason. You keep ramping up the difficulty for AW. Now you are raising map costs again with no discernible reasoning.

    If you want us all to just quit the game, you are doing a fantastic job of it because that’s where all these changes are leading to.

    This is not ok. Brian Grant May be way more diplomatic, but where has that gotten anyone in the community?

    After speaking with quite a few of the other leaders of the top 10-15 alliances, this is pretty much a common sentiment. Player burnout is at an all time high. Just today 3 alliances have broken up including the one that got #1 in gifting.

    If you continue to go down this path, you will reap what you sow.

    Sincerely,
    Doc JC
    Leader ISO8A

    PS - Pay attention to your player base before it’s too late.



    If you want better rewards, you must pay more. It's common sense
  • Haji_SaabHaji_Saab Posts: 5,308 ★★★★★
    Any high skilled requirement maps for people whose thumbs do not allow for arena grinding?
  • A_Noob_Is1A_Noob_Is1 Posts: 762 ★★
    These new node names are funny. lol
  • gohard123gohard123 Posts: 899 ★★★
    Just introduce a new loyalty source that doesn't require AW.
  • SiliyoSiliyo Posts: 715 ★★★
    Hey Kabam Miike (or any other member knowledgable in this), I was wondering if the AQ timers will remain at 3 minutes for Map 7? I know you tested that as well during the beta. Do you mind sharing thoughts on that?
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Posts: 929 ★★★★
    @Kabam Miike The global ascendancy nodes...will they follow a pattern like dungeons, where the same classes are always paired? Is there a possibility for stacking/mitigation with the lesser node? Could cosmic get the big boost and the little boost, or the the big boost, but have it reduced slightly by the other node?
  • Haji_Saab wrote: »
    danielmath wrote: »
    Siliyo wrote: »

    It is steep, but it is not a typo! Map 7 is meant to be High Risk, High Reward and a pretty big investment to run!

    That's the thing; it's not a big investment to alliances that buy "donation drops" from 3rd party players. If these "black market donations" aren't addressed then there will be no legitimate alliances placing highly in AQ anymore

    We are working to address this behaviour. I don't have any details right now, and can't share much on what we're doing anyways, but we haven't forgotten about that.


    Do you mean like this......

    jomq9a7sr0gr.jpeg
    dwblwwt9s6ex.jpeg

    You trying to tell me that someone from a G1 alliance was let into 4L0ki then left 6 minutes later!!! Or maybe a “black market donations”?

    How you have the gaul to point the finger at other alliances behaviour when you are doing the same thing is disgusting.

    @PandamanPete can you confirm this?

    Ya @PandamanPete we need confirmation!!!!!!!!

    They fixed a war with FNX in season 2 .. what do you expect?

    @Katzastrophe please post on reddit as this will be deleted when the mods wake up :smiley:

    1- panda was never in fnx or any of the allis that fnx people went to.
    2- that screenshot shows a player's alt acct, which was donating. Whether or not you think that's ok is up to you.. But it's not what people who post it are making it out to be. The funny part is they know that but they keep posting it because they know what people will think. Kind of a pathetic move imo, but stuff happens.
    3- there's not THAT many honest players at the top. I'm not in that alli, but it does suck to see people trying to bash an honest guy that's done nothing wrong. Basically, you're being played w the pic. Congrats!
  • V1PER1987V1PER1987 Posts: 3,474 ★★★★★
    TyEdge wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike The global ascendancy nodes...will they follow a pattern like dungeons, where the same classes are always paired? Is there a possibility for stacking/mitigation with the lesser node? Could cosmic get the big boost and the little boost, or the the big boost, but have it reduced slightly by the other node?

    I believe it’s based on class relationships. For example, if the big boost is cosmic, the lesser boost will be mystic, and the decrement will be tech. The lesser boost seems to be the advantage to the class of the big boost and the decrement seems to be the disadvantage to the big boost. But mods can confirm.
  • Lt_Magnum_1Lt_Magnum_1 Posts: 637 ★★
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double.
    Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000.

    Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout.
    Somewhat yeah.

    But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct.
    77666 is less donos.
    77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs.
    77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold.
    And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold.

    Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced.



    I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts.

    At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion.
    While the loyalty costs to run 7x5 are beyond what an individual can earn in a week. I have to ask are you opening your war crystals? They contain a significant amount of loyalty which would make your loyalty rate artificially low.

    What are other loyalty expenditures you’ve had in the past?

    Should it be 7x5 and war boosts? Could it be 7x5 or war boosts? Or like all areas of the game (most games), if you want to do everything you’re going to need a lot of time or money.







    Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out.

    You've brought up some really good points today, and I want to tell you that we've already started discussing your concerns here. I don't have any more to add than that right now, but just wanted you to know that we're not ignoring you or your concerns, and are going to discuss this more after we look into some stuff.

    I think with Map 7, the energy cap should increase to 10. AQ is supposed to be skill oriented but by increasing the cap it won't affect that aspect. It would likely reduce burnout by a lot of top alliance and reduce incentive for players to pilot.
  • V1PER1987 wrote: »
    TyEdge wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike The global ascendancy nodes...will they follow a pattern like dungeons, where the same classes are always paired? Is there a possibility for stacking/mitigation with the lesser node? Could cosmic get the big boost and the little boost, or the the big boost, but have it reduced slightly by the other node?

    I believe it’s based on class relationships. For example, if the big boost is cosmic, the lesser boost will be mystic, and the decrement will be tech. The lesser boost seems to be the advantage to the class of the big boost and the decrement seems to be the disadvantage to the big boost. But mods can confirm.

    @TyEdge ^^^ This is correct. It will always work along the Class wheel.
  • edited February 2019
    @Kabam DK One of the concerns during Map 7 Beta testing was the Omega Miniboss having a three-minute timer. Has Kabam decided to implement three-minute timers for all Map 7 nodes?

    We definitely heard this feedback, and made some minor adjustments to him to double down on the "bring a heal block Champion" strategy without making him harder (see notes in the original post). When looking at the average fight times on Omega Red, we found that while some characters risk timing out against him, others perform very well, and can down him in under 2 minutes. Map 7 is focused on encouraging alternative strategies and underused or forgotten Champions. A great option for Omega, for example, is Proxima Midnight.

    Long story short: we have maintained 3 minute timers in all but 4 fights in Map 7. Those 4 fights appear before the first Mini Boss and the FINAL Boss:

    x2cjhwf0bmzl.jpg

    These fights are using 15 minute timers because of the Nodes on them. Having said all that, we'll be closely monitoring the time it takes people to complete different fights.

    Small edit: those Nodes should NOT take you the full 15 minutes, but they will take longer than 3 minutes. The 15 minutes is just to make darn sure you have enough time.

  • OmniOmni Posts: 574 ★★★
    Changing the timer from 3 mins is a slippery slope...
  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,799 ★★★★★
    Kabam DK wrote: »

    We definitely heard this feedback, and made some minor adjustments to him to double down on the "bring a heal block Champion" strategy without making him harder (see notes in the original post). When looking at the average fight times on Omega Red, we found that while some characters risk timing out against him, others perform very well, and can down him in under 2 minutes. Map 7 is focused on encouraging alternative strategies and underused or forgotten Champions. A great option for Omega, for example, is Proxima Midnight.

    Long story short: we have maintained 3 minute timers in all but 4 fights in Map 7. Those 4 fights appear before the first Mini Boss and the FINAL Boss:

    x2cjhwf0bmzl.jpg

    These fights are using 15 minute timers because of the Nodes on them. Having said all that, we'll be closely monitoring the time it takes people to complete different fights.

    Small edit: those Nodes should NOT take you the full 15 minutes, but they will take longer than 3 minutes. The 15 minutes is just to make darn sure you have enough time.

    @Kabam DK Very cool you guys were receptive to Map 7 Beta testing feedback. On Day 5 that 2nd Omega Miniboss had some intense regeneration, as much as 8K+ per tick. Like you said, Proxima Midnight did quite well against Map 7's Omega miniboss:



  • BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 578 ★★★
    edited February 2019
    Easy way to stop donation dumps is make it so they have to be with the alliance 10 days before they can donate, that way if they want the bots resources they have to put up with him ruining their AW or AQ for a week or risk getting banned piloting him :D:D
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 6,779 ★★★★★
    Easy way to stop donation dumps is make it so they have to be with the alliance 10 days before they can donate, that way if they want the bots resources they have to put up with him ruining their AW or AQ for a week or risk getting banned piloting him :D:D

    That would also stop people from using legitimate alternate accounts to donate. Honestly though the real problem isn't black market donations. The problem is milestones that clearly expect alliances to run 6x5 and now map 7 and prohibitive map costs with no way to farm loyalty.
  • BrianGrant wrote: »
    I still think there are other changes that can be made outside of just increasing the cost though. Because if map 7 is tough enough to pull top alliances away from only considering AW for rank ups (it should be, and that's why map 7 is exciting), then we should be able to push our rosters in that direction without thinking, "Well, we can't afford the donations when we get there anyway." I think a lot of what you said here makes sense, but I also think the other game modes and systems do a lot to help with the issues you brought up.

    I don't think it is impossible, it just might be a bit difficult. However, I thought about this more yesterday and I have the germ of an idea that probably doesn't work as stated, but might be able to be sledgehammered into working with modifications and it doesn't require building a lot of new systems.

    Suppose that running Map 7 and completing it 100% earned an alliance a discount on Map 6. Say what? So here's how this would work. An alliance wants to start doing Map 7. The logical way to initially run Map 7 is on day one when it is the easiest. So you front the costs of Map 7 which are huge. But then if you complete it 100%, your next Map 6 costs way less. In that way, running 76666 means your first Map 6 will cost less, and the combination of running Map 7 and then Map 6 ends up costing less than it does now by some amount. It still costs more than running Map 6 twice, but not as much as it does now.

    If you have more resources, you can try running 77666. You would get two discounts on your first two Map 6 runs, in effect costing you the total of 7+6 twice, and then one more Map 6. Eventually you could move up to 77766, whereupon you are shouldering the burden of two sets of 7+6, and then one full cost Map 7. *Or* you could try to do 67766 which costs the same amount as 77666 but earns more points. Eventually you could do 66677 which also costs the same amount but earns more points (assuming the Map 6 "discount token" carries over into future weeks).

    Alliances could, depending on skill level, aim for later Map 7s (which are more difficult) or more Map 7s (which are more expensive). A high skill alliance might do 66677 while a lower skill alliance with more resources might do 77766. All of this is on the path to eventually doing 7x5, but in stages. And there's more than one linear path to get there.

    Is something like this workable?
  • BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 578 ★★★
    edited February 2019
    Easy way to stop donation dumps is make it so they have to be with the alliance 10 days before they can donate, that way if they want the bots resources they have to put up with him ruining their AW or AQ for a week or risk getting banned piloting him :D:D

    That would also stop people from using legitimate alternate accounts to donate. Honestly though the real problem isn't black market donations. The problem is milestones that clearly expect alliances to run 6x5 and now map 7 and prohibitive map costs with no way to farm loyalty.
    That’s not a bad thing, second accounts are not meant to feed a main account, it’s against the spirit of fair play, especially when a lot in top 20 have someone grinding their second account for them.
    They are all already buying dumps getting ready for map 7
  • Easy way to stop donation dumps is make it so they have to be with the alliance 10 days before they can donate, that way if they want the bots resources they have to put up with him ruining their AW or AQ for a week or risk getting banned piloting him :D:D

    That would also stop people from using legitimate alternate accounts to donate. Honestly though the real problem isn't black market donations. The problem is milestones that clearly expect alliances to run 6x5 and now map 7 and prohibitive map costs with no way to farm loyalty.

    The question isn't whether the account is legitimate, it is whether the game considers it reasonable for accounts other than the ones that are actually running the maps to be funding the maps in the general case. No game attempts to address every little corner case: Kabam has stated in many places that they consider it entirely fair for players with multiple accounts to do things like gift each other stuff. That's probably considered reasonable not because they believe that behavior is intrinsically and automatically fair, but rather because they see no evidence that freedom is being abused in a way that would force them to take action. Like most things in most games, its fair until its a problem.

    But it is never a valid thing to say that because a reward exists, the game encourages everyone to do everything possible to achieve it. My alliance is never going to finish Master 1 unless we cheat. Does that mean the game encourages us to cheat? Rhetorical question: it does not. You're supposed to accept that some costs aren't fundable and some rewards aren't achievable within reasonable play at a particular moment in time.

    Any *reasonable* game designer always designs their reward tables to extend *beyond* what is likely to be achievable at the time, because if you don't then your players could run into the end of the table, which you don't always want them to do. You want to give them something to work towards, and by definition something to work towards is something not achievable today.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 6,779 ★★★★★
    Easy way to stop donation dumps is make it so they have to be with the alliance 10 days before they can donate, that way if they want the bots resources they have to put up with him ruining their AW or AQ for a week or risk getting banned piloting him :D:D

    That would also stop people from using legitimate alternate accounts to donate. Honestly though the real problem isn't black market donations. The problem is milestones that clearly expect alliances to run 6x5 and now map 7 and prohibitive map costs with no way to farm loyalty.
    That’s not a bad thing, second accounts are not meant to feed a main account, it’s against the spirit of fair play, especially when a lot in top 20 have someone grinding their second account for them.
    They are all already buying dumps getting ready for map 7

    Obviously having someone else grind a second account for you is account sharing and against the rules. Maybe you can't stop donation dumps without also stopping legit alternate accounts from donating, but I don't see anything wrong with using an alt to donate to your main. You say that secondary accounts are not meant to feed a main account. According to what? That's not meant rhetorically and I'm not saying you are wrong, but simply saying that secondary accounts aren't meant to be used that way doesn't make it so. If I play two accounts and one is in an alliance that doesn't need donations, what's wrong with using that account to donate to my alliance that does need donations?
  • BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 578 ★★★
    edited February 2019
    They have to stop all donation dumps whether its from a legit second account or not.
    Donation dumping is not the same as gifting items from a second account which is a reasonable thing to do, because if you buy the badge its up to you who you gift to, but having the second account in the alliance for 5 minutes to dump all their resources (BC and Loyalty) is totally unfair play and even more unfair when its from the black market
  • BrianGrantBrianGrant Posts: 171
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    I still think there are other changes that can be made outside of just increasing the cost though. Because if map 7 is tough enough to pull top alliances away from only considering AW for rank ups (it should be, and that's why map 7 is exciting), then we should be able to push our rosters in that direction without thinking, "Well, we can't afford the donations when we get there anyway." I think a lot of what you said here makes sense, but I also think the other game modes and systems do a lot to help with the issues you brought up.

    I don't think it is impossible, it just might be a bit difficult. However, I thought about this more yesterday and I have the germ of an idea that probably doesn't work as stated, but might be able to be sledgehammered into working with modifications and it doesn't require building a lot of new systems.

    Suppose that running Map 7 and completing it 100% earned an alliance a discount on Map 6. Say what? So here's how this would work. An alliance wants to start doing Map 7. The logical way to initially run Map 7 is on day one when it is the easiest. So you front the costs of Map 7 which are huge. But then if you complete it 100%, your next Map 6 costs way less. In that way, running 76666 means your first Map 6 will cost less, and the combination of running Map 7 and then Map 6 ends up costing less than it does now by some amount. It still costs more than running Map 6 twice, but not as much as it does now.

    If you have more resources, you can try running 77666. You would get two discounts on your first two Map 6 runs, in effect costing you the total of 7+6 twice, and then one more Map 6. Eventually you could move up to 77766, whereupon you are shouldering the burden of two sets of 7+6, and then one full cost Map 7. *Or* you could try to do 67766 which costs the same amount as 77666 but earns more points. Eventually you could do 66677 which also costs the same amount but earns more points (assuming the Map 6 "discount token" carries over into future weeks).

    Alliances could, depending on skill level, aim for later Map 7s (which are more difficult) or more Map 7s (which are more expensive). A high skill alliance might do 66677 while a lower skill alliance with more resources might do 77766. All of this is on the path to eventually doing 7x5, but in stages. And there's more than one linear path to get there.

    Is something like this workable?

    Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way as it's always a little more difficult to sound respectful over text, but I think there may be a more elegant solution to the problem. I don't have the answer myself, but honestly I still don't think alliances running 7x5 is a problem. AQ is only one area of the game. I think it's fine to allow a group of dedicated individuals to conquer 7x5 just like it's fine for players to conquer any other area of the game. Beating 7x5 doesn't end the game for that group. But I want 7x5 conquered because players strategized together, honed their skills, sacrificed AW rank ups, and sacrificed bringing their A team to a season war because they needed it for Map 7. All of these things (and more) already have big costs associated with them. High time investment and important decision making are still very much so intact without making the donations as steep as they are.
  • BrianGrant wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    I still think there are other changes that can be made outside of just increasing the cost though. Because if map 7 is tough enough to pull top alliances away from only considering AW for rank ups (it should be, and that's why map 7 is exciting), then we should be able to push our rosters in that direction without thinking, "Well, we can't afford the donations when we get there anyway." I think a lot of what you said here makes sense, but I also think the other game modes and systems do a lot to help with the issues you brought up.

    I don't think it is impossible, it just might be a bit difficult. However, I thought about this more yesterday and I have the germ of an idea that probably doesn't work as stated, but might be able to be sledgehammered into working with modifications and it doesn't require building a lot of new systems.

    Suppose that running Map 7 and completing it 100% earned an alliance a discount on Map 6. Say what? So here's how this would work. An alliance wants to start doing Map 7. The logical way to initially run Map 7 is on day one when it is the easiest. So you front the costs of Map 7 which are huge. But then if you complete it 100%, your next Map 6 costs way less. In that way, running 76666 means your first Map 6 will cost less, and the combination of running Map 7 and then Map 6 ends up costing less than it does now by some amount. It still costs more than running Map 6 twice, but not as much as it does now.

    If you have more resources, you can try running 77666. You would get two discounts on your first two Map 6 runs, in effect costing you the total of 7+6 twice, and then one more Map 6. Eventually you could move up to 77766, whereupon you are shouldering the burden of two sets of 7+6, and then one full cost Map 7. *Or* you could try to do 67766 which costs the same amount as 77666 but earns more points. Eventually you could do 66677 which also costs the same amount but earns more points (assuming the Map 6 "discount token" carries over into future weeks).

    Alliances could, depending on skill level, aim for later Map 7s (which are more difficult) or more Map 7s (which are more expensive). A high skill alliance might do 66677 while a lower skill alliance with more resources might do 77766. All of this is on the path to eventually doing 7x5, but in stages. And there's more than one linear path to get there.

    Is something like this workable?

    Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way as it's always a little more difficult to sound respectful over text, but I think there may be a more elegant solution to the problem. I don't have the answer myself, but honestly I still don't think alliances running 7x5 is a problem. AQ is only one area of the game. I think it's fine to allow a group of dedicated individuals to conquer 7x5 just like it's fine for players to conquer any other area of the game. Beating 7x5 doesn't end the game for that group. But I want 7x5 conquered because players strategized together, honed their skills, sacrificed AW rank ups, and sacrificed bringing their A team to a season war because they needed it for Map 7. All of these things (and more) already have big costs associated with them. High time investment and important decision making are still very much so intact without making the donations as steep as they are.

    The simplest solution to any problem is to decide there's no need to solve the problem. If Kabam decides to toss the progressional management handbook out the window, this becomes trivial to solve. Just make the costs smaller the end.

    I'm unaware of any successful attempt by anyone to convince Kabam to do this, but I suppose there's always a first time.
  • OmniOmni Posts: 574 ★★★
    edited February 2019
    get out of here bg. You want your cake and to eat it too. You and your alliance are confident you can run both masters (even without an a team 1 or 2 wars a week ) and 7x5 but don’t want to pay the premium.

    Hell you only use 2 top attackers as it is for your path and could sometimes just use 1...

    There are only a handful of alliances that could do it and yours is one of them.

    Kabam are making it so a broader base can compete, they will just have to make a sacrifice for the time being.
  • DocJCDocJC Posts: 74
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    I still think there are other changes that can be made outside of just increasing the cost though. Because if map 7 is tough enough to pull top alliances away from only considering AW for rank ups (it should be, and that's why map 7 is exciting), then we should be able to push our rosters in that direction without thinking, "Well, we can't afford the donations when we get there anyway." I think a lot of what you said here makes sense, but I also think the other game modes and systems do a lot to help with the issues you brought up.

    I don't think it is impossible, it just might be a bit difficult. However, I thought about this more yesterday and I have the germ of an idea that probably doesn't work as stated, but might be able to be sledgehammered into working with modifications and it doesn't require building a lot of new systems.

    Suppose that running Map 7 and completing it 100% earned an alliance a discount on Map 6. Say what? So here's how this would work. An alliance wants to start doing Map 7. The logical way to initially run Map 7 is on day one when it is the easiest. So you front the costs of Map 7 which are huge. But then if you complete it 100%, your next Map 6 costs way less. In that way, running 76666 means your first Map 6 will cost less, and the combination of running Map 7 and then Map 6 ends up costing less than it does now by some amount. It still costs more than running Map 6 twice, but not as much as it does now.

    If you have more resources, you can try running 77666. You would get two discounts on your first two Map 6 runs, in effect costing you the total of 7+6 twice, and then one more Map 6. Eventually you could move up to 77766, whereupon you are shouldering the burden of two sets of 7+6, and then one full cost Map 7. *Or* you could try to do 67766 which costs the same amount as 77666 but earns more points. Eventually you could do 66677 which also costs the same amount but earns more points (assuming the Map 6 "discount token" carries over into future weeks).

    Alliances could, depending on skill level, aim for later Map 7s (which are more difficult) or more Map 7s (which are more expensive). A high skill alliance might do 66677 while a lower skill alliance with more resources might do 77766. All of this is on the path to eventually doing 7x5, but in stages. And there's more than one linear path to get there.

    Is something like this workable?

    Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way as it's always a little more difficult to sound respectful over text, but I think there may be a more elegant solution to the problem. I don't have the answer myself, but honestly I still don't think alliances running 7x5 is a problem. AQ is only one area of the game. I think it's fine to allow a group of dedicated individuals to conquer 7x5 just like it's fine for players to conquer any other area of the game. Beating 7x5 doesn't end the game for that group. But I want 7x5 conquered because players strategized together, honed their skills, sacrificed AW rank ups, and sacrificed bringing their A team to a season war because they needed it for Map 7. All of these things (and more) already have big costs associated with them. High time investment and important decision making are still very much so intact without making the donations as steep as they are.

    The simplest solution to any problem is to decide there's no need to solve the problem. If Kabam decides to toss the progressional management handbook out the window, this becomes trivial to solve. Just make the costs smaller the end.

    I'm unaware of any successful attempt by anyone to convince Kabam to do this, but I suppose there's always a first time.

    The only time anything concrete has ever been resolved is when mass social media has put pressure on Kabam to solve an issue or not make a change.

    AW has already broken many of the top alliances this week. Just wait till map 7 comes out with the associated increased cost and minimal increase in rewards.
Sign In or Register to comment.