Alliance Tickets [Merged Threads]

1101113151623

Comments

  • Dwhalen8554Dwhalen8554 Posts: 180 ★★
    I have an idea. How about no costs to run AQ in the first place for any alliance!!! It honestly feels like we are going to get there eventually anyway, why not just do it now
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Posts: 802 ★★★★

    I have an idea. How about no costs to run AQ in the first place for any alliance!!! It honestly feels like we are going to get there eventually anyway, why not just do it now

    They want there to be a penalty for not clearing. If you can get more map6 points while failing than map5 points while clearing, you’re encouraging people to take on a map they can’t beat.
  • HieitakuHieitaku Posts: 685 ★★★
    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?
  • Crumb3307Crumb3307 Posts: 307 ★★

    Eric987 said:

    Eric987 said:

    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?
    You could maybe argue free AQ would actually make them more money. Alliances would try 6 and 7 more and occasionally have to spend on units for revives.
  • NCB_ptNCB_pt Posts: 289
    For now the game is:

    Mercs 50
    Kabam 1

    Kabam stoped the donations scam between some players and mercs.....

    Would kabam accomplish one more winning against the mercs & bots?

    Let's see. For now this ticket system seems so crazy. Hope they can make it work, but idk this idea of tickets seems crazy right now.... Let's see how it goes.
  • Crumb3307Crumb3307 Posts: 307 ★★
    TyEdge said:

    I have an idea. How about no costs to run AQ in the first place for any alliance!!! It honestly feels like we are going to get there eventually anyway, why not just do it now

    They want there to be a penalty for not clearing. If you can get more map6 points while failing than map5 points while clearing, you’re encouraging people to take on a map they can’t beat.
    They could put a prestige requirement on the maps to at least limit this potential problem. Especially since alliance prestige plays a role in AQ already.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,031 ★★★
    Why not just add 15 tickets to the rewards given out at end of each map 5 day for alliances that run split maps ? This makes the map 5 bg more valuable as they help fund the map 6 runs instead of making them dead weight.
  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 1,015 ★★★
    edited May 2020
    I understand the frustration with no advanced notice. We don't run map 5, so it doesn't affect us. However, had there been advanced notice those who do might have at least operated differently after receiving notice. They would have run the treasury down using existing stockpiles to continue AQ rather than continue to require donations on top of the stockpile. While the argument that what has already been donated is lost after doing so has some valid points, it doesn't address the additional resources that were lost as a result of continuing to donate because you didn't know this was coming. So I get the frustration.

    The resources they donated in the last few weeks were in fact real resources they could have used in game had they been given notice and made the decision to hold them and not donate them as they would not be needed to run AQ until the change takes place.
  • Aomine_Daiki10Aomine_Daiki10 Posts: 839 ★★★
    Make all maps free or ticket value should not scale with one resource. Paying in-game currency, resources or money to enter AQ content doesn't make much sense to me. The resources you ask for are the same resources needed everyday to progress in the game. This is a content we have been playing for years not an exclusive content, we should not be paying for it.
  • Aomine_Daiki10Aomine_Daiki10 Posts: 839 ★★★
    I get that the game is is work for you guys but it should not be the same for players. You guys generate revenue from this game players only enjoy the fun out of the game we are not getting paid for heavens sake.
  • slackerslacker Posts: 365 ★★★
    Just make ticket sellable so people who don't run map 5 only could get back their resource. Problem solve.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,643 ★★★★★
    I am still of the opinion that yes they should just remove the map requirements period at this point. As you all know I don't usually side with Kabam but I don't like when others don't resource management properly and you have to have members carry the weight for them every week. I've never liked it and this solves that issue.

    I play all map 7 but my other two bgs play majority map 6. All the tension went away when we made everyone play at least one day of map 7. Those map 5 guys should step up and play a day of map 6 if they truly want to make it work, or map 6 guys who play with map 7 players.


  • NCB_ptNCB_pt Posts: 289

    Kabam said that the change was to penalize resource loaders.

    But that's probably just a partial truth. What they wanted to do at the same time was to stop the entire practice of alliance members trading donations. So maybe i do lots of arena and have lots of gold, but don't do war and have minimal loyalty. Previously, this is easily accommodated by finding someone else with loyalty but no gold to trade. Now, everyone is forced to participate in every single game mode.

    If you want to substitute loyalty with gold for example, you can still do it, but with ever increasing cost.

    Make no mistake. This change is aimed at penalizing the entire player base, and not just resource loaders. I have to accept whatever change you want to make as the game developer, but just call a spade a spade.

    Yha good point of view, I forgot that.
    There are some players that really donated more with free will for others with less resources, mainly Battle Chips. Well, seems that all have to start playing arena now if don't want stay behind 😅
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,136 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    Hieitaku said:

    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?

    4. This a the beta test. If the solution is not found they revert.
  • Aomine_Daiki10Aomine_Daiki10 Posts: 839 ★★★

    Kabam said that the change was to penalize resource loaders.

    But that's probably just a partial truth. What they wanted to do at the same time was to stop the entire practice of alliance members trading donations. So maybe i do lots of arena and have lots of gold, but don't do war and have minimal loyalty. Previously, this is easily accommodated by finding someone else with loyalty but no gold to trade. Now, everyone is forced to participate in every single game mode.

    If you want to substitute loyalty with gold for example, you can still do it, but with ever increasing cost.

    Make no mistake. This change is aimed at penalizing the entire player base, and not just resource loaders. I have to accept whatever change you want to make as the game developer, but just call a spade a spade.

    Very true
  • MikeHockMikeHock Posts: 1,959 ★★★★
    Just read “what happens to the alliance treasury”.

    Our alliance just lots a ton of battlechips and loyalty because if this purge. Just because we haven’t run map6 for the last 5-6 months doesn’t mean that we should lose all those resources that we built up over FIVE YEARS, You create an in game bank and after five years, you delete the bank with no notice? Disgraceful.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Posts: 170 ★★
    @Kabam Miike
    One of the key attributes of a successful alliance is collaboration. This ill conceived way to combat resource loaders punishes everyone and will make true collaboration challenging as it will create tiers within an alliance.

    1) alliance members routinely trade donations based on what they do (arena, gold, etc). Alliances can collaborate to meet the collective needs. In this new ticket system, you intentionally punish one dimensional donations by scaling. Why is this necessary? Before we could pool to meet resource requirements, now it’s all individual.

    2) multi map AQ alliances will be a thing of the past. How on earth do you think it’s fair that if you run 6/5/5 or 7/6/6 that the higher tier map players have to pay more, do harder content and use more resources during the quest but everyone gets the same rewards? You thought this through and decided that this is a good idea?

    3) today it’s clear If someone hasn’t donated and I can track them down before quest starts. I know before the quest starts that we will be able to run it. In this new system, I now need to track down each member to ensure they have their tickets. If some don’t and others join the map, it creates another problem.

    Do you want alliances to collaborate or not? There have been a lot of good alternative suggestions here in this post but you can’t go live with a system where players that contribute more pay more and get the same rewards as those that aren’t quite at that level yet. I also don’t think you should give higher rewards to the higher map players within an ally doing multi tier maps. That’s the point of working as a team. But they also shouldn’t pay more either, that’s ludicrous.

    You could get the ticket system to work but everyone should be allowed to contribute tickets to a “pool” so that everyone is contributing.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Posts: 170 ★★
    Crine60 said:

    Please don't use the multi map Alliance issue as an excuse to take away the shared rewards that you get from the maps that the whole Alliance runs overall. This is one of the only ways that stronger alliances can help their weaker members advance to be able to contribute on a more equal level. Allowing people who run lower maps to get the higher map crystals that the other members of the alliance run the map for is a very beneficial thing that should not be changed.

    Fully agree, that’s the whole point of working together and collaborating. With the system they have proposed, how many map 6 players are going to stick in an alliance also running map 5 where they have to pay more? Alliances will split. Tiered rewards within the alliance isn’t a good option as you mention. They need to find a way for everyone to “pay” though, or it will never work.
  • nolcuNnolcuN Posts: 105 ★★
    edited May 2020
    Where is our alliance treasury? Did you just stole all of our hard earned ressources? Just shutting it down is ridicolous. Anything in there belongs to the alliance members. Everything else is straight theft. It should be paid out to all members in equal shares.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 6,641 ★★★★★

    Crine60 said:

    Please don't use the multi map Alliance issue as an excuse to take away the shared rewards that you get from the maps that the whole Alliance runs overall. This is one of the only ways that stronger alliances can help their weaker members advance to be able to contribute on a more equal level. Allowing people who run lower maps to get the higher map crystals that the other members of the alliance run the map for is a very beneficial thing that should not be changed.

    Fully agree, that’s the whole point of working together and collaborating. With the system they have proposed, how many map 6 players are going to stick in an alliance also running map 5 where they have to pay more? Alliances will split. Tiered rewards within the alliance isn’t a good option as you mention. They need to find a way for everyone to “pay” though, or it will never work.
    That's why I like the solution I posted above. They won't do a "pool" like the treasury because that won't stop resource dumps. They can keep the system exactly as it is, just allow us to apply the cost equally to all three groups. Instead of charging 15/0/0 for 655, it should cost all three groups 5 tickets. It doesn't even have to be optional. If you plug in 666, it's 15 tickets for everyone. If you plug in 656, the entry cost is automatically ten tickets for everyone regardless of what group you join. 765 automatically charges 15 tickets for entry into any group. Everyone gets the same rewards, every pays the same amount. Maybe there is a flaw but I can't see one.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Posts: 170 ★★

    Crine60 said:

    Please don't use the multi map Alliance issue as an excuse to take away the shared rewards that you get from the maps that the whole Alliance runs overall. This is one of the only ways that stronger alliances can help their weaker members advance to be able to contribute on a more equal level. Allowing people who run lower maps to get the higher map crystals that the other members of the alliance run the map for is a very beneficial thing that should not be changed.

    Fully agree, that’s the whole point of working together and collaborating. With the system they have proposed, how many map 6 players are going to stick in an alliance also running map 5 where they have to pay more? Alliances will split. Tiered rewards within the alliance isn’t a good option as you mention. They need to find a way for everyone to “pay” though, or it will never work.
    That's why I like the solution I posted above. They won't do a "pool" like the treasury because that won't stop resource dumps. They can keep the system exactly as it is, just allow us to apply the cost equally to all three groups. Instead of charging 15/0/0 for 655, it should cost all three groups 5 tickets. It doesn't even have to be optional. If you plug in 666, it's 15 tickets for everyone. If you plug in 656, the entry cost is automatically ten tickets for everyone regardless of what group you join. 765 automatically charges 15 tickets for entry into any group. Everyone gets the same rewards, every pays the same amount. Maybe there is a flaw but I can't see one.
    I like this solution. Fair, reasonable and everyone contributes. And simple! Very good suggestion.
  • FishweaselFishweasel Posts: 170 ★★
    @Kabam Miike please look at the post from @LeNoirFaineant .... it’s a simple and fair solution. You should seriously consider this approach. @LeNoirFaineant great suggestion, love it!
  • DukeZmanDukeZman Posts: 600 ★★★
    Hieitaku said:

    Kabam should have at least opened the details of this move to the community and collected feedback (kind of like beta testing) before implementing it. This feels like a classic case where they found a few good reasons why the idea seemed to be a good one and went on with it without asking enough questions why it may not work as well as they imagined it would.

    With such significant side effects to this change, one has to wonder if:
    1. They didn't know, which implies their incompetence.
    2. They knew but couldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their negligence.
    3. They knew but wouldn't do anything to address the side effects, which implies their deviousness or maliciousness.

    Well, which one is it?

    Here's why, i promise you, they didn't announce this ahead of time and instead just immediately locked donations: because if there was a gap in time between the announcement and the change, then you'd have a bunch of mercs that jumped in and immediately donated whatever they had so it would be converted to tickets.
    From the standpoint of stopping treasury dumps there couldn't be a warning period.

    But the bigger issue is that they made stopping 1 final big treasury dump a bigger priority than pleasing the other 99% of alliances that aren't in the top 1% and that don't pay mercs to treasury dump. Just like taking away gifting badges, Kabam has made another decision that negatively affects the majority to stop a practice participated in by a very small minority - instead of just banning the minority.
Sign In or Register to comment.