The only negative I see in this change is for alliances that don’t run the same map for every bg, that’s quite a big issue though
Not that simple.
With treasury system alliances can run AQ smoothly without worrying about individual resources, but now if just one member runs short of resources it would affect whole alliance. And you can't be sure that 30 members will always be able to manage their resources properly, especially in map 7 which required resources are very high.
Resource management is and always has been a major component of this game. That's pretty much MCOC 101
I agree with you a decent amount of your posts but you are an all AQ and no AW player so your opinion is somewhat skewed just like mine is. Please don't act lie you speak for all end game players . You have an arrogance about you.
Uh, you realize I'm in the alliance that placed 4th in AW last season now right?
The only negative I see in this change is for alliances that don’t run the same map for every bg, that’s quite a big issue though
Not that simple.
With treasury system alliances can run AQ smoothly without worrying about individual resources, but now if just one member runs short of resources it would affect whole alliance. And you can't be sure that 30 members will always be able to manage their resources properly, especially in map 7 which required resources are very high.
Resource management is and always has been a major component of this game. That's pretty much MCOC 101
That's true, but that doesn't mean it always makes sense to make one person's mistake propagate out to the rest of their alliance in a punitive fashion. I would argue this is a major reason behind the literal hatred many players have towards AW. If you die in content, you die. You can even laugh it off. But if you die in AW, you're letting your entire alliance down if that alliance is remotely competitive. The ticket change creates another opportunity for a single player mistake to become an alliance-wide problem, which makes alliances a source of player stress rather than a mitigator. I would argue that is, in most cases, a game design error.
Maybe it is just how I see the game now, but I think the game should do everything possible to make alliances a refuge from the more stressful parts of the game, not a source of them, whenever possible. And that means alliance members should be able to help each other when possible, and bail them out of mistakes when possible. Maybe that's not always possible in a world where we're trying to kill the bots, but i still think it is something we shouldn't just leave on the wayside without reflection.
The only negative I see in this change is for alliances that don’t run the same map for every bg, that’s quite a big issue though
Not that simple.
With treasury system alliances can run AQ smoothly without worrying about individual resources, but now if just one member runs short of resources it would affect whole alliance. And you can't be sure that 30 members will always be able to manage their resources properly, especially in map 7 which required resources are very high.
Resource management is and always has been a major component of this game. That's pretty much MCOC 101
I agree with you a decent amount of your posts but you are an all AQ and no AW player so your opinion is somewhat skewed just like mine is. Please don't act lie you speak for all end game players . You have an arrogance about you.
Uh, you realize I'm in the alliance that placed 4th in AW last season now right?
The only negative I see in this change is for alliances that don’t run the same map for every bg, that’s quite a big issue though
Not that simple.
With treasury system alliances can run AQ smoothly without worrying about individual resources, but now if just one member runs short of resources it would affect whole alliance. And you can't be sure that 30 members will always be able to manage their resources properly, especially in map 7 which required resources are very high.
Resource management is and always has been a major component of this game. That's pretty much MCOC 101
I agree with you a decent amount of your posts but you are an all AQ and no AW player so your opinion is somewhat skewed just like mine is. Please don't act lie you speak for all end game players . You have an arrogance about you.
Uh, you realize I'm in the alliance that placed 4th in AW last season now right?
You're right, I've seen previous posts of yours where it seemed like you didn't participate in competitive AW. That;s my fault for not verifying, but I still don't agree with your point of view.
What if you guys announced the AQ a few hours early, and used that window (a la war enlistment) to let alliance leaders plan the week’s maps and modifiers. Once that was done, costs could either be assigned “as used” or split evenly among players with the caveat that players can’t bear costs until they’ve been in a full week.
The only negative I see in this change is for alliances that don’t run the same map for every bg, that’s quite a big issue though
Not that simple.
With treasury system alliances can run AQ smoothly without worrying about individual resources, but now if just one member runs short of resources it would affect whole alliance. And you can't be sure that 30 members will always be able to manage their resources properly, especially in map 7 which required resources are very high.
Resource management is and always has been a major component of this game. That's pretty much MCOC 101
I agree with you a decent amount of your posts but you are an all AQ and no AW player so your opinion is somewhat skewed just like mine is. Please don't act lie you speak for all end game players . You have an arrogance about you.
Uh, you realize I'm in the alliance that placed 4th in AW last season now right?
You're right, I've seen previous posts of yours where it seemed like you didn't participate in competitive AW. That;s my fault for not verifying, but I still don't agree with your point of view.
Yeah I bailed on AW for around a year. Finished abyss and act 6 and was bored honestly. So decided to dip my toes back into the competitive side of things. It's been a lot of fun actually
Why cant leadership set the week up before AQ starts and have say b1&3 run 66655 and bg2 run 55555. This will cost a total of 900 tickets, which can be divided by 30 players at 30 each. Everyone gets equal rewards at equal costs. Make it so no player can pay more than 45 or maybe 60 (25% more)tickets to prevent any exploits and let alliances work from there.
I know the reasoning behind this is to prevent the third party transactions and swapping/shelling that some alliances exploit, but to take away any honest and democratic approach is unreasonable and unfair to those who have always tried to maintain integrity and refrain from abusing exploits.
Every time Kabam tries to fix an issue it seems like the main focus is Kabam's bottom dollar. With this new AQ change they are primarily stopping donation dumps. That is completely reasonable but they have obviously not taken the time to see the other issues their new system will have on the game. It's disappointing to see a company so clearly not care about the players and only care about profits. Kabam needs to find a better balance between encouraging spending (which is necessary to keep the game running) and letting players have fun and enjoy the game. It's so obvious how profit sensitive 99% of their actions are.
here's a fun exercise, and anyone who feels like it can join in.
you run company A you must project revenues of X million a quarter the X million needs to be a certain percentage greater than the year over year average and show growth from the start of fiscal year you must manage expenses to not exceed Y million. this includes infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, employee compensation and health benefits, content development as well as higher licensing costs which can't be passed on directly to the customer your main product is nearing the end of its lifecycle and you're trying to launch your next gen product during an unprecedented global pandemic
please explain how you'd move forward without looking for new profit streams. also explain if you'd be looking for a lateral move to a new company or just start fresh from the ground floor in another industry.
I work for bank, I know all about this and I see it time and time again. Companies get greedy and lose sight of their customer. I clearly stated that I completely understand that kabam needs to make money. I have spent money on this game and there is nothing wrong with that. A dichotomy arises when a company becomes so profit motivated that customers start not buying the product. I really don’t understand how there are so many kabam apologists.
Every time Kabam tries to fix an issue it seems like the main focus is Kabam's bottom dollar. With this new AQ change they are primarily stopping donation dumps. That is completely reasonable but they have obviously not taken the time to see the other issues their new system will have on the game. It's disappointing to see a company so clearly not care about the players and only care about profits. Kabam needs to find a better balance between encouraging spending (which is necessary to keep the game running) and letting players have fun and enjoy the game. It's so obvious how profit sensitive 99% of their actions are.
here's a fun exercise, and anyone who feels like it can join in.
you run company A you must project revenues of X million a quarter the X million needs to be a certain percentage greater than the year over year average and show growth from the start of fiscal year you must manage expenses to not exceed Y million. this includes infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, employee compensation and health benefits, content development as well as higher licensing costs which can't be passed on directly to the customer your main product is nearing the end of its lifecycle and you're trying to launch your next gen product during an unprecedented global pandemic
please explain how you'd move forward without looking for new profit streams. also explain if you'd be looking for a lateral move to a new company or just start fresh from the ground floor in another industry.
I work for bank, I know all about this and I see it time and time again. Companies get greedy and lose sight of their customer. I clearly stated that I completely understand that kabam needs to make money. I have spent money on this game and there is nothing wrong with that. A dichotomy arises when a company becomes so profit motivated that customers start not buying the product. I really don’t understand how there are so many kabam apologists.
Again, how does AQ donations have anything to do.with making money?
The only negative I see in this change is for alliances that don’t run the same map for every bg, that’s quite a big issue though
Not that simple.
With treasury system alliances can run AQ smoothly without worrying about individual resources, but now if just one member runs short of resources it would affect whole alliance. And you can't be sure that 30 members will always be able to manage their resources properly, especially in map 7 which required resources are very high.
Resource management is and always has been a major component of this game. That's pretty much MCOC 101
I totally agree with this. If you cannot manage your resources you need to have for AQ and rely on your alliance members, it is not a very good look I certainly would not like it if I had to cover for somebody with my own resources. That being said I do not think that this is the main issue with the system change. It is the alliances with mixed BGs not being able to have that anymore because they won’t be able to share the load like many others have stated.
I really think that this problem can be solved by allowing gifting to alliance members only during AQ with gifting limits. The limits reset every AQ iteration and gifting is only possible when AQ is active. Also another addition to my suggestion, only allow gifting for those who are in the alliance when AQ starts, to ensure only alliance members can do the gifting. For instance, the moment AQ starts each member in the ally gets an alliance gifting badge only valid in that alliance which lasts exactly 120hrs, 5 days, which is the duration of the AQ period. The people who run, for instance map6 can gift the guys the tickets who are running map7 when proper calculations are made by officers or somebody else. This should provide a solution to the alliances that run different maps in different battlegroups and still avoid possible third parties from dumping resources.
Yeah I absolutely agree that staggered map alliances are getting the short straw in this as it's been stated. I hope they figure something out to fix that prior to launch
I applaud Kabam's attempts to implement a system that makes it harder for Alliances to abuse AQ map cost. The ticket system puts a stop to the illicit loaders being able to dump resources into an alliance as the the onus is shifted back to the individual summoner to be responsible for their own activity and contributions in AQ.
That being said, cheaters will still find a way to cheat. Hodins, or discounted Odin's, as well as mercs are still workarounds to the ticket system. Both of the above methods require to share your account information in order for the person to load the account with resources or grind for them(either through automation or by actually doing it).
I hope all the shady alliances at the top that have used the systems of abuse suffer. Line chats are blowing up because it's unfair! Boo freaking hoo. It's ironic that the loaders will end up getting the most tickets while the alliances and the members that didn't donate and just switched to whatever shell will end up not getting tickets. Karma can be a PITA.
Regarding the resources lost in terms of years of donations, again some of those are legitimate concerns however there are many alliances, especially at the higher levels... Mainly 7x5 or near it, that the stashes built up were done illegitimately.
It looks like you gotta pay $10 bucks a week to run map 7 per alliance member of you don't want to grind. Again, I smell a resurgence in hodins.
Kabam should just do away with map costs all together. While they're at it, remove prestige as well.... One can dream..
My main issue is it should be tit for tat. Not 5 months worth. The TOTAL alliance treasury should be re-compensated with the tickets. We’ve been storing for years. Had over 20 million total. 5 months isn’t the correct equivalent. Total for total. That’s fair. Sure, I’d like the resources back myself; nevertheless, I realize they were donated for alliance quests etc, so, the sum total of all donations that were in the coffers when Kabam just took them, is the ethical thing to do. Ban the cheaters and refund the alliance coffers with equivalent tickets for the entire sum. @Kabam Mike
I completely agree. Alliances with loads of resources in their Treasury are being cheated out of their hard work.
Not really. The individuals who donated are getting 5 months average of tickets to run aw in the future. If you never donated, you shouldn't get tickets. Also some of the stashes built up were done illegitimately. 5 months seems like a fair compromise to me based on the individual contributions the summoner made. You are getting back a portion of what you put in. Only other route is wipe everyone out and start fresh with no compensation as it would be an equal starting point for everyone.
Congrats Kabam. You’ve just created a wall within our alliance. We run 655. And are working towards some 665. So the members that want to run Map6 have to use resources but the members who run Map5 don’t and get the benefits of the total points. There will be discord in our alliance and many others. So what will happen is the Map6s will leave and we have to start over. You will have Map5 and below alliances. Map6 only alliances. And Map7 only. There will be very little AQ growth within an alliance now. It will be players moving on as they progress. Instead of progressing together. @Kabam Miike
You do realize the term ‘Kabamed’ is in the Urban Dictionary, since 2014. Congrats...I guess!
I really think that this problem can be solved by allowing gifting to alliance members only during AQ with gifting limits. The limits reset every AQ iteration and gifting is only possible when AQ is active.This was my suggestion to this problem and I posted it. Also another addition to my suggestion, only allow gifting for those who are in the alliance when AQ starts, to ensure only alliance members can do the gifting. For instance, at the moment AQ starts each member in the ally gets an alliance gifting badge only valid in that alliance which lasts exactly 120hrs, 5 days, which is the duration of the AQ period. This should provide a solution to the alliances that run different maps in different battlegroups and still avoid possible third parties from dumping resources.
You don’t need gifting. Just everyone can buy a ticket within the alliance. Someone could buy all if they wanted to. Each member take turns buying enough to accommodate 655, 665, 766, 776. Simple solution, if their interest is to keep alliances building together.
And I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want that!
Except what is to stop a paid loader to join the alliance and buy the tickets for everyone. That is literally the same exact problem... Haha
I wish a little more notice would have been forthcoming. I'm not a fan of this new system. However, I'm writing this less for feedback to the devs and more towards fellow players. Specifically, the mixed map allys.
I feel your pain. Talk to your folks. One option could be to rotate the cost for playing a higher map. So one entire battle gro For instance:
1st AQ 655 2nd AQ 565 3rd AQ 556
I realize it's not ideal and in the short term your overall AQ score may go down a little but most of your players will eventually manage to adapt. It solves the equal donation for equal rewards issue. Plus, it's about to be free for a couple of weeks, use this time to get your players acclimated to the higher map.
Like I said, not ideal but if you're proactive you can make it work. Provided everyone in the group wants to remain together.
I wish a little more notice would have been forthcoming. I'm not a fan of this new system. However, I'm writing this less for feedback to the devs and more towards fellow players. Specifically, the mixed map allys.
I feel your pain. Talk to your folks. One option could be to rotate the cost for playing a higher map. So one entire battle gro For instance:
1st AQ 655 2nd AQ 565 3rd AQ 556
I realize it's not ideal and in the short term your overall AQ score may go down a little but most of your players will eventually manage to adapt. It solves the equal donation for equal rewards issue. Plus, it's about to be free for a couple of weeks, use this time to get your players acclimated to the higher map.
Like I said, not ideal but if you're proactive you can make it work. Provided everyone in the group wants to remain together.
The fact that you have to seek options is counter intuitive. This shouldnt have to be an issue. Kabam is literally causing more problems.
I don’t think anyone can make as compelling of an argument on this as @DNA3000 made. Perfect comment and completely summed up how this is a whole lot more than normal aq changes.
Everything lately in the game, to me, feels like it is pushing players away from alliance mode/game in general, and that’s honestly the only thing that kept me playing as long as I have. Once that starts to break down what’s the point anymore? It feels like whoever is making the decisions over there forgot about the heart of this game and why it’s been more successful than others. I really hope whoever is in charge does some reflecting and a whole lot more listening
Two bgs do map 6 and one bg does map 5: 10/10/10 (so the guys entering map 5 would need to use 10 tickets to enter)
One bg does map 7 and two do map 5: 10/10/10
Two bgs do map 6 and one bg does map 7: 15/15/30 (I think the system should only apply when a free map is combined with a ticket map but you could also have it work in this scenario for 20/20/20)
One bg does map 7, one bg does map 6 and one bg does map 5: 15/15/15 (could adjust this to weight more towards map 7 such as 10/10/25 but either works)
this is a really good idea. hope something like this is doable. they'd have to change map costs being fixed to being different for each alliance depending on what maps they select so it might take a lot more work, but would definitely be more fair for everyone
Personally I feel they killed 2 birds with one stone , whilst not thinking about the rest of the players
Stop Resource loading in map 7 alliances and Push aq to be p2w !
$10 per week of map 7 or grind your a$$ off ? dosent look very f2p friendly , you are trying to get people to play the game , then why have escalating costs for entry ?
Just remove map costs forever and prestige too , prestige increase is a major reason for cheating at the top of aq
That’s interesting I hadn’t considered the down sides of this change. I think you all might have some good points. Once the change is made you they can’t go back because the treasuries will be destroyed. It might be a good idea for Kabam to hold back on the change until it’s thought through and get feedback from the players. Alliance dumping is bad but will the change cause more problems than the dumping itself. Good points guys I only saw the benefit not the down side
Return the treasury to the alliances in full resources to what it was before.
What you've done is confiscate our heritage.
You have access to all data. You know where the treasury dumps are and who they are. Remove those instead. They were never in my alliance I know that for sure. But the vault we built over the years made it so we could now choose how to manage AQ.
Not return it to the members. The guy who joined two weeks ago has zero right to what a guy who played for us for two years dropped into the vault.
I've had a No Donation Required policy in my alli for over a year now. Players donated what they wanted, could. Because we got to a point we could afford that. And it was a way I found to alleviate player burnout. It helped me keep players longer and also attract new members more easily. It allowed for our members to focus resources on rank ups, or boosts. And still people suffered shortages of iso & gold. But at least members didn't feel pressured to Pay to Play in my alli. The treasury was our safe haven. It was ours coz we built it and now you've taken it away. Yes, we feel absolutely robbed.
If there is no more paying for maps then it doesn't matter what was in the vault.
But stealing what belonged to the alliance, transforming it and redirecting - and that for a fraction of time of the alli existance is 100% unacceptable.
The crux of the problem Kabam is trying to solve is how some alliances have been stacking resources into shell accounts, so they can easily hop between alliances and have plenty of resources.
Kabam's fix is to do away with the treasury, which will fix that problem.
But, this fix breaks the game for all the other alliances that have lots of resources that decided to take it easy for more than 5 months, so they get robbed of all the past resources that they did contribute.
It also plays havok with alliances that run split AQ maps, since you are pushing it on individuals now, it is no longer a team effort to pay donations for the map.
So, the obvious fix is go back to the old way, however, remove donations from the treasury if the person is no longer there (if they haven't been used). This prevents alliances from stacking resources with farming accounts. It is also possible to cap the treasury, so, again, they can't poor resources into it. Now, there is no limit on how much you can donate.
This also means that alliance mates can't be nice and drop X million whatever if they are quitting the game, but, sorry, this can't be done anymore.
Comments
Maybe it is just how I see the game now, but I think the game should do everything possible to make alliances a refuge from the more stressful parts of the game, not a source of them, whenever possible. And that means alliance members should be able to help each other when possible, and bail them out of mistakes when possible. Maybe that's not always possible in a world where we're trying to kill the bots, but i still think it is something we shouldn't just leave on the wayside without reflection.
I know the reasoning behind this is to prevent the third party transactions and swapping/shelling that some alliances exploit, but to take away any honest and democratic approach is unreasonable and unfair to those who have always tried to maintain integrity and refrain from abusing exploits.
That being said, cheaters will still find a way to cheat. Hodins, or discounted Odin's, as well as mercs are still workarounds to the ticket system. Both of the above methods require to share your account information in order for the person to load the account with resources or grind for them(either through automation or by actually doing it).
I hope all the shady alliances at the top that have used the systems of abuse suffer. Line chats are blowing up because it's unfair! Boo freaking hoo. It's ironic that the loaders will end up getting the most tickets while the alliances and the members that didn't donate and just switched to whatever shell will end up not getting tickets. Karma can be a PITA.
Regarding the resources lost in terms of years of donations, again some of those are legitimate concerns however there are many alliances, especially at the higher levels... Mainly 7x5 or near it, that the stashes built up were done illegitimately.
It looks like you gotta pay $10 bucks a week to run map 7 per alliance member of you don't want to grind. Again, I smell a resurgence in hodins.
Kabam should just do away with map costs all together. While they're at it, remove prestige as well.... One can dream..
I feel your pain. Talk to your folks. One option could be to rotate the cost for playing a higher map. So one entire battle gro For instance:
1st AQ 655
2nd AQ 565
3rd AQ 556
I realize it's not ideal and in the short term your overall AQ score may go down a little but most of your players will eventually manage to adapt. It solves the equal donation for equal rewards issue. Plus, it's about to be free for a couple of weeks, use this time to get your players acclimated to the higher map.
Like I said, not ideal but if you're proactive you can make it work. Provided everyone in the group wants to remain together.
Could a system with reduced entry costs for earlier BGs alleviate the feeling of extraordinary burden?
First for 666 or 777 the entry costs are no different between BGs.
In a 655 BG1 pays a reduced ticket cost similar to how the cost is reduced under the old system.
In a 665 BG1 and BG2 pay an increased cost compared to a 655 but not as much as a 666 would.
This doesn’t eliminate the disparity people see but does reduce it.
Everything lately in the game, to me, feels like it is pushing players away from alliance mode/game in general, and that’s honestly the only thing that kept me playing as long as I have. Once that starts to break down what’s the point anymore? It feels like whoever is making the decisions over there forgot about the heart of this game and why it’s been more successful than others. I really hope whoever is in charge does some reflecting and a whole lot more listening
Stop Resource loading in map 7 alliances and Push aq to be p2w !
$10 per week of map 7 or grind your a$$ off ? dosent look very f2p friendly , you are trying to get people to play the game , then why have escalating costs for entry ?
Just remove map costs forever and prestige too , prestige increase is a major reason for cheating at the top of aq
What you've done is confiscate our heritage.
You have access to all data. You know where the treasury dumps are and who they are. Remove those instead. They were never in my alliance I know that for sure. But the vault we built over the years made it so we could now choose how to manage AQ.
Not return it to the members. The guy who joined two weeks ago has zero right to what a guy who played for us for two years dropped into the vault.
I've had a No Donation Required policy in my alli for over a year now. Players donated what they wanted, could. Because we got to a point we could afford that. And it was a way I found to alleviate player burnout. It helped me keep players longer and also attract new members more easily. It allowed for our members to focus resources on rank ups, or boosts. And still people suffered shortages of iso & gold. But at least members didn't feel pressured to Pay to Play in my alli. The treasury was our safe haven. It was ours coz we built it and now you've taken it away. Yes, we feel absolutely robbed.
If there is no more paying for maps then it doesn't matter what was in the vault.
But stealing what belonged to the alliance, transforming it and redirecting - and that for a fraction of time of the alli existance is 100% unacceptable.
Kabam's fix is to do away with the treasury, which will fix that problem.
But, this fix breaks the game for all the other alliances that have lots of resources that decided to take it easy for more than 5 months, so they get robbed of all the past resources that they did contribute.
It also plays havok with alliances that run split AQ maps, since you are pushing it on individuals now, it is no longer a team effort to pay donations for the map.
So, the obvious fix is go back to the old way, however, remove donations from the treasury if the person is no longer there (if they haven't been used). This prevents alliances from stacking resources with farming accounts. It is also possible to cap the treasury, so, again, they can't poor resources into it. Now, there is no limit on how much you can donate.
This also means that alliance mates can't be nice and drop X million whatever if they are quitting the game, but, sorry, this can't be done anymore.