**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
**KNOWN BG ISSUE**
We are aware of an issue with the seeding for the beginning of the BG season.
We are adding rewards to higher progression brackets to offset the additional grind.
More information here.
**Arcade is being extra tricky with his Murder Box...**
It appears Arcade has been non-cooperative in his approach to this month's side quest and presented his clues in a nonsensical order. Lucky you, Summoners, we have our best and brightest on the case and those clues should now be a lot more straightforward. While messing around in Arcade's files we came across a phrase, highlighted and bolded, with sparkles and pointy arrows: "the abode for the dead" ... Maybe that will help you along the way!
Options

Alliance Wars Season 33 Changelog, Rewards Update, Loyalty Store and Glory Store Updates!

11416181920

Comments

  • Options
    Kabam MiikeKabam Miike Posts: 8,270
    edited April 2022
    Amms90 said:

    What is so surprising is the numbers they used were before the compensation started, which was the START of proliferation of r3s in war. Who is incharge of these delusional decisions?
    now exclusively r3s are used in war, with r4s as well. 9.5 heals NOTHING.
    Upon that, you have delayed the start of these potions to AFTER war season start, so we are starting with ZERO potions. Incompetence at its finest, what a joke of a change. To think i actually had hope in this announcement.
    You guys just killed the flourishing war scene.

    We did not ignore the inflation of HP from Rank 3 to Rank 4, and included those in our calculations. We based it on the average number of potions used, then inflated for the change.
    So tell me Miike, r4 apoc, unboosted, is 52k health.
    boosted, 70-80k health. The potions you guys are offering us, heal 9.5k. One near death/death bankrupts us now? healing him also equates to 3 wins in war. What sort of calculations/justifications has the team done?
    That's not the question we set out to answer. The question was "How many Glory Potions did Summoners use on a regular basis". That is what we based our calculations on. People were not regularly fully healing their Champions with potions they got from the Glory store.
    this all stuff about calculations makes no sense. First of all, the period of time when 6s r4 became largely available is the period of time during which our alliance war potions were available through weekly compensations. In your calculations in the last 3-4 seasons I guess we never used glory potions... guess what: we had bigger potions for free, that's why! If we don't get the weekly compensations anymore, then we need to use bought pots. Bought for glory, for loyalty, whatever the currency... but of course the calculations shift because we need to use pots that we buy from the store. I think the way to go about this is to consider how many pots we used no matter which kind. Say on average one uses 7-8 pots per war, then that's how much one should be able to afford (per war). It's nonsensical to analyze how many glory pots we used when we used no glory pots at all
    As mentioned in the thread a few times and in the initial post, we based this on pre-compensation potion useage but adjusted for the increase in health from Rank 3 to Rank 4 Champions.
  • Options
    JJ4JJ4 Posts: 44
    Wicket329 said:

    What is so surprising is the numbers they used were before the compensation started, which was the START of proliferation of r3s in war. Who is incharge of these delusional decisions?
    now exclusively r3s are used in war, with r4s as well. 9.5 heals NOTHING.
    Upon that, you have delayed the start of these potions to AFTER war season start, so we are starting with ZERO potions. Incompetence at its finest, what a joke of a change. To think i actually had hope in this announcement.
    You guys just killed the flourishing war scene.

    We did not ignore the inflation of HP from Rank 3 to Rank 4, and included those in our calculations. We based it on the average number of potions used, then inflated for the change.
    So tell me Miike, r4 apoc, unboosted, is 52k health.
    boosted, 70-80k health. The potions you guys are offering us, heal 9.5k. One near death/death bankrupts us now? healing him also equates to 3 wins in war. What sort of calculations/justifications has the team done?
    That's not the question we set out to answer. The question was "How many Glory Potions did Summoners use on a regular basis". That is what we based our calculations on. People were not regularly fully healing their Champions with potions they got from the Glory store.
    I understand why this was the framing chosen for this issue, but unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed.

    The compensation packages were created based on the average amount of increased item usage from the input bug. So, in theory you have:

    Total Item Usage - Compensation Package Items = Item Usage without Bugs. I can follow that logic.

    However, as I believe I saw mentioned earlier, the compensation packages have actually been overly generous, with many players having potions expire. Even for those that use these potions, they do more for us than just the additional damage taken due to input issues. The player base has, in large part, acclimated to many of the conditions of this particular bug. As a result, we are using fewer of the compensation potions than we were at the outset of the issue.

    So now we have more compensation potions than we need for the problems they were meant to address, thereby artificially driving down the glory potion usage.

    A potentially more helpful question to be asking is “Looking at seasons prior to and during the input bug, how much total healing via items occurred throughout on average per war?”

    This would give you a raw number to target, call it 30,000 (I pulled a number out of the air, please don’t focus on the number) healing via items per war. Then the potions could be configured however they need to be to reach that target point.

    Alternatively, percentage based potions could be put into play and eliminate the need to account for various health pools, but that idea has it’s own separate pros and cons that would require a lot more discussion. It is not a silver bullet.
    If they just made it 5 possible to buy a day and a sensible purchase price like 2k loyalty as a base point for a level 4 potion, then we could all continue like we have always during the bugs and actually compete in next war season . I don’t get why they need to make level 4 potions an extortionate price. That’s the only issue with what they have done here. Then we don’t even need much extra loyalty added to the game .
  • Options
    frodo2377frodo2377 Posts: 315 ★★★

    frodo2377 said:

    What is so surprising is the numbers they used were before the compensation started, which was the START of proliferation of r3s in war. Who is incharge of these delusional decisions?
    now exclusively r3s are used in war, with r4s as well. 9.5 heals NOTHING.
    Upon that, you have delayed the start of these potions to AFTER war season start, so we are starting with ZERO potions. Incompetence at its finest, what a joke of a change. To think i actually had hope in this announcement.
    You guys just killed the flourishing war scene.

    We did not ignore the inflation of HP from Rank 3 to Rank 4, and included those in our calculations. We based it on the average number of potions used, then inflated for the change.
    So tell me Miike, r4 apoc, unboosted, is 52k health.
    boosted, 70-80k health. The potions you guys are offering us, heal 9.5k. One near death/death bankrupts us now? healing him also equates to 3 wins in war. What sort of calculations/justifications has the team done?
    That's not the question we set out to answer. The question was "How many Glory Potions did Summoners use on a regular basis". That is what we based our calculations on. People were not regularly fully healing their Champions with potions they got from the Glory store.
    I would imagine that most players used the free potions from compensation and spent glory on rank-up materials for champions. Why would I spend glory on potions when compensation comes out every week? Claim it when potions/boosts are needed or before it expires so I have a reserve. This way if I have a bad war or two my entire stash isn't depleted. Some players were probably using glory to stockpile potions of smaller degrees in anticipation of the day that Kabam stops giving out all the compensation. Maybe I didn't heal a champ to full because I'm taking my item limit into consideration. There are various reasons that people didn't use glory potions to fully heal up champs in Alliance War.

    Just my 2 cents....
    The calculations are based on pre-compensation. The Compensation potions are not accounted for in these calculations at all.
    So all calculations are based on data from what....9 months ago or so?
  • Options
    Wicket329Wicket329 Posts: 3,174 ★★★★★
    JJ4 said:

    Wicket329 said:

    What is so surprising is the numbers they used were before the compensation started, which was the START of proliferation of r3s in war. Who is incharge of these delusional decisions?
    now exclusively r3s are used in war, with r4s as well. 9.5 heals NOTHING.
    Upon that, you have delayed the start of these potions to AFTER war season start, so we are starting with ZERO potions. Incompetence at its finest, what a joke of a change. To think i actually had hope in this announcement.
    You guys just killed the flourishing war scene.

    We did not ignore the inflation of HP from Rank 3 to Rank 4, and included those in our calculations. We based it on the average number of potions used, then inflated for the change.
    So tell me Miike, r4 apoc, unboosted, is 52k health.
    boosted, 70-80k health. The potions you guys are offering us, heal 9.5k. One near death/death bankrupts us now? healing him also equates to 3 wins in war. What sort of calculations/justifications has the team done?
    That's not the question we set out to answer. The question was "How many Glory Potions did Summoners use on a regular basis". That is what we based our calculations on. People were not regularly fully healing their Champions with potions they got from the Glory store.
    I understand why this was the framing chosen for this issue, but unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed.

    The compensation packages were created based on the average amount of increased item usage from the input bug. So, in theory you have:

    Total Item Usage - Compensation Package Items = Item Usage without Bugs. I can follow that logic.

    However, as I believe I saw mentioned earlier, the compensation packages have actually been overly generous, with many players having potions expire. Even for those that use these potions, they do more for us than just the additional damage taken due to input issues. The player base has, in large part, acclimated to many of the conditions of this particular bug. As a result, we are using fewer of the compensation potions than we were at the outset of the issue.

    So now we have more compensation potions than we need for the problems they were meant to address, thereby artificially driving down the glory potion usage.

    A potentially more helpful question to be asking is “Looking at seasons prior to and during the input bug, how much total healing via items occurred throughout on average per war?”

    This would give you a raw number to target, call it 30,000 (I pulled a number out of the air, please don’t focus on the number) healing via items per war. Then the potions could be configured however they need to be to reach that target point.

    Alternatively, percentage based potions could be put into play and eliminate the need to account for various health pools, but that idea has it’s own separate pros and cons that would require a lot more discussion. It is not a silver bullet.
    If they just made it 5 possible to buy a day and a sensible purchase price like 2k loyalty as a base point for a level 4 potion, then we could all continue like we have always during the bugs and actually compete in next war season . I don’t get why they need to make level 4 potions an extortionate price. That’s the only issue with what they have done here. Then we don’t even need much extra loyalty added to the game .
    Kabam has mentioned that they are looking to make more changes to the Loyalty Store down the line. This seems to be a first step towards that goal, so changes would have to be made either to the rate at which we acquire loyalty, or to the price points of various items, in order to accommodate the next iteration of the Loyalty Store.
  • Options
    Amms90Amms90 Posts: 335 ★★★

    Amms90 said:

    What is so surprising is the numbers they used were before the compensation started, which was the START of proliferation of r3s in war. Who is incharge of these delusional decisions?
    now exclusively r3s are used in war, with r4s as well. 9.5 heals NOTHING.
    Upon that, you have delayed the start of these potions to AFTER war season start, so we are starting with ZERO potions. Incompetence at its finest, what a joke of a change. To think i actually had hope in this announcement.
    You guys just killed the flourishing war scene.

    We did not ignore the inflation of HP from Rank 3 to Rank 4, and included those in our calculations. We based it on the average number of potions used, then inflated for the change.
    So tell me Miike, r4 apoc, unboosted, is 52k health.
    boosted, 70-80k health. The potions you guys are offering us, heal 9.5k. One near death/death bankrupts us now? healing him also equates to 3 wins in war. What sort of calculations/justifications has the team done?
    That's not the question we set out to answer. The question was "How many Glory Potions did Summoners use on a regular basis". That is what we based our calculations on. People were not regularly fully healing their Champions with potions they got from the Glory store.
    this all stuff about calculations makes no sense. First of all, the period of time when 6s r4 became largely available is the period of time during which our alliance war potions were available through weekly compensations. In your calculations in the last 3-4 seasons I guess we never used glory potions... guess what: we had bigger potions for free, that's why! If we don't get the weekly compensations anymore, then we need to use bought pots. Bought for glory, for loyalty, whatever the currency... but of course the calculations shift because we need to use pots that we buy from the store. I think the way to go about this is to consider how many pots we used no matter which kind. Say on average one uses 7-8 pots per war, then that's how much one should be able to afford (per war). It's nonsensical to analyze how many glory pots we used when we used no glory pots at all
    As mentioned in the thread a few times and in the initial post, we based this on pre-compensation potion useage but adjusted for the increase in health from Rank 3 to Rank 4 Champions.
    Pre compensation the vast majority of the player base was using 5/65, not even r3 6stars. At least that's true for me. Last summer I had like 3 6s rank 3. Then summer of pain and act 7 and 4th of july and black friday and gifting event and all that and now I have a bunch of rank 3s, as well as a rank 4 and even a rank up gem for another rank 4. You basing your calculations on months ago for me means that you consider what I was spending to refill my 5/65 as what I'd need for my rank 3s... or even rank 4... I'm playing in tier 3-2 right now. That means winning a war awards me like 30k loyalty from your announcement. Well that's 2 6k pots. Now let's multiply that by 3, which is the number of wars in a week, and we get a total of 6 pots (6k pots). That's the same size of the glory pots, just that with 4400 glory (what I get from a single aq week) I could afford way more than 6 pots a week. I could probably afford to get twice as many... and even just matching that wouldn't be enough because like you say the calculations need to adjust to the increased health pools of our attackers. Given that, I would say we're getting robbed of our chance to play aw without spending units. In fact, you're de facto ruining aw for good with these "calculations". The prize of the pots should be cut down to less than half of what it is right now, otherwise we'll soon go bankrupt in loyalty and then bye bye aw
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    Zan0 said:

    The biggest problem I have with it is if you are on a loosing streak you won’t be able to afford potions, but if you are on a winning streak you’ll be able to buy them

    People being awarded for winning is a new concept?
  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,974 Guardian

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    ChriissR said:

    They arent fixing it. They just added the mid season update for Alliance quest and included the same potion design in the notes. This company is the most fraudulent company out there. Absolute joke

    They are in fact working on what I would describe as substantive changes to the potion system. However, in my opinion they rushed the first announcement without properly vetting it, and it contained huge errors in data and design as a result. I don't think they want to make the same mistake twice, and are being extra cautious before releasing any information about the changes being contemplated and reviewed.
    Well from the information that we have heard Kabam 100% wants to keep the potions limited to 7 purchased per week with loyalty. No cap on unit purchases of course. Also the loyalty price won't change but there will be an increase in loyalty given for a win. However, do not expect the increase to be substantial.
    I’ve heard something different.
    What have you heard? Because my information comes from a pretty reliable source.
    My information comes from direct knowledge of what the changes will be. I suspect your reliable source is leaking intermittent random information from a very extensive and complex discussion.

    The reason why this stuff takes as long as it does is because it isn't enough to just say the devs are wrong. You have to figure out why they are wrong, how they arrived at the wrong numbers, because you can't just tell them two is wrong, it should be eight, and then they can just pencil eight in there. There has to be a system, a logic that generates the eight. You have to hash out which guiding principles led the devs to two, and what we have to replace them with that will lead them to an eight. And there were several principles built into the original announcement that needed to be isolated, discussed, and replaced by general agreement.

    This takes time, this takes a lot of work, and this is easy to mischaracterize from the outside. Personally, I'm a chatter box. If it was up to me, I would be posting regular updates on the process itself. But that's not for me to do. Absent that, I can say that the people on the outside saying how easy it should be to just "change the numbers" with a snap of the fingers and "fix" the system simply have no understanding of how any of this works, or how much effort the players with direct feedback channels are expending to try to work with the devs to improve things. That's not Kabam being intransigent, that's just the reality of development. You have to make a logical case, backed up with strong evidence, and build consensus to change things, because every game change, even the horrible ones, were also generated from the same foundation. If that foundation is flawed, it is not enough to point out its flaws. You have to replace it with something better.

    In any case, everyone will be able to judge for themselves soon enough.
    So they announced the "fix" and it does sound alot like what I explained. Loyalty increase of 54k per win, a limit of 5 you can purchase...oh but they did give us a 1 day timer for the reset...God bless, with all that loyalty they are giving out per win the 1 day timer is sooo clutch

    @DNA3000
    Actually, almost nothing of what your "reliable source" told you was accurate:

    Well from the information that we have heard Kabam 100% wants to keep the potions limited to 7 purchased per week with loyalty. No cap on unit purchases of course. Also the loyalty price won't change but there will be an increase in loyalty given for a win. However, do not expect the increase to be substantial.

    1. Potions are not limited to seven per week. They are limited to forty per day on a sliding cost scale. Even if we only count the largest solo and team potions as the most efficient ones, and even if we only count the initial two that start with lower stepped costs, that's still four per day or twenty eight per week, which in no universe rounds to about seven.

    2. Loyalty increase was substantial. Unless you could increasing total loyalty earned by a factor of three on average to be not substantial. On top of that, loyalty isn't just increased for wins, it also increases for losses which means alliances do not need to win at a high percentage to benefit from the loyalty gains. Above Normal difficulty the loyalty earned from losses is about twice as high as it used to be for wins. I would consider that substantial.

    If what you described and what was announced sounds similar to you, I'm not sure what would sound different. A billion loyalty per war and a fifty potion limit per minute?
  • Options
    Wiredawg1Wiredawg1 Posts: 504 ★★★★
    @Kabam Miike i know not regarding anything in here but there been questions regarding the aq changes to maps 5 and 6. Mainly the points on the fights. Rather or not they will be increased to match what we currently get per aq day. An answer to this would be nice for alliances deciding if they going to go up on maps or not
  • Options
    KnightNvrEndingKnightNvrEnding Posts: 446 ★★★
    So about those prices….they suck lol given the general response I suppose that’s a given tho. So if you’re gonna keep prices this high(which again why???) I’d HOPE you’re gonna increase potion size and allow players better access to more loyalty than they’re getting atm bc players are gonna struggle getting enough for both potions AND boosts at this point. Not everyone is down to spending units(and some people cash) to compete in these war seasons.
    …granted I never understood the need to separate AQ and AW potions anyway.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★

    So about those prices….they suck lol given the general response I suppose that’s a given tho. So if you’re gonna keep prices this high(which again why???) I’d HOPE you’re gonna increase potion size and allow players better access to more loyalty than they’re getting atm bc players are gonna struggle getting enough for both potions AND boosts at this point. Not everyone is down to spending units(and some people cash) to compete in these war seasons.
    …granted I never understood the need to separate AQ and AW potions anyway.

    Therein lies the fundamental problem. Not to disregard how people feel about these changes, because people have the right to their opinion.
    As long as the game is a "Freemium"-style game, people will have the ability to advance faster and better through spending. The game guarantees everyone can play for free. What it doesn't guarantee is that everyone will be able to compete at the highest levels for free.
    We can't always expect to be at the top without spending. That's pretty much a universal truth with games that allow for spending. As unfair as people think it is, that's just how it goes.
  • Options
    RaganatorRaganator Posts: 2,526 ★★★★★

    So about those prices….they suck lol given the general response I suppose that’s a given tho. So if you’re gonna keep prices this high(which again why???) I’d HOPE you’re gonna increase potion size and allow players better access to more loyalty than they’re getting atm bc players are gonna struggle getting enough for both potions AND boosts at this point. Not everyone is down to spending units(and some people cash) to compete in these war seasons.
    …granted I never understood the need to separate AQ and AW potions anyway.

    Therein lies the fundamental problem. Not to disregard how people feel about these changes, because people have the right to their opinion.
    As long as the game is a "Freemium"-style game, people will have the ability to advance faster and better through spending. The game guarantees everyone can play for free. What it doesn't guarantee is that everyone will be able to compete at the highest levels for free.
    We can't always expect to be at the top without spending. That's pretty much a universal truth with games that allow for spending. As unfair as people think it is, that's just how it goes.
    I don't disagree - but wouldn't it be nice if they just had one game mode where non-spenders could compete with spenders at the highest level? The older this game gets, the more (it seems) they want to nickel and dime the player base. We already know they plan to monetize the hell out of Battlegrounds.

    I am not an AW fan, but I've at least found it more fun and engaging when I haven't had to allocate resources to the mode. The best thing they could do for AW is to keep providing the boosts and pots weekly. We know it won't happen, but it would keep people engaged rather than running for the hills (which, for the record, I doubt will actually happen).
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    Zan0 said:

    @GroundedWisdom get out of this thread, you don’t have the experience to comment on war issues, do you even play war?

    We took the Season off because we organized too late. Normally we do.
    I've been a voice on War as long as I've been on the Forum. I was in the first Beta for them. I've had numerous suggestions on them. I don't need to provide a resume, but since you asked...I'm not going anywhere.
    Perhaps you could disagree in a more mature manner.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    Raganator said:

    So about those prices….they suck lol given the general response I suppose that’s a given tho. So if you’re gonna keep prices this high(which again why???) I’d HOPE you’re gonna increase potion size and allow players better access to more loyalty than they’re getting atm bc players are gonna struggle getting enough for both potions AND boosts at this point. Not everyone is down to spending units(and some people cash) to compete in these war seasons.
    …granted I never understood the need to separate AQ and AW potions anyway.

    Therein lies the fundamental problem. Not to disregard how people feel about these changes, because people have the right to their opinion.
    As long as the game is a "Freemium"-style game, people will have the ability to advance faster and better through spending. The game guarantees everyone can play for free. What it doesn't guarantee is that everyone will be able to compete at the highest levels for free.
    We can't always expect to be at the top without spending. That's pretty much a universal truth with games that allow for spending. As unfair as people think it is, that's just how it goes.
    I don't disagree - but wouldn't it be nice if they just had one game mode where non-spenders could compete with spenders at the highest level? The older this game gets, the more (it seems) they want to nickel and dime the player base. We already know they plan to monetize the hell out of Battlegrounds.

    I am not an AW fan, but I've at least found it more fun and engaging when I haven't had to allocate resources to the mode. The best thing they could do for AW is to keep providing the boosts and pots weekly. We know it won't happen, but it would keep people engaged rather than running for the hills (which, for the record, I doubt will actually happen).
    The issue is the competitive nature of War. Would it be nice? Sure. In fact, there are some areas that people compete for free. Very few that spending alone dominates. I hear you, I'm just saying it's how it is.
  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,974 Guardian
    Gamer said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    ChriissR said:

    They arent fixing it. They just added the mid season update for Alliance quest and included the same potion design in the notes. This company is the most fraudulent company out there. Absolute joke

    They are in fact working on what I would describe as substantive changes to the potion system. However, in my opinion they rushed the first announcement without properly vetting it, and it contained huge errors in data and design as a result. I don't think they want to make the same mistake twice, and are being extra cautious before releasing any information about the changes being contemplated and reviewed.
    Well from the information that we have heard Kabam 100% wants to keep the potions limited to 7 purchased per week with loyalty. No cap on unit purchases of course. Also the loyalty price won't change but there will be an increase in loyalty given for a win. However, do not expect the increase to be substantial.
    I’ve heard something different.
    What have you heard? Because my information comes from a pretty reliable source.
    My information comes from direct knowledge of what the changes will be. I suspect your reliable source is leaking intermittent random information from a very extensive and complex discussion.

    The reason why this stuff takes as long as it does is because it isn't enough to just say the devs are wrong. You have to figure out why they are wrong, how they arrived at the wrong numbers, because you can't just tell them two is wrong, it should be eight, and then they can just pencil eight in there. There has to be a system, a logic that generates the eight. You have to hash out which guiding principles led the devs to two, and what we have to replace them with that will lead them to an eight. And there were several principles built into the original announcement that needed to be isolated, discussed, and replaced by general agreement.

    This takes time, this takes a lot of work, and this is easy to mischaracterize from the outside. Personally, I'm a chatter box. If it was up to me, I would be posting regular updates on the process itself. But that's not for me to do. Absent that, I can say that the people on the outside saying how easy it should be to just "change the numbers" with a snap of the fingers and "fix" the system simply have no understanding of how any of this works, or how much effort the players with direct feedback channels are expending to try to work with the devs to improve things. That's not Kabam being intransigent, that's just the reality of development. You have to make a logical case, backed up with strong evidence, and build consensus to change things, because every game change, even the horrible ones, were also generated from the same foundation. If that foundation is flawed, it is not enough to point out its flaws. You have to replace it with something better.

    In any case, everyone will be able to judge for themselves soon enough.
    So they announced the "fix" and it does sound alot like what I explained. Loyalty increase of 54k per win, a limit of 5 you can purchase...oh but they did give us a 1 day timer for the reset...God bless, with all that loyalty they are giving out per win the 1 day timer is sooo clutch

    @DNA3000
    Actually, almost nothing of what your "reliable source" told you was accurate:

    Well from the information that we have heard Kabam 100% wants to keep the potions limited to 7 purchased per week with loyalty. No cap on unit purchases of course. Also the loyalty price won't change but there will be an increase in loyalty given for a win. However, do not expect the increase to be substantial.

    1. Potions are not limited to seven per week. They are limited to forty per day on a sliding cost scale. Even if we only count the largest solo and team potions as the most efficient ones, and even if we only count the initial two that start with lower stepped costs, that's still four per day or twenty eight per week, which in no universe rounds to about seven.

    2. Loyalty increase was substantial. Unless you could increasing total loyalty earned by a factor of three on average to be not substantial. On top of that, loyalty isn't just increased for wins, it also increases for losses which means alliances do not need to win at a high percentage to benefit from the loyalty gains. Above Normal difficulty the loyalty earned from losses is about twice as high as it used to be for wins. I would consider that substantial.

    If what you described and what was announced sounds similar to you, I'm not sure what would sound different. A billion loyalty per war and a fifty potion limit per minute?
    Again if you don’t win you start to losing alot so the system how flaw stop defending Kabam now I’m tierd of it I’m pretty sure you in CCP but don’t said this is golden because it ain’t I’m ready to leave the game again can’t hav faith in Kabam.
    Whether someone likes the updated system depends on a lot of factors. The shift away from glory is going to help a lot of players who can now hold onto more glory, provided they can keep up with loyalty. Low to intermediate potion users are likely to come out ahead. High potion users are likely to be more constrained with this system. That's something I think should be further tackled, but specific numbers would be helpful.

    The argument I've made is that balancing around averages is fraught with problems, specifically because potion use ranges across a very wide range of different situations. But how many people are in those situations, and what they are specifically doing to try to manage those situations is not something datamining can really fully articulate. If players want to see further changes to the system, the best thing to do would be to be specific. What were you doing before, specifically. What do you think you'll have to do now, specifically. What's the gap between the two.

    "This sucks because its pay to win and impossible to do war and too expensive" might be true, but it is also not going to change anything without specifics. The changes incorporate a lot of specific situations. If you want yours to be heard, you have to make the case specifically.
This discussion has been closed.