People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
I for one am not shocked that working is more financially rewarding than playing a game.
I measure the output of my games in how much I enjoy them, how much fun I get out of them. Rather than working out a cost/hour
If you want to do that, be my guest, but it’s not a good indicator of value in games. Games are not meant to be equivalent to minimum wage in any way. You don’t have a contract with kabam, you aren’t owed anything by kabam. You spend your time because you enjoy it
The problem is is that it get increasingly harder to enjoy the game when someone who doesn't play it get better rewards than you. I want it to be less of a split and have it be more fair so that f2p can at least try to compete. It also becomes less fun due to the amount of losses you have to endure because of that gap.
That’s ultimately your decision, but it still remains true that you can’t compare it to a minimum wage job and expect to have a wildly relevant point I’m afraid.
Its not about playing the game vs working a minimum wage job its about grinding the game for rewards vs not playing for rewards. The minimum wage job was just an example of why its bad
I’m saying it’s a bad example. And there will always be ways to grind the game and ways to spend. It’s why we still have a game.
Yes but the grinding should be equal if not greater than spending. Thats what brings the game to life in the first place- playing it
The game would not exist if grinding was equal or greater than spending. You're right that playing the game is what brings it to life, but spenders play it too.
Yes but the pace the game is headed the spenders wont need to grind to stay ahead of everyone else
Maybe, but we only have to worry when the spenders stop wanting to grind. As long as people keep playing the game, the game is going to be fine.
I do have to wonder how much spenders really affect your experience. For me personally, I face some annoying accounts in BGs, but that's the extent of it. I would be more worried about what the economy looks like for ftp players than what it looks like for the whales. As long as you enjoy developing your roster and managing your resources, the economy is doing well. If you don't, that's a seperate issue that will not be solved by nerfing deals.
However I do think that reducing the rewards given in deals and making them more suitable for the economy rather than one that would be in a couple months would be better. Spenders are going to buy no matter what anf Kabam should really just do what they have been doing, adding events that actually give good rewards for FTP and p2w.
But see, that's where you kinda contradict yourself. As you said, Kabam has been making events where ftp and ptw both benefit. In this case, Kabam gave an event where ptw players were given an outrageous benefit, and are now going to face the task of allowing ftp players to catch up. Lowering the impact of deals would not help, because ftp players are then given the potential of obtaining those same rewards in the near future. This is just the way Kabam's system works.
I get that facing these massive accounts can be frustrating and BGs has also been my main motivation for a while, but I have to wonder what your method of account growth is. If your argument is going to be that you cannot physically compete due to the amount of possible rewards for ftp being that much lower than ptw, showing the amount of rewards you can achieve is going to be the best way to do that. I think you'll likely see that there are a few forms of progress that you're missing.
Not sure what Im missing? I do as much arena as I can if I have time, I do all aq, eq, and when it was on aw. Im almost done progressing through 8.2 and am going to do incursion later tomorrow when I have time. The only thing I haven't done so far is variants because its variants.Very long boring and monotonous with the only worthwhile rewards being gold.
Yeah you're right it isn't how kabam's system works but that is why I made this post, so I could try to get a message out saying that this isn't good. And yeah kabam has to face the task of giving FTP rewards to catch them up. But with how they've been doing the last month or so I doubt that is what is on their mind right now. Lack of communication doesn't give me hope that they are going to give us those resources to FTP.
I don't know why giving FTP players rewards sooner to help is a bad thing. Kabam would make much more money if they made multiple more offers a year with lesser values that allows p2w have an advantage for a short while and then allow FTP to catch up still gives ptw the advantage and Kabam more money
This is such a disconnection from reality.... Basically you want Kabam to give F2P players more stuff so people who spend have to keep pn spending to stay ahead...You wanna be the means to milk spending players... Stop calling them P2W... Its not their fault you have this idea that you will be able to compete against spenders and a lot of F2P dedicated accounts, IF you had 1 or 2 r5s when you still have r2s in your deck...
They're already milking spenders so it wouldn't be anything new.
They are literally Pay to Win players. Why would I stop calling them that? They pay so they can 'win'. Not hard
Again if English isn't your first language sorry but I don't think I've ever seen someone be as terrible at reading as you. I have told you multiple times that I never said that having just 1 r5 or just 2r5 would win me everything, I said it would help because you can't get your mind off of it. I would certainly love more r4s but even then the milestones only give you 2/3 of one.
Then call yourself Free to lose... Let me explain to you how the world works... Kabam's purpose is to gain new customers thru deals, not give free stuff to free players so the spenders spend more. Guess what happens if a Whale quits, they lose a customer. Guess what happens if you quit? NOTHING... I can read you perfectly, and nothing will help you cause all you do is blame your shortcomings on something else. You don't have a deep or developed roster, you don't like to "hazzle", and you want beter rewards based on what spenders get while you have no intentions of spending, like a parasite. Is this plain English enough for you?
If you have to work at minimum wage, i'm sure your worries will not include "how many r5s can i get". Source, used to work minimum wage as a student.
The last time I worked a minimum wage job I too was a student, and virtually all my money went to food and comic books. And of the two, food was the optional expense.
Modern F2P microtransaction games are not supported on the backs of minimum wage players. They are monetized around the economics of giving the game away for free to minimum wage players, along with almost everyone else, and leveraging the few spenders willing to spend ten to a thousand times more than the average player would otherwise be capable of spending, so that instead of a thousand people spending ten bucks each, one player spends ten thousand dollars and nine hundred ninety nine players play for free.
The reason this model works and is so successful in spite of all the people claiming on Youtube and Polygon that the model is hated by almost everyone, is that in fact the model is loved by almost everyone. Most of the 999 players who play for free would rather continue to play for free, even if they won't admit it. And the one guy spending a ton is obviously happy, as he thinks he is getting his money's worth (or he's a moron). The people not happy? Its the people spending ten bucks jealous of the people spending twenty. It is the delusional people who don't realize the only reason they get to play for free is because of the whales they are jealous about. Its people who were not around when there was no such thing as free to play, and everyone paid, and most games died when they couldn't continue to gain an influx of subscribers.
To put it another way, online games don't have to be the way they are now. But to change it someone has to pay for that change. And the very people who want it to change are the very people unwilling to pay for change. The free to play players are obviously not going to pay to change the model: if they were willing to do that, they wouldn't be free to play players. The whales aren't going to pay to change it, because if they wanted something different they would have bought it by now. They have the purchasing power to dictate terms to the industry by their spending patterns. That's already 98% of all game players. Who's left?
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
I for one am not shocked that working is more financially rewarding than playing a game.
I measure the output of my games in how much I enjoy them, how much fun I get out of them. Rather than working out a cost/hour
If you want to do that, be my guest, but it’s not a good indicator of value in games. Games are not meant to be equivalent to minimum wage in any way. You don’t have a contract with kabam, you aren’t owed anything by kabam. You spend your time because you enjoy it
The problem is is that it get increasingly harder to enjoy the game when someone who doesn't play it get better rewards than you. I want it to be less of a split and have it be more fair so that f2p can at least try to compete. It also becomes less fun due to the amount of losses you have to endure because of that gap.
That’s ultimately your decision, but it still remains true that you can’t compare it to a minimum wage job and expect to have a wildly relevant point I’m afraid.
Its not about playing the game vs working a minimum wage job its about grinding the game for rewards vs not playing for rewards. The minimum wage job was just an example of why its bad
I’m saying it’s a bad example. And there will always be ways to grind the game and ways to spend. It’s why we still have a game.
Yes but the grinding should be equal if not greater than spending. Thats what brings the game to life in the first place- playing it
The game would not exist if grinding was equal or greater than spending. You're right that playing the game is what brings it to life, but spenders play it too.
Yes but the pace the game is headed the spenders wont need to grind to stay ahead of everyone else
Maybe, but we only have to worry when the spenders stop wanting to grind. As long as people keep playing the game, the game is going to be fine.
I do have to wonder how much spenders really affect your experience. For me personally, I face some annoying accounts in BGs, but that's the extent of it. I would be more worried about what the economy looks like for ftp players than what it looks like for the whales. As long as you enjoy developing your roster and managing your resources, the economy is doing well. If you don't, that's a seperate issue that will not be solved by nerfing deals.
However I do think that reducing the rewards given in deals and making them more suitable for the economy rather than one that would be in a couple months would be better. Spenders are going to buy no matter what anf Kabam should really just do what they have been doing, adding events that actually give good rewards for FTP and p2w.
But see, that's where you kinda contradict yourself. As you said, Kabam has been making events where ftp and ptw both benefit. In this case, Kabam gave an event where ptw players were given an outrageous benefit, and are now going to face the task of allowing ftp players to catch up. Lowering the impact of deals would not help, because ftp players are then given the potential of obtaining those same rewards in the near future. This is just the way Kabam's system works.
I get that facing these massive accounts can be frustrating and BGs has also been my main motivation for a while, but I have to wonder what your method of account growth is. If your argument is going to be that you cannot physically compete due to the amount of possible rewards for ftp being that much lower than ptw, showing the amount of rewards you can achieve is going to be the best way to do that. I think you'll likely see that there are a few forms of progress that you're missing.
Not sure what Im missing? I do as much arena as I can if I have time, I do all aq, eq, and when it was on aw. Im almost done progressing through 8.2 and am going to do incursion later tomorrow when I have time. The only thing I haven't done so far is variants because its variants.Very long boring and monotonous with the only worthwhile rewards being gold.
Yeah you're right it isn't how kabam's system works but that is why I made this post, so I could try to get a message out saying that this isn't good. And yeah kabam has to face the task of giving FTP rewards to catch them up. But with how they've been doing the last month or so I doubt that is what is on their mind right now. Lack of communication doesn't give me hope that they are going to give us those resources to FTP.
I don't know why giving FTP players rewards sooner to help is a bad thing. Kabam would make much more money if they made multiple more offers a year with lesser values that allows p2w have an advantage for a short while and then allow FTP to catch up still gives ptw the advantage and Kabam more money
This is such a disconnection from reality.... Basically you want Kabam to give F2P players more stuff so people who spend have to keep pn spending to stay ahead...You wanna be the means to milk spending players... Stop calling them P2W... Its not their fault you have this idea that you will be able to compete against spenders and a lot of F2P dedicated accounts, IF you had 1 or 2 r5s when you still have r2s in your deck...
They're already milking spenders so it wouldn't be anything new.
They are literally Pay to Win players. Why would I stop calling them that? They pay so they can 'win'. Not hard
Again if English isn't your first language sorry but I don't think I've ever seen someone be as terrible at reading as you. I have told you multiple times that I never said that having just 1 r5 or just 2r5 would win me everything, I said it would help because you can't get your mind off of it. I would certainly love more r4s but even then the milestones only give you 2/3 of one.
Then call yourself Free to lose... Let me explain to you how the world works... Kabam's purpose is to gain new customers thru deals, not give free stuff to free players so the spenders spend more. Guess what happens if a Whale quits, they lose a customer. Guess what happens if you quit? NOTHING... I can read you perfectly, and nothing will help you cause all you do is blame your shortcomings on something else. You don't have a deep or developed roster, you don't like to "hazzle", and you want beter rewards based on what spenders get while you have no intentions of spending, like a parasite. Is this plain English enough for you?
Claiming to be able to read properly and then misspelling hassle 4 times in a row tells me all I need to know
If you have to work at minimum wage, i'm sure your worries will not include "how many r5s can i get". Source, used to work minimum wage as a student.
The last time I worked a minimum wage job I too was a student, and virtually all my money went to food and comic books. And of the two, food was the optional expense.
Modern F2P microtransaction games are not supported on the backs of minimum wage players. They are monetized around the economics of giving the game away for free to minimum wage players, along with almost everyone else, and leveraging the few spenders willing to spend ten to a thousand times more than the average player would otherwise be capable of spending, so that instead of a thousand people spending ten bucks each, one player spends ten thousand dollars and nine hundred ninety nine players play for free.
The reason this model works and is so successful in spite of all the people claiming on Youtube and Polygon that the model is hated by almost everyone, is that in fact the model is loved by almost everyone. Most of the 999 players who play for free would rather continue to play for free, even if they won't admit it. And the one guy spending a ton is obviously happy, as he thinks he is getting his money's worth (or he's a moron). The people not happy? Its the people spending ten bucks jealous of the people spending twenty. It is the delusional people who don't realize the only reason they get to play for free is because of the whales they are jealous about. Its people who were not around when there was no such thing as free to play, and everyone paid, and most games died when they couldn't continue to gain an influx of subscribers.
To put it another way, online games don't have to be the way they are now. But to change it someone has to pay for that change. And the very people who want it to change are the very people unwilling to pay for change. The free to play players are obviously not going to pay to change the model: if they were willing to do that, they wouldn't be free to play players. The whales aren't going to pay to change it, because if they wanted something different they would have bought it by now. They have the purchasing power to dictate terms to the industry by their spending patterns. That's already 98% of all game players. Who's left?
The thing is all 1000 of those players spending 10$ would give kabam the same amount as 1 player spending 10,000$. Another approach would just be to make the lower costing deal offer extremely worth it incentivizing the majority to spend little money for much reward and they'd still get people spending a **** ton on the deals but have it more accessible to the masses than just the people willing to spend absurd amounts of money.
Now ofc this idea is on paper and may not correlate to actual reality but me personally I would rather spend 50$ on 5 worth 10$ deals than spend 50$ to slightly catch up to bigger whales. Again this is all on paper so I have no real idea what would actually happen.
Well yeah someone has to pay to make those changes but an alternate way would to become a content creator and get access to things like the beta and closed discord. The only problem with that is achieving either of those things being mostly free to play is extremely difficult as the only thing you're bringing to the table is personality, which I don't think I am the right person to say that I do. I doubt many could achieve the success Brian Grant has now, especially with higher end players like Bero Man luring in audiences due to his skill and competitiveness.
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
I for one am not shocked that working is more financially rewarding than playing a game.
I measure the output of my games in how much I enjoy them, how much fun I get out of them. Rather than working out a cost/hour
If you want to do that, be my guest, but it’s not a good indicator of value in games. Games are not meant to be equivalent to minimum wage in any way. You don’t have a contract with kabam, you aren’t owed anything by kabam. You spend your time because you enjoy it
The problem is is that it get increasingly harder to enjoy the game when someone who doesn't play it get better rewards than you. I want it to be less of a split and have it be more fair so that f2p can at least try to compete. It also becomes less fun due to the amount of losses you have to endure because of that gap.
That’s ultimately your decision, but it still remains true that you can’t compare it to a minimum wage job and expect to have a wildly relevant point I’m afraid.
Its not about playing the game vs working a minimum wage job its about grinding the game for rewards vs not playing for rewards. The minimum wage job was just an example of why its bad
I’m saying it’s a bad example. And there will always be ways to grind the game and ways to spend. It’s why we still have a game.
Yes but the grinding should be equal if not greater than spending. Thats what brings the game to life in the first place- playing it
The game would not exist if grinding was equal or greater than spending. You're right that playing the game is what brings it to life, but spenders play it too.
Yes but the pace the game is headed the spenders wont need to grind to stay ahead of everyone else
Maybe, but we only have to worry when the spenders stop wanting to grind. As long as people keep playing the game, the game is going to be fine.
I do have to wonder how much spenders really affect your experience. For me personally, I face some annoying accounts in BGs, but that's the extent of it. I would be more worried about what the economy looks like for ftp players than what it looks like for the whales. As long as you enjoy developing your roster and managing your resources, the economy is doing well. If you don't, that's a seperate issue that will not be solved by nerfing deals.
However I do think that reducing the rewards given in deals and making them more suitable for the economy rather than one that would be in a couple months would be better. Spenders are going to buy no matter what anf Kabam should really just do what they have been doing, adding events that actually give good rewards for FTP and p2w.
But see, that's where you kinda contradict yourself. As you said, Kabam has been making events where ftp and ptw both benefit. In this case, Kabam gave an event where ptw players were given an outrageous benefit, and are now going to face the task of allowing ftp players to catch up. Lowering the impact of deals would not help, because ftp players are then given the potential of obtaining those same rewards in the near future. This is just the way Kabam's system works.
I get that facing these massive accounts can be frustrating and BGs has also been my main motivation for a while, but I have to wonder what your method of account growth is. If your argument is going to be that you cannot physically compete due to the amount of possible rewards for ftp being that much lower than ptw, showing the amount of rewards you can achieve is going to be the best way to do that. I think you'll likely see that there are a few forms of progress that you're missing.
Not sure what Im missing? I do as much arena as I can if I have time, I do all aq, eq, and when it was on aw. Im almost done progressing through 8.2 and am going to do incursion later tomorrow when I have time. The only thing I haven't done so far is variants because its variants.Very long boring and monotonous with the only worthwhile rewards being gold.
Yeah you're right it isn't how kabam's system works but that is why I made this post, so I could try to get a message out saying that this isn't good. And yeah kabam has to face the task of giving FTP rewards to catch them up. But with how they've been doing the last month or so I doubt that is what is on their mind right now. Lack of communication doesn't give me hope that they are going to give us those resources to FTP.
I don't know why giving FTP players rewards sooner to help is a bad thing. Kabam would make much more money if they made multiple more offers a year with lesser values that allows p2w have an advantage for a short while and then allow FTP to catch up still gives ptw the advantage and Kabam more money
This is such a disconnection from reality.... Basically you want Kabam to give F2P players more stuff so people who spend have to keep pn spending to stay ahead...You wanna be the means to milk spending players... Stop calling them P2W... Its not their fault you have this idea that you will be able to compete against spenders and a lot of F2P dedicated accounts, IF you had 1 or 2 r5s when you still have r2s in your deck...
They're already milking spenders so it wouldn't be anything new.
They are literally Pay to Win players. Why would I stop calling them that? They pay so they can 'win'. Not hard
Again if English isn't your first language sorry but I don't think I've ever seen someone be as terrible at reading as you. I have told you multiple times that I never said that having just 1 r5 or just 2r5 would win me everything, I said it would help because you can't get your mind off of it. I would certainly love more r4s but even then the milestones only give you 2/3 of one.
Then call yourself Free to lose... Let me explain to you how the world works... Kabam's purpose is to gain new customers thru deals, not give free stuff to free players so the spenders spend more. Guess what happens if a Whale quits, they lose a customer. Guess what happens if you quit? NOTHING... I can read you perfectly, and nothing will help you cause all you do is blame your shortcomings on something else. You don't have a deep or developed roster, you don't like to "hazzle", and you want beter rewards based on what spenders get while you have no intentions of spending, like a parasite. Is this plain English enough for you?
Claiming to be able to read properly and then misspelling hassle 4 times in a row tells me all I need to know
Well yeah I can read properly, i spell like **** but i read properly...
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
I for one am not shocked that working is more financially rewarding than playing a game.
I measure the output of my games in how much I enjoy them, how much fun I get out of them. Rather than working out a cost/hour
If you want to do that, be my guest, but it’s not a good indicator of value in games. Games are not meant to be equivalent to minimum wage in any way. You don’t have a contract with kabam, you aren’t owed anything by kabam. You spend your time because you enjoy it
The problem is is that it get increasingly harder to enjoy the game when someone who doesn't play it get better rewards than you. I want it to be less of a split and have it be more fair so that f2p can at least try to compete. It also becomes less fun due to the amount of losses you have to endure because of that gap.
That’s ultimately your decision, but it still remains true that you can’t compare it to a minimum wage job and expect to have a wildly relevant point I’m afraid.
Its not about playing the game vs working a minimum wage job its about grinding the game for rewards vs not playing for rewards. The minimum wage job was just an example of why its bad
I’m saying it’s a bad example. And there will always be ways to grind the game and ways to spend. It’s why we still have a game.
Yes but the grinding should be equal if not greater than spending. Thats what brings the game to life in the first place- playing it
The game would not exist if grinding was equal or greater than spending. You're right that playing the game is what brings it to life, but spenders play it too.
Yes but the pace the game is headed the spenders wont need to grind to stay ahead of everyone else
Maybe, but we only have to worry when the spenders stop wanting to grind. As long as people keep playing the game, the game is going to be fine.
I do have to wonder how much spenders really affect your experience. For me personally, I face some annoying accounts in BGs, but that's the extent of it. I would be more worried about what the economy looks like for ftp players than what it looks like for the whales. As long as you enjoy developing your roster and managing your resources, the economy is doing well. If you don't, that's a seperate issue that will not be solved by nerfing deals.
However I do think that reducing the rewards given in deals and making them more suitable for the economy rather than one that would be in a couple months would be better. Spenders are going to buy no matter what anf Kabam should really just do what they have been doing, adding events that actually give good rewards for FTP and p2w.
But see, that's where you kinda contradict yourself. As you said, Kabam has been making events where ftp and ptw both benefit. In this case, Kabam gave an event where ptw players were given an outrageous benefit, and are now going to face the task of allowing ftp players to catch up. Lowering the impact of deals would not help, because ftp players are then given the potential of obtaining those same rewards in the near future. This is just the way Kabam's system works.
I get that facing these massive accounts can be frustrating and BGs has also been my main motivation for a while, but I have to wonder what your method of account growth is. If your argument is going to be that you cannot physically compete due to the amount of possible rewards for ftp being that much lower than ptw, showing the amount of rewards you can achieve is going to be the best way to do that. I think you'll likely see that there are a few forms of progress that you're missing.
Not sure what Im missing? I do as much arena as I can if I have time, I do all aq, eq, and when it was on aw. Im almost done progressing through 8.2 and am going to do incursion later tomorrow when I have time. The only thing I haven't done so far is variants because its variants.Very long boring and monotonous with the only worthwhile rewards being gold.
Yeah you're right it isn't how kabam's system works but that is why I made this post, so I could try to get a message out saying that this isn't good. And yeah kabam has to face the task of giving FTP rewards to catch them up. But with how they've been doing the last month or so I doubt that is what is on their mind right now. Lack of communication doesn't give me hope that they are going to give us those resources to FTP.
I don't know why giving FTP players rewards sooner to help is a bad thing. Kabam would make much more money if they made multiple more offers a year with lesser values that allows p2w have an advantage for a short while and then allow FTP to catch up still gives ptw the advantage and Kabam more money
This is such a disconnection from reality.... Basically you want Kabam to give F2P players more stuff so people who spend have to keep pn spending to stay ahead...You wanna be the means to milk spending players... Stop calling them P2W... Its not their fault you have this idea that you will be able to compete against spenders and a lot of F2P dedicated accounts, IF you had 1 or 2 r5s when you still have r2s in your deck...
They're already milking spenders so it wouldn't be anything new.
They are literally Pay to Win players. Why would I stop calling them that? They pay so they can 'win'. Not hard
Again if English isn't your first language sorry but I don't think I've ever seen someone be as terrible at reading as you. I have told you multiple times that I never said that having just 1 r5 or just 2r5 would win me everything, I said it would help because you can't get your mind off of it. I would certainly love more r4s but even then the milestones only give you 2/3 of one.
Then call yourself Free to lose... Let me explain to you how the world works... Kabam's purpose is to gain new customers thru deals, not give free stuff to free players so the spenders spend more. Guess what happens if a Whale quits, they lose a customer. Guess what happens if you quit? NOTHING... I can read you perfectly, and nothing will help you cause all you do is blame your shortcomings on something else. You don't have a deep or developed roster, you don't like to "hazzle", and you want beter rewards based on what spenders get while you have no intentions of spending, like a parasite. Is this plain English enough for you?
Claiming to be able to read properly and then misspelling hassle 4 times in a row tells me all I need to know
Well yeah I can read properly, i spell like **** but i read properly...
Considering you miss the point of every single post and comment I make . . .
If you have to work at minimum wage, i'm sure your worries will not include "how many r5s can i get". Source, used to work minimum wage as a student.
The last time I worked a minimum wage job I too was a student, and virtually all my money went to food and comic books. And of the two, food was the optional expense.
Modern F2P microtransaction games are not supported on the backs of minimum wage players. They are monetized around the economics of giving the game away for free to minimum wage players, along with almost everyone else, and leveraging the few spenders willing to spend ten to a thousand times more than the average player would otherwise be capable of spending, so that instead of a thousand people spending ten bucks each, one player spends ten thousand dollars and nine hundred ninety nine players play for free.
The reason this model works and is so successful in spite of all the people claiming on Youtube and Polygon that the model is hated by almost everyone, is that in fact the model is loved by almost everyone. Most of the 999 players who play for free would rather continue to play for free, even if they won't admit it. And the one guy spending a ton is obviously happy, as he thinks he is getting his money's worth (or he's a moron). The people not happy? Its the people spending ten bucks jealous of the people spending twenty. It is the delusional people who don't realize the only reason they get to play for free is because of the whales they are jealous about. Its people who were not around when there was no such thing as free to play, and everyone paid, and most games died when they couldn't continue to gain an influx of subscribers.
To put it another way, online games don't have to be the way they are now. But to change it someone has to pay for that change. And the very people who want it to change are the very people unwilling to pay for change. The free to play players are obviously not going to pay to change the model: if they were willing to do that, they wouldn't be free to play players. The whales aren't going to pay to change it, because if they wanted something different they would have bought it by now. They have the purchasing power to dictate terms to the industry by their spending patterns. That's already 98% of all game players. Who's left?
The thing is all 1000 of those players spending 10$ would give kabam the same amount as 1 player spending 10,000$. Another approach would just be to make the lower costing deal offer extremely worth it incentivizing the majority to spend little money for much reward and they'd still get people spending a **** ton on the deals but have it more accessible to the masses than just the people willing to spend absurd amounts of money.
This doesn't work. People have tried. The fundamental problem is the fact that the more stuff you give spenders, the larger the gap you make between spenders and non-spenders, and in an F2P game the premise is that the free players are the pool from which future spenders come from. When you make the game too hostile to free to play players, you stop getting new free to play players. And then soon after, you stop getting new spenders. And then you die a slow death.
This is not theory. This is just game design reality. How this works now is based on what the games industry has learned over the past twenty or so years. There's no logical argument that refutes this, any more than you can logically refute the color of the sky. If there is some novel way of doing this that actually works and avoids the problems of the past, no one seems to know what this is.
It is not like Kabam just made all this stuff up themselves, nor is it something I'm just making up for forum fodder. This is textbook game economics.
If you have to work at minimum wage, i'm sure your worries will not include "how many r5s can i get". Source, used to work minimum wage as a student.
The last time I worked a minimum wage job I too was a student, and virtually all my money went to food and comic books. And of the two, food was the optional expense.
Modern F2P microtransaction games are not supported on the backs of minimum wage players. They are monetized around the economics of giving the game away for free to minimum wage players, along with almost everyone else, and leveraging the few spenders willing to spend ten to a thousand times more than the average player would otherwise be capable of spending, so that instead of a thousand people spending ten bucks each, one player spends ten thousand dollars and nine hundred ninety nine players play for free.
The reason this model works and is so successful in spite of all the people claiming on Youtube and Polygon that the model is hated by almost everyone, is that in fact the model is loved by almost everyone. Most of the 999 players who play for free would rather continue to play for free, even if they won't admit it. And the one guy spending a ton is obviously happy, as he thinks he is getting his money's worth (or he's a moron). The people not happy? Its the people spending ten bucks jealous of the people spending twenty. It is the delusional people who don't realize the only reason they get to play for free is because of the whales they are jealous about. Its people who were not around when there was no such thing as free to play, and everyone paid, and most games died when they couldn't continue to gain an influx of subscribers.
To put it another way, online games don't have to be the way they are now. But to change it someone has to pay for that change. And the very people who want it to change are the very people unwilling to pay for change. The free to play players are obviously not going to pay to change the model: if they were willing to do that, they wouldn't be free to play players. The whales aren't going to pay to change it, because if they wanted something different they would have bought it by now. They have the purchasing power to dictate terms to the industry by their spending patterns. That's already 98% of all game players. Who's left?
The thing is all 1000 of those players spending 10$ would give kabam the same amount as 1 player spending 10,000$. Another approach would just be to make the lower costing deal offer extremely worth it incentivizing the majority to spend little money for much reward and they'd still get people spending a **** ton on the deals but have it more accessible to the masses than just the people willing to spend absurd amounts of money.
This doesn't work. People have tried. The fundamental problem is the fact that the more stuff you give spenders, the larger the gap you make between spenders and non-spenders, and in an F2P game the premise is that the free players are the pool from which future spenders come from. When you make the game too hostile to free to play players, you stop getting new free to play players. And then soon after, you stop getting new spenders. And then you die a slow death.
This is not theory. This is just game design reality. How this works now is based on what the games industry has learned over the past twenty or so years. There's no logical argument that refutes this, any more than you can logically refute the color of the sky. If there is some novel way of doing this that actually works and avoids the problems of the past, no one seems to know what this is.
It is not like Kabam just made all this stuff up themselves, nor is it something I'm just making up for forum fodder. This is textbook game economics.
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
That was so sad, and a prime example of what happens when you circumvent the process. Money isn't always the answer. Those people paid upwards of 250k. Granted, they knew the risk, but that's the whole point. I suppose a certain amount of that is being daring and innovative, but some things have a cost not worth chancing.
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
The studios are mocking them . . .
What I'm asking for is theoretically possible we just don't know what the results may be and at worst it loses them a slight bit of money they could easily make back with the next event. We need to at least try to look at other options rather than just accepting what is. Players are suffering in game due to kabam's carelessness and personally I want it to change. If you don't good for you but I am going to try to find any option that makes my and many other players' game experience.
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
I don't think anyone is suffering. I think it's an adjustment because the Sale came in the middle of a BG Season, but that's pretty much uncontrollable.
I don't think anyone is suffering. I think it's an adjustment because the Sale came in the middle of a BG Season, but that's pretty much uncontrollable.
Yeah its a poor adjustment for people who couldn't spend absurd amounts of money
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
So what's the sense of people spending for something Kabam is going to give to people for free? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to. This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
So what's the sense of people spending for something Kabam is going to give to people for free? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to. This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
Which is the problem. I have spent a 'large' amount on the game and still cannot compete in the slightest. I want it to be different. I want to compete without sacrificing 1000s of dollars to do it
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
So what's the sense of people spending for something Kabam is going to give to people for free? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to. This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
Which is the problem. I have spent a 'large' amount on the game and still cannot compete in the slightest. I want it to be different. I want to compete without sacrificing 1000s of dollars to do it
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
So what's the sense of people spending for something Kabam is going to give to people for free? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to. This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
Which is the problem. I have spent a 'large' amount on the game and still cannot compete in the slightest. I want it to be different. I want to compete without sacrificing 1000s of dollars to do it
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
So what's the sense of people spending for something Kabam is going to give to people for free? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to. This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
Which is the problem. I have spent a 'large' amount on the game and still cannot compete in the slightest. I want it to be different. I want to compete without sacrificing 1000s of dollars to do it
Then I'm afraid this is the wrong game to do it.
Thats the point of this post
Well, it's worth a suggestion anyway. I suppose it worked for the Bolsheviks.
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
The studios are mocking them . . .
What I'm asking for is theoretically possible we just don't know what the results may be and at worst it loses them a slight bit of money they could easily make back with the next event. We need to at least try to look at other options rather than just accepting what is. Players are suffering in game due to kabam's carelessness and personally I want it to change. If you don't good for you but I am going to try to find any option that makes my and many other players' game experience.
But you're only backing your points by saying "players are suffering" and asking for them to just change things. Maybe if you provided real, in depth evidence to show how much the economy hurts your experience, something could come of this. But just saying that this is your opinion and you don't know much is not going to get anywhere. Don't waste your time with these arguments, keep track of the ftp resource economy from your individual perspective, and then present those numbers as proof. Kabam has all of this data on hand and employees they pay to keep track of and understand it all. If you can show them that their system has holes, that could be effective, though unlikely. This thread, however, definitely won't be making any waves.
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
The studios are mocking them . . .
What I'm asking for is theoretically possible we just don't know what the results may be and at worst it loses them a slight bit of money they could easily make back with the next event. We need to at least try to look at other options rather than just accepting what is. Players are suffering in game due to kabam's carelessness and personally I want it to change. If you don't good for you but I am going to try to find any option that makes my and many other players' game experience.
But you're only backing your points by saying "players are suffering" and asking for them to just change things. Maybe if you provided real, in depth evidence to show how much the economy hurts your experience, something could come of this. But just saying that this is your opinion and you don't know much is not going to get anywhere. Don't waste your time with these arguments, keep track of the ftp resource economy from your individual perspective, and then present those numbers as proof. Kabam has all of this data on hand and employees they pay to keep track of and understand it all. If you can show them that their system has holes, that could be effective, though unlikely. This thread, however, definitely won't be making any waves.
I've typed a response several times, and I keep deleting. The only thing coming up is "Huh?".
TLDR: Spending your time at a minimum wage job (In the Us) will get you better rewards for time spent than battlegrounds
No, I understood the points. I just don't understand the comparison. Playing the game is not a transferable source of income. It's a service. It offers premiums at various times and in various amounts. Which is why it makes me somewhat cringe when people compare the in-game economy to the J4th sales, because that's not the norm. In any event, the game is playable at whatever level of investment we choose to have, be it time or money. It's like a job in a sense that you get what you put into it, but the payoff is apples and kumquats.
These deals are going to propel you forward massively and will keep the players who spent further ahead even with rewards kabam will be giving out within the next couple months. I never said it was a transferable source of income. It is a fact that working a job to get rewards will benefit you more than actually playing the game in terms of account progression.
Spending has always accelerated growth in the game. All it does is save time. You can spend and have it faster, or wait and work towards it in the game. That's the way it's always been.
It doesn't 'save time' it progresses you further than the amount of time you spend. It isn't an alternative its the BETTER option
For those who have the option, perhaps. For others, it isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
I want kabam to change to severe gap between f2p and spending even if it is just a little. Idc if people spend I just don't want it to be at my expense
So what's the sense of people spending for something Kabam is going to give to people for free? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to. This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
Which is the problem. I have spent a 'large' amount on the game and still cannot compete in the slightest. I want it to be different. I want to compete without sacrificing 1000s of dollars to do it
Then I'm afraid this is the wrong game to do it.
Thats the point of this post
Well, it's worth a suggestion anyway. I suppose it worked for the Bolsheviks.
As a pureblood Russian I have to accept there always a chance
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
The studios are mocking them . . .
What I'm asking for is theoretically possible we just don't know what the results may be and at worst it loses them a slight bit of money they could easily make back with the next event. We need to at least try to look at other options rather than just accepting what is. Players are suffering in game due to kabam's carelessness and personally I want it to change. If you don't good for you but I am going to try to find any option that makes my and many other players' game experience.
But you're only backing your points by saying "players are suffering" and asking for them to just change things. Maybe if you provided real, in depth evidence to show how much the economy hurts your experience, something could come of this. But just saying that this is your opinion and you don't know much is not going to get anywhere. Don't waste your time with these arguments, keep track of the ftp resource economy from your individual perspective, and then present those numbers as proof. Kabam has all of this data on hand and employees they pay to keep track of and understand it all. If you can show them that their system has holes, that could be effective, though unlikely. This thread, however, definitely won't be making any waves.
That was my original comment
It wasn't. You provided one source of resources and compared it to one of the largest spending events of the year. Instead of that, keep track of all of the available Gold, ISO, Rankup Materials, Units, and Crystals that ftp players can possibly obtain over an entire month of gameplay. 2+ hours a day, for about 30 days. Put that data into a spreadsheet or some sort of data management tool, then present that to the Forums in a detailed report. The people tasked with managing this economy do this, and much more, for a living. If you can't do that just once, you really cannot have a valid argument.
There's a reason people like DNA are well respected in the community, and it's definitely not due to baseless, opinionated arguments. It takes a lot more work to make change than what you seem to be willing to put in.
People are soon going to realize that not playing the game gets you farther than actually trying to play. You can think what you want but if Kabam isn't going to reward the playerbase for their time and efforts then they are going to leave, its as simple as that. There was a reason why I quit the first time and the only thing that brought me back was battlegrounds and seeing these new creators.
If game developers think that way, their game economies quickly spiral out of control and the game dies.
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Although you do have a point I feel as if you're missing what I want. I know how these things work and ofc I have no idea what will work and what will not. But that's the point. The actors and writers going on strike now went in knowing the studios don't care about them and would do anything to be cheap but its the whole reason they're out there - to make change. You don't have to be realistic to make change. The point of making change is taking what is and morphing it for (hopefully) the better and there are going to be risks of failure trying to do it, its just how change works
Interesting for you to pick that as an example. Because those people have, for the most part, very reasonable and realistic bargaining positions. They might not get everything they want, but no one ever does in a negotiation. However, you do have to have realistic requests for the negotiations to not be trivialized. If the writers or the actors positions were unrealistic, the studios would be out there now in the court of public opinion mocking them. However, that's extremely difficult, because it is the studios that have the unrealistic position for the most part.
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
The studios are mocking them . . .
What I'm asking for is theoretically possible we just don't know what the results may be and at worst it loses them a slight bit of money they could easily make back with the next event. We need to at least try to look at other options rather than just accepting what is. Players are suffering in game due to kabam's carelessness and personally I want it to change. If you don't good for you but I am going to try to find any option that makes my and many other players' game experience.
But you're only backing your points by saying "players are suffering" and asking for them to just change things. Maybe if you provided real, in depth evidence to show how much the economy hurts your experience, something could come of this. But just saying that this is your opinion and you don't know much is not going to get anywhere. Don't waste your time with these arguments, keep track of the ftp resource economy from your individual perspective, and then present those numbers as proof. Kabam has all of this data on hand and employees they pay to keep track of and understand it all. If you can show them that their system has holes, that could be effective, though unlikely. This thread, however, definitely won't be making any waves.
That was my original comment
It wasn't. You provided one source of resources and compared it to one of the largest spending events of the year. Instead of that, keep track of all of the available Gold, ISO, Rankup Materials, Units, and Crystals that ftp players can possibly obtain over an entire month of gameplay. 2+ hours a day, for about 30 days. Put that data into a spreadsheet or some sort of data management tool, then present that to the Forums in a detailed report. The people tasked with managing this economy do this, and much more, for a living. If you can't do that just once, you really cannot have a valid argument.
There's a reason people like DNA are well respected in the community, and it's definitely not due to baseless, opinionated arguments. It takes a lot more work to make change than what you seem to be willing to put in.
This is just a starting point not an end goal I will make a spreadsheet a present it when I have time to but atm I just cant be bothered
Comments
See how easy that is?
You've presented a line of thought, and it isn't a completely original line of thought: others have tried to make the time v money argument in the past. I know for a fact that it runs contrary to how game design works, for literally every game I'm aware of, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is invalid. But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone should take it seriously. If the fundamental basis of your argument is "oh yeah well you'll see" then okay, I don't really have a refutation for that one, but I also don't really care all that much either. It is a non-starter position, and the doomsaying that goes with it was old when I first heard it back in 2003.
Let me explain to you how the world works...
Kabam's purpose is to gain new customers thru deals, not give free stuff to free players so the spenders spend more. Guess what happens if a Whale quits, they lose a customer. Guess what happens if you quit? NOTHING...
I can read you perfectly, and nothing will help you cause all you do is blame your shortcomings on something else. You don't have a deep or developed roster, you don't like to "hazzle", and you want beter rewards based on what spenders get while you have no intentions of spending, like a parasite. Is this plain English enough for you?
Modern F2P microtransaction games are not supported on the backs of minimum wage players. They are monetized around the economics of giving the game away for free to minimum wage players, along with almost everyone else, and leveraging the few spenders willing to spend ten to a thousand times more than the average player would otherwise be capable of spending, so that instead of a thousand people spending ten bucks each, one player spends ten thousand dollars and nine hundred ninety nine players play for free.
The reason this model works and is so successful in spite of all the people claiming on Youtube and Polygon that the model is hated by almost everyone, is that in fact the model is loved by almost everyone. Most of the 999 players who play for free would rather continue to play for free, even if they won't admit it. And the one guy spending a ton is obviously happy, as he thinks he is getting his money's worth (or he's a moron). The people not happy? Its the people spending ten bucks jealous of the people spending twenty. It is the delusional people who don't realize the only reason they get to play for free is because of the whales they are jealous about. Its people who were not around when there was no such thing as free to play, and everyone paid, and most games died when they couldn't continue to gain an influx of subscribers.
To put it another way, online games don't have to be the way they are now. But to change it someone has to pay for that change. And the very people who want it to change are the very people unwilling to pay for change. The free to play players are obviously not going to pay to change the model: if they were willing to do that, they wouldn't be free to play players. The whales aren't going to pay to change it, because if they wanted something different they would have bought it by now. They have the purchasing power to dictate terms to the industry by their spending patterns. That's already 98% of all game players. Who's left?
Now ofc this idea is on paper and may not correlate to actual reality but me personally I would rather spend 50$ on 5 worth 10$ deals than spend 50$ to slightly catch up to bigger whales. Again this is all on paper so I have no real idea what would actually happen.
Well yeah someone has to pay to make those changes but an alternate way would to become a content creator and get access to things like the beta and closed discord. The only problem with that is achieving either of those things being mostly free to play is extremely difficult as the only thing you're bringing to the table is personality, which I don't think I am the right person to say that I do. I doubt many could achieve the success Brian Grant has now, especially with higher end players like Bero Man luring in audiences due to his skill and competitiveness.
If there are other options please inform me.
This is not theory. This is just game design reality. How this works now is based on what the games industry has learned over the past twenty or so years. There's no logical argument that refutes this, any more than you can logically refute the color of the sky. If there is some novel way of doing this that actually works and avoids the problems of the past, no one seems to know what this is.
It is not like Kabam just made all this stuff up themselves, nor is it something I'm just making up for forum fodder. This is textbook game economics.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your point is here. You've made a number of abstract comparisons, and I'm not entirely sure what your objective is. Are you complaining about people spending, or suggesting people spend?
Those people have a specific list of things they want. They didn't go on strike asking the studios to just make things better. Also, most if not all of their asks are within the realm of the theoretically possible, and most if not all of their asks presume that compromises will be made between the two sides to achieve those objectives.
As someone who has made many suggestions that have actually been incorporated into the game, both big and small, I think your notion of why and how to advocate for change is at best odd. Every time I make a suggestion, it is realistic, it is reasonable, and it carefully accounts for the costs and benefits of the suggestion. It has an explicit set of goals. It has a specific path to achieving them. It acknowledges the resultant costs and issues to the best of my ability. I don't ask for "change" without knowing what that change will be.
Maybe that's why they sometimes succeed.
The most recent spectacular example of someone who decided to push for change without understanding precisely what that change entailed discovered that 5000 PSI turns carbon fiber pressure vessels into supersonic blenders.
I suppose a certain amount of that is being daring and innovative, but some things have a cost not worth chancing.
What I'm asking for is theoretically possible we just don't know what the results may be and at worst it loses them a slight bit of money they could easily make back with the next event. We need to at least try to look at other options rather than just accepting what is. Players are suffering in game due to kabam's carelessness and personally I want it to change. If you don't good for you but I am going to try to find any option that makes my and many other players' game experience.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that gap has never had a time when it was closed. People will never, and have never, been able to compete with Players who spend. Not for free, anyway. Nor do they have to.
This whole F2P vs. P2P mentality is folly. There is no competition between the two.
There's a reason people like DNA are well respected in the community, and it's definitely not due to baseless, opinionated arguments. It takes a lot more work to make change than what you seem to be willing to put in.