TBH

Notsavage19

Terra said:

Notsavage19 said:

Spicyslicer said:

This alliance ticket junk is pathetic. They just took my gold. I donated all gold, led the alliance every week for a year or more. And got less than others. More kabam Krap. No wonder I’m loosing steam and barely playing anymore. I’m just hanging on to this announcement. If it’s bad I’m out,

It's your choice to donate your gold. No one's forcing you.

Ever heard of donation requirements?

Ever heard of switching Alliances?

Terra

Notsavage19 said:

Terra said:

Notsavage19 said:

Spicyslicer said:

This alliance ticket junk is pathetic. They just took my gold. I donated all gold, led the alliance every week for a year or more. And got less than others. More kabam Krap. No wonder I’m loosing steam and barely playing anymore. I’m just hanging on to this announcement. If it’s bad I’m out,

It's your choice to donate your gold. No one's forcing you.

Ever heard of donation requirements?

Ever heard of switching Alliances?

Ever heard of being a jumper who only wants rewards?

Notsavage19

Terra said:

Notsavage19 said:

Terra said:

Notsavage19 said:

Spicyslicer said:

This alliance ticket junk is pathetic. They just took my gold. I donated all gold, led the alliance every week for a year or more. And got less than others. More kabam Krap. No wonder I’m loosing steam and barely playing anymore. I’m just hanging on to this announcement. If it’s bad I’m out,

It's your choice to donate your gold. No one's forcing you.

Ever heard of donation requirements?

Ever heard of switching Alliances?

Ever heard of being a jumper who only wants rewards?

Ever heard of taking responsibility for your actions?

Notsavage19

Point is, you chose to donate. You chose to lose possession of your resources. The Treasury isn't a bank. You can't take resources out. Once you put resources in, they're not yours anymore.

How is it fair to other players when you get back resources that you gave up?

dot_ditto

Notsavage19 said:

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate.

This, right here, is your false premise, which causes your argument to fall apart.
Many alliances have required donation amounts to donate ..

So no .. it may not have been a choice.

And even if it wasn't ... the reason for donating has changed/dissappeared .. so your argument still doesn't really hold.

Notsavage19

dot_ditto said:

Notsavage19 said:

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate.

This, right here, is your false premise, which causes your argument to fall apart.
Many alliances have required donation amounts to donate ..

So no .. it may not have been a choice.

And even if it wasn't ... the reason for donating has changed/dissappeared .. so your argument still doesn't really hold.

Please, do tell me how my argument doesn't hold.

You don't need to donate. You don't need to be in an alliance that requires you to donate. You chose to join that alliance. You chose to donate.

KnightZero

Notsavage19 said:

dot_ditto said:

Notsavage19 said:

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate.

This, right here, is your false premise, which causes your argument to fall apart.
Many alliances have required donation amounts to donate ..

So no .. it may not have been a choice.

And even if it wasn't ... the reason for donating has changed/dissappeared .. so your argument still doesn't really hold.

Please, do tell me how my argument doesn't hold.

You don't need to donate. You don't need to be in an alliance that requires you to donate. You chose to join that alliance. You chose to donate.

Donations aside, if you want to progress in the game, you need to go to an alliance that needs you to donate. For all your talk about choice and whatnot, there is no use in playing a game if you don't progress at all.

Notsavage19

KnightZero said:

Notsavage19 said:

dot_ditto said:

Notsavage19 said:

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate.

This, right here, is your false premise, which causes your argument to fall apart.
Many alliances have required donation amounts to donate ..

So no .. it may not have been a choice.

And even if it wasn't ... the reason for donating has changed/dissappeared .. so your argument still doesn't really hold.

Please, do tell me how my argument doesn't hold.

You don't need to donate. You don't need to be in an alliance that requires you to donate. You chose to join that alliance. You chose to donate.

Donations aside, if you want to progress in the game, you need to go to an alliance that needs you to donate. For all your talk about choice and whatnot, there is no use in playing a game if you don't progress at all.

Not really. I've been in the same Map 4 alliance since I've started, and I've progressed through the game, so that's false.

MaxDems

Notsavage19 said:

Point is, you chose to donate. You chose to lose possession of your resources. The Treasury isn't a bank. You can't take resources out. Once you put resources in, they're not yours anymore.

How is it fair to other players when you get back resources that you gave up?

I totally agree. What is done is done.
So why refund with tickets ? It was not necessary.

Kabam decided to refund. So it has to be fair for everybody. The choice to give tickets is not fair beacuse it's an avantage for those who run map 6 or 7.

The refund should have been done with resources.


PS : i don't have personal interest. I always give the right amount. I have 0 ticket. That's just an external point of view

Notsavage19

MaxDems said:

Notsavage19 said:

Point is, you chose to donate. You chose to lose possession of your resources. The Treasury isn't a bank. You can't take resources out. Once you put resources in, they're not yours anymore.

How is it fair to other players when you get back resources that you gave up?

I totally agree. What is done is done.
So why refund with tickets ? It was not necessary.

Kabam decided to refund. So it has to be fair for everybody. The choice to give tickets is not fair beacuse it's an avantage for those who run map 6 or 7.

The refund should have been done with resources.


PS : i don't have personal interest. I always give the right amount. I have 0 ticket. That's just an external point of view

Why refund in tickets? Because although you couldn't take out resources for personal use, the alliance could still use it for AQ. If Kabam just didn't refund, all the resources put in for AQ would be wasted.

How is it an advantage for Map 6 & 7 players?

MaxDems

Notsavage19 said:

If Kabam just didn't refund, all the resources put in for AQ would be wasted.

How is it an advantage for Map 6 & 7 players?

That's the point.
IT IS a waste for those who run map 5. While IT IS NOT for those who run map 6 and 7.

Personnally i would prefer no refund. It would have been a waste for everybody. That's fair.

shadow_lurker22

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

GroundedWisdom

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

ThatGuyYouSaw235

GroundedWisdom said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

No, their donations paid for Map 5 and left them high and dry once they made it free. Sure they have tickets proportionate to what they donated. But that only leaves Map 6 and Map 7 players who can actually use the tickets, which gives them an advantage. Point is, I wouldn't say the donations payed off because quite frankly it was a developer choice for convenience. I just find that the tickets cater to a specific audience, it helps the Map 6 and Map 7 players but leaves the tickets useless for alliances running neither.

KnightZero

Notsavage19 said:

KnightZero said:

Notsavage19 said:

dot_ditto said:

Notsavage19 said:

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate.

This, right here, is your false premise, which causes your argument to fall apart.
Many alliances have required donation amounts to donate ..

So no .. it may not have been a choice.

And even if it wasn't ... the reason for donating has changed/dissappeared .. so your argument still doesn't really hold.

Please, do tell me how my argument doesn't hold.

You don't need to donate. You don't need to be in an alliance that requires you to donate. You chose to join that alliance. You chose to donate.

Donations aside, if you want to progress in the game, you need to go to an alliance that needs you to donate. For all your talk about choice and whatnot, there is no use in playing a game if you don't progress at all.

Not really. I've been in the same Map 4 alliance since I've started, and I've progressed through the game, so that's false.

Correction. Progress at a good pace. Placing higher in AQ gives you much better rewards and progression pace increases. Easier to get T4cc, easier to get t2A, easier to get t5b. Throw in 2 people who play for the same amount of time in a Map 4 and Map 6 alliance and see how fast they progress in the game.

GroundedWisdom

ThatGuyYouSaw235 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

No, their donations paid for Map 5 and left them high and dry once they made it free. Sure they have tickets proportionate to what they donated. But that only leaves Map 6 and Map 7 players who can actually use the tickets, which gives them an advantage. Point is, I wouldn't say the donations payed off because quite frankly it was a developer choice for convenience. I just find that the tickets cater to a specific audience, it helps the Map 6 and Map 7 players but leaves the tickets useless for alliances running neither.

No. Their Donations were made before it was even free. As soon as it was, they disabled the Treasury. They paid for X amount of Map 5 and got a lifetime pass.

dot_ditto

Notsavage19 said:

dot_ditto said:

Notsavage19 said:

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate.

This, right here, is your false premise, which causes your argument to fall apart.
Many alliances have required donation amounts to donate ..

So no .. it may not have been a choice.

And even if it wasn't ... the reason for donating has changed/dissappeared .. so your argument still doesn't really hold.

Please, do tell me how my argument doesn't hold.

Already did .. I'm not repeating myself .. you can reread until you figure it out.

You don't need to donate. You don't need to be in an alliance that requires you to donate. You chose to join that alliance. You chose to donate.

By this logic then, you should never join an alliance . you seem to ignore the fact that initially and for a long time, donations were required for all maps .. so what you're saying is, you should just be a freeloader and don't donate, and let others donate ..

Nice logic pal ... but I see where you're coming from now ... it makes sense ..

You just want a free ride .. no problem.

Most people actually work together and help out in a group when needed.

Now back to the point ... no, if a map REQUIRES fees to start .. then those playing .. SHOULD donate ... that's what's FAIR ... something you don't seem to be getting.

dot_ditto

Notsavage19 said:

Donations aside, if you want to progress in the game, you need to go to an alliance that needs you to donate. For all your talk about choice and whatnot, there is no use in playing a game if you don't progress at all.

Not really. I've been in the same Map 4 alliance since I've started, and I've progressed through the game, so that's false.

Then you're lucky because you haven't been playing long ... doesn't apply to everyone ..
I've played since before AQ's existed .. when they came out ALL maps required donations ...
(well, ok, maybe not map 1 .. but that's a waste if you have 2*'s or better LOL )

Notsavage19

ThatGuyYouSaw235 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

No, their donations paid for Map 5 and left them high and dry once they made it free. Sure they have tickets proportionate to what they donated. But that only leaves Map 6 and Map 7 players who can actually use the tickets, which gives them an advantage. Point is, I wouldn't say the donations payed off because quite frankly it was a developer choice for convenience. I just find that the tickets cater to a specific audience, it helps the Map 6 and Map 7 players but leaves the tickets useless for alliances running neither.

But for alliances running neither, why would you have resources stockpiled up? If you're only running Map 5, why not just donate in exact for that week? There would be disadvantage for Map 5 players if they just paid in exact.

Notsavage19

dot_ditto said:

By this logic then, you should never join an alliance . you seem to ignore the fact that initially and for a long time, donations were required for all maps .. so what you're saying is, you should just be a freeloader and don't donate, and let others donate ..

Nice logic pal ... but I see where you're coming from now ... it makes sense ..

You just want a free ride .. no problem.

Most people actually work together and help out in a group when needed.

Now back to the point ... no, if a map REQUIRES fees to start .. then those playing .. SHOULD donate ... that's what's FAIR ... something you don't seem to be getting.

I'm not saying not to join an alliance, I'm just saying it's your choice if you want to donate or not. No one is directly forcing you to. When you donate, be smart and donate exactly how much you need to. No more, no less.

Notsavage19

The problem is that y'all didn't pay exactly how much you owe. You chose to give in excess. For what?

If you paid exactly how much you owed, there wouldn't be this problem. You chose to pay more than what you were required to. That's on you.

GroundedWisdom

To be fair, being upset that it all disappeared is understandable. I get that. Being upset that it wasn't given to everyone is a bit different. People never get Donations back. Before, or after this change.

xNig

Just treat the donations given for Map 5 as a purchase of an indefinite free pass for it. Be big hearted that whatever is donated is sunk cost and is used to combat merc loadings for alliances.

ThatGuyYouSaw235

Notsavage19 said:

ThatGuyYouSaw235 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

No, their donations paid for Map 5 and left them high and dry once they made it free. Sure they have tickets proportionate to what they donated. But that only leaves Map 6 and Map 7 players who can actually use the tickets, which gives them an advantage. Point is, I wouldn't say the donations payed off because quite frankly it was a developer choice for convenience. I just find that the tickets cater to a specific audience, it helps the Map 6 and Map 7 players but leaves the tickets useless for alliances running neither.

But for alliances running neither, why would you have resources stockpiled up? If you're only running Map 5, why not just donate in exact for that week? There would be disadvantage for Map 5 players if they just paid in exact.

Maybe to go for a Map 5 questing spree? I know there are alliances that stock up on resources to just let it all rip. It's like cutting an onion and putting each individual piece in after cutting it or just waiting till you cut the whole onion and then put them in the dish.

ThatGuyYouSaw235

GroundedWisdom said:

ThatGuyYouSaw235 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

No, their donations paid for Map 5 and left them high and dry once they made it free. Sure they have tickets proportionate to what they donated. But that only leaves Map 6 and Map 7 players who can actually use the tickets, which gives them an advantage. Point is, I wouldn't say the donations payed off because quite frankly it was a developer choice for convenience. I just find that the tickets cater to a specific audience, it helps the Map 6 and Map 7 players but leaves the tickets useless for alliances running neither.

No. Their Donations were made before it was even free. As soon as it was, they disabled the Treasury. They paid for X amount of Map 5 and got a lifetime pass.

That isn't paying for a lifetime pass, that's an automatic conversion into a lifetime pass. One is where you willingly give your resources for another, the latter is when your resources are changed without consent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they made Map 5 free. But they could've handled the exchange better, rather than just give resources only a margin of the alliances can use. They could've at least given everyone's respective investments back or make the tickets to not cater to only a fraction of the alliances.

YoMoves

GroundedWisdom said:

No. Their Donations were made before it was even free. As soon as it was, they disabled the Treasury. They paid for X amount of Map 5 and got a lifetime pass.

This argument falls apart when you consider lower maps were still free beforehand. So if someone has only ever done map 3 their whole life now wants to do map 5, that's apparently going to be paid for by the people who were doing map 5?

No matter how you look at it, there is a disproportionately unfair treatment *somewhere*. Whether you try to push it on the map 5 guys, the map 6-7 guys, or Kabam, what's clear is there is faulty judgment and decision making at play here on someone's part. If there wasn't, there wouldn't even be this argument. Something is flawed and you are trying to act like there isn't anything wrong.

GroundedWisdom

ThatGuyYouSaw235 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

ThatGuyYouSaw235 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Mcord11758 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Nah, that wouldn't be fair to other players.

How. Give back the actual resource that was donated, much more fair than just stealing it

It gives donating players an advantage over the non-donating players.

Player A has 2,000,000 gold. They donate 1,000,000 to their treasury. They cannot take this gold out now.

Player B has 1,000,000 gold. They don't donate.

Both players have 1,000,000 gold now. They both rank up a champ. Now, they have no gold. They are both at the same standing.

But, now the 1,000,000 gold Player A donated is now given back, which means he now has 1,000,000 gold, while Player B has 0.

That means Player A can rank up another champ, putting them in a better position than Player B.

Normally, this wouldn't happen at all, since once you put in your resources into the Treasury, you can't get them back. Player A now has an unfair advantage.

So what you call fair is someone grinding out a million more gold to give to the Ally and now it won't be used so they shouldn't give it back because the other guy who doesn't donate and grind for the extra gold will be out of gold? Lol doesn't really sound fair to me at all.

Well, yes. It was your choice to donate. No one forced you to donate. You could've just used the gold you got to upgrade your champions. Instead, you chose to help out your alliance.

What do you mean "it won't be used"? It'll be used in the form of tickets. You were never able to get your resources back, period. Why should this be any different?

So how is someone in a map 5 alliance going to use them then?

Map 5 is free. So their Donations paid for an indefinite pass.

No, their donations paid for Map 5 and left them high and dry once they made it free. Sure they have tickets proportionate to what they donated. But that only leaves Map 6 and Map 7 players who can actually use the tickets, which gives them an advantage. Point is, I wouldn't say the donations payed off because quite frankly it was a developer choice for convenience. I just find that the tickets cater to a specific audience, it helps the Map 6 and Map 7 players but leaves the tickets useless for alliances running neither.

No. Their Donations were made before it was even free. As soon as it was, they disabled the Treasury. They paid for X amount of Map 5 and got a lifetime pass.

That isn't paying for a lifetime pass, that's an automatic conversion into a lifetime pass. One is where you willingly give your resources for another, the latter is when your resources are changed without consent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they made Map 5 free. But they could've handled the exchange better, rather than just give resources only a margin of the alliances can use. They could've at least given everyone's respective investments back or make the tickets to not cater to only a fraction of the alliances.

What consent? They made it free for everyone, which is a good thing. No one has to donate anything for Map 5. What people are asking for is Resources back from before they made it free, and that makes absolutely no sense at all.