**UPDATE - iPAD STUCK FLICKERING SCREEN**
The 47.0.1 hotfix to address the issue of freezing & flashing lights on loading screens when trying to enter a fight, along with other smaller issues, is now ready to be downloaded through the App Store on IOS.
More information here.

Alliance Tickets [Merged Threads]

1…1011131516…23

Comments

  • LeovaMLeovaM Member Posts: 37 ★
    No matter what this company does, no matter how this company does something, there will always be a bunch of idiots, who will complain, complain, complain and complain.

    What's the problem in running different maps in different BGs with all this ticket system? 10 players are capable of doing Map 6 - they are doing Map 6. 10 other players are capable only doing Map 5 - they, oh what a surprise, are doing Map 5. Rewards are shared in between all the 30 players. What are you afraid of? I'll take a shot, and say that you're afraid of the fact, that the players, who are doing Map 5, will remain at that position no matter what, and still get Map 6 rewards for free. Simple solution - kick that sons of **** out of the alliance, when you get the feeling, that they are using other 10 people who do Map 6. That's what alliance leader, and officers are for, to detect that kind of players, and get rid of them.

    This ticket system also will simplify the leadership and officership, no need for calculation, no need for chasing a couple of cheating players who avoided treasury for the long time. It's a huge improvement. You want AQ - pay for the AQ. You don't want AQ - don't pay for it. It's that simple.

    Also, if you give a competent look at the excel sheet of the donation system for the tickets, you will see, that price for the tickets is much much much lower than it was with the treasury donation system.

    So I'll ask one more time: What are you complaining for?
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Member Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    UmbertoDelRio said:

    Notsavage19 said:

    UmbertoDelRio said:

    Notsavage19 said:

    Jack0312 said:

    @Kabam Miike I’ve read the comments here but I can’t find an answer to this question :
    What will happen for the treasury in global ? We run full AQ6, we had 26M gold left for example, what will happen for this ?
    It’s especially unfair for those running AQ5...

    We hope you’ll send a refund !

    They will, in terms of tickets.
    Only excess donations from the last 5 months. Unless they saved up 26m gold over the last 5 months their hard earned gold will go down the drain.
    Well what do you suggest?
    A full refund of all ressources either as an equivalent amount of tickets or directly as those ressources.

    Easy as that.
    Exactly. In tickets. I have a thing against Kabam refunding the donations in Gold, BCs, and Loyalty.
  • SBundyBearSBundyBear Member Posts: 8 ★
    Kabam Miike said:

    Mike439 said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    CoatHang3r said:

    How/when does the ticket store (don’t know what to call it) reset?

    Is 450 units worth of tickets for 1 week of map 7 accurate?

    How can the alliance ensure players have tickets on hand to pay for the week? There is potential for players bad at accounting to leave the other players high and dry for the week.

    The price of tickets will reset on the same schedule as the Glory Store!

    450 Tickets is the price of 150 Tickets, which is 5 days of Alliance Quests.

    It's not really possible to know what each of your members has on hand, but that's why we wanted to make costs more flexible. If you don't have a lot of Loyalty to use, you can use Gold or Battle Chips, etc.
    My suggestion - turn the stuff in the treasury into AQ tickets.
    Make the tickets buyable for individuals like you’re doing but make them donate tickets to the treasury instead off Resources.
    Same purpose of tickets but the alliance can split the cost evenly like before.

    If you run map 6 in 1 bg and 5 in 2 you need 75 tickets per week/150 per 2 weeks so 30 people can each donate 5 tickets every 2 weeks or something
    That defeats the goal of fighting Treasury Loaders and actually makes it much easier for them.
    You could easily overcome this by capping the amount of tickets that can be purchased each cycle so that one person can only effectively buy one full entry to map 7 each week.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    LeovaM said:

    No matter what this company does, no matter how this company does something, there will always be a bunch of idiots, who will complain, complain, complain and complain.

    What's the problem in running different maps in different BGs with all this ticket system? 10 players are capable of doing Map 6 - they are doing Map 6. 10 other players are capable only doing Map 5 - they, oh what a surprise, are doing Map 5. Rewards are shared in between all the 30 players. What are you afraid of? I'll take a shot, and say that you're afraid of the fact, that the players, who are doing Map 5, will remain at that position no matter what, and still get Map 6 rewards for free. Simple solution - kick that sons of **** out of the alliance, when you get the feeling, that they are using other 10 people who do Map 6. That's what alliance leader, and officers are for, to detect that kind of players, and get rid of them.

    This ticket system also will simplify the leadership and officership, no need for calculation, no need for chasing a couple of cheating players who avoided treasury for the long time. It's a huge improvement. You want AQ - pay for the AQ. You don't want AQ - don't pay for it. It's that simple.

    Also, if you give a competent look at the excel sheet of the donation system for the tickets, you will see, that price for the tickets is much much much lower than it was with the treasury donation system.

    So I'll ask one more time: What are you complaining for?

    Well said. I agree.
  • KnightZeroKnightZero Member Posts: 1,437 ★★★★★
    TheTalents said:

    LeovaM said:

    No matter what this company does, no matter how this company does something, there will always be a bunch of idiots, who will complain, complain, complain and complain.

    What's the problem in running different maps in different BGs with all this ticket system? 10 players are capable of doing Map 6 - they are doing Map 6. 10 other players are capable only doing Map 5 - they, oh what a surprise, are doing Map 5. Rewards are shared in between all the 30 players. What are you afraid of? I'll take a shot, and say that you're afraid of the fact, that the players, who are doing Map 5, will remain at that position no matter what, and still get Map 6 rewards for free. Simple solution - kick that sons of **** out of the alliance, when you get the feeling, that they are using other 10 people who do Map 6. That's what alliance leader, and officers are for, to detect that kind of players, and get rid of them.

    This ticket system also will simplify the leadership and officership, no need for calculation, no need for chasing a couple of cheating players who avoided treasury for the long time. It's a huge improvement. You want AQ - pay for the AQ. You don't want AQ - don't pay for it. It's that simple.

    Also, if you give a competent look at the excel sheet of the donation system for the tickets, you will see, that price for the tickets is much much much lower than it was with the treasury donation system.

    So I'll ask one more time: What are you complaining for?

    Well said. I agree.
    Noone is afraid that people doing Map 5 are just doing Map 5 to use others. That's an ignorant thought process. But there's a reason those 10/20 are doing Map 5 or below. Perhaps they're weaker. Perhaps they don't have the time or skill to run it. Or even that they just don't want to. It didn't matter before because the Map 6 people didn't have an issue. They got to run higher Maps, donations were split and all got good rewards. But now, why should they pay the donations and use items and everyone get the rewards? This forces the Map 5 players to either step up, or leave. Which can break long term alliances apart. You can't just say that folks should be kicked. Not as easy to get members as you think.
    Secondly, I agree that it helps remove the possibility of people shirking donations, which is good but still feel that there should be a way for officers to monitor that people have bought the tickets.
    If they wanted to reduce the donations, that was possible even without tickets. It's just change in numbers. Tickets may or may not be good, but can't say that we have reduced donation amount just due to tickets.
  • cookiedealercookiedealer Member Posts: 260 ★★
    edited May 2020
    Crys23 said:

    cookiedealer said:

    Crys23 said:

    Doopsums said:

    Crys23 said:

    Better idea: Make it a "Ticket treasury" only available for each individual day of AQ.
    Alliance starts aq on day1, 766. For all 30members to participate, 600 tickets would need to be donated to that day's "Ticket Treasury". Now, each member can donate their share of 20, or one member donate all 600, or anything in-between.
    You can only join a BG if at least 20 tickets are in the treasury.
    This allows alliance members to equally share the cost as they equally share the rewards, and also allows you to cover entry for a friend until they can get you back.
    Max out the treasury capacity based on what map combinations are run that day and lower it each time a player enters a BG. So for the above example it would be 600 max and lower it by 20 each time a player joins. This way no unnecessary tickets would be donated.

    Worse idea actually. The main reason they introduced the tickets is to stop loaders. Your method above allows that to continue.
    Think about it again. It actually doesnt. You can only load tickets after the AQ day started and only for 1day. Nobody starts AQ with the loaders still in the alliance.
    This idea isn't as good. It doesn't address arena botters/mercs from selling to their alliance.
    Oh my god, you really don't get it. The ticket treasury is only available after you start AQ, after you start the map/maps. And the treasury is capped at the total value for that day's maps cost. So, maximum would be 900 tickets for a 777 day.
    You don't start AQ with a treasury loader in the alliance. Even if you do, he donates and kick him out, your old member cant join the aq map after. Map6 and 7 require full 10 member BG to 100%.
    After day ends, treasury resets. Or it doesn't. It wont matter, as treasury will be empty if all battle groups fill up. Once AQ ends, treasury becomes unavailable. So, only active members can put tickets in, as many as they want, if they want to cover the entry for someone else.
    Also, costs should be 12 tickets for map6 and 24 for map7, so if an alliance runs just 2 bgs, with mixed map7 and 6, the average per player is 18.0 ( and not 22.5 as per current costs).
    First, I only replied to you once, I'm not the other guy.

    I like your idea in general of pooling ticket count for leadership to see, and the reset of the treasury, but it has one big flaw. A high level bot account can still pay for everyone (in your system, one person can "donate all 600 tickets").

    When I said it doesn't prevent botters/arena mercs from selling to people within their high bot account alliance. I wasn't talking about those low level bot accounts that dumped resources and left, but the ones with decent roster size.

    They can leave their decent 5*r5 roster bots running in arena. Use past and said resources to stock up on tickets (and the ones they get from kabam's excess treasury donation return). Have said high level bot accounts (the ones purchased off retired players) that can handle map 7 decently well (they only need to be able to handle a path per section, give the bot accounts priority to pick the one best suited) to join their customer's (or their own) alliance and pay for everyone's map cost. Having a small dip in prestige would be the tradeoff, but free map cost for 29 members! Or if they want to risk botting with their higher prestige accounts, they probably would because that is their source of income. Minimal drop in prestige, with all the upside of avoiding to pay for map 7. Where this value would compound.

    Yes, Kabam could lower the price of a ticket even further- if it's current price isn't making the botters go out of business.

    Another way is to get rid of donation costs altogether- but it would remove one of Kabam's methods of controlling the resource economy.

  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    B00tblack said:

    Kabam Miike said:


    That defeats the goal of fighting Treasury Loaders and actually makes it much easier for them.

    That’s your problem, not ours!
    Sort it out in a way that the rest of us aren’t affected.
    Anything else is absolutely a ridiculous way to run a company.
    Would you be so callous if it was your credit card info being stolen I wonder, Cheating in game is a problem for everyone. Explaining why you are upset and what would a solution be would be more constructive.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    RKO_me said:

    Here is an excellent solution to the problem of mercs and mods and bots dumping resources into treasuries, while still being fair to alliances that run mixed maps: Make Alliance Quest FREE.
    An entire game mode should not be locked behind needing a certain amount of resources. Alliance War is free, so why shouldn't Alliance Quest be free as well?

    TheTalents said:

    Make AQ free. The donations are not worth the headache. Only about what a couple thousand play map 7 each week? Not worth it

    I have a question. Which maps do you guys run? @RKO_me @TheTalents . I am asking this because they made aq free for maps 5 and below already. So, you guys are running map 6 or 7 I assume.
  • TP33TP33 Member Posts: 1,677 ★★★★★
    So when the system resets and stuff can we get the stuff from the treasury back. I remember donating some stuff for when we were thinking of doing higher AQ maps only for us to scrap the idea. We literally had 20 mil gold in there in the end. Can we get that refunded or just sent back to us. Divide it equally or something, I’d hate for al those resources to go to waste
  • BigManOnCampusBigManOnCampus Member Posts: 376 ★★★
    Players are getting back the last 5 months of donations in the form of tickets..
    That's more than enough payback .. + 2 weeks free AQ !
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Member Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    No, it's not fair to other players.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    @Pulyaman

    I run 7x5 in bg1 the battle group I'm in. and I run 67666 in the other two battlegroups. Right now I'm running 7x5 for my entire alliance while the maps are free. We as an alliance have not decided if we will stay 7x5 or go back 67666 in the other two battlegroups.

    So yes I have a few members that aren't happy with 7x5 so I get why people are mad I just feel that the move is better. But majority of my members want to step up.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    For those that have no problem with the change to Corvus please state if you play map 7 or not. Map 6 is so easy to people that are capable of playing map 7 with modifiers you have no idea the amount of difficulty difference that is involved between the two. That's all I'm asking for. You can't casually state that the change is okay if you're not facing the same difficulty as someone like myself. Explicitly stating your map preference would provide the proper context for this conversation.
  • pseudosanepseudosane Member, Guardian Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    edited May 2020
    Notsavage19 said:

    Think about it this way.
    Player A has 1,000,000 gold.
    Player B has 2,000,000 gold. He donates 1,000,000 to his alliance. He no longer owns the 1,000,000 gold he donated.

    Player A and Player B both rank up their champs using the gold they have.

    Now, if Player B was compensated with his donations:
    Player B would get 1,000,000 gold. Now I understand that he earned that gold. But by choosing to donate it to his alliance and therefore surrendering his rights to his gold, he gains an advantage because in the normal setting, that gold would not be used to rank up his champs. Since he made the decision to contribute his resources towards AQ, his resources should not be able to be refunded and used for something that is not AQ related.

    Do you see why it's unfair to other players?

    That makes it the alliance's right? How does Kabam have any right over it then? It is the alliance's work, not kabam's. Leave it to the alliances to make the decision, not have kabam take it away from them. You contradicted your own point.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    TheTalents said:

    @Pulyaman

    I run 7x5 in bg1 the battle group I'm in. and I run 67666 in the other two battlegroups. Right now I'm running 7x5 for my entire alliance while the maps are free. We as an alliance have not decided if we will stay 7x5 or go back 67666 in the other two battlegroups.

    So yes I have a few members that aren't happy with 7x5 so I get why people are mad I just feel that the move is better. But majority of my members want to step up.

    The reason I wanted to know was I am honestly confused by the demand for making aq maps free. You guys run mixed maps and I honestly think that Kabam is at fault here for bringing in a system without having a solution for that. But making naps free will not solve that problem. Every alliance will go for map 7 regardless of the skill or capability and they will complain in forums of bring it too hard. They are giving two weeks of free aq. I think they will observe and try to find a solution or come out with a post for a workaround. Personally they should just restore the treasury and start keeping tabs on donations till they can give a solution for mixed maps.
    Free aq maps is not the solution.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    TheTalents said:

    @Pulyaman

    I run 7x5 in bg1 the battle group I'm in. and I run 67666 in the other two battlegroups. Right now I'm running 7x5 for my entire alliance while the maps are free. We as an alliance have not decided if we will stay 7x5 or go back 67666 in the other two battlegroups.

    So yes I have a few members that aren't happy with 7x5 so I get why people are mad I just feel that the move is better. But majority of my members want to step up.

    The reason I wanted to know was I am honestly confused by the demand for making aq maps free. You guys run mixed maps and I honestly think that Kabam is at fault here for bringing in a system without having a solution for that. But making naps free will not solve that problem. Every alliance will go for map 7 regardless of the skill or capability and they will complain in forums of bring it too hard. They are giving two weeks of free aq. I think they will observe and try to find a solution or come out with a post for a workaround. Personally they should just restore the treasury and start keeping tabs on donations till they can give a solution for mixed maps.
    Free aq maps is not the solution.
    That's not true. I can tell you for my alliance specifically I said hey map 7 is less please step up now or you can leave and find an alliance that is more of a fit. Everyone decided to stay outside of one whale who wanted an even stronger alliance than the one I have. So if you're upfront with your guys you should either go all map 5,6, or 7 and people can decide how they want to move forward.

    I think it being completely free solves the argument, than everyone can play mixed maps and the donations are equal across the board. If they made map 6 free I honestly think I would consider moving down a map even though I totally hate map 6 because it's way to easy comparatively.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Member Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    B00tblack said:

    Pulyaman said:

    B00tblack said:

    Kabam Miike said:


    That defeats the goal of fighting Treasury Loaders and actually makes it much easier for them.

    That’s your problem, not ours!
    Sort it out in a way that the rest of us aren’t affected.
    Anything else is absolutely a ridiculous way to run a company.
    Would you be so callous if it was your credit card info being stolen I wonder, Cheating in game is a problem for everyone. Explaining why you are upset and what would a solution be would be more constructive.
    Clearly you don’t understand the meaning of callous.
    Kabam’s fix should only punish those that have indeed been callous. The 99% of us who play this game fairly should notice little to no change.

    If you scroll back about 8 pages or so, you would see why I’m upset. There is disagreement and discord within my 655 alliance because this new system won’t balance our individual resource expenditure to achieve the same AQ rewards. It won’t encourage alliances to grow together. Map6 players will leave to go to 666.
    The fact that Kabam created a ‘solution‘ to restrict the callous 1% but have created this turmoil is negligent.

    Customers arguing on here about it, is a really bad corporate look.
    I agree. They created a solution that affected majority of the players for some people cheating. I have already given a solution for that. They should just restore alliance treasury and lock donations. Then give back all the donations for the last 5 months as was their plan. The rest people can use to enter maps. It will not stop the loading that was done earlier than 5 months. But not every solution is perfect. The reason I called it callous was Kabam as a company has a responsibility to prevent fraud. They are doing that. They are not going about it correctly in many ways. That does not mean we should not care about that.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Member Posts: 843 ★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    Greywarden said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Kevin110 said:

    Free maps period would make sense the ticket system is going to destroy my alliance we have been running since the start we run 655 and split the donations to help everyone. Now all the burden is on the map six guys.

    One problem i see with free maps is everyone would then play map 7 and they have no obligation to clear the map, since a map 5 alliance playing map 7 can earn more by just reaching the second mini boss. AQ is meant to be explored.
    Make the final boss kill give a ton more points. “Issue” fixed.
    Greywarden said:

    Pulyaman said:

    Kevin110 said:

    Free maps period would make sense the ticket system is going to destroy my alliance we have been running since the start we run 655 and split the donations to help everyone. Now all the burden is on the map six guys.

    One problem i see with free maps is everyone would then play map 7 and they have no obligation to clear the map, since a map 5 alliance playing map 7 can earn more by just reaching the second mini boss. AQ is meant to be explored.
    Make the final boss kill give a ton more points. “Issue” fixed.
    I admit that I don't know how the points for boss are decided, but if the Boss is given "a ton more points" just encourage alliances to clear only Miniboss and Boss from a single path or take down only some links and leave out everything else? That's what happens in aw sometimes. The point is to encourage aq exploration and putting a price encourages that.
    You're not getting to the final boss if you think you're taking out minis with nodes up. The initial point that was trying to be made was that if AQ was free to enter that it would mess with scoring/ranking since some of map 7 would give more points then all of the lower maps. If you move the points around or even better give a bonus to points for a 100% clear (probably the better route) then it really isn't an issue at all. I'm sure there is some magic number that makes that work and is a lot better than having people pay just to enter map 6/7.

    I'm all for getting rid of donation dumps but the very fact they existed was an issue Kabam created, namely from loyalty not being a resource you can farm. The very notion of having to pay just to try something in a mobile game makes no sense. Make AQ free for all maps, give a bonus to points for 100% clears and this is all fixed.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Member Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    pseudosane said:

    Notsavage19 said:

    Think about it this way.
    Player A has 1,000,000 gold.
    Player B has 2,000,000 gold. He donates 1,000,000 to his alliance. He no longer owns the 1,000,000 gold he donated.

    Player A and Player B both rank up their champs using the gold they have.

    Now, if Player B was compensated with his donations:
    Player B would get 1,000,000 gold. Now I understand that he earned that gold. But by choosing to donate it to his alliance and therefore surrendering his rights to his gold, he gains an advantage because in the normal setting, that gold would not be used to rank up his champs. Since he made the decision to contribute his resources towards AQ, his resources should not be able to be refunded and used for something that is not AQ related.

    Do you see why it's unfair to other players?

    That makes it the alliance's right? How does Kabam have any right over it then? It is the alliance's work, not kabam's. Leave it to the alliances to make the decision, not have kabam take it away from them. You contradicted your own point.
    It's the alliance's but not the player's. That means refund it in whole in tickets. Not resources. So how did I contradict myself?
  • bpunk88bpunk88 Member Posts: 184 ★★★
    Pushing out this change without a solution for alliances that run mixed map setups is BS. You know it's an issue, and it affects many more alliances than the few "resource loaders" you're so worried about.

    @Kabam Miike I hope there's an answer for the disparity this change has created before the ticket system goes into effect.
  • pseudosanepseudosane Member, Guardian Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    Demonzfyre said:

    Eric987 said:

    GluteusMaximus said:

    Eric987 said:

    Every time Kabam tries to fix an issue it seems like the main focus is Kabam's bottom dollar. With this new AQ change they are primarily stopping donation dumps. That is completely reasonable but they have obviously not taken the time to see the other issues their new system will have on the game. It's disappointing to see a company so clearly not care about the players and only care about profits. Kabam needs to find a better balance between encouraging spending (which is necessary to keep the game running) and letting players have fun and enjoy the game. It's so obvious how profit sensitive 99% of their actions are.

    here's a fun exercise, and anyone who feels like it can join in.

    you run company A
    you must project revenues of X million a quarter
    the X million needs to be a certain percentage greater than the year over year average and show growth from the start of fiscal year
    you must manage expenses to not exceed Y million. this includes infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, employee compensation and health benefits, content development as well as higher licensing costs which can't be passed on directly to the customer
    your main product is nearing the end of its lifecycle and you're trying to launch your next gen product during an unprecedented global pandemic

    please explain how you'd move forward without looking for new profit streams. also explain if you'd be looking for a lateral move to a new company or just start fresh from the ground floor in another industry.
    I work for bank, I know all about this and I see it time and time again. Companies get greedy and lose sight of their customer. I clearly stated that I completely understand that kabam needs to make money. I have spent money on this game and there is nothing wrong with that. A dichotomy arises when a company becomes so profit motivated that customers start not buying the product. I really don’t understand how there are so many kabam apologists.
    Again, how does AQ donations have anything to do.with making money?
    You can "buy" donations ie tickets= money. Simple enough?
  • RogerRabsRogerRabs Member Posts: 548 ★★★★
    Kabam hasn't been able to figure out how to deal with AQ Donation cheaters for 5 years. Maybe they should take that as a sign and just remove them.
  • Crys23Crys23 Member Posts: 816 ★★★★
    cookiedealer said:

    Crys23 said:

    cookiedealer said:

    Crys23 said:

    Doopsums said:

    Crys23 said:

    Better idea: Make it a "Ticket treasury" only available for each individual day of AQ.
    Alliance starts aq on day1, 766. For all 30members to participate, 600 tickets would need to be donated to that day's "Ticket Treasury". Now, each member can donate their share of 20, or one member donate all 600, or anything in-between.
    You can only join a BG if at least 20 tickets are in the treasury.
    This allows alliance members to equally share the cost as they equally share the rewards, and also allows you to cover entry for a friend until they can get you back.
    Max out the treasury capacity based on what map combinations are run that day and lower it each time a player enters a BG. So for the above example it would be 600 max and lower it by 20 each time a player joins. This way no unnecessary tickets would be donated.

    Worse idea actually. The main reason they introduced the tickets is to stop loaders. Your method above allows that to continue.
    Think about it again. It actually doesnt. You can only load tickets after the AQ day started and only for 1day. Nobody starts AQ with the loaders still in the alliance.
    This idea isn't as good. It doesn't address arena botters/mercs from selling to their alliance.
    Oh my god, you really don't get it. The ticket treasury is only available after you start AQ, after you start the map/maps. And the treasury is capped at the total value for that day's maps cost. So, maximum would be 900 tickets for a 777 day.
    You don't start AQ with a treasury loader in the alliance. Even if you do, he donates and kick him out, your old member cant join the aq map after. Map6 and 7 require full 10 member BG to 100%.
    After day ends, treasury resets. Or it doesn't. It wont matter, as treasury will be empty if all battle groups fill up. Once AQ ends, treasury becomes unavailable. So, only active members can put tickets in, as many as they want, if they want to cover the entry for someone else.
    Also, costs should be 12 tickets for map6 and 24 for map7, so if an alliance runs just 2 bgs, with mixed map7 and 6, the average per player is 18.0 ( and not 22.5 as per current costs).
    First, I only replied to you once, I'm not the other guy.

    I like your idea in general of pooling ticket count for leadership to see, and the reset of the treasury, but it has one big flaw. A high level bot account can still pay for everyone (in your system, one person can "donate all 600 tickets").

    When I said it doesn't prevent botters/arena mercs from selling to people within their high bot account alliance. I wasn't talking about those low level bot accounts that dumped resources and left, but the ones with decent roster size.

    They can leave their decent 5*r5 roster bots running in arena. Use past and said resources to stock up on tickets (and the ones they get from kabam's excess treasury donation return). Have said high level bot accounts (the ones purchased off retired players) that can handle map 7 decently well (they only need to be able to handle a path per section, give the bot accounts priority to pick the one best suited) to join their customer's (or their own) alliance and pay for everyone's map cost. Having a small dip in prestige would be the tradeoff, but free map cost for 29 members! Or if they want to risk botting with their higher prestige accounts, they probably would because that is their source of income. Minimal drop in prestige, with all the upside of avoiding to pay for map 7. Where this value would compound.

    Yes, Kabam could lower the price of a ticket even further- if it's current price isn't making the botters go out of business.

    Another way is to get rid of donation costs altogether- but it would remove one of Kabam's methods of controlling the resource economy.

    C'mon, how many of these accounts actually are? And the alliances running map7 that heavily use loaders wont go even for a 5 point prestige drop.
    Also, if that account does legitimately a path in map7, then it's not a bot. It's a regular account that uses boting in arena. Anyone could do that. It's up to kabam to catch and ban them.
    Or kabam can just limit a person ticket donation to 100 tickets, or the equivalent of covering for 5 people, or 3.
    My idea solves 99% of the treasury loading issue and 100% of the mixed map battle groups issue.
    Kabam wants us to pay tickets each day to enter AQ. My idea is to donate tickets each day and the fee is substracted from the ticket treasury. Day ends, treasury resets. AQ ends, treasury closes.
  • BigManOnCampusBigManOnCampus Member Posts: 376 ★★★
    bpunk88 said:

    Pushing out this change without a solution for alliances that run mixed map setups is BS. You know it's an issue, and it affects many more alliances than the few "resource loaders" you're so worried about.

    @Kabam Miike I hope there's an answer for the disparity this change has created before the ticket system goes into effect.

    It's not just a " few resource loaders" , there's a lot of bot's & fraud involved...This is a great thing good riddance to the treasury !
  • crogscrogs Member Posts: 772 ★★★
    Archdemon_ said:

    Crumb3307 said:

    the only thing you could have ever done with it is enter AQ, why is it unfair that they give AQ entrance items for it?

    You mean except use Gold for rank ups, Battle chips for BC crystals and the Loyalty to buy stuff from loyalty store??
    yeah I guess you're right... you can't use that stuff anywhere else!
    The simplest and fairest thing they can do is take whats in each alliance's treasury and split it equally 30 ways with current members.
    Except what if members in there now never donated? We have about 8 or so members in our alliance that have donated to the treasury and have been members for years. The rest haven't and have never donated. Why should those newer people get something back?
  • nh4clnh4cl Member Posts: 123 ★
    Why at this stage of the game are we having to use resources to play any AQ map? Seriously, what is the point? I get that the ticket system is to thwart the cheating alliances, but removing the costs all together would accomplish that too. Your other game doesn't resources for it's version of AQ. Our resources should be used for ranking champs, which with increasing rates of obtaining 5&6* champs requires more gold to rank up. I know this ticket system will not be fair to my alliance as we runs mix of maps 5&6. We do that not because of meeting donations requirements, but for life balance. Now the sole map 5 BG will never have to spend a ticket, but still rake in the map 6 crystals that the other two earn.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    crogs said:

    More and more annoyed as I read through comments. I feel bad for how f'd up this is for all the people and alliances it affects.

    And then what about those of us that don't need tickets period? Some of us have donated to the treasury since it's inception. Now it's all gone, and I have tichets that are completely worthless? This just makes no sense. Chips could've been units and gold. Gold is gold. Loyalty were boosts I could've used. What are we supposed to do with tickets if we only run free maps? Can we sell tickets for gold, chips and loyalty?

    If they had just made map 5 free and changed nothing else there would be zero difference. Resources are gone once they're donated regardless of whether they get spent by the alliance or not. It was never a bank you could withdraw from. Just splitting whatever was there up between the players is ridiculous to think would happen
  • pseudosanepseudosane Member, Guardian Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    Basically Kabam took over the revenue that the resource loaders were making. It does stop bots in arena, and they take over the resource market by offering tickets at the same prices as illicit loaders. Win win for them. Sadly they did not consider mixed mappers, or those who turned chill. I am in a map6 ally, and it doesnt affect me too much, but I see the "collateral" damage this move made.
Sign In or Register to comment.