**KNOWN ISSUE WITH iPAD & POTENTIAL EPILEPSY WARNING**
We are aware of an issue where Summoners on iPads experience a freeze on loading screens when trying to enter a fight as well as potentially rapid flashing lights.
More information here.

Alliance Tickets [Merged Threads]

18911131423

Comments

  • Aomine_Daiki10Aomine_Daiki10 Member Posts: 1,643 ★★★★★
    Make all maps free or ticket value should not scale with one resource. Paying in-game currency, resources or money to enter AQ content doesn't make much sense to me. The resources you ask for are the same resources needed everyday to progress in the game. This is a content we have been playing for years not an exclusive content, we should not be paying for it.
  • Aomine_Daiki10Aomine_Daiki10 Member Posts: 1,643 ★★★★★
    I get that the game is is work for you guys but it should not be the same for players. You guys generate revenue from this game players only enjoy the fun out of the game we are not getting paid for heavens sake.
  • slackerslacker Member Posts: 775 ★★★★
    Just make ticket sellable so people who don't run map 5 only could get back their resource. Problem solve.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    I am still of the opinion that yes they should just remove the map requirements period at this point. As you all know I don't usually side with Kabam but I don't like when others don't resource management properly and you have to have members carry the weight for them every week. I've never liked it and this solves that issue.

    I play all map 7 but my other two bgs play majority map 6. All the tension went away when we made everyone play at least one day of map 7. Those map 5 guys should step up and play a day of map 6 if they truly want to make it work, or map 6 guys who play with map 7 players.


  • NCB_ptNCB_pt Member Posts: 291

    Kabam said that the change was to penalize resource loaders.

    But that's probably just a partial truth. What they wanted to do at the same time was to stop the entire practice of alliance members trading donations. So maybe i do lots of arena and have lots of gold, but don't do war and have minimal loyalty. Previously, this is easily accommodated by finding someone else with loyalty but no gold to trade. Now, everyone is forced to participate in every single game mode.

    If you want to substitute loyalty with gold for example, you can still do it, but with ever increasing cost.

    Make no mistake. This change is aimed at penalizing the entire player base, and not just resource loaders. I have to accept whatever change you want to make as the game developer, but just call a spade a spade.

    Yha good point of view, I forgot that.
    There are some players that really donated more with free will for others with less resources, mainly Battle Chips. Well, seems that all have to start playing arena now if don't want stay behind 😅
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Member Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    Hieitaku said:

    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?

    4. This a the beta test. If the solution is not found they revert.
  • Aomine_Daiki10Aomine_Daiki10 Member Posts: 1,643 ★★★★★

    Kabam said that the change was to penalize resource loaders.

    But that's probably just a partial truth. What they wanted to do at the same time was to stop the entire practice of alliance members trading donations. So maybe i do lots of arena and have lots of gold, but don't do war and have minimal loyalty. Previously, this is easily accommodated by finding someone else with loyalty but no gold to trade. Now, everyone is forced to participate in every single game mode.

    If you want to substitute loyalty with gold for example, you can still do it, but with ever increasing cost.

    Make no mistake. This change is aimed at penalizing the entire player base, and not just resource loaders. I have to accept whatever change you want to make as the game developer, but just call a spade a spade.

    Very true
  • World EaterWorld Eater Member Posts: 3,711 ★★★★★
    Just read “what happens to the alliance treasury”.

    Our alliance just lots a ton of battlechips and loyalty because if this purge. Just because we haven’t run map6 for the last 5-6 months doesn’t mean that we should lose all those resources that we built up over FIVE YEARS, You create an in game bank and after five years, you delete the bank with no notice? Disgraceful.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Member Posts: 186 ★★
    @Kabam Miike
    One of the key attributes of a successful alliance is collaboration. This ill conceived way to combat resource loaders punishes everyone and will make true collaboration challenging as it will create tiers within an alliance.

    1) alliance members routinely trade donations based on what they do (arena, gold, etc). Alliances can collaborate to meet the collective needs. In this new ticket system, you intentionally punish one dimensional donations by scaling. Why is this necessary? Before we could pool to meet resource requirements, now it’s all individual.

    2) multi map AQ alliances will be a thing of the past. How on earth do you think it’s fair that if you run 6/5/5 or 7/6/6 that the higher tier map players have to pay more, do harder content and use more resources during the quest but everyone gets the same rewards? You thought this through and decided that this is a good idea?

    3) today it’s clear If someone hasn’t donated and I can track them down before quest starts. I know before the quest starts that we will be able to run it. In this new system, I now need to track down each member to ensure they have their tickets. If some don’t and others join the map, it creates another problem.

    Do you want alliances to collaborate or not? There have been a lot of good alternative suggestions here in this post but you can’t go live with a system where players that contribute more pay more and get the same rewards as those that aren’t quite at that level yet. I also don’t think you should give higher rewards to the higher map players within an ally doing multi tier maps. That’s the point of working as a team. But they also shouldn’t pay more either, that’s ludicrous.

    You could get the ticket system to work but everyone should be allowed to contribute tickets to a “pool” so that everyone is contributing.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Member Posts: 186 ★★
    Crine60 said:

    Please don't use the multi map Alliance issue as an excuse to take away the shared rewards that you get from the maps that the whole Alliance runs overall. This is one of the only ways that stronger alliances can help their weaker members advance to be able to contribute on a more equal level. Allowing people who run lower maps to get the higher map crystals that the other members of the alliance run the map for is a very beneficial thing that should not be changed.

    Fully agree, that’s the whole point of working together and collaborating. With the system they have proposed, how many map 6 players are going to stick in an alliance also running map 5 where they have to pay more? Alliances will split. Tiered rewards within the alliance isn’t a good option as you mention. They need to find a way for everyone to “pay” though, or it will never work.
  • nolcuNnolcuN Member Posts: 159 ★★
    edited May 2020
    Where is our alliance treasury? Did you just stole all of our hard earned ressources? Just shutting it down is ridicolous. Anything in there belongs to the alliance members. Everything else is straight theft. It should be paid out to all members in equal shares.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Member Posts: 8,672 ★★★★★

    Crine60 said:

    Please don't use the multi map Alliance issue as an excuse to take away the shared rewards that you get from the maps that the whole Alliance runs overall. This is one of the only ways that stronger alliances can help their weaker members advance to be able to contribute on a more equal level. Allowing people who run lower maps to get the higher map crystals that the other members of the alliance run the map for is a very beneficial thing that should not be changed.

    Fully agree, that’s the whole point of working together and collaborating. With the system they have proposed, how many map 6 players are going to stick in an alliance also running map 5 where they have to pay more? Alliances will split. Tiered rewards within the alliance isn’t a good option as you mention. They need to find a way for everyone to “pay” though, or it will never work.
    That's why I like the solution I posted above. They won't do a "pool" like the treasury because that won't stop resource dumps. They can keep the system exactly as it is, just allow us to apply the cost equally to all three groups. Instead of charging 15/0/0 for 655, it should cost all three groups 5 tickets. It doesn't even have to be optional. If you plug in 666, it's 15 tickets for everyone. If you plug in 656, the entry cost is automatically ten tickets for everyone regardless of what group you join. 765 automatically charges 15 tickets for entry into any group. Everyone gets the same rewards, every pays the same amount. Maybe there is a flaw but I can't see one.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Member Posts: 186 ★★

    Crine60 said:

    Please don't use the multi map Alliance issue as an excuse to take away the shared rewards that you get from the maps that the whole Alliance runs overall. This is one of the only ways that stronger alliances can help their weaker members advance to be able to contribute on a more equal level. Allowing people who run lower maps to get the higher map crystals that the other members of the alliance run the map for is a very beneficial thing that should not be changed.

    Fully agree, that’s the whole point of working together and collaborating. With the system they have proposed, how many map 6 players are going to stick in an alliance also running map 5 where they have to pay more? Alliances will split. Tiered rewards within the alliance isn’t a good option as you mention. They need to find a way for everyone to “pay” though, or it will never work.
    That's why I like the solution I posted above. They won't do a "pool" like the treasury because that won't stop resource dumps. They can keep the system exactly as it is, just allow us to apply the cost equally to all three groups. Instead of charging 15/0/0 for 655, it should cost all three groups 5 tickets. It doesn't even have to be optional. If you plug in 666, it's 15 tickets for everyone. If you plug in 656, the entry cost is automatically ten tickets for everyone regardless of what group you join. 765 automatically charges 15 tickets for entry into any group. Everyone gets the same rewards, every pays the same amount. Maybe there is a flaw but I can't see one.
    I like this solution. Fair, reasonable and everyone contributes. And simple! Very good suggestion.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Member Posts: 186 ★★
    @Kabam Miike please look at the post from @LeNoirFaineant .... it’s a simple and fair solution. You should seriously consider this approach. @LeNoirFaineant great suggestion, love it!
  • DukeZmanDukeZman Member Posts: 628 ★★★
    Hieitaku said:

    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?

    Here's why, i promise you, they didn't announce this ahead of time and instead just immediately locked donations: because if there was a gap in time between the announcement and the change, then you'd have a bunch of mercs that jumped in and immediately donated whatever they had so it would be converted to tickets.
    From the standpoint of stopping treasury dumps there couldn't be a warning period.

    But the bigger issue is that they made stopping 1 final big treasury dump a bigger priority than pleasing the other 99% of alliances that aren't in the top 1% and that don't pay mercs to treasury dump. Just like taking away gifting badges, Kabam has made another decision that negatively affects the majority to stop a practice participated in by a very small minority - instead of just banning the minority.
  • DukeZmanDukeZman Member Posts: 628 ★★★

    DukeZman said:

    Hieitaku said:

    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?

    Here's why, i promise you, they didn't announce this ahead of time and instead just immediately locked donations: because if there was a gap in time between the announcement and the change, then you'd have a bunch of mercs that jumped in and immediately donated whatever they had so it would be converted to tickets.
    From the standpoint of stopping treasury dumps there couldn't be a warning period.

    But the bigger issue is that they made stopping 1 final big treasury dump a bigger priority than pleasing the other 99% of alliances that aren't in the top 1% and that don't pay mercs to treasury dump. Just like taking away gifting badges, Kabam has made another decision that negatively affects the majority to stop a practice participated in by a very small minority - instead of just banning the minority.
    No. Just no. They could have easily announced this via an in-game message and declared a cutoff at the exact point that message is sent out after which no donations will be refunded/compensated to account for exactly what you described.

    That reason would be extremely poor and to be frank just idiotic.
    Kabam has stated that their driving force behind the changes was to stop merc treasury dumps. That was priority #1 for them. So then it's easy to speculate with a high degree of accuracy that their reasoning for not giving the community a heads of up the coming change, despite previously promising transparency on future changes, is also tied to merc treasury dumps. I didn't say that it wasn't idiotic...this is Kabam we're talking about here.
  • CptnBsnDirectoCptnBsnDirecto Member Posts: 73
    So my idea is:

    Allow members to donate tickets that they purchase (or are given back from treasury) to the ally.

    Give ally leaders the means to allot tickets to members as they see fit.

    This means map 5 players can still donate tickets for map6/7 players to use in an equitable rotation with map6/7 players allowing all members to contribute when running multi map aqs.

    Not a perfect solution, but i think a solution like this solves more problems than the minor ones it creates...
  • HieitakuHieitaku Member Posts: 1,374 ★★★★★
    DukeZman said:

    Hieitaku said:

    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?

    Here's why, i promise you, they didn't announce this ahead of time and instead just immediately locked donations: because if there was a gap in time between the announcement and the change, then you'd have a bunch of mercs that jumped in and immediately donated whatever they had so it would be converted to tickets.
    From the standpoint of stopping treasury dumps there couldn't be a warning period.

    But the bigger issue is that they made stopping 1 final big treasury dump a bigger priority than pleasing the other 99% of alliances that aren't in the top 1% and that don't pay mercs to treasury dump. Just like taking away gifting badges, Kabam has made another decision that negatively affects the majority to stop a practice participated in by a very small minority - instead of just banning the minority.

    I agree with the reasoning behind not informing the playerbase and immediately implementing it. Then the 2nd issue you pointed out is indeed a concern which relates with the 2nd point I was trying to make, which was they didn't do enough to make sure that the majority, those who aren't the target of the fix, is not negatively affected.

    The hole in the system was created, albeit unintentionally, by them and any solution to address that should have minimal to zero negative effects to the players who are not exploiting it. So they're probably both negligent as well as devious in this case.
  • MokkieMokkie Member Posts: 96
    Although I support this move from Kabam because personally I have tons of gold but this is a bad idea. Kabam obviously did not think this through and yet they release this move. Use your brains Kabam, please!!!!! If uncertain, ASK the community. It has way past the "dumb" threshold.
  • Sieger7999Sieger7999 Member Posts: 48

    The best solution is sometimes the easiest. Remove entry costs to all maps and you’re done.

    Exactly this, instead of wasting your development time on a ticketing system, spend it on things that players actually want. I am still shaking my head with how proud they were with incursions and how long it took for them to develop instead of the many many other possibilities.

    This has the added benefit (For kabam) of people pushing to do maps that might be out of their depth, and in turn spend on revives and heals.
  • GOTGGOTG Member Posts: 1,040 ★★★★
    First there is entry fee for map 4. Then they removed it.
    Then entry fee for map 5. Then they removed it.
    Why dont they remove entry fee for map 6 and 7 too? Then no donation cheating. At least remove map 6 entry fee because I dont think many people have to pay to get enough resource for map 6.
  • Sieger7999Sieger7999 Member Posts: 48
    GOTG said:

    First there is entry fee for map 4. Then they removed it.
    Then entry fee for map 5. Then they removed it.
    Why dont they remove entry fee for map 6 and 7 too? Then no donation cheating. At least remove map 6 entry fee because I dont think many people have to pay to get enough resource for map 6.

    That’s a good point, most of the mixed bg alliances are running a combo of 5/6 so this would solve the majority of issues in relation to that

Sign In or Register to comment.