**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.
Options

Removal of Revive Farming and the Apothecary Discussion

1…4445474950…56

Comments

  • Options
    StatureStature Posts: 426 ★★★
    edited March 2023
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Personally, I tend to read what's written as opposed to creating a narrative.

    You are almost always creating narratives and derailing threads. In the few weeks I've been on the forums, you have almost always taken an oblique position which you never explain, deliberately misquote and obfuscate other peoples statements, create strawman arguments and avoid answering any direct questions in a straight forward manner. Of all the forum users, you are the last one to be able to claim to read what's written. I have never seen you engage with any discussion in good faith.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not the case. I address the actual issues being presented. I don't spend much time conflating.
    Ok, I'll give it another shot.

    You said the decision had nothing to do with money. I asked do you think spending will increase or fall due to this move. And if it falls what will happen next - I think revives will becomes available more easily, even though the current stated position is easy availability of revives trivializes content.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,375 ★★★★★
    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Personally, I tend to read what's written as opposed to creating a narrative.

    You are almost always creating narratives and derailing threads. In the few weeks I've been on the forums, you have almost always taken an oblique position which you never explain, deliberately misquote and obfuscate other peoples statements, create strawman arguments and avoid answering any direct questions in a straight forward manner. Of all the forum users, you are the last one to be able to claim to read what's written. I have never seen you engage with any discussion in good faith.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not the case. I address the actual issues being presented. I don't spend much time conflating.
    Ok, I'll give it another shot.

    You said the decision had nothing to do with money. I asked do you think spending will increase or fall due to this move. And if it falls what will happen next - I think revives will becomes available more easily, even though the current stated position is easy availability of revives trivializes content.
    Those are two entirely separate subjects. There are a great deal of assumptions going on here. Not that I'm foreign to that. I think many people make assumptions.
    There is the assumption it's all about money. There is the assumption it's all about Herc. There is the assumption it was intended because it's existed. Many assumptions. Just like I assume it isn't.
    I didn't avoid your questioning. You didn't ask me something that pertains to my view. In essence, what you're doing is trying to cross-examine me to prove your own theory. I'm not on trial. Had you asked me why I don't believe it's all about money, I would have gladly obliged. However, I'm not going to be coaxed into proving your points for you. That's up to you to make them.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,375 ★★★★★
    edited March 2023
    You mean when you asked why Kabam’s position had anything to do with my personal take? I answered your question. When you say things like you're dreading the Guardian program because of me (which doesn't even make sense considering there are specifications for responsibilities for that), then I'm less likely to be willing to engage with you. Your tone with addressing me is accusatory and disrespectful. So I'm less inclined to respond.
    I gave a response originally, and you ignored my points to question why Kabam’s stance had anything to do with it. I even gave a response, despite the nature of the question. So....there's that.
    BigBlueOx said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Personally, I tend to read what's written as opposed to creating a narrative.

    You are almost always creating narratives and derailing threads. In the few weeks I've been on the forums, you have almost always taken an oblique position which you never explain, deliberately misquote and obfuscate other peoples statements, create strawman arguments and avoid answering any direct questions in a straight forward manner. Of all the forum users, you are the last one to be able to claim to read what's written. I have never seen you engage with any discussion in good faith.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not the case. I address the actual issues being presented. I don't spend much time conflating.
    Literally in this thread rather than answer my direct questions in an attempt to engage in a good faith we discussion with you, trying to understand your individual point of view, you instead accused me of not reading and turned very rude.

    I’m sorry but I still am not sure on your actual stance on this discussion. Instead I feel like you are trying to obscure every other valid argument presented in attempts to derail the productive conversation others are attempting to have. It seems solely targeted on “out pointing” the community and trolling the discussion. It’s disappointing how often you’ve spammed this discussion while offering up very little in discussing it. This is intended to be constructive albeit direct feedback.

    So please for those of us that are attempting to discuss the issue, can you please offer up an opinion on the discussion or perhaps at this point let the others discuss the topic?
  • Options
    TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Typhoon said:

    pseudosane said:

    Folks, kabam is most probably reading all of this and hopefully comes up with a good compromise. Plenty of good material in here.

    All we need to do is remain constructive and ignore the common derailer. Eyes on the prize folks.

    Just curious when we will see what their response is. I think a lot of people are waiting to see what it looks like before making any sudden decisions. Not sure there’s anything left for the community to say really. Everyone has a done a great job speaking their piece.
    I don't want a compromise. Lets leave revives exactly how it is. Its already a small percentage of players, playing end game content to really need revives.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,375 ★★★★★
    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Personally, I tend to read what's written as opposed to creating a narrative.

    You are almost always creating narratives and derailing threads. In the few weeks I've been on the forums, you have almost always taken an oblique position which you never explain, deliberately misquote and obfuscate other peoples statements, create strawman arguments and avoid answering any direct questions in a straight forward manner. Of all the forum users, you are the last one to be able to claim to read what's written. I have never seen you engage with any discussion in good faith.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not the case. I address the actual issues being presented. I don't spend much time conflating.
    Ok, I'll give it another shot.

    You said the decision had nothing to do with money. I asked do you think spending will increase or fall due to this move. And if it falls what will happen next - I think revives will becomes available more easily, even though the current stated position is easy availability of revives trivializes content.
    Those are two entirely separate subjects. There are a great deal of assumptions going on here. Not that I'm foreign to that. I think many people make assumptions.
    There is the assumption it's all about money. There is the assumption it's all about Herc. There is the assumption it was intended because it's existed. Many assumptions. Just like I assume it isn't.
    I didn't avoid your questioning. You didn't ask me something that pertains to my view. In essence, what you're doing is trying to cross-examine me to prove your own theory. I'm not on trial. Had you asked me why I don't believe it's all about money, I would have gladly obliged. However, I'm not going to be coaxed into proving your points for you. That's up to you to make them.
    It was a simple question. Directly in response to something you have stated many times - that the decision had nothing to do with money.

    I made no assumptions, I have never mentioned Herc. All I asked you was to elaborate and validate your point of view. You responded it with an entire paragraph of gaslighting and did not even attempt to address the issue at point. You do you. Have a good life.
    I'm pretty sure I said the assumptions were made in the Thread. Not that you made them all. I said I don't believe it's ALL about the money. In fact, you singled that out and challenged it as if I said there were NO financial considerations. That's not what I said at all. I said the gross undervaluing of their product is a factor, but there is much more than just the money to consider. I said it's not the sole and only motivation. You then proceeded to question me based on your own summation of what I said.
    Once again, it is not logical to me in many ways that the issue is only the money. First of all, you need to consider the variable of how many people have that much money to drop. Then you also have to make sure those people won't choose to just save Units and Revs and wait. You also have to make sure they have no other avenue to get Revs.
    If you think all of that is inconsequential to the idea they're just trying to make people spend, then I don't know what to say. Had they given people no choice at all? Sure. Hence my comments about not HAVING to spend, but apparently that doesn't fit the narrative so that's overlooked.
    There are layers of internal problems that come from leaking a growing number of Resources to a growing number of Players taking advantage of it, and that has very little to do with money.
    If you would like to engage what I've actually said, by all means. If you're going to ignore the points I've made and ask me to prove what you think I said, that's a conversation all on your own.
  • Options
    PikoluPikolu Posts: 7,001 Guardian
    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.

    Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?

    Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.

    As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.

    It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.

    Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
    People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players.
    Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective.
    If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
    I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.

    The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.

    What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
    In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
    For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.

    Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
    So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not.
    If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
    This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
    There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
    So for they designed unlimited revive farming (but exclusively for newer players only)
    It was designed to give new players an edge as they start to get used to the game. The quests were never designed to be done after they were explored.
  • Options
    SkunkcabbageSkunkcabbage Posts: 205 ★★
    DrZola said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.

    Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?

    Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.

    As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.

    It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.

    Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
    People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players.
    Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective.
    If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
    I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.

    The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.

    What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
    In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
    For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.

    Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
    So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not.
    If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
    This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
    There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
    So for they designed unlimited revive farming (but exclusively for newer players only)
    It was designed to give new players an edge as they start to get used to the game. The quests were never designed to be done after they were explored.
    Why would a player not want to go back to a resource that they have an ongoing need for though? After they've explored Act 3 of course they will go back to get revives from 3.2.6 to help progress through Act 4.

    Also you don't know for a fact who designed the content and the rationale that was used, you're just assuming at this point.
    I think assuming naïveté on the part of the game team when it comes to how players play and experience mobile games is wrong. Some of them may even play this game and others when they aren’t coding MCoC.

    Most direct solution would be to lock paths once they are run or adjust the spawn rate of revives. Neither appears to have been done.

    I think we can assume the team keeps records and data on gameplay that goes well beyond what the community can access (in fact, they have told us that on more than one occasion). Armed with detailed data on quest usage, why not do something about Paragons and TBs revisiting 3.2.6 repeatedly, say, months and months ago?

    I believe the answer is Casablanca.

    Dr. Zola
    What you are saying is flawless in logic and I agree with all of it.

    My response was to whoever I replied to because I felt the need to challenge what they wrote and how they phrased it.
  • Options
    JefechutaJefechuta Posts: 1,212 ★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    DrZola said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.

    Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?

    Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.

    As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.

    It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.

    Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
    People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players.
    Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective.
    If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
    I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.

    The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.

    What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
    In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
    For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.

    Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
    So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not.
    If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
    This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
    There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
    So for they designed unlimited revive farming (but exclusively for newer players only)
    It was designed to give new players an edge as they start to get used to the game. The quests were never designed to be done after they were explored.
    Why would a player not want to go back to a resource that they have an ongoing need for though? After they've explored Act 3 of course they will go back to get revives from 3.2.6 to help progress through Act 4.

    Also you don't know for a fact who designed the content and the rationale that was used, you're just assuming at this point.
    I think assuming naïveté on the part of the game team when it comes to how players play and experience mobile games is wrong. Some of them may even play this game and others when they aren’t coding MCoC.

    Most direct solution would be to lock paths once they are run or adjust the spawn rate of revives. Neither appears to have been done.

    I think we can assume the team keeps records and data on gameplay that goes well beyond what the community can access (in fact, they have told us that on more than one occasion). Armed with detailed data on quest usage, why not do something about Paragons and TBs revisiting 3.2.6 repeatedly, say, months and months ago?

    I believe the answer is Casablanca.

    Dr. Zola
    What you are saying is flawless in logic and I agree with all of it.

    My response was to whoever I replied to because I felt the need to challenge what they wrote and how they phrased it.
    I literally told you the reasoning behind their design. It was never an intended interaction that people would go back into quests because of these resource spawns. Why kabam didn't think that people would go back to farm resources is beyond me.

    In my opinion, they should just have the guaranteed one-time path rewards for these items, like what we see in act 7 and 8, then the new players still get the items and it prevents farming of them as well.
    Didn’t see your post from above—you were stating their rationale, which doesn’t seem to be grounded in basic gaming experience.

    There have been quests in the past where players could reclaim the same rewards for doing them over and over that were bugged. Not surprisingly, people ran them over and over.

    With that mentioned, if the answer is Casablanca, then the follow-up question is why did Renault decide to close Rick’s Cafe?

    Dr. Zola
    The fact people take advantage of an exploit doesnt mean that its supposed to be like that, thats why it is an exploit and not a game mechanic, thats why Kabam didnt put a Pop Up that says "Hey, if you dont seem able to go through the content you can go back and farm more resources to do so!"

    And the fact that Kabam didnt do anything for 2 years is probably because of 2 things:

    1. They didnt expect people to rerun that quest 50 times in a row in a 1-2 days.
    2. They didnt release permanent Everest Content so players didnt farm that hard because the lack of time they had, now that Kabam released permanent one they noticed that more people than intended is doing the Everest Content sooner than expected because of the revive farming, and people that shouldnt be even being able to do it since they are not the top players whom this Content is directed for.
  • Options
    TyphoonTyphoon Posts: 1,768 ★★★★★
    edited March 2023
    In order to keep my post on track from being derailed by the same person(s) that do this constantly, here’s another thought towards a solution. And I’m not saying this is THE solution, but it is another solution for discussion. Apologies if this has already been mentioned but I’m not reading 47 pages of comments.

    Put a daily limit on how many times a level can be accessed (12, for example, as most levels have 6 paths - allows for 50% completion rate). Allow players to exceed that limit with units, and have it scale higher and higher the more times they refresh it. Refresh the daily entrance ticker every 24 hours.

    Keeps the revives there, limits the amount of farming to what the player considers practical or cost effective.

    Problems with this approach include wasting daily entries on accident by bringing an incorrect team, or screwing up on an early fight and needing to restart.
  • Options
    JefechutaJefechuta Posts: 1,212 ★★★★
    firedood said:

    Jefechuta said:

    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    DrZola said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.

    Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?

    Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.

    As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.

    It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.

    Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
    People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players.
    Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective.
    If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
    I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.

    The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.

    What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
    In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
    For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.

    Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
    So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not.
    If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
    This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
    There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
    So for they designed unlimited revive farming (but exclusively for newer players only)
    It was designed to give new players an edge as they start to get used to the game. The quests were never designed to be done after they were explored.
    Why would a player not want to go back to a resource that they have an ongoing need for though? After they've explored Act 3 of course they will go back to get revives from 3.2.6 to help progress through Act 4.

    Also you don't know for a fact who designed the content and the rationale that was used, you're just assuming at this point.
    I think assuming naïveté on the part of the game team when it comes to how players play and experience mobile games is wrong. Some of them may even play this game and others when they aren’t coding MCoC.

    Most direct solution would be to lock paths once they are run or adjust the spawn rate of revives. Neither appears to have been done.

    I think we can assume the team keeps records and data on gameplay that goes well beyond what the community can access (in fact, they have told us that on more than one occasion). Armed with detailed data on quest usage, why not do something about Paragons and TBs revisiting 3.2.6 repeatedly, say, months and months ago?

    I believe the answer is Casablanca.

    Dr. Zola
    What you are saying is flawless in logic and I agree with all of it.

    My response was to whoever I replied to because I felt the need to challenge what they wrote and how they phrased it.
    I literally told you the reasoning behind their design. It was never an intended interaction that people would go back into quests because of these resource spawns. Why kabam didn't think that people would go back to farm resources is beyond me.

    In my opinion, they should just have the guaranteed one-time path rewards for these items, like what we see in act 7 and 8, then the new players still get the items and it prevents farming of them as well.
    Didn’t see your post from above—you were stating their rationale, which doesn’t seem to be grounded in basic gaming experience.

    There have been quests in the past where players could reclaim the same rewards for doing them over and over that were bugged. Not surprisingly, people ran them over and over.

    With that mentioned, if the answer is Casablanca, then the follow-up question is why did Renault decide to close Rick’s Cafe?

    Dr. Zola
    The fact people take advantage of an exploit doesnt mean that its supposed to be like that, thats why it is an exploit and not a game mechanic, thats why Kabam didnt put a Pop Up that says "Hey, if you dont seem able to go through the content you can go back and farm more resources to do so!"

    And the fact that Kabam didnt do anything for 2 years is probably because of 2 things:

    1. They didnt expect people to rerun that quest 50 times in a row in a 1-2 days.
    2. They didnt release permanent Everest Content so players didnt farm that hard because the lack of time they had, now that Kabam released permanent one they noticed that more people than intended is doing the Everest Content sooner than expected because of the revive farming, and people that shouldnt be even being able to do it since they are not the top players whom this Content is directed for.
    Jefechuta, i completely agree with your points in your last post.

    1. Kabam didn’t expect people to farm revives, when they put out content requiring 3 star champs to fight opponents with 6-digit health pools. They were simply hoping for a revenue bump while making things challenging. Im pretty sure no one could have seen it come to this debacle lol 👍🏽

    2. Also many players without roster/skills (me included) should not be doing content thats too difficult although its released without restriction to any player. If anything, everest content should have been gated to qualifying levels of progression then? I personally dont think kabam or any company would pass up on the possibility of whales or spenders buying odins to build their sub accounts, if not their main ones.
    1. Every argument about the challenges of 3* and 4* is way too dumb, if you are doing that challenges is because its the ONLY thing you have left to do, so ALL YOUR RESOURCES are destined to that challenge, so your 4h Crystals, the revives you already have by doing the 22h Missions/Quests, the Units you get by doing EQ, Missions, Quests, Arenas, etc, so you shouldnt need to go farming revives on Act 2 and 3.

    2. Thats right, probably its not capped for the people that its not good/big enough, so they can spend on Odins to do it, but there is a difference here, they are spending on the game to do content that is not meant for them so they can progress way faster than the people that doesnt spend, its called Pay 2 Fast, but it is not meant to be done because you just farmed revives on an exploit that Kabam didnt change back then because it could impact negatively to the new players whom this resources are meant for, or maybe another reason that we dont know, but it was never meant for higher progression players to be rerunning that content.

    And this is not arguable, Im just farming revives to see how many I could get WITHOUT using any units, just the refills I have and the ones I keep getting by rerunning, I've already got 40 revives in 3 to 4 hours, being very unlucky with the drop rates since I have done 5 runs in a row where I got nothing, and that happened maybe 3 times, so If youa re lucky you could get more than that.

    40 revives in 4 hours without spending anything its something that shouldnt be possible by any means, sorry for all the people that want to do content that they are not supposed to do, without spending at least, but thats the way it works and thats they way it should work, if you want something sooner than you are supposed to, you have to spend like in every other game.
  • Options
    _nelynel_nelynel Posts: 33 ★
    probably get banned for freedom of speech here already got a talking to by kabam... but everyone crying here THIS is your fault RESPECTFULLY. you guys let kabam walk all over you; they made changes to the monthly side quest without buffing the rewards and it was a major issue but now that's behind us like it never happened because they "made changes" and after that was a node issue and another issue (idk cause i took a month break) and now this. without us kabam would be nothing honestly just a mobile game unfunded. but instead we complain about every issue when it comes up and then forget about it... either keep playing or buy in game items NOTHING is ever going to get solved!
  • Options
    JefechutaJefechuta Posts: 1,212 ★★★★
    Fredhorst23 said:

    Jefechuta said:

    firedood said:

    Jefechuta said:

    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    DrZola said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.

    Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?

    Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.

    As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.

    It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.

    Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
    People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players.
    Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective.
    If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
    I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.

    The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.

    What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
    In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
    For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.

    Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
    So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not.
    If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
    This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
    There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
    So for they designed unlimited revive farming (but exclusively for newer players only)
    It was designed to give new players an edge as they start to get used to the game. The quests were never designed to be done after they were explored.
    Why would a player not want to go back to a resource that they have an ongoing need for though? After they've explored Act 3 of course they will go back to get revives from 3.2.6 to help progress through Act 4.

    Also you don't know for a fact who designed the content and the rationale that was used, you're just assuming at this point.
    I think assuming naïveté on the part of the game team when it comes to how players play and experience mobile games is wrong. Some of them may even play this game and others when they aren’t coding MCoC.

    Most direct solution would be to lock paths once they are run or adjust the spawn rate of revives. Neither appears to have been done.

    I think we can assume the team keeps records and data on gameplay that goes well beyond what the community can access (in fact, they have told us that on more than one occasion). Armed with detailed data on quest usage, why not do something about Paragons and TBs revisiting 3.2.6 repeatedly, say, months and months ago?

    I believe the answer is Casablanca.

    Dr. Zola
    What you are saying is flawless in logic and I agree with all of it.

    My response was to whoever I replied to because I felt the need to challenge what they wrote and how they phrased it.
    I literally told you the reasoning behind their design. It was never an intended interaction that people would go back into quests because of these resource spawns. Why kabam didn't think that people would go back to farm resources is beyond me.

    In my opinion, they should just have the guaranteed one-time path rewards for these items, like what we see in act 7 and 8, then the new players still get the items and it prevents farming of them as well.
    Didn’t see your post from above—you were stating their rationale, which doesn’t seem to be grounded in basic gaming experience.

    There have been quests in the past where players could reclaim the same rewards for doing them over and over that were bugged. Not surprisingly, people ran them over and over.

    With that mentioned, if the answer is Casablanca, then the follow-up question is why did Renault decide to close Rick’s Cafe?

    Dr. Zola
    The fact people take advantage of an exploit doesnt mean that its supposed to be like that, thats why it is an exploit and not a game mechanic, thats why Kabam didnt put a Pop Up that says "Hey, if you dont seem able to go through the content you can go back and farm more resources to do so!"

    And the fact that Kabam didnt do anything for 2 years is probably because of 2 things:

    1. They didnt expect people to rerun that quest 50 times in a row in a 1-2 days.
    2. They didnt release permanent Everest Content so players didnt farm that hard because the lack of time they had, now that Kabam released permanent one they noticed that more people than intended is doing the Everest Content sooner than expected because of the revive farming, and people that shouldnt be even being able to do it since they are not the top players whom this Content is directed for.
    Jefechuta, i completely agree with your points in your last post.

    1. Kabam didn’t expect people to farm revives, when they put out content requiring 3 star champs to fight opponents with 6-digit health pools. They were simply hoping for a revenue bump while making things challenging. Im pretty sure no one could have seen it come to this debacle lol 👍🏽

    2. Also many players without roster/skills (me included) should not be doing content thats too difficult although its released without restriction to any player. If anything, everest content should have been gated to qualifying levels of progression then? I personally dont think kabam or any company would pass up on the possibility of whales or spenders buying odins to build their sub accounts, if not their main ones.
    1. Every argument about the challenges of 3* and 4* is way too dumb, if you are doing that challenges is because its the ONLY thing you have left to do, so ALL YOUR RESOURCES are destined to that challenge, so your 4h Crystals, the revives you already have by doing the 22h Missions/Quests, the Units you get by doing EQ, Missions, Quests, Arenas, etc, so you shouldnt need to go farming revives on Act 2 and 3.

    2. Thats right, probably its not capped for the people that its not good/big enough, so they can spend on Odins to do it, but there is a difference here, they are spending on the game to do content that is not meant for them so they can progress way faster than the people that doesnt spend, its called Pay 2 Fast, but it is not meant to be done because you just farmed revives on an exploit that Kabam didnt change back then because it could impact negatively to the new players whom this resources are meant for, or maybe another reason that we dont know, but it was never meant for higher progression players to be rerunning that content.

    And this is not arguable, Im just farming revives to see how many I could get WITHOUT using any units, just the refills I have and the ones I keep getting by rerunning, I've already got 40 revives in 3 to 4 hours, being very unlucky with the drop rates since I have done 5 runs in a row where I got nothing, and that happened maybe 3 times, so If youa re lucky you could get more than that.

    40 revives in 4 hours without spending anything its something that shouldnt be possible by any means, sorry for all the people that want to do content that they are not supposed to do, without spending at least, but thats the way it works and thats they way it should work, if you want something sooner than you are supposed to, you have to spend like in every other game.
    Thanks for doing the legwork. Just don't forget to let those revives expire in your overflow, since they were farmed through am exploit
    Yeah Ill let them expire, Im not playing actively the game because I got tired from the bugs, the only thing I have stash are pots, revives, ISO and some low lvl cats from Alliance Rewards, and those will expire aswell since I just log in to claim Crystals and log out.

    And the fact that people get angry because they cant do content they already werent supposed to do proves that Kabam is right when they say that they have trivialized Everest Content.

    People can get all the mad they want to, but they are just irrational and selfish about this.

  • Options
    JefechutaJefechuta Posts: 1,212 ★★★★
    Fredhorst23 said:

    Jefechuta said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    Jefechuta said:

    firedood said:

    Jefechuta said:

    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    DrZola said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    Pikolu said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Skunkcabbage said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Stature said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.

    Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?

    Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.

    As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.

    It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.

    Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
    People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players.
    Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective.
    If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
    I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.

    The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.

    What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
    In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
    For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.

    Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
    So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not.
    If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
    This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
    There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
    So for they designed unlimited revive farming (but exclusively for newer players only)
    It was designed to give new players an edge as they start to get used to the game. The quests were never designed to be done after they were explored.
    Why would a player not want to go back to a resource that they have an ongoing need for though? After they've explored Act 3 of course they will go back to get revives from 3.2.6 to help progress through Act 4.

    Also you don't know for a fact who designed the content and the rationale that was used, you're just assuming at this point.
    I think assuming naïveté on the part of the game team when it comes to how players play and experience mobile games is wrong. Some of them may even play this game and others when they aren’t coding MCoC.

    Most direct solution would be to lock paths once they are run or adjust the spawn rate of revives. Neither appears to have been done.

    I think we can assume the team keeps records and data on gameplay that goes well beyond what the community can access (in fact, they have told us that on more than one occasion). Armed with detailed data on quest usage, why not do something about Paragons and TBs revisiting 3.2.6 repeatedly, say, months and months ago?

    I believe the answer is Casablanca.

    Dr. Zola
    What you are saying is flawless in logic and I agree with all of it.

    My response was to whoever I replied to because I felt the need to challenge what they wrote and how they phrased it.
    I literally told you the reasoning behind their design. It was never an intended interaction that people would go back into quests because of these resource spawns. Why kabam didn't think that people would go back to farm resources is beyond me.

    In my opinion, they should just have the guaranteed one-time path rewards for these items, like what we see in act 7 and 8, then the new players still get the items and it prevents farming of them as well.
    Didn’t see your post from above—you were stating their rationale, which doesn’t seem to be grounded in basic gaming experience.

    There have been quests in the past where players could reclaim the same rewards for doing them over and over that were bugged. Not surprisingly, people ran them over and over.

    With that mentioned, if the answer is Casablanca, then the follow-up question is why did Renault decide to close Rick’s Cafe?

    Dr. Zola
    The fact people take advantage of an exploit doesnt mean that its supposed to be like that, thats why it is an exploit and not a game mechanic, thats why Kabam didnt put a Pop Up that says "Hey, if you dont seem able to go through the content you can go back and farm more resources to do so!"

    And the fact that Kabam didnt do anything for 2 years is probably because of 2 things:

    1. They didnt expect people to rerun that quest 50 times in a row in a 1-2 days.
    2. They didnt release permanent Everest Content so players didnt farm that hard because the lack of time they had, now that Kabam released permanent one they noticed that more people than intended is doing the Everest Content sooner than expected because of the revive farming, and people that shouldnt be even being able to do it since they are not the top players whom this Content is directed for.
    Jefechuta, i completely agree with your points in your last post.

    1. Kabam didn’t expect people to farm revives, when they put out content requiring 3 star champs to fight opponents with 6-digit health pools. They were simply hoping for a revenue bump while making things challenging. Im pretty sure no one could have seen it come to this debacle lol 👍🏽

    2. Also many players without roster/skills (me included) should not be doing content thats too difficult although its released without restriction to any player. If anything, everest content should have been gated to qualifying levels of progression then? I personally dont think kabam or any company would pass up on the possibility of whales or spenders buying odins to build their sub accounts, if not their main ones.
    1. Every argument about the challenges of 3* and 4* is way too dumb, if you are doing that challenges is because its the ONLY thing you have left to do, so ALL YOUR RESOURCES are destined to that challenge, so your 4h Crystals, the revives you already have by doing the 22h Missions/Quests, the Units you get by doing EQ, Missions, Quests, Arenas, etc, so you shouldnt need to go farming revives on Act 2 and 3.

    2. Thats right, probably its not capped for the people that its not good/big enough, so they can spend on Odins to do it, but there is a difference here, they are spending on the game to do content that is not meant for them so they can progress way faster than the people that doesnt spend, its called Pay 2 Fast, but it is not meant to be done because you just farmed revives on an exploit that Kabam didnt change back then because it could impact negatively to the new players whom this resources are meant for, or maybe another reason that we dont know, but it was never meant for higher progression players to be rerunning that content.

    And this is not arguable, Im just farming revives to see how many I could get WITHOUT using any units, just the refills I have and the ones I keep getting by rerunning, I've already got 40 revives in 3 to 4 hours, being very unlucky with the drop rates since I have done 5 runs in a row where I got nothing, and that happened maybe 3 times, so If youa re lucky you could get more than that.

    40 revives in 4 hours without spending anything its something that shouldnt be possible by any means, sorry for all the people that want to do content that they are not supposed to do, without spending at least, but thats the way it works and thats they way it should work, if you want something sooner than you are supposed to, you have to spend like in every other game.
    Thanks for doing the legwork. Just don't forget to let those revives expire in your overflow, since they were farmed through am exploit
    Yeah Ill let them expire, Im not playing actively the game because I got tired from the bugs, the only thing I have stash are pots, revives, ISO and some low lvl cats from Alliance Rewards, and those will expire aswell since I just log in to claim Crystals and log out.

    And the fact that people get angry because they cant do content they already werent supposed to do proves that Kabam is right when they say that they have trivialized Everest Content.

    People can get all the mad they want to, but they are just irrational and selfish about this.

    Lol you crazy. I think most casual farmers are folks who lack patience, not skill.
    Its not about skill, its about progression overall, if you have done every content and you have both developed roster and skills, you have the Everest Content and Carina's Challenges, where you receive good rewards and some Trophys to show up like Titles and Profile Pics.

    If you are not in that group of people you shouldnt be able to do that Content, you want to do it anyways? Okay, you should either farm in arenas for a X period of time to be able to do so, or if you want to do it now, spend money, which is fair since you do an exchange of money/time.

    But farming for 2 days 100 revives is not a fair exchange of non of those.
This discussion has been closed.