Regardless if you think it "works" or not, a number is going to be chosen. Right now they've chosen 10, which no one should agree with.
You asked me what number I think is "feasible" which I"m interpreting as "feasible as a potential solution to the issue of the drastic reduction in revive farming." What I think is contained within the thread-starter post.
If you're asking me instead what the devs would think is feasible, I'm afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment.
Speaking of oversimplification of the problem, I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are both creative reasons and monetary reasons for these changes. Limiting revive farming will prevent players from acquiring end game rewards quickly thereby slowing down their progression which appears to be what the devs are targeting. But it’s hard for people to believe that creative reasons had greater weight in this matter when the changes suggested affect non spenders and not spenders. Why not implement changes that affect summoners regardless of spending factor if people getting a lot of revives quickly was trivializing content? Something as simple as putting a cap on revives purchased with units does that. 10 or 15revives/week on units? That’s 20 or 30 more revives in 2 weeks for spenders compared to non spenders. According to Kabam’s definition of reasonable number of revives, 30 is plenty. And they can stagger their spending so that by week 3, they can buy another 10 after using the expired ones and still have an edge over f2p players. Yes, Kabam might not get that much revenue from revives directly, but it has a snowballing effect of draining player’s units, which forces them to spend more to buy units for big sale weekends. Putting a limit won’t drain those units quickly enough and players would end up not needing to spend much to top off their units for those sales. But this is an oversimplification of the financial side of things
It not only effect end game content...can u say how much revive do u need to ko act 6 final boss ...1 or 2 ... If they really nerfing revive they should provide level 1 revive for half unit of level2 Revives...other wise only developers can play this game
It not only effect end game content...can u say how much revive do u need to ko act 6 final boss ...1 or 2 ... If they really nerfing revive they should provide level 1 revive for half unit of level2 Revives...other wise only developers can play this game
The thing is, this content was released before revive farming was as easy as it is now(as best to my knowledge) and thus HAS been done by loads of people without any farming required.
As for content like 8.1, I'd argue even there revives often aren't a necessity, bringing the right champs and having a balanced roster is what does it.
As for Everest style content, that's where the bigger revive sinks are. Until you get to the point where we're at now with ROL and LOL where most people can do it because of new champs released
Yes and no. It isn't quite as simple as how many revives Abyss was designed to require.
Suppose I asked you to design end game content. Something that would challenge the absolute best players in the game. But because they are your target audience, the one thing you can't do is ask them to test it. How would you do that?
You can't make it the maximum difficulty you can possibly do, because (unless you happen to be one of those top players) hard enough for you is not hard enough for them. But if you make it much harder than you could possibly do, how do you test it for difficulty?
You're aiming at an almost invisible target. And if you aim too low, your target audience will walk all over it. So you aim high. But if you aim way, way too high, you'll be accused of making a cash grab, because the only way those top players will be able to do that content is by spending huge amounts of resources.
You don't *want* people reviving through it. But short of disallowing revives altogether, how do you make something that isn't a) too easy, b) too ridiculously hard, and c) isn't just outside of reach, such that using a couple revives would be super tempting?
Where's the target? Is there anything left?
@DNA3000 What I meant is we see these item-less runs and it's shown to be possible. Of course the content wasn't really designed to be done item-less. Context can't be discounted when considering what content comes to us. We've seen it before when content is released or updates come through in AW to counter often used champs or benefit lesser used champs.
Also, we talk about "fun and interactive" fights that force the player to use revives. Eventually, a champ will be released that fits that fight (or one can hope). This goes to the core of what I mentioned above. Roadblock fights are sprinkled into content as a means of deterring summoners who don't have the counter, extending the life of the content. ROL Wolverine was an example of a well-designed fight that no matter how many revives you used, you wouldn't be able to overcome it without the right counter. Gauntlet Sasquatch was another one that comes to mind.
Unfortunately, it seems we moved away from that and into the realm of the fun and interactive node combinations with unavoidable damage. Ultimately, it's a Catch 22 which is why I appreciate the phrasing of questions in your responses. Kabam is between a rock and hard place when it comes to content design for end-game players. We see it in in-game messages describing the difficulty of the content and then we see players beating it within a day or two of release. Kudos to them, but that shouldn't be the norm.
DNA, i liked reading the proposal, but i do not agree with it one bit. The game has moved past this sort of gating. When offers provide endgame resources without playing at all, and the option of just reviving through is cut down dramatically, on tough content, along with other AI challenges, tougher defenders, trickier nodes and interactions, gating revives and limiting them to next to nothing is not acceptable. This game has multiple gamemodes and we dont need to like all of them. In fact, we dont need to play all of them either. BUT, everest content affects ALL of them. This forces those on the higher end of such gamemodes to actually play Everest content, whether they like it or not. With the growing difficulty of content, revives availability is needed. Revives bypass the broken potion system (which needs a massive overhaul in itself). A reduction from the (close to broken) revive farm is acceptable, but the apothecary is too limiting to be acceptable. This proposal does not alleviate anything, unfortunately.
This is, ultimately, the choice I mentioned. Whether the game has "moved past this" or not is less an objective reality, and more a question of perspective. There are people who believe the game never really had this kind of gating in any serious form, and there are people who believe the game has always had it and hasn't changed at all to this point.
There is not, and will almost certainly never be general consensus on the narrative of the past. The real question is, what should the game decide to be moving forward. The narrative is going to break for someone, probably for a lot of someones, and in fact it could break for *most* players. We could all be in our own minority pocket of perception. But however we all got here operating under our own narratives, we've reached a point where one of them has to take the wheel moving forward. We can't maintain the illusion that everyone is playing the same game.
So, its a choice. And ultimately it is a choice the developers will make, but it is a choice we should at least understand is going to happen, and why. And if we want to change it, we have to first recognize the larger forces that are making the kinds of changes we're seeing. The revive farms aren't going away because the developers don't like revive farms. They are going away because they are a piece that doesn't fit the bigger puzzle.
I do get that, for sure. I'm offering a perspective of a light spender who is an arena grinder, does masters wars and map8, and also places in BGs in GC. All for the chance to continue to play high level alliance wars ( my only interest in this game).
Comments
If you're asking me instead what the devs would think is feasible, I'm afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment.
Other people got to finish the same content with an easier ride.
I used to care but don’t anymore because nothing ever comes of it.
If you’re not playing for fun, then why are you playing?
If they really nerfing revive they should provide level 1 revive for half unit of level2 Revives...other wise only developers can play this game
As for content like 8.1, I'd argue even there revives often aren't a necessity, bringing the right champs and having a balanced roster is what does it.
As for Everest style content, that's where the bigger revive sinks are. Until you get to the point where we're at now with ROL and LOL where most people can do it because of new champs released
Also, we talk about "fun and interactive" fights that force the player to use revives. Eventually, a champ will be released that fits that fight (or one can hope). This goes to the core of what I mentioned above. Roadblock fights are sprinkled into content as a means of deterring summoners who don't have the counter, extending the life of the content. ROL Wolverine was an example of a well-designed fight that no matter how many revives you used, you wouldn't be able to overcome it without the right counter. Gauntlet Sasquatch was another one that comes to mind.
Unfortunately, it seems we moved away from that and into the realm of the fun and interactive node combinations with unavoidable damage. Ultimately, it's a Catch 22 which is why I appreciate the phrasing of questions in your responses. Kabam is between a rock and hard place when it comes to content design for end-game players. We see it in in-game messages describing the difficulty of the content and then we see players beating it within a day or two of release. Kudos to them, but that shouldn't be the norm.