Champion trading

Just a thought to help each other in alliances. This is a touchy subject as it can lead to cheating on several levels... but here is an idea to make it fair.

1) open up trading champs
2) champs must be the same rank and same * level. Only 4* for 4* and only 5/50 for 5/50 etc.
3) trading will not awaken a champ
4) I'm open to the idea of an awakened limit but I don't think that is relevant to be honest.
5) only trade within alliance.
6) I'm even open to a timeframe limit of must be in the same alliance for 10 days or something like rewards.

This could also apply to trading t4c or something.

I would love to hear feedback from kabam please.

Comments

HoidCosmere

I agree that trading would be good, but there is no win for kabam to allow it as they want people spending their money to try to collect the champs they want. Why do you think nearly everyone has a spider gwen and ant man?

I think there will have to be a penalty portion for them to consider it. A champ will need to be either awakened or at rank 2 level 20 to be traded. Once traded the champ goes back down to unawakened and rank 1 level 1. Can only be traded for the same star level, can't receive a champ you already have and you will likely need to pay for a trading license, much like the gift system is now. With all that, they might do it, but then would anybody want to pay to take advantage of it? IDK

HoidCosmere

But unlimited trading would be a lot of fun, like trading baseball cards. I would probably play more often if that was the case.

Eb0ny-O-M4w

I don't agree with a trading system. Maybe it would be "ok" with small items like sig stones or things related, but not cats and champs

Yelin547

I'm actually not opposed to the limited trading thing as well. Unlimited trading could cause an issue. Once a champ has been traded you can't trade it back or can't return to he original owner or something. The abuse could be used for LoL or something. I see that. Limiting trading that way isn't bad as well

Draco2199

Yelin547 wrote: »

Just a thought to help each other in alliances. This is a touchy subject as it can lead to cheating on several levels... but here is an idea to make it fair.

1) open up trading champs
2) champs must be the same rank and same * level. Only 4* for 4* and only 5/50 for 5/50 etc.
3) trading will not awaken a champ
4) I'm open to the idea of an awakened limit but I don't think that is relevant to be honest.
5) only trade within alliance.
6) I'm even open to a timeframe limit of must be in the same alliance for 10 days or something like rewards.

This could also apply to trading t4c or something.

I would love to hear feedback from kabam please.

No thanks, it's a terrible idea. People would just create new accounts constantly and then trade any new 4 stars they got from that to a main one. It would create a huge imbalance and is impractical. I'd much rather them keep the $30 Marvelous crystal deal every month with units. I would buy that weekly if they had it most likely.

Noob_2yrs

Trading is nice option for players base for sure. Why would Kabam allow trading champs? Selling champs is best revenue so if trading is allowed then some players stop spending or do not care to try for champs. If trading for real money or high units may be they allow but its highly unlikely.

Yelin547

@Draco2199 I concur it could be problematic which is why I suggested limitations. Do you think those could help prevent that or there are limitations that could help that?

Yelin547

1) open up trading champs
2) champs must be the same rank and same * level. Only 4* for 4* and only 5/50 for 5/50 etc.
3) trading will not awaken a champ
4) I'm open to the idea of an awakened limit but I don't think that is relevant to be honest.
5) only trade within alliance.
6) I'm even open to a timeframe limit of must be in the same alliance for 10 days or something like rewards.
7) champs cannot be traded back to the original owner.

Just to add new requirements mentioned.

HoidCosmere

Here's a random thought that might work. The ability to wager in game items on the outcome of a war. As an example you could wager a 4* Magik and 2 T4BC, if somebody on the other team has a 4*Magik and willing to wager it and 2 other people on the other team are each willing to wager a T4BC each, you could dupe your Magik and have 2 more T4BC if you win the war, or you lose them all to the other team if you lose the war.

Threedeadkings

Let's go back to basics. MCOC, firstly and fundamentally is a champions acquisition game. Therefore, it is important that we recognise the core income stream for Kabam is or has to be related to champion acquisition process (be it via crystals or unit recharge in arena).

And for the very similar reason why rank downs will never be a regular feature in MCOC.. It would simply canabalise champion acquisition process, and without a doubt impact their core income stream, negatively.

Besides, what possibly is my motivation (as a summoner) exchanging my top-tiered champ or any other for that matter for another, even within own alliance? Just to try their abilities? If that's the intention, why don't we suggest that Kabam sets up a 'Champions Index/Library' (something like a practice ground or academy at in game?). A very good example to quote will be Nexon's Dynasty Warrior Unleashed.

The purpose of the 'Library' is for Summoners to try/test out all currently released and playable champs. It will be interesting if the Library allows summoners to vary these champ levels, ranks, duped or unduped, and maybe even allowing summoners our choice whom we want to duel after tinkering with them. Hopefully, it will spur summoners to try these champs out instead of incessantly and endlessly posting 'is this champ good?' here, or at global chats or at reddit, or at any social sites.

Draco2199

Yelin547 wrote: »

@Draco2199 I concur it could be problematic which is why I suggested limitations. Do you think those could help prevent that or there are limitations that could help that?

Nope, trading will never happen due to integrity of the game. It's a horrible idea. Every game that has done it has seen corruption.

Addyos

Yelin547 wrote: »

@Draco2199 I concur it could be problematic which is why I suggested limitations. Do you think those could help prevent that or there are limitations that could help that?

Yeah. Don't ever have this feature. Period. Way too much scope to be abused, even with limitations.