**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
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
Comments
They could have let us split those treasury gold.
(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.
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.
I guess on day 5 that wouldn't matter though or they could run map 1 and have 1 account solo it
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.
Myself as well as others just look at it as a means for tickets to be sold in the unit store.
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.
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.
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?
All you’re doing is appreciated. However, please address the 5 months decision. If players didn’t contribute more than just their map costs, they get no tickets.
That’s an issue because many alliances aren’t ready for map 6-7 and have been storing up large coffers for the time when they’re ready. At the time Kabam took everyone’s treasury, many had way more saved than was necessary to run map 5, so there were times when some were allowed to skip donations, not to mention the few “free” days Kabam provided in the past 5 months.
This means we start at 0 and have to reinvest resources just to get to where we were.
I implore you to consider this potential deficit. Thanks
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. 😔
I could explain why it's unfair if you would like me to.
Will the planned system still be launched 10 June? I really hope not!
I have at least 20 million gold coming back to me.