**UPDATES TO ENLISTMENT GIFTING EVENT:**
To prevent exploitation, we will prevent new Accounts from being able to Gift enlistment crystals. We will also be taking action on those who are using 3rd Party Sellers, Bots and other farms to gift themselves mass amounts of Enlistment Crystals. Lastly, we will be adding an expiration timer to Enlistment Crystals. All unopened Enlistment Crystals will expire on Oct 18 @ 17:00 UTC. For more information, please see this post: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/346104/updates-to-enlistment-gifting-event

Alliance Tickets [Merged Threads]

1…1516182021…23

Comments

  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Greywarden said:

    Why does aq cost anything to begin with

    Agreed, they'll definitely have to invest a bunch of time and resources into creating the new system when they can simply let donation costs go. Or make map 6 free as well. Majority of map 7 guys are gong to be the ones paying actual money to run a map.
  • 007md92007md92 Posts: 1,381 ★★★★
    Gold is soo soo valuable man.... Issshhh..

    They could have let us split those treasury gold.
    :D gold is priority for me Atleast. More than shards...
  • SummonerNRSummonerNR Posts: 9,199 Guardian
    edited May 2020
    RE: New change to Split Cost evenly between all 30 ppl (see latest Announcement link above)...

    (1) Partial Ally's that only have say 20 ppl. Will it be divided by “how many ppl are actually in Ally at time AQ is started” ?? Or still divided by 30 even if only 10 or 20 ppl in Ally ??

    (2) ALSO.. Partial (or otherwise Full, but Casual, where only 1-2 BG's are really active)...
    What would prevent an Ally from opening up BG3 with low map (5 or below), just to reduce cost for their primary BG1 (or 1+2) who do run Map 6 or 7 ?? In cases where maybe they only ran as 2 groups in the past.
    Or even just 10 ppl doing Map-7, opening up BG2 and BG3 with low maps even though nobody joined those, just to reduce Map-7 cost for the 10 primary members who run it.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 34,940 ★★★★★
    They made it easier for people who do multiple Maps. That's because people brought up how that is problematic for them. You can't mistake a shift for admittance of incompetence. Once again, they're listening to the feedback, and someone is trying to grind the glass in their hands. Is it that impossible just to be grateful they heard people?
  • Kabam MiikeKabam Miike Posts: 7,948
    SummonerNR said:

    RE: New change to Split Cost evenly between all 30 ppl (see latest Announcement link above)...

    (1) Partial Ally's that only have say 20 ppl. Will it be divided by “how many ppl are actually in Ally at time AQ is started” ?? Or still divided by 30 even if only 10 or 20 ppl in Ally ??

    (2) ALSO.. Partial (or otherwise Full, but Casual, where only 1-2 BG's are really active)...
    What would prevent an Ally from opening up BG3 with low map (5 or below), just to reduce cost for their primary BG1 (or 1+2) who do run Map 6 or 7 ?? In cases where maybe they only ran as 2 groups in the past.
    Or even just 10 ppl doing Map-7, opening up BG2 and BG3 with low maps even though nobody joined those, just to reduce Map-7 cost for the 10 primary members who run it.

    1- It will be divided by 10x(Number of Battlegroups). So If you only open 1, then it's divided by 10, if you open 2 it's divided by 20.

    2- That is a possibility, and it's why I called out in the announcement that if that becomes an obvious exploitation of this system, we will move to fix it.
  • TwmRTwmR Posts: 662 ★★★
    SummonerNR said:

    RE: New change to Split Cost evenly between all 30 ppl (see latest Announcement link above)...

    (1) Partial Ally's that only have say 20 ppl. Will it be divided by “how many ppl are actually in Ally at time AQ is started” ?? Or still divided by 30 even if only 10 or 20 ppl in Ally ??

    (2) ALSO.. Partial (or otherwise Full, but Casual, where only 1-2 BG's are really active)...
    What would prevent an Ally from opening up BG3 with low map (5 or below), just to reduce cost for their primary BG1 (or 1+2) who do run Map 6 or 7 ?? In cases where maybe they only ran as 2 groups in the past.
    Or even just 10 ppl doing Map-7, opening up BG2 and BG3 with low maps even though nobody joined those, just to reduce Map-7 cost for the 10 primary members who run it.

    When it comes to point 2 they would take a hit in points as prestige would be taking a hit for each bg which doesn't clear.
    I guess on day 5 that wouldn't matter though or they could run map 1 and have 1 account solo it
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Posts: 2,841 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    SparkAlot said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    Hey all,

    We've posted an update here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/200212/update-to-alliance-tickets-may-29-2020

    The biggest thing from that update is it will take until August to fix this system.

    So, logically, the only fair thing to do now is have all free maps for June & July.
    It is absolutely bonkers that you’re forcing this inequity on alliances for TWO MONTHS. You could reduce ticketing costs during the introductory period or make maps free for a longer period.

    I appreciate that you’re listening to feedback but “put up with an inequitable system and lesser rewards for two months” is a helluva pill to swallow. Part of the frustration is that the numbers shared by Kabam aren’t relevant to me as a map 6 players. We run a 6x5, a 5x5, and a 66655. It would soften the blow if you published the chart here so I could see my donations dropping.

  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 843 ★★★★
    Kabam Miike said:

    SummonerNR said:

    RE: New change to Split Cost evenly between all 30 ppl (see latest Announcement link above)...

    (1) Partial Ally's that only have say 20 ppl. Will it be divided by “how many ppl are actually in Ally at time AQ is started” ?? Or still divided by 30 even if only 10 or 20 ppl in Ally ??

    (2) ALSO.. Partial (or otherwise Full, but Casual, where only 1-2 BG's are really active)...
    What would prevent an Ally from opening up BG3 with low map (5 or below), just to reduce cost for their primary BG1 (or 1+2) who do run Map 6 or 7 ?? In cases where maybe they only ran as 2 groups in the past.
    Or even just 10 ppl doing Map-7, opening up BG2 and BG3 with low maps even though nobody joined those, just to reduce Map-7 cost for the 10 primary members who run it.

    1- It will be divided by 10x(Number of Battlegroups). So If you only open 1, then it's divided by 10, if you open 2 it's divided by 20.

    2- That is a possibility, and it's why I called out in the announcement that if that becomes an obvious exploitation of this system, we will move to fix it.
    Since you’re answering questions can you enlighten me on why it costs anything to even enter aq? Not trying to be combative, genuinely asking where the logic behind paying just to enter aq lies. The barrier for map 6/7 should be skill and roster depth, not whether or not you have enough bc, loyalty and gold.

    Myself as well as others just look at it as a means for tickets to be sold in the unit store.

  • RogerRabsRogerRabs Posts: 548 ★★★★
    As someone who stepped down from a Top 150 ALliance because AQ and AW were too time consuming without enough reward/entertainment Value, I’ve been disappointed in Kabam’s proposals. I’m actively looking for a reason to jump back into endgame content but Kabam hasn’t given me a good reason too.

    I know I’m not the only one trying out retirement alliances, and I’d hate to see my interest level drop off to the point where I just stop playing altogether.
  • Panchulon21Panchulon21 Posts: 2,605 ★★★★★
    A few people have asked since admins have posted. What’s going to happen to the treasuries? Or is an idea not proposed yet. My alliance had like 55 million gold and 10+ million loyalty/BC in our treasury.

    I’m not being pushy; alliance members are wondering. That’s a lot of resources and the question has been asked above and sort of ignored.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 17,163 Guardian
    RogerRabs said:

    As someone who stepped down from a Top 150 ALliance because AQ and AW were too time consuming without enough reward/entertainment Value, I’ve been disappointed in Kabam’s proposals. I’m actively looking for a reason to jump back into endgame content but Kabam hasn’t given me a good reason too.

    I know I’m not the only one trying out retirement alliances, and I’d hate to see my interest level drop off to the point where I just stop playing altogether.

    For the fastest progressing players, eventually there's a wall. The game cannot make end game content as fast as the fastest players consume it, and more importantly they can't add sufficiently enticing rewards because they can't keep extending the progress ladder fast enough. Whether it is today or tomorrow or next year, eventually you'll hit the wall no matter what Kabam does next. That's unavoidable.

    So what could Kabam add to the game, such that the content itself is worth playing, knowing that that content cannot possibly give rewards commensurate to the content's challenge level, because the game progression itself won't allow it. To put it another way, for the players that outrace the end game content and the progression ladder, what would you do in the game just for the fun of doing it? Is there something that would hold your interest, that wasn't full of ever-higher rewards?

    Would different kinds of content matter? Would achievement-style rewards be enough (i.e. leaderboards, achievement titles)? Would cosmetic-style rewards work? What could the end game players fight over, while the rest of the playerbase catches up to them?
  • BigManOnCampusBigManOnCampus Posts: 376 ★★★
    Wakandas_Finest said:

    TheDuke899 said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    Hey all,

    We've posted an update here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/200212/update-to-alliance-tickets-may-29-2020

    Are you kidding that it's not possible to address this issue before the changes go live? It's such a simple idea why haven't you thought for this in the first place... Pretty bad game design guys 👎

    And BTW with your current idea you force alliances to pay equal... Imagine alliances with smaller and endgame players mixed how should the small players pay for those tickets if they deside to run map6/7 and map 3...

    @Kabam Miike Just leave the joice to the leader team how they want to start AQ. Split/average cost or individual cost for each BG.
    Everyone shares in the rewards from running split maps so why shouldn’t they share in the cost? Isn’t that how it’s always been anyway. People complained for days about Not being able to share the costs of running split maps. Kabam comes up with a solution, in what is for them record time, now people complain about the solution that is exactly what they wanted. There truly is no pleasing you people

    I agree, even before the ticket system you still had to share the cost....
  • crogscrogs Posts: 733 ★★★
    Kabam Miike said:

    I get where you're coming from, but when you donate to the Treasury, those resources become solely the property of kabam to do with as we see fit.

    It would be the same thing that happened if Map 5 became free without the new ticket system.

    Sorry. Sounds like a lame way to justify it. If you're doing away with the system, we should get the resources back to use as we see fit.
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Posts: 2,841 ★★★★★
    crogs said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    I get where you're coming from, but when you donate to the Treasury, those resources become solely the property of kabam to do with as we see fit.

    It would be the same thing that happened if Map 5 became free without the new ticket system.

    Sorry. Sounds like a lame way to justify it. If you're doing away with the system, we should get the resources back to use as we see fit.
    That’s some quality class action lawsuit material right there. They were donated to the alliance treasury, not to Kabam. If you have the ability to zero those out without full refunds, what stops that from happening to players’ personal resources?
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    crogs said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    I get where you're coming from, but when you donate to the Treasury, those resources become solely the property of kabam to do with as we see fit.

    It would be the same thing that happened if Map 5 became free without the new ticket system.

    Sorry. Sounds like a lame way to justify it. If you're doing away with the system, we should get the resources back to use as we see fit.
    Giving back the resources you put in would be unfair to players who don't donate since you're essentially gaining resources that aren't yours.
  • crogscrogs Posts: 733 ★★★
    edited May 2020
    Notsavage19 said:

    crogs said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    I get where you're coming from, but when you donate to the Treasury, those resources become solely the property of kabam to do with as we see fit.

    It would be the same thing that happened if Map 5 became free without the new ticket system.

    Sorry. Sounds like a lame way to justify it. If you're doing away with the system, we should get the resources back to use as we see fit.
    Giving back the resources you put in would be unfair to players who don't donate since you're essentially gaining resources that aren't yours.
    So it's more appropriate for kabam to do whatever? At least if you're in the alliance you have a vested interest. And for many tickets are useless unless you have tur ability to sell them for chips, gold and loyalty.

    And there are 10 or so of us that have been in the alliance since the beginning or near beginning. So you're kinda wrong anyway. Also considering most were or are officers who have contributed and covered for the not so fortunate for quite a few years. And it's been sitting collecting dust for quite awhile.

    Besides being wrong you completely missed the humor in the quote. 😔
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    crogs said:

    Notsavage19 said:

    crogs said:

    Kabam Miike said:

    I get where you're coming from, but when you donate to the Treasury, those resources become solely the property of kabam to do with as we see fit.

    It would be the same thing that happened if Map 5 became free without the new ticket system.

    Sorry. Sounds like a lame way to justify it. If you're doing away with the system, we should get the resources back to use as we see fit.
    Giving back the resources you put in would be unfair to players who don't donate since you're essentially gaining resources that aren't yours.
    So it's more appropriate for kabam to do whatever? At least if you're in the alliance you have a vested interest. And for many tickets are useless unless you have tur ability to sell them for chips, gold and loyalty.

    And there are 10 or so of us that have been in the alliance since the beginning or near beginning. So you're kinda wrong anyway. Also considering most were or are officers who have contributed and covered for the not so fortunate for quite a few years. And it's been sitting collecting dust for quite awhile.
    Did I ever say that it was alright for Kabam to do whatever? No. Please read before responding.

    I could explain why it's unfair if you would like me to.
  • John757John757 Posts: 1,084 ★★★
    Just here to state that I also think this change is hurting the game more than helping it
  • CeresCPHCeresCPH Posts: 69 ★
    It is not crystal clear for me.

    Will the planned system still be launched 10 June? I really hope not!
  • JustapilgrimJustapilgrim Posts: 239 ★★
    @Kabam Miike still trying to figure out if the sliding scale in the spreadsheet continues to slide past the 150th ticket and get exponentially more expensive for #151 and on, or if each one after 150 is a static cost meaning 150, 151, 299 all cost the same per ticket.

    I have at least 20 million gold coming back to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.