There are 200+ champions. Unless we hand out 7 stats at a much higher rate, we have to attempt to replicate pilling a diverse set of characters all over again with the largest basic pool we’ve ever seen. Without any sort of selection (save for nexus crystals and 15k units on the 4th) this is already bad enough. Add on top the necessity of awakenings/signature stones and a buff program which usually helps absolutely no one 90% of the time, and we’re teeing up for some of the worst grind ever in terms of roster progression
The reason I’m not excited is because of how champ acquiring works. You get a champ. Are they good to go? Not necessarily. For example. Namor isn’t Namor without being awakened and sig 200. Same for Aegon. Angela needs at least the first dupe. Some say sig 200. But I say at least one dupe. So considering every champ in the game.
A very small amount of the pool is good to go when you get them.
So I don’t like 7* for the fact that “most” of the pool has some qualifier it relies on. (Awakened, Sig, Rank, Synergy etc.) So realistically 7* will never be something worth building, except in the most rare cases.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?
That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.
So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.
The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.
The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.
We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.
This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.
I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.
Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
Correct me if Im wrong but the only reason they changed the “expensive thing” was because that wasnt where the majority if revenue from the game mode came from. I.e most high end war players spend units healing not reviving and most money comes from high end players. Your counter says nothing about their motivations- if anything they're just trying to retain the lower players with hopes of monetizing them later.
Id agree more with the monetization framework given how blatantly backwards the release of battlegrounds was as compared to beta coupled with three massive easily monetize-able progression systems being announced (“coincidentally”) just as the single largest spending event of the year was axed. In fact the existence of the gifting event at all spoke volumes about the game’s priorities. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if gifting was canceled so that kabam could justify not handing out 7 star shards out in meaningful quantities for the long term monetization of them later through offers throughout the year
I think I will be happy with 7 stars if there are no 7 stars from 2019 or before. No one wants to see a 7 star beast or 7 star Drax as their first champions
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?
That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.
So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.
The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.
The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.
We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.
This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.
I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.
Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
Correct me if Im wrong but the only reason they changed the “expensive thing” was because that wasnt where the majority if revenue from the game mode came from. I.e most high end war players spend units healing not reviving and most money comes from high end players.
They literally thanked DNA for the idea in the post, and they implemented it a month after his post
I think it’s the general disappointment which consists of:
1. Not really an innovative progression of the game 2. It’s like starting all over anew collecting champs. Imagine you pull a 7* drax or groot.
For myself I can say that I am not really amused as well. My whole alliance is more annoyed than exited but yeah. The hope is now on ascension
Not innovative? They've added 5 and 6*'s..... What would you have expected from a game that started with 1-4* champions? We've known from the begging it wouldn't be like Marvel Future Fight. You're basically saying 5 and 6*'s weren't innovative either.
Exactly. 5 or 6 stars were pointless. If they thought we needed more powerful characters, all they had to do was giving you the chance to improve your 4* to 5*, 5* to 6* or, even more simply, add LVLs to the current characters (5* R6 = 6* R1 and so on).
This is like starting the game from zero over and over again, in a greedy attemp to get money from us, nothing else.
Correct. They should just keep adding to 6* champs for improvements.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?
That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.
So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.
The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.
The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.
We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.
This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.
I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.
Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
Correct me if Im wrong but the only reason they changed the “expensive thing” was because that wasnt where the majority if revenue from the game mode came from. I.e most high end war players spend units healing not reviving and most money comes from high end players.
They literally thanked DNA for the idea in the post, and they implemented it a month after his post
I think you missed the point of my comment. I didnt say it wasnt his idea. I said they only ran with his idea because the idea didnt hurt their bottom line. They didn't make some pro-player decision at the cost of their revenue. If anything they made the decision with long term goal of retaining new players for longer by not making AW turnoff. I went back to the post to check and here’s how I know Im correct
The issue we’re running into is that the two frameworks proposed are aligned or coupled.
DNA posits that Devs are concerned with releasing things at the “right time” such that players have always have something to “need”.
The other poster contended that the Devs are more concerned with the question of “how can I maximize monetization from the item, mode etc”
The obvious problem is that DNAs question of “the right time” is not necessarily distinct from the time when “the most money would be made”. Clearly if you release things in such a way as to keep things relatively balanced then players will likely return and more money will be made. This makes for a convoluted and impossible way to test how we feel kabam makes decisions.
My hypothetical involves uncoupling them by imagining a scenario such that they are at odds with one another. We can then guess how Kabam would behave and this reveals how we ACTUALLY think they set their priorities:
Suppose, for whatever reason, that kabam releasing 7 stars happened ALONGSIDE 6 stars because (for whatever reason) this increased their long term profitability. Obviously this would be a decision which would harm the balance of the game with ftp/new players being likely impossibly set behind, and would not be at a point when 6 stars were “not needed” (ie not the “right time” as DNA defined it) as 6 stars would have just been released. Do you think kabam would rather keep the balance/chase/acquisition of items in line or their long term profitability high?
While Id say clearly they’d maintain profit, based on DNAs claim then kabam in this hypothetical would sacrifice money in the name of balance which I think contradicts most of their decision making practices especially of late. Im curious to hear why you think the question of monetization isn’t the largest one?
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?
That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.
So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.
The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.
The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.
We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.
This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.
I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.
Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
Correct me if Im wrong but the only reason they changed the “expensive thing” was because that wasnt where the majority if revenue from the game mode came from. I.e most high end war players spend units healing not reviving and most money comes from high end players.
They literally thanked DNA for the idea in the post, and they implemented it a month after his post
I think you missed the point of my comment. I didnt say it wasnt his idea. I said they only ran with his idea because the idea didnt hurt their bottom line. They didn't make some pro-player decision at the cost of their revenue. If anything they made the decision with long term goal of retaining new players for longer by not making AW turnoff. I went back to the post to check and here’s how I know Im correct
The Devs goal isn't to pad the bottom line. They get paid by Netmarble. The Devs goal is to put out an enjoyable game designed to stay going for as long as possible.
The money decisions are made by the marketing teams who make the offers. The Devs want a balanced game where there is an aspect of earning and spending free in game resources like loyalty.
I don't know why people keep saying the devs have anything to do with revenue in the game. Kabam doesn't directly get any of the money that's made from any purchases. They are responsible for developing the game.
I think you missed the point of my comment. I didnt say it wasnt his idea. I said they only ran with his idea because the idea didnt hurt their bottom line. They didn't make some pro-player decision at the cost of their revenue. If anything they made the decision with long term goal of retaining new players for longer by not making AW turnoff.
These aren't mutually exclusive thought processes. Contrary to how many people portray the developers, they aren't cartoon villains. At least, not full time cartoon villains. No game design decision happens in a way you can summarize in a sound bite. There are always lots of considerations being factored in, many of which are themselves opposing considerations. Most game developers want to make a good game, because that's just what they want to do. No one gets into the games industry to make bad games. Nor do they do so to get rich, as no one gets rich being a game developer. The practical reality, however, is no one is going to pay them to make the game they dream about in their own heads. They have to contribute to games that have other developers working on them that have their own ideas of what a good game is, and is run by people who have to make sure the business continues to exist to make any games at all.
In every discussion I've had about the game with the developers, the overriding concern has always been "what would make the game better?' However, the reality is what will make the game better for one player will make it worse for another player. And the practical limitations on developer time and resources reduce the set of options available. And then business reality constraints have to be met which are non-optional. There's a parent company you serve. There's a license holder that has ultimate authority over anything you do with their IP.
The most important thing about my post about war potions and revives is not that it advocated for free revives. Many people have advocated for reducing the cost of consumables, I was not the first nor will I be the last to do that. What's important is not even that I presented an argument to support that change. The most important thing was I presented a new perspective on the totality of war, how the game mode works, how it is monetized, what the objectives of its design elements should be, in a language consistent with how the developers view and think about the game. And in this particular case, they listened, thought about it, and decided to adopt at least some of my perspective, and then decide for themselves how to apply that new perspective to their design decisions moving forward.
They made that change because they wanted to improve the game mode. Because there was a short term benefit and a long term benefit. Because it was worth taking the risk to improve the engagement of the game mode. Because the game could sustain the potential revenue loss. They didn't do it before my post because making that change didn't make sense given all the things they had to consider. They didn't do it after my post because I told them to. They did it because they saw that large constellation of issues in a different light, and then made their own decision, which paralleled my recommendations because their decision using that perspective happened to be similar to mine using the same perspective.
I should also point out that post didn't just spring up in my head from out of nowhere. There was a ton of discussions going on regarding Alliance War among players and developers at the time many of which were, shall we say passionate. And I was doing my best to absorb as much of it as possible, from both the developer side and the player side. That's what good discussion ultimately does: it forces you to look at things from many different perspectives and hopefully come up with something new. Its my idea, but there are dozens of people in there, including the developers.
Which is why, I like to think, it was ultimately adopted.
While Id say clearly they’d maintain profit, based on DNAs claim then kabam in this hypothetical would sacrifice money in the name of balance which I think contradicts most of their decision making practices especially of late. Im curious to hear why you think the question of monetization isn’t the largest one?
This one is almost impossible to really fairly consider, because obviously any game that lasts significantly longer is ultimately also going to make more money. So you can always characterize someone's choice to choose game stability and longevity over revenue as still being about revenue.
Kabam makes decisions that sacrifice short term revenue for long term game stability all the time. Progression-locked purchases are one obvious example. It is trivial to assume that any offer that has restrictions on who can buy it make less money than if those restrictions didn't exist. That's true for limited ones as well: any offer with a limit makes less money than one without a limit. The only reason for doing these things is for long term considerations.
Early game acceleration is another example of a global change to the game that chooses the long term viability of the game over short term revenue. Clearly, shortening the early game and increasing its rewards allows players to propel themselves through the game faster and at less cost. They are certainly reducing the revenue they gain from early players, in the hopes that those players stick around longer.
You can even make a strong case that adding 7* champions now is not short-term revenue positive, because that change isn't happening in isolation. The addition of 7* champions comes as part of a process where 6* champions are being made increasingly easy to acquire and rank up. These two things are part of the same singular process. And while 7* champions will add a new thing for the top tier whales to chase, 6* acceleration will make things cheaper for everyone else. Until the majority of players starts actively focusing on 7* champs, they will have an easier, cheaper time continuing to build their 6* rosters. In the short term, 7* champs aren't obviously revenue positive.
You can argue that every single one of these things is only Kabam being focused only on making money, just not money today. But you can say that about literally anything. You can say that even giving rewards away completely for free is just a long term play to make more money in the future, by keeping players happy today. This kind of characterization is not falsifiable, and thus uninteresting. It is not a statement about what they do, it is a characterization about why they do everything they do. But the question of whether the devs focus on immediate and direct revenue or they care about making a good game that will last, whatever their underlying motivations, is a statement about what they actually do, and is something we can directly observe.
Plus, you only need to personally know one actual game developer that works for a game studio to know a very simple truth. Game developers do not get a cut of the game revenue. Game developers get paid a salary. Their own personal interests lie with making a game that players will want to play, for as long as possible, so they don't have to find another job. When people talk about "Kabam" only being interested in the revenue and profits of the game, there is no game developer that works on MCOC anywhere in the studio that benefits from MCOC making more money. They only benefit from MCOC existing. If it doesn't make money, it will stop existing, and they will be out of a job. But if it makes more money, they don't get anything for that. It is in every developer's best interests to make a game that is successful enough, without sacrificing the needs of its players.
I think you missed the point of my comment. I didnt say it wasnt his idea. I said they only ran with his idea because the idea didnt hurt their bottom line. They didn't make some pro-player decision at the cost of their revenue. If anything they made the decision with long term goal of retaining new players for longer by not making AW turnoff.
These aren't mutually exclusive thought processes. Contrary to how many people portray the developers, they aren't cartoon villains. At least, not full time cartoon villains. No game design decision happens in a way you can summarize in a sound bite. There are always lots of considerations being factored in, many of which are themselves opposing considerations. Most game developers want to make a good game, because that's just what they want to do. No one gets into the games industry to make bad games. Nor do they do so to get rich, as no one gets rich being a game developer. The practical reality, however, is no one is going to pay them to make the game they dream about in their own heads. They have to contribute to games that have other developers working on them that have their own ideas of what a good game is, and is run by people who have to make sure the business continues to exist to make any games at all.
In every discussion I've had about the game with the developers, the overriding concern has always been "what would make the game better?' However, the reality is what will make the game better for one player will make it worse for another player. And the practical limitations on developer time and resources reduce the set of options available. And then business reality constraints have to be met which are non-optional. There's a parent company you serve. There's a license holder that has ultimate authority over anything you do with their IP.
The most important thing about my post about war potions and revives is not that it advocated for free revives. Many people have advocated for reducing the cost of consumables, I was not the first nor will I be the last to do that. What's important is not even that I presented an argument to support that change. The most important thing was I presented a new perspective on the totality of war, how the game mode works, how it is monetized, what the objectives of its design elements should be, in a language consistent with how the developers view and think about the game. And in this particular case, they listened, thought about it, and decided to adopt at least some of my perspective, and then decide for themselves how to apply that new perspective to their design decisions moving forward.
They made that change because they wanted to improve the game mode. Because there was a short term benefit and a long term benefit. Because it was worth taking the risk to improve the engagement of the game mode. Because the game could sustain the potential revenue loss. They didn't do it before my post because making that change didn't make sense given all the things they had to consider. They didn't do it after my post because I told them to. They did it because they saw that large constellation of issues in a different light, and then made their own decision, which paralleled my recommendations because their decision using that perspective happened to be similar to mine using the same perspective.
I should also point out that post didn't just spring up in my head from out of nowhere. There was a ton of discussions going on regarding Alliance War among players and developers at the time many of which were, shall we say passionate. And I was doing my best to absorb as much of it as possible, from both the developer side and the player side. That's what good discussion ultimately does: it forces you to look at things from many different perspectives and hopefully come up with something new. Its my idea, but there are dozens of people in there, including the developers.
Which is why, I like to think, it was ultimately adopted.
“ No game design decision happens in a way you can summarize in a sound bite.”
You’re confusing the totality of the decision making process with the importance of the categories underneath it. I dont know every consideration of a car manufacturing company as a function but I can tell you confidently that the premise that the car will SELL is the question which is likely in the top 3. While the individual mechanics may not be concerned directly with that question, their schema will ultimately answer to that notion. If the best car ever produced couldnt sell the mechanics would be out of a job. In contrast, a cheap, shoddy but well selling machine would not find its employees jobless. What’s being contested was the notion you implied- which is that the utmost motivation is somehow a “need replacement” strategy but this idea is only wrought from the fact that the long term health of the game ultimately serves to produce revenue.
“These aren't mutually exclusive thought processes”
Yes. That was the first sentence of my claim: “The issue we’re running into is that the two frameworks proposed are aligned or coupled.”. That’s why I posed a hypothetical for you to better prioritize the where you think kabam’s head is at. Its not hard to imagine that unpopular decisions which may not serve to create the “best game” but are better for “revenue generation” exist. My question to you was simply which question do you think will ultimately hold more weight.
If your new argument is that the structure of the game is to benefit the long term health of the game then you've shifted your framework considerably from what I responded to. Id say even say that the health of the game is synonymous with the health of its revenue. If every player were unhappy but somehow still managed to sell, then Id scarce find an analyst willing to say its “failing”. When someone posed that, ultimately, what anyone’s job is to do is to help generate revenue (regardless of whether they receive a cut) you responded with this quote:
“You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.”
You’ve really walked that 2nd sentence back quite a bit now by implying you only spurred them in the right direction (you said: “They didn't do it after my post because I told them to. They did it because they saw that large constellation of issues in a different light, and then made their own decision..”) but ultimately the original claim implied HEAVILY that kabam was taking some form of revenue plunge to help make a game mode more enjoyable and that was the long and short of it. This, of course, contrasts, what you’re now elaborating on as you even admit that no decision can actually be divorced from the reality of selling the product. The expensive thing they made free was to ultimately entice people into sticking around and spending more in the game mode.
“They are certainly reducing the revenue they gain from early players, in the hopes that those players stick around longer.”
What you’re doing is a semantic fallacy. When you say “stick around longer” you imply that what kabam is after is the intrinsic value of having these players play their game in a sort of “satisfied to have built something good/something people enjoy” type of manner. The value we both know you’re actually alluding to is the idea that a player is more likely to invest money into a game that they play long term. The idea of just milking them a little in early game progression isnt as beneficial as a larger consistent spender in the future. In fact Ill ask another question of you- if early stage players were every bit as likely to spend as those with larger time investments would kabam have been more likely to accelerate their progress or just create a plethora more offers for them to buy? Do you honestly believe that the question of “how do we make them happy” vs “how can we increase the probability of spending” was more important in this case? Asked another way, if kabam knew players joining in 2023 would never be spenders, regardless of time investment, would they seriously ever look to early game revamps ever again even if it would create a large swath of happy players and a more “healthy” (in the sense of the playerbase) game?
You do something similar when you contrast the “short term revenue” “long term viability”. This isnt saying that the state of the game (as you defined it) is what is being weighed. This is saying the “long term ability to make money is more important than the short term ability to make money”- unless of course you agree with me in that “health” of the game is actually just a function of how well its selling products.Nothing you’ve presented has given us a something which would long term benefit the playerbase at the cost of kabam’s wallet long term.
“You can argue that every single one of these things is only Kabam being focused only on making money, just not money today. But you can say that about literally anything. You can say that even giving rewards away completely for free is just a long term play to make more money in the future, by keeping players happy today. This kind of characterization is not falsifiable, and thus uninteresting. It is not a statement about what they do, it is a characterization about why they do everything they do. But the question of whether the devs focus on immediate and direct revenue or they care about making a good game that will last, whatever their underlying motivations, is a statement about what they actually do, and is something we can directly observe.”
Here’s something quite interesting. Ill start with the contradiction near the end. You just presented a dichotomy wherein on one end you have the idea of “direct revenue (somehow conflated with revenue today by means you have not expressed)” OR “creating a game that will last”. This of course implies that you can decide which is more central to kabam’s philosophy which was something that you claimed was impossible to do but here claim is directly observable. Of course the question is of what they actually do- the entire discussion was based on the induction of 7 stars.
When you say “not falsifiable” what you mean is that there has not been a clear example of something kabam has done with altruistic intent especially at the cost of their revenue in the long run. The reason this isnt falsifiable is that the game’s premise is not to get you to play but rather to get some people to spend. Of course the best ways to motivate such ventures is to create competition, increase length of interaction, tie your interest to larger groups whose success depends on everyone etc. This is why I can present decisions that seemed entirely driven by profit at the expense of balance you cannot present the counter.
- The reduction of the stash limiting players ability to amass items - The gifting event (Probably the single most egregious example) - Infinite crystal acquisition through means of the dollar
By what “direct observation” are you claiming that you can divine that the long term health of the game is truly what matters as opposed to revenue streams? The product is built to be sold and every decision DOES flow from that. That’s what a guiding premise is.
“The practical reality, however, is no one is going to pay them to make the game they dream about in their own heads.”
Here’s where I’ll end this. A game developer is paid because the company believes that whatever money they expend on them will ultimately be recouped and exceeded by the product that is sold. The developers individual intent only matter insofar as the goals of those above them are met. Im not going to look down on anyone for the reality of what a job is but I wont pretend a guiding ethos is something its not.
If I look around one day and think “I want to build a car that will make money” then years down the road you ask of me, “Why does your car have so many amenities?”, there are dozens of reasons I could cite but ultimately they all harken back to that one idea at the beginning. Ideally I can’t find something in the car that doesn’t work to this end because the entirety of it was built with this in mind. Often times this aligns with the idea of making customers happy- of course, we often seek to align sellers and buyers interest (its good for everyone). However, in cases when these come into conflict we can see exactly which one ultimately rules the process. If I could use a cheaper part somewhere without anyone noticing then obviously I would do it. The quality of the car only matters insofar as it sells. Its axiomatically true.
A game with unhappy players can surely exist (especially when we begin talking about the highly and intentionally addictive gambling schemes of the game). A game without someone to pay for it cannot.
Probably because if they're whales they've spent thousands making their roster the best. They likely can't or don't want to spend the same amount for only a chance at replicating that roster at a higher rarity for a higher price.
Like they did when 4* were the top, then 5*, now 6* and 7* after. It’s nothing new.
Personally, I’m ready to go at this champ acquisition game again. Getting all new champs will feel so much better than adding sigs to Drax and Wasp over and over
Exactly. People see build roster over again. All i see is awesome gameplay to come. 7* hit monk gon be lit
Probably because if they're whales they've spent thousands making their roster the best. They likely can't or don't want to spend the same amount for only a chance at replicating that roster at a higher rarity for a higher price.
In this case, the game would never progress. What do you think will happen once people are capped at endgame resources and have all the champs they could ever need at max rank? There will just be another new 'thing' to buy to upgrade your roster more, and in those cases, the whales will have to spend all over again anyway. And if there is no 'new' thing and the whales can finally rest knowing their bank balances will never have to be used up again, then there will be an actual ending point of the game, which, upon reaching, most people will quit.
Comments
A very small amount of the pool is good to go when you get them.
So I don’t like 7* for the fact that “most” of the pool has some qualifier it relies on. (Awakened, Sig, Rank, Synergy etc.) So realistically 7* will never be something worth building, except in the most rare cases.
Id agree more with the monetization framework given how blatantly backwards the release of battlegrounds was as compared to beta coupled with three massive easily monetize-able progression systems being announced (“coincidentally”) just as the single largest spending event of the year was axed. In fact the existence of the gifting event at all spoke volumes about the game’s priorities. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if gifting was canceled so that kabam could justify not handing out 7 star shards out in meaningful quantities for the long term monetization of them later through offers throughout the year
DNA posits that Devs are concerned with releasing things at the “right time” such that players have always have something to “need”.
The other poster contended that the Devs are more concerned with the question of “how can I maximize monetization from the item, mode etc”
The obvious problem is that DNAs question of “the right time” is not necessarily distinct from the time when “the most money would be made”. Clearly if you release things in such a way as to keep things relatively balanced then players will likely return and more money will be made. This makes for a convoluted and impossible way to test how we feel kabam makes decisions.
My hypothetical involves uncoupling them by imagining a scenario such that they are at odds with one another. We can then guess how Kabam would behave and this reveals how we ACTUALLY think they set their priorities:
Suppose, for whatever reason, that kabam releasing 7 stars happened ALONGSIDE 6 stars because (for whatever reason) this increased their long term profitability. Obviously this would be a decision which would harm the balance of the game with ftp/new players being likely impossibly set behind, and would not be at a point when 6 stars were “not needed” (ie not the “right time” as DNA defined it) as 6 stars would have just been released. Do you think kabam would rather keep the balance/chase/acquisition of items in line or their long term profitability high?
While Id say clearly they’d maintain profit, based on DNAs claim then kabam in this hypothetical would sacrifice money in the name of balance which I think contradicts most of their decision making practices especially of late. Im curious to hear why you think the question of monetization isn’t the largest one?
The money decisions are made by the marketing teams who make the offers. The Devs want a balanced game where there is an aspect of earning and spending free in game resources like loyalty.
I don't know why people keep saying the devs have anything to do with revenue in the game. Kabam doesn't directly get any of the money that's made from any purchases. They are responsible for developing the game.
In every discussion I've had about the game with the developers, the overriding concern has always been "what would make the game better?' However, the reality is what will make the game better for one player will make it worse for another player. And the practical limitations on developer time and resources reduce the set of options available. And then business reality constraints have to be met which are non-optional. There's a parent company you serve. There's a license holder that has ultimate authority over anything you do with their IP.
The most important thing about my post about war potions and revives is not that it advocated for free revives. Many people have advocated for reducing the cost of consumables, I was not the first nor will I be the last to do that. What's important is not even that I presented an argument to support that change. The most important thing was I presented a new perspective on the totality of war, how the game mode works, how it is monetized, what the objectives of its design elements should be, in a language consistent with how the developers view and think about the game. And in this particular case, they listened, thought about it, and decided to adopt at least some of my perspective, and then decide for themselves how to apply that new perspective to their design decisions moving forward.
They made that change because they wanted to improve the game mode. Because there was a short term benefit and a long term benefit. Because it was worth taking the risk to improve the engagement of the game mode. Because the game could sustain the potential revenue loss. They didn't do it before my post because making that change didn't make sense given all the things they had to consider. They didn't do it after my post because I told them to. They did it because they saw that large constellation of issues in a different light, and then made their own decision, which paralleled my recommendations because their decision using that perspective happened to be similar to mine using the same perspective.
I should also point out that post didn't just spring up in my head from out of nowhere. There was a ton of discussions going on regarding Alliance War among players and developers at the time many of which were, shall we say passionate. And I was doing my best to absorb as much of it as possible, from both the developer side and the player side. That's what good discussion ultimately does: it forces you to look at things from many different perspectives and hopefully come up with something new. Its my idea, but there are dozens of people in there, including the developers.
Which is why, I like to think, it was ultimately adopted.
Kabam makes decisions that sacrifice short term revenue for long term game stability all the time. Progression-locked purchases are one obvious example. It is trivial to assume that any offer that has restrictions on who can buy it make less money than if those restrictions didn't exist. That's true for limited ones as well: any offer with a limit makes less money than one without a limit. The only reason for doing these things is for long term considerations.
Early game acceleration is another example of a global change to the game that chooses the long term viability of the game over short term revenue. Clearly, shortening the early game and increasing its rewards allows players to propel themselves through the game faster and at less cost. They are certainly reducing the revenue they gain from early players, in the hopes that those players stick around longer.
You can even make a strong case that adding 7* champions now is not short-term revenue positive, because that change isn't happening in isolation. The addition of 7* champions comes as part of a process where 6* champions are being made increasingly easy to acquire and rank up. These two things are part of the same singular process. And while 7* champions will add a new thing for the top tier whales to chase, 6* acceleration will make things cheaper for everyone else. Until the majority of players starts actively focusing on 7* champs, they will have an easier, cheaper time continuing to build their 6* rosters. In the short term, 7* champs aren't obviously revenue positive.
You can argue that every single one of these things is only Kabam being focused only on making money, just not money today. But you can say that about literally anything. You can say that even giving rewards away completely for free is just a long term play to make more money in the future, by keeping players happy today. This kind of characterization is not falsifiable, and thus uninteresting. It is not a statement about what they do, it is a characterization about why they do everything they do. But the question of whether the devs focus on immediate and direct revenue or they care about making a good game that will last, whatever their underlying motivations, is a statement about what they actually do, and is something we can directly observe.
Plus, you only need to personally know one actual game developer that works for a game studio to know a very simple truth. Game developers do not get a cut of the game revenue. Game developers get paid a salary. Their own personal interests lie with making a game that players will want to play, for as long as possible, so they don't have to find another job. When people talk about "Kabam" only being interested in the revenue and profits of the game, there is no game developer that works on MCOC anywhere in the studio that benefits from MCOC making more money. They only benefit from MCOC existing. If it doesn't make money, it will stop existing, and they will be out of a job. But if it makes more money, they don't get anything for that. It is in every developer's best interests to make a game that is successful enough, without sacrificing the needs of its players.
You’re confusing the totality of the decision making process with the importance of the categories underneath it. I dont know every consideration of a car manufacturing company as a function but I can tell you confidently that the premise that the car will SELL is the question which is likely in the top 3. While the individual mechanics may not be concerned directly with that question, their schema will ultimately answer to that notion. If the best car ever produced couldnt sell the mechanics would be out of a job. In contrast, a cheap, shoddy but well selling machine would not find its employees jobless. What’s being contested was the notion you implied- which is that the utmost motivation is somehow a “need replacement” strategy but this idea is only wrought from the fact that the long term health of the game ultimately serves to produce revenue.
“These aren't mutually exclusive thought processes”
Yes. That was the first sentence of my claim: “The issue we’re running into is that the two frameworks proposed are aligned or coupled.”. That’s why I posed a hypothetical for you to better prioritize the where you think kabam’s head is at. Its not hard to imagine that unpopular decisions which may not serve to create the “best game” but are better for “revenue generation” exist. My question to you was simply which question do you think will ultimately hold more weight.
If your new argument is that the structure of the game is to benefit the long term health of the game then you've shifted your framework considerably from what I responded to. Id say even say that the health of the game is synonymous with the health of its revenue. If every player were unhappy but somehow still managed to sell, then Id scarce find an analyst willing to say its “failing”. When someone posed that, ultimately, what anyone’s job is to do is to help generate revenue (regardless of whether they receive a cut) you responded with this quote:
“You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.”
You’ve really walked that 2nd sentence back quite a bit now by implying you only spurred them in the right direction (you said: “They didn't do it after my post because I told them to. They did it because they saw that large constellation of issues in a different light, and then made their own decision..”) but ultimately the original claim implied HEAVILY that kabam was taking some form of revenue plunge to help make a game mode more enjoyable and that was the long and short of it. This, of course, contrasts, what you’re now elaborating on as you even admit that no decision can actually be divorced from the reality of selling the product. The expensive thing they made free was to ultimately entice people into sticking around and spending more in the game mode.
“They are certainly reducing the revenue they gain from early players, in the hopes that those players stick around longer.”
What you’re doing is a semantic fallacy. When you say “stick around longer” you imply that what kabam is after is the intrinsic value of having these players play their game in a sort of “satisfied to have built something good/something people enjoy” type of manner. The value we both know you’re actually alluding to is the idea that a player is more likely to invest money into a game that they play long term. The idea of just milking them a little in early game progression isnt as beneficial as a larger consistent spender in the future. In fact Ill ask another question of you- if early stage players were every bit as likely to spend as those with larger time investments would kabam have been more likely to accelerate their progress or just create a plethora more offers for them to buy? Do you honestly believe that the question of “how do we make them happy” vs “how can we increase the probability of spending” was more important in this case? Asked another way, if kabam knew players joining in 2023 would never be spenders, regardless of time investment, would they seriously ever look to early game revamps ever again even if it would create a large swath of happy players and a more “healthy” (in the sense of the playerbase) game?
You do something similar when you contrast the “short term revenue” “long term viability”. This isnt saying that the state of the game (as you defined it) is what is being weighed. This is saying the “long term ability to make money is more important than the short term ability to make money”- unless of course you agree with me in that “health” of the game is actually just a function of how well its selling products.Nothing you’ve presented has given us a something which would long term benefit the playerbase at the cost of kabam’s wallet long term.
“You can argue that every single one of these things is only Kabam being focused only on making money, just not money today. But you can say that about literally anything. You can say that even giving rewards away completely for free is just a long term play to make more money in the future, by keeping players happy today. This kind of characterization is not falsifiable, and thus uninteresting. It is not a statement about what they do, it is a characterization about why they do everything they do. But the question of whether the devs focus on immediate and direct revenue or they care about making a good game that will last, whatever their underlying motivations, is a statement about what they actually do, and is something we can directly observe.”
Here’s something quite interesting. Ill start with the contradiction near the end. You just presented a dichotomy wherein on one end you have the idea of “direct revenue (somehow conflated with revenue today by means you have not expressed)” OR “creating a game that will last”. This of course implies that you can decide which is more central to kabam’s philosophy which was something that you claimed was impossible to do but here claim is directly observable. Of course the question is of what they actually do- the entire discussion was based on the induction of 7 stars.
When you say “not falsifiable” what you mean is that there has not been a clear example of something kabam has done with altruistic intent especially at the cost of their revenue in the long run. The reason this isnt falsifiable is that the game’s premise is not to get you to play but rather to get some people to spend. Of course the best ways to motivate such ventures is to create competition, increase length of interaction, tie your interest to larger groups whose success depends on everyone etc. This is why I can present decisions that seemed entirely driven by profit at the expense of balance you cannot present the counter.
- The reduction of the stash limiting players ability to amass items
- The gifting event (Probably the single most egregious example)
- Infinite crystal acquisition through means of the dollar
By what “direct observation” are you claiming that you can divine that the long term health of the game is truly what matters as opposed to revenue streams? The product is built to be sold and every decision DOES flow from that. That’s what a guiding premise is.
“The practical reality, however, is no one is going to pay them to make the game they dream about in their own heads.”
Here’s where I’ll end this. A game developer is paid because the company believes that whatever money they expend on them will ultimately be recouped and exceeded by the product that is sold. The developers individual intent only matter insofar as the goals of those above them are met. Im not going to look down on anyone for the reality of what a job is but I wont pretend a guiding ethos is something its not.
If I look around one day and think “I want to build a car that will make money” then years down the road you ask of me, “Why does your car have so many amenities?”, there are dozens of reasons I could cite but ultimately they all harken back to that one idea at the beginning. Ideally I can’t find something in the car that doesn’t work to this end because the entirety of it was built with this in mind. Often times this aligns with the idea of making customers happy- of course, we often seek to align sellers and buyers interest (its good for everyone). However, in cases when these come into conflict we can see exactly which one ultimately rules the process. If I could use a cheaper part somewhere without anyone noticing then obviously I would do it. The quality of the car only matters insofar as it sells. Its axiomatically true.
A game with unhappy players can surely exist (especially when we begin talking about the highly and intentionally addictive gambling schemes of the game).
A game without someone to pay for it cannot.