No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to. Sure. That's reasonable. Analyze everything everyone used in a 2 month period and give it back. When would you like it? Next summer? If you would like to stop twisting my words that’d be great. I said they can choose to accommodate the extreme resources given. And they can do that by giving out more revives. So what if they end up giving some people revives than they used? It’s not going to end the game. It’ll keep people happy in one of the games most buggy 2 months. Then people comolain they got more than they can use and they're going to expire, like they have already. Also, it's not just "so what". Those Resources affect the game as well. And everyone would tell those few complainers how ridiculous they are. Nothing would expire if Kabam compensated 10 of each level of revive. Yes, those resources affect the game, but what awful thing do you think will happen if people get some extra revives? What is possibly going to unbalance the game? Do I have to break down the effects of an overage of Resources going into the game? Really....10 of each level of Revive....so 50? 60? Honestly, you asked what reasonable is. That's not it. No I agree that 50 revives is too many, I wasn’t clear with my last post. You had said before that 100 revives couldn’t fit in your overflow and my point there was saying you could get 50 in by giving 10 for each level. It was to disprove your point that they would expire with an exaggeration. My point being, we can easily fit the reasonable amount of revives in our overflow. Ok, I’m asking you what would go so wrong if Kabam compensated closer to what was lost in the bug. Before bug: people had X revives. During bug: people used Y revives. After bug: people have X - Y revives. Compensation gives Y revives or close to that. After compensation: people have X revives or close to it. So what is so game breaking about people being given revives. If we said 30 revives. What game breaking outcome is there? And even if someone lost 0 revives in the bug, not reasonable, but let’s go with it, what gamebreaking thing could they do with those revives? What is going to get unbalanced?
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to. Sure. That's reasonable. Analyze everything everyone used in a 2 month period and give it back. When would you like it? Next summer? If you would like to stop twisting my words that’d be great. I said they can choose to accommodate the extreme resources given. And they can do that by giving out more revives. So what if they end up giving some people revives than they used? It’s not going to end the game. It’ll keep people happy in one of the games most buggy 2 months. Then people comolain they got more than they can use and they're going to expire, like they have already. Also, it's not just "so what". Those Resources affect the game as well. And everyone would tell those few complainers how ridiculous they are. Nothing would expire if Kabam compensated 10 of each level of revive. Yes, those resources affect the game, but what awful thing do you think will happen if people get some extra revives? What is possibly going to unbalance the game? Do I have to break down the effects of an overage of Resources going into the game? Really....10 of each level of Revive....so 50? 60? Honestly, you asked what reasonable is. That's not it.
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to. Sure. That's reasonable. Analyze everything everyone used in a 2 month period and give it back. When would you like it? Next summer? If you would like to stop twisting my words that’d be great. I said they can choose to accommodate the extreme resources given. And they can do that by giving out more revives. So what if they end up giving some people revives than they used? It’s not going to end the game. It’ll keep people happy in one of the games most buggy 2 months. Then people comolain they got more than they can use and they're going to expire, like they have already. Also, it's not just "so what". Those Resources affect the game as well. And everyone would tell those few complainers how ridiculous they are. Nothing would expire if Kabam compensated 10 of each level of revive. Yes, those resources affect the game, but what awful thing do you think will happen if people get some extra revives? What is possibly going to unbalance the game?
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to. Sure. That's reasonable. Analyze everything everyone used in a 2 month period and give it back. When would you like it? Next summer? If you would like to stop twisting my words that’d be great. I said they can choose to accommodate the extreme resources given. And they can do that by giving out more revives. So what if they end up giving some people revives than they used? It’s not going to end the game. It’ll keep people happy in one of the games most buggy 2 months. Then people comolain they got more than they can use and they're going to expire, like they have already. Also, it's not just "so what". Those Resources affect the game as well.
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to. Sure. That's reasonable. Analyze everything everyone used in a 2 month period and give it back. When would you like it? Next summer? If you would like to stop twisting my words that’d be great. I said they can choose to accommodate the extreme resources given. And they can do that by giving out more revives. So what if they end up giving some people revives than they used? It’s not going to end the game. It’ll keep people happy in one of the games most buggy 2 months.
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to. Sure. That's reasonable. Analyze everything everyone used in a 2 month period and give it back. When would you like it? Next summer?
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used. They can, they’re just choosing not to.
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives? You asked if I thought it was reasonable. I said it's not unreasonable, considering not everyone was affected, and they can't accommodate the extreme cases of Resources used.
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are. One of the times we got revives was for a separate issue so I’m not sure you can count that. So you’d argue that the largest bug in the games history in terms of how many effected, how long it’s effected, and amount of gameplay effected, didn’t warrant more than 15 revives?
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable? We got Revs twice already (once for the first 6 hours), they gave a heads up not to do hard content when the issues were new, and the majority of complaints came from the GM Fight in SoP. Is it reasonable? It's not unreasonable. Not when you're providing a generic compensation. Is it over and above? Perhaps not. Expectations aren't met. They rarely are.
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story. So are 15 revives reasonable?
No, I'm pointing out that they haven't been silent through all of this. Expectations are another story.
Gonna have to disagree with you here, I think 15 revives for over 60 days worth of content including all of sop is just not even close to enough So what's enough? 100? How are people going to store them?
Gonna have to disagree with you here, I think 15 revives for over 60 days worth of content including all of sop is just not even close to enough
GW, when does Demonzfyre's shift start? We can disprove his points without calling him a shill/employee mate The only point he makes is that he’s a shill/employee lol
GW, when does Demonzfyre's shift start? We can disprove his points without calling him a shill/employee mate
GW, when does Demonzfyre's shift start?
GW, when does Demonzfyre's shift start? We can disprove his points without calling him a shill/employee mate The only point he makes is that he’s a shill/employee lol Accusing someone of being a shill or a closet Kabam employee is actually a violation of the forum rules. You can attack posts all you want, but not posters, and very explicitly not in that way.@DrZola for the record the compensation was higher in the champion stuff and lower in the potion stuff than I predicted and was expecting, which is a little unexpected. In general, Kabam tends to be more generous with consumables that have a limited impact on the game economy and more cautious with direct rewards, like Nexus crystals and the like. In this case, I believe the thought process was that if players did the advisable thing and instead of pushing through content they backed down to content they could still reasonably do with the bugs in force, the cost to players would be less in potions and more in opportunity cost (missing out on rewards).Of course there will always be nuances and individualized circumstances going on, so any generalization will be iffy, but in very broad terms when something makes the game harder than it ought to be, the reasonable short term solution is to try to live with it and hope it abates, but the longer term solution when the problem persists should be to back off until the problem resolves rather than spend unlimited resources to overpower the problem. That's what Kabam themselves advised, and that's the general idea that I think the compensation packages appear to reflect.
GW, when does Demonzfyre's shift start? We can disprove his points without calling him a shill/employee mate The only point he makes is that he’s a shill/employee lol Accusing someone of being a shill or a closet Kabam employee is actually a violation of the forum rules. You can attack posts all you want, but not posters, and very explicitly not in that way.@DrZola for the record the compensation was higher in the champion stuff and lower in the potion stuff than I predicted and was expecting, which is a little unexpected. In general, Kabam tends to be more generous with consumables that have a limited impact on the game economy and more cautious with direct rewards, like Nexus crystals and the like. In this case, I believe the thought process was that if players did the advisable thing and instead of pushing through content they backed down to content they could still reasonably do with the bugs in force, the cost to players would be less in potions and more in opportunity cost (missing out on rewards).Of course there will always be nuances and individualized circumstances going on, so any generalization will be iffy, but in very broad terms when something makes the game harder than it ought to be, the reasonable short term solution is to try to live with it and hope it abates, but the longer term solution when the problem persists should be to back off until the problem resolves rather than spend unlimited resources to overpower the problem. That's what Kabam themselves advised, and that's the general idea that I think the compensation packages appear to reflect. I'd like to agree, but they advised not to do difficult content.... and yet pushed on with AQ (with no cost, I'll give them that) but no more weekly compensation for that, and with AW which affects all tiers of players with supposedly a weekly compensation for that. While these are time limited, but weekly recurring, they are fine with allowing compensation for those to go out regularly while also admitting that the overall issue is ongoing, but choose not to fairly compensate for the ongoing issue while things like Monthly EQ and Side Quests (generally speaking I mean Side Quests, which includes things like SoP, the new UpUpDownDown quest among other things) which are also time limited and also tend to have very lucrative and account progressing rewards. What bothers me is the inconsistency between what Kabam say, and what Kabam actions.
GW, when does Demonzfyre's shift start? We can disprove his points without calling him a shill/employee mate The only point he makes is that he’s a shill/employee lol Accusing someone of being a shill or a closet Kabam employee is actually a violation of the forum rules. You can attack posts all you want, but not posters, and very explicitly not in that way.@DrZola for the record the compensation was higher in the champion stuff and lower in the potion stuff than I predicted and was expecting, which is a little unexpected. In general, Kabam tends to be more generous with consumables that have a limited impact on the game economy and more cautious with direct rewards, like Nexus crystals and the like. In this case, I believe the thought process was that if players did the advisable thing and instead of pushing through content they backed down to content they could still reasonably do with the bugs in force, the cost to players would be less in potions and more in opportunity cost (missing out on rewards).Of course there will always be nuances and individualized circumstances going on, so any generalization will be iffy, but in very broad terms when something makes the game harder than it ought to be, the reasonable short term solution is to try to live with it and hope it abates, but the longer term solution when the problem persists should be to back off until the problem resolves rather than spend unlimited resources to overpower the problem. That's what Kabam themselves advised, and that's the general idea that I think the compensation packages appear to reflect. I'd like to agree, but they advised not to do difficult content.... and yet pushed on with AQ (with no cost, I'll give them that) but no more weekly compensation for that, and with AW which affects all tiers of players with supposedly a weekly compensation for that. While these are time limited, but weekly recurring, they are fine with allowing compensation for those to go out regularly while also admitting that the overall issue is ongoing, but choose not to fairly compensate for the ongoing issue while things like Monthly EQ and Side Quests (generally speaking I mean Side Quests, which includes things like SoP, the new UpUpDownDown quest among other things) which are also time limited and also tend to have very lucrative and account progressing rewards. What bothers me is the inconsistency between what Kabam say, and what Kabam actions. But AQ is not "difficult content." The difficulty is under the players' control. I understand that there are complications to that (individual players don't decide difficulty, officers do, and alliance integrity can be compromised if you make map changes without universal consensus), but AQ is not intrinsically difficult content. AW is not difficulty adjustable, but it is also a competition: the presumption was that any issue that affects both sides equally doesn't compromise competition.This is all to a first order approximation. Of course things are not that simple, but in this situation there is no way to make everyone whole and keep the game running. The problems were simply too widespread and affected players in too diverse of a way, and MCOC is not equipped to compensate players in a flexible and prompt manner. This was a compromise. Content 100% under player discretion (solo content) could be backed down. AQ which is connected to alliances could also be backed down to an extent, but not with the same flexibility so AQ had specific weekly compensation to keep things moving there. War, is war. War always sucks, but it at least sucks equally.I'm not saying the compensation was perfect or Kabam's communication about the issues was perfect. Far from it. I'm only saying there's a reasonable thought process that leads here, when the devs were faced with constraints on what they could do to compensate for the issues while still keeping the game running and where there's no general consensus on how to deal with each individual game mode.
Yes. They can just give people everything they want all the time. Then we'll be here the next day arguing for more, and that it wasn't enough.
Yes. They can just give people everything they want all the time. Then we'll be here the next day arguing for more, and that it wasn't enough. This is unhelpful and non-constructive. This thread is trying to discuss the relief package substantively and without resorting to ad hominems, cheap shots and diversions. You’re welcome here if you have meaningful input—and that’s something that (regrettably) the mods do a poor job of policing. Please govern yourself accordingly. Dr. Zola
Yes. They can just give people everything they want all the time. Then we'll be here the next day arguing for more, and that it wasn't enough. This is unhelpful and non-constructive. This thread is trying to discuss the relief package substantively and without resorting to ad hominems, cheap shots and diversions. You’re welcome here if you have meaningful input—and that’s something that (regrettably) the mods do a poor job of policing. Please govern yourself accordingly. Dr. Zola It's a reality on here. Although I'll take ownership for losing patience with the conversation. When we take it upon ourselves to discuss the possibilities Kabam can consider to deliver our expectations, when they've already spent a significant amount of time weighing what's within the limits of what is reasonable, then we're entering arrogance territory. They're quite aware of what they can and cannot do.No one is trying to cheat anyone out of anything here. They're not trying to be stingy or irreverent to the issues. I get people losing patience. I get people thinking it's not enough for them. I get the frustration. All of that is part-and-parcel for the Forum. What I don't get is the demanding nature of how these things are communicated. The cavalier attitude that they can just whip some up, adjust the overflow, and that's all there is to it. Not correct. Not at all. "I want what I want and you can make it happen." That all sounds very good until you think about smaller accounts. My mini, which has only completed act 3 and has zero 5* shards, gained two new 5*s and then a 5* nexus. I was using it to learn ghost, the 2nd very lucky 4* pull , so would actually rather not have the 5*s, they are a distraction and hugely unbalance an account that still had 2*s in the top ten till last week. Any game issues also had zero impact on it.So it’s perfectly ok to feed all smaller accounts with kabam rocket fuel, but it is a problem to ‘gift’ higher end accounts with more consumables.I know there is logic there, but from the perspective of my main account it feels wrong. I think there is a stronger argument for not giving anyone below proven or conquerer any compensation at all.
Yes. They can just give people everything they want all the time. Then we'll be here the next day arguing for more, and that it wasn't enough. This is unhelpful and non-constructive. This thread is trying to discuss the relief package substantively and without resorting to ad hominems, cheap shots and diversions. You’re welcome here if you have meaningful input—and that’s something that (regrettably) the mods do a poor job of policing. Please govern yourself accordingly. Dr. Zola It's a reality on here. Although I'll take ownership for losing patience with the conversation. When we take it upon ourselves to discuss the possibilities Kabam can consider to deliver our expectations, when they've already spent a significant amount of time weighing what's within the limits of what is reasonable, then we're entering arrogance territory. They're quite aware of what they can and cannot do.No one is trying to cheat anyone out of anything here. They're not trying to be stingy or irreverent to the issues. I get people losing patience. I get people thinking it's not enough for them. I get the frustration. All of that is part-and-parcel for the Forum. What I don't get is the demanding nature of how these things are communicated. The cavalier attitude that they can just whip some up, adjust the overflow, and that's all there is to it. Not correct. Not at all. "I want what I want and you can make it happen."
Yes. They can just give people everything they want all the time. Then we'll be here the next day arguing for more, and that it wasn't enough. This logic makes no sense as to why Kabam shouldn't give out more revives to properly compensate players. There are breakdowns which legitemately show that Kabam's 15 revives doesn't come close to compensating many players. And that's just for TB's. Cavs got less than that despite facing the same issues as others. No one's asking for free revives here. People are asking to be properly compensated.