TBH

Marvel2289

ChubsWhite said:

A few of y'all talking about it's silly to want resources back when these changes occurred. I make an alternative proposal which some also shoot down, obviously to just disagree.

We donated to run Map 5 (whether just enough or excessively). Kabam changed AQ, and made Map 5 free. The players received a number of tickets for AQ based on how much they donated individually instead of actual resources.

My proposal was for alliances who never plan to run anything higher than Map 5, allow us to sell the tickets for resources. We're never going to use the tickets, so it's an unusable currency.

That actually isn't a bad idea at all

ChubsWhite

He steady talking about its unfair to people who don't donate. We chose to donate, yes, to run Map 5 (which is now free). An players chose NOT to donate for whatever reason.

Kabam does not have to reimburse them if they donated nothing — that's like wanting credit for a group project an you didn't contribute anything!!!

shadow_lurker22

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

YoMoves said:

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.

Don't bother arguing with him he's got boots to lick

No, I just don't want people to have advantages over non-donators. They made choices that gave their advantage away. It was their choice.

Sounds like you don't donate shame on you

JueVioleGrace

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

That's like us being killed by a booby trap in a video game with absolutely no tell, warning, or hint that it was coming, and then the game chastising us for not avoiding it anyways.

A jerky move and ridiculously unfair.

You could've prevented it from happening. You could've taken a different path.

Sure, the removal of the Treasury was sudden. But, you could've prevented the extent of your loss by just donating exactly what you owed.

Prevent something without knowing its going to happen...yeah ok. You keep saying that players didn't need to donate an excessive amount, but what's wrong with that? To them at the time, the treasure wasn't going to get taken away. So what's wrong with donating extra to help out or for whatever reason. Why don't you see the other side of the story and why people were not happy with this change. Delusional freak

Dr_Z01dberg

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 you are saying that Player A who has donated his hard earned gold to help his alliance pay for AQ is rewarded and player B who has has only thought about himself, tried to delay and then skip paying donations and left the rest of his alliance to ultimately pay more to run AQ has been screwed over.

I believe the phrase your looking for begins with “Karma is a...”

Notsavage19

Unknown_Traveler said:

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

That's like us being killed by a booby trap in a video game with absolutely no tell, warning, or hint that it was coming, and then the game chastising us for not avoiding it anyways.

A jerky move and ridiculously unfair.

You could've prevented it from happening. You could've taken a different path.

Sure, the removal of the Treasury was sudden. But, you could've prevented the extent of your loss by just donating exactly what you owed.

Prevent something without knowing its going to happen...yeah ok. You keep saying that players didn't need to donate an excessive amount, but what's wrong with that? To them at the time, the treasure wasn't going to get taken away. So what's wrong with donating extra to help out or for whatever reason. Why don't you see the other side of the story and why people were not happy with this change. Delusional freak

Did I ever say I didn't see the other side of the story?

I said that there really isn't a fair solution to all this. I agreed that people were screwed over. You can't solve the problem without screwing over one side in this case.

Calling someone a "delusional freak" just subtracts from your overall argument and really just paint you out to be a child.

Try again, sweetie.

Notsavage19

Dr_Z01dberg 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 you are saying that Player A who has donated his hard earned gold to help his alliance pay for AQ is rewarded and player B who has has only thought about himself, tried to delay and then skip paying donations and left the rest of his alliance to ultimately pay more to run AQ has been screwed over.

I believe the phrase your looking for begins with “Karma is a...”

You're only thinking of freeloaders. You're not thinking of people in alliances who run Map 4 and lower.

Notsavage19

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

Yeah, and making map 5 free is unfair to the people who played map 5 and donated, while those who did beneath that never once had to when they move up/do map 5 now that it's free.


Life's always unfair, so why would a resource refund be any worse?

I'll turn it back around.

Life's always unfair, so why would a free Map 5 be any worse?

I agree that the Ticket system is flawed.

I agree that some Map 5 players/alliances are screwed.

There is no win-win situation here. Kabam...well, they've made choices.

If you give people back their resources, the people who don't donate get screwed.

If you don't give people back their resources, Map 5 players get screwed.

You see? There's just no solution. Either one side wins, and the other loses, or vice versa.

People didn't throw their resources into a dumpster, they donated them to have a specific use. That use was made obsolete with the change to the alliance quest resource structure, so people have a right to be upset that they are not being given an option to get their resources back. What you state as unfair to those who do not donate is a perceived loss, rather than an actual loss. They COULD view it as unfair that others are getting resources back (most would not view it that way I'm sure, because I like to think that many are rational thinkers). But that would not be an actual loss to them. The real loss is that people who had committed their resrouces to a specific use are having those resources essentially deleted.

Whether you believe that is fair is a different story, but I hate this narrative that non-donaters would be losing if resources were returned instead of tickets.

But they made the choice of donating excess...

That was a mistake.

No it wasn't a mistake, it was a choice to help out those in their alliance that needed it. Then Kabam decided to remove the treasury to stop an exploit by cheaters. I love that move, but you can only pretend it was a mistake with hindsight vision.

Regardless, you're circling around again to say that it's their fault for donating excess (which isn't true, many do it to help alliance mates). You have yet to respond to my previous rebuttal. The fact is, there is no actual loss to return the resources. The two options are perceived loss vs actual loss, not loss vs loss. The player who did not donate doesn't lose anything by someone else being given back their gold and loyalty. The gold was donated to serve a specific person (to help others run AQ maps), and Kabam took away that ability. There's no actual harm to other players in returning the resources which were donated.

You're talking about actual loss, but the thing is your resources are lost as soon as they enter the Treasury. That's how it's been.

Although the who person doesn't donate doesn't "lose" anything per say, the person who did donate now gains an advantage.

"The gold was donated to serve a specific person (to help others run AQ maps)". We have tickets now.

"which isn't true, many do it to help alliance mates". Was it not your choice to donate excess?

I just don't want people to get an unfair advantage. You chose to give up your resources.

There's no harm to the non-donating players. I agree. But, it's benefitting the donating players.

IDK if it's my wording, but I'm just trying to say that giving back resources would allow some players to progress faster than the non-donating players. Yes, they could've progressed faster before, when they grinded out those resources. But, they chose to help their alliance instead. I'm not saying that it's a bad decision. I donate to my alliance once in a while too (we're mostly Map 4). I'm just saying that it's a choice. You could've chose to progress with the resources you earned, but instead, you chose to put it in the Treasury, thereby giving up your advantage.

Wakandas_Finest

Kabam should allow players a one time option to sell their alliance tickets with a selector for what they receive in return (gold,BC,loyalty,units)

shadow_lurker22

Notsavage19 said:

Dr_Z01dberg 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 you are saying that Player A who has donated his hard earned gold to help his alliance pay for AQ is rewarded and player B who has has only thought about himself, tried to delay and then skip paying donations and left the rest of his alliance to ultimately pay more to run AQ has been screwed over.

I believe the phrase your looking for begins with “Karma is a...”

You're only thinking of freeloaders. You're not thinking of people in alliances who run Map 4 and lower.

Why would we think of those people they weren't effected in the slightest by these changes.

JueVioleGrace

Notsavage19 said:

Unknown_Traveler said:

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

That's like us being killed by a booby trap in a video game with absolutely no tell, warning, or hint that it was coming, and then the game chastising us for not avoiding it anyways.

A jerky move and ridiculously unfair.

You could've prevented it from happening. You could've taken a different path.

Sure, the removal of the Treasury was sudden. But, you could've prevented the extent of your loss by just donating exactly what you owed.

Prevent something without knowing its going to happen...yeah ok. You keep saying that players didn't need to donate an excessive amount, but what's wrong with that? To them at the time, the treasure wasn't going to get taken away. So what's wrong with donating extra to help out or for whatever reason. Why don't you see the other side of the story and why people were not happy with this change. Delusional freak

Did I ever say I didn't see the other side of the story?

I said that there really isn't a fair solution to all this. I agreed that people were screwed over. You can't solve the problem without screwing over one side in this case.

Calling someone a "delusional freak" just subtracts from your overall argument and really just paint you out to be a child.

Try again, sweetie.

Try what again? Maybe I came off quite aggressive but the main problem with your arguments were when you tried to say that people *chose* to donate extra so it's their fault which is just straight up wrong.

Notsavage19

Unknown_Traveler said:

Notsavage19 said:

Unknown_Traveler said:

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

That's like us being killed by a booby trap in a video game with absolutely no tell, warning, or hint that it was coming, and then the game chastising us for not avoiding it anyways.

A jerky move and ridiculously unfair.

You could've prevented it from happening. You could've taken a different path.

Sure, the removal of the Treasury was sudden. But, you could've prevented the extent of your loss by just donating exactly what you owed.

Prevent something without knowing its going to happen...yeah ok. You keep saying that players didn't need to donate an excessive amount, but what's wrong with that? To them at the time, the treasure wasn't going to get taken away. So what's wrong with donating extra to help out or for whatever reason. Why don't you see the other side of the story and why people were not happy with this change. Delusional freak

Did I ever say I didn't see the other side of the story?

I said that there really isn't a fair solution to all this. I agreed that people were screwed over. You can't solve the problem without screwing over one side in this case.

Calling someone a "delusional freak" just subtracts from your overall argument and really just paint you out to be a child.

Try again, sweetie.

Try what again? Maybe I came off quite aggressive but the main problem with your arguments were when you tried to say that people *chose* to donate extra so it's their fault which is just straight up wrong.

How is that wrong? Did you not choose to donate extra? You only had to donate a certain amount. Donating more than that was your choice.

Notsavage19

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

Yeah, and making map 5 free is unfair to the people who played map 5 and donated, while those who did beneath that never once had to when they move up/do map 5 now that it's free.


Life's always unfair, so why would a resource refund be any worse?

I'll turn it back around.

Life's always unfair, so why would a free Map 5 be any worse?

I agree that the Ticket system is flawed.

I agree that some Map 5 players/alliances are screwed.

There is no win-win situation here. Kabam...well, they've made choices.

If you give people back their resources, the people who don't donate get screwed.

If you don't give people back their resources, Map 5 players get screwed.

You see? There's just no solution. Either one side wins, and the other loses, or vice versa.

People didn't throw their resources into a dumpster, they donated them to have a specific use. That use was made obsolete with the change to the alliance quest resource structure, so people have a right to be upset that they are not being given an option to get their resources back. What you state as unfair to those who do not donate is a perceived loss, rather than an actual loss. They COULD view it as unfair that others are getting resources back (most would not view it that way I'm sure, because I like to think that many are rational thinkers). But that would not be an actual loss to them. The real loss is that people who had committed their resrouces to a specific use are having those resources essentially deleted.

Whether you believe that is fair is a different story, but I hate this narrative that non-donaters would be losing if resources were returned instead of tickets.

But they made the choice of donating excess...

That was a mistake.

No it wasn't a mistake, it was a choice to help out those in their alliance that needed it. Then Kabam decided to remove the treasury to stop an exploit by cheaters. I love that move, but you can only pretend it was a mistake with hindsight vision.

Regardless, you're circling around again to say that it's their fault for donating excess (which isn't true, many do it to help alliance mates). You have yet to respond to my previous rebuttal. The fact is, there is no actual loss to return the resources. The two options are perceived loss vs actual loss, not loss vs loss. The player who did not donate doesn't lose anything by someone else being given back their gold and loyalty. The gold was donated to serve a specific person (to help others run AQ maps), and Kabam took away that ability. There's no actual harm to other players in returning the resources which were donated.

You're talking about actual loss, but the thing is your resources are lost as soon as they enter the Treasury. That's how it's been.

Although the who person doesn't donate doesn't "lose" anything per say, the person who did donate now gains an advantage.

"The gold was donated to serve a specific person (to help others run AQ maps)". We have tickets now.

"which isn't true, many do it to help alliance mates". Was it not your choice to donate excess?

I just don't want people to get an unfair advantage. You chose to give up your resources.

There's no harm to the non-donating players. I agree. But, it's benefitting the donating players.

IDK if it's my wording, but I'm just trying to say that giving back resources would allow some players to progress faster than the non-donating players. Yes, they could've progressed faster before, when they grinded out those resources. But, they chose to help their alliance instead. I'm not saying that it's a bad decision. I donate to my alliance once in a while too (we're mostly Map 4). I'm just saying that it's a choice. You could've chose to progress with the resources you earned, but instead, you chose to put it in the Treasury, thereby giving up your advantage.

They chose to donate it to serve a specific purpose, and Kabam choose to nullify that purpose. That's their right, but the only real way to rectify that then is by reimbursing with the resources donated. As an analogy, say I wanted to gift my friend $1000 USD for whatever reason. However, my bank does not allow me to complete the transaction for whatever reason. Imagine how livid I would be if my bank, after denying my transaction said, I'm sorry, but we cannot return your funds to your account. Instead, we will give you the equivalent value in produce. What exactly am I going to do with $1000 USD worth of produce? I don't even have the storage space for these. Before I can actually do anything with them, they may end up rotting.

One could argue, that my bank is right, because when I chose to gift the money to my friend, I CHOSE to do that. I gave up the money without ever expecting to see it again. One could indeed make such an argument, but they would be wrong...

The only problem with that analogy is that the Treasury doesn't act like a bank.

You book a flight for a vacation. Now, the flight is canceled. The airline company offers you credit. This is what the Treasury situation is.

Notsavage19

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Dr_Z01dberg 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 you are saying that Player A who has donated his hard earned gold to help his alliance pay for AQ is rewarded and player B who has has only thought about himself, tried to delay and then skip paying donations and left the rest of his alliance to ultimately pay more to run AQ has been screwed over.

I believe the phrase your looking for begins with “Karma is a...”

You're only thinking of freeloaders. You're not thinking of people in alliances who run Map 4 and lower.

Why would we think of those people they weren't effected in the slightest by these changes.

Yes, they weren't affected by the Treasury change. But, one can argue that they will be affected in some way if Kabam refunds in resources.

Notsavage19

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

Ebony_Naw said:

Notsavage19 said:

YoMoves said:

Yeah, and making map 5 free is unfair to the people who played map 5 and donated, while those who did beneath that never once had to when they move up/do map 5 now that it's free.


Life's always unfair, so why would a resource refund be any worse?

I'll turn it back around.

Life's always unfair, so why would a free Map 5 be any worse?

I agree that the Ticket system is flawed.

I agree that some Map 5 players/alliances are screwed.

There is no win-win situation here. Kabam...well, they've made choices.

If you give people back their resources, the people who don't donate get screwed.

If you don't give people back their resources, Map 5 players get screwed.

You see? There's just no solution. Either one side wins, and the other loses, or vice versa.

People didn't throw their resources into a dumpster, they donated them to have a specific use. That use was made obsolete with the change to the alliance quest resource structure, so people have a right to be upset that they are not being given an option to get their resources back. What you state as unfair to those who do not donate is a perceived loss, rather than an actual loss. They COULD view it as unfair that others are getting resources back (most would not view it that way I'm sure, because I like to think that many are rational thinkers). But that would not be an actual loss to them. The real loss is that people who had committed their resrouces to a specific use are having those resources essentially deleted.

Whether you believe that is fair is a different story, but I hate this narrative that non-donaters would be losing if resources were returned instead of tickets.

But they made the choice of donating excess...

That was a mistake.

No it wasn't a mistake, it was a choice to help out those in their alliance that needed it. Then Kabam decided to remove the treasury to stop an exploit by cheaters. I love that move, but you can only pretend it was a mistake with hindsight vision.

Regardless, you're circling around again to say that it's their fault for donating excess (which isn't true, many do it to help alliance mates). You have yet to respond to my previous rebuttal. The fact is, there is no actual loss to return the resources. The two options are perceived loss vs actual loss, not loss vs loss. The player who did not donate doesn't lose anything by someone else being given back their gold and loyalty. The gold was donated to serve a specific person (to help others run AQ maps), and Kabam took away that ability. There's no actual harm to other players in returning the resources which were donated.

You're talking about actual loss, but the thing is your resources are lost as soon as they enter the Treasury. That's how it's been.

Although the who person doesn't donate doesn't "lose" anything per say, the person who did donate now gains an advantage.

"The gold was donated to serve a specific person (to help others run AQ maps)". We have tickets now.

"which isn't true, many do it to help alliance mates". Was it not your choice to donate excess?

I just don't want people to get an unfair advantage. You chose to give up your resources.

There's no harm to the non-donating players. I agree. But, it's benefitting the donating players.

IDK if it's my wording, but I'm just trying to say that giving back resources would allow some players to progress faster than the non-donating players. Yes, they could've progressed faster before, when they grinded out those resources. But, they chose to help their alliance instead. I'm not saying that it's a bad decision. I donate to my alliance once in a while too (we're mostly Map 4). I'm just saying that it's a choice. You could've chose to progress with the resources you earned, but instead, you chose to put it in the Treasury, thereby giving up your advantage.

They chose to donate it to serve a specific purpose, and Kabam choose to nullify that purpose. That's their right, but the only real way to rectify that then is by reimbursing with the resources donated. As an analogy, say I wanted to gift my friend $1000 USD for whatever reason. However, my bank does not allow me to complete the transaction for whatever reason. Imagine how livid I would be if my bank, after denying my transaction said, I'm sorry, but we cannot return your funds to your account. Instead, we will give you the equivalent value in produce. What exactly am I going to do with $1000 USD worth of produce? I don't even have the storage space for these. Before I can actually do anything with them, they may end up rotting.

One could argue, that my bank is right, because when I chose to gift the money to my friend, I CHOSE to do that. I gave up the money without ever expecting to see it again. One could indeed make such an argument, but they would be wrong...

The only problem with that analogy is that the Treasury doesn't act like a bank.

You book a flight for a vacation. Now, the flight is canceled. The airline company offers you credit. This is what the Treasury situation is.

Except if it is the airline who cancels the flight, they are required by law to refund my purchase should I choose not to fly again on a later date (it is my choice immediately to decide whether I want to book again, or take a cash refund). Same here, Kabam "cancelled" the treasury, so summoners should have been given the right to choose the method of refund.

But then again, Kabam can do whatever they want to. It's their resources. They own them. They graciously gave you a refund in tickets.

CoatHang3r

Imagine arguing for two days about something that has already been decided and implemented...

GroundedWisdom

CoatHang3r said:

Imagine arguing for two days about something that has already been decided and implemented...

What doesn't make sense to me is people want Resources back for a Map that wasn't free when they donated.

YoMoves

I mean, if anything, it's nice to see what passes for education these days, and notsavage sure loves reiterating the same incorrect point 20 different ways without ever actually answering the questions presented.

JueVioleGrace

L

CoatHang3r said:

Imagine arguing for two days about something that has already been decided and implemented...

Boredom🤔

KDoggg2017

It's the underlying principle. But no matter.

Come holla at me the day Kabam decides they don't want to use battle chips anymore and doesn't feel like allowing you to cash them in for gold and units.
I mean... it's their property to do as they please. 🤷‍♂️

Notsavage19

YoMoves said:

I mean, if anything, it's nice to see what passes for education these days, and notsavage sure loves reiterating the same incorrect point 20 different ways without ever actually answering the questions presented.

It'll bound to be correct at some point, won't it?

shadow_lurker22

Notsavage19 said:

shadow_lurker22 said:

Notsavage19 said:

Dr_Z01dberg 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 you are saying that Player A who has donated his hard earned gold to help his alliance pay for AQ is rewarded and player B who has has only thought about himself, tried to delay and then skip paying donations and left the rest of his alliance to ultimately pay more to run AQ has been screwed over.

I believe the phrase your looking for begins with “Karma is a...”

You're only thinking of freeloaders. You're not thinking of people in alliances who run Map 4 and lower.

Why would we think of those people they weren't effected in the slightest by these changes.

Yes, they weren't affected by the Treasury change. But, one can argue that they will be affected in some way if Kabam refunds in resources.

How they aren't the ones who lost out on resources they grinded for?

shadow_lurker22

GroundedWisdom said:

CoatHang3r said:

Imagine arguing for two days about something that has already been decided and implemented...

What doesn't make sense to me is people want Resources back for a Map that wasn't free when they donated.

Yes we want resources back because before the map wasn't free and now it is so those resources are going to waste.

Pulyaman

YoMoves said:

I mean, if anything, it's nice to see what passes for education these days, and notsavage sure loves reiterating the same incorrect point 20 different ways without ever actually answering the questions presented.

I thought of typing a rebuttal but then decided I don't actually need to convince anyone in the forum. The people need convincing already decided what they want to do and what is actually logical is not going to happen. When you hear people say people who worked hard for their resources donated because it was their choice and it is their fault, you know it's useless to argue anymore.