**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.
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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We are either going to get an announcement tomorrow along with game notes of what was announced over a week ago or we will get the altered announcement. But I doubt there will be a response here.
This thread is 90% full of arguing back and forth. Those that are FOR the change are only a handful from the community that hangs around on the forum. The player base is much larger than that. But even if we consider this small sample size, the original announcement has the following stats:
6 Insightful
6 Agree
2 Like
3 Awesome
870 Disagree
45 LOL
That's 17 FOR the change and 870 AGAINST the change. The 45 are just eating the popcorn. So ignoring those 45, that's 98.1% negative feedback for this change.
Reading all this has led my mind on tangents. But there is one thought plaguing me I can’t shake and hoped you could maybe answer; or at least perhaps not one thought but theme anyway.
People are farming too many revives - check
Too many revives makes Everest content trivial because it can be completed easier - check.
So how is player engagement level either measured or taken into account ? What’s acceptable loss of player engagement.?
Because - and I’m sure kabam knows the consequences- but if you want to slow down Everest completion due to revives, and you’re taking away the ability to farm revives, that means ultimately less content being played. Thus less engagement. I don’t really think that’s unavoidable.
If we think about monthly EQ as a "thing" then we can ask how much players are playing it. Are they playing it every month, every other month. Are they fully exploring it, or just completing it? Are they doing multiple difficulty tiers, or just a few. We can say players played a million minutes of EQ in March, say, and see if April is higher or lower.
But if we look at something like Realm of Legends, this approach to looking at engagement doesn't make as much sense. Let's set aside potion farming for now and just look at people actually trying to complete for the first time. Either a player has done it, or not. We don't necessarily expect, and certainly aren't hoping for, players to come back over and over again to repeat it. Engagement in RoL is less about repeat customers, and more about whether newer players are doing it at all. Certainly, engagement numbers mean something, but they mean something different for RoL than monthly EQ. We want repeat customers with EQ. We just want to know if people still care about RoL when they join the game. What percentage of new players eventually decide to run it.
Now let's tackle Carinas challenges. What do we expect there? Do we expect tons and tons of players to be doing them, month after month after month? Well, that's end game content. How many end game players are there? How many players turn into end game players every day? Not a huge number. But with few exceptions, only end game players are the target for the content in the first place, and most will only do it the minimum number of times necessary to extract all the rewards. It is, more or less, a one and done thing. So there is a maximum sustainable engagement number that is even possible, and it is much lower than EQ and even something like RoL. It is basically the average number of players who become end game players every month. Any number higher than that is unsustainable, because if the engagement number for that end game content is higher than that, eventually we'll exhaust all the end game players and then the number will have to fall to equal the number of players that become end game players.
So here's the question: think about all the players currently trying to blast through EoP. Do you think that number is higher, or lower than the number of players who are becoming end game players every month? If you think that number is lower, then that might be an engagement issue. But if that number is much higher, and I think it is, then any drop in engagement is going to be immaterial, because it was unsustainable anyway.
Engagement is a much more complex thing than we're dicing it up to be here, there are questions of cannibalism for example (one piece of content drawing attention from another) and burnout and a whole bunch of other things we aren't considering properly. But within this narrow slice of engagement I don't think Kabam is worried about the loss of engagement from Everest content alone, because revives are probably depleting target players faster than they are being created, so that engagement number is itself a signal of the larger problem.
Boycotts are problematic in general, because they are all or nothing. If you attempt one and it doesn't actually happen, or it fizzles out, the probability that anyone will take the next one seriously drops. As evidenced by the fact that after 12.0, which was itself a failed boycott people got the idea that boycotts actually worked and tried to organize them every time something happened they didn't like. They all fell flat with such definitive regularity that no one takes them seriously anymore.
Every day thousands of players quit playing the game, and statistically speaking dozens of them will be spenders. For any sort of organized boycott to have any noticeable impact, it has to be sustained and it has to involve orders of magnitude more than regular turnover. When COWhale threatened to quit, he represented several thousand Sigil subscribers worth of revenue, based on his his apparent spending level. And they completely ignored him.
If you and a thousand of your friends stopped spending, Kabam probably wouldn't notice. If you and a hundred thousand of your friends stopped spending, Kabam probably would notice. Good luck.
I’m at the point where I’m unhappy with the product and the customer service and I can’t decide which one is more disappointing. If I was less invested in my alliance and the time I’ve committed I would have deleted the game by now. If things don’t change soon I’ll be one of those 1000s that, “Kabam wouldn’t notice” but with a game that’s 8 years old eventually those things pile up. I hope things turn around before that because when they’d are good this is at its core a fun game… but maybe they won’t, and we could always postulate that it’s possible by the time they notice and care about 1000s leaving because of that 1-2 turd sandwich approach maybe it will be too late
The biggest difference between voting and boycotting is that voting is a representative process where even if your candidates do not win, everyone gets to see what percentage of the engaged voting population they represented. Voting offers clear choices. X people voted for him, Y people voted for her. Even when candidates lose, the knowledge that they received a certain level of support is still meaningful.
No such thing happens with boycotts, short of them rarely being definitively successful. If you organize a boycott and it fails to change things, you will never know why. You will never know if you were part of a large mass of people that just didn't get there or one of eight people who followed through among the thousands of others who lied about it.
If you want to stop spending, stop spending. You are in some sense voting with your wallet in that case. And in the grand scheme of things. players collectively do vote with their wallets, and they get what they vote for. Everyone says that no one likes the state of the F2P industry, but that's a lie. Most people do like it, as evidenced by the fact that most players support it. F2P gaming was not the only game in town. It beat everything else. Because we all backed it.
But boycotts as a surgical tool to effect specific changes? That's not like voting. That's like trying to get out of a speeding ticket by telling the cop you pay his salary.
But.
What players need to understand is that if the game shuts down tomorrow, or a year from now, or three years from now, that will be a loss to us. Some of us have invested a lot of time and money into the game. We're emotionally attached to it. But to the developers, this is their livelihood. If the game shuts down tomorrow, most of them won't have jobs. Some will have to start over in another project, some in a completely different company, some in a completely different country. However much it means to us, the stakes are much higher for most of them.
One day the game will be shuttered, as most games eventually do, and some of us will be wondering if only they listened to us, would the game still be around. But there will also be devs that will be wondering, if only they followed their own instincts instead, would the game still be around. This cuts both ways.
I will never stop trying to get the devs to do things my way. But if I was one of the devs, I would still never stop trying to do things my way, no matter what some smart alec that posts too many graphs on the forums had to say about it.
I'm 100%sure they will give some good amount of revive in New farming method for 1st month in order to shut down influencers or youtubers...then after 1 month we will max get 1 or 2 revive in aday.
just like energy refills we are getting from arena crystal become a myth ...chance of getting revive will also be a dead dream with in short period ...
One thing I will make sure that...I will limit my spending in this game...In the present situation I really want to uninstall game...but money i had invested during these 6 or 7 years of time making me feel guilty..
Really a bad decision from game side to nerf revive..
Did I miss anything or Kabam is still in guru meditation?
But for me the current state of the game is:
-Bugs in core modes now cause as much stress as the do enjoyment. The team ask players to support by reporting the bugs but clearly does not care about resource cost to the player that experiences the bug, so in turn why should we care?
-Cheating policy has created a situation where it’s at crescendo and they blankly do it everywhere. Players are begging for changes, more communication and transparency here and instead we get the procedural death throes of “we’ve always done it this way”. Fine if something is working but stubborn and stupid when things aren’t.
-And just a general muteness in messaging