A hidden cost of war (that Kabam overlooked)

2

Comments

  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,832 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    But the devs changed inventories when they changed the nature of potions and split them off into the loyalty economy. People used to have dual use potions stocked up and purchasable with other currency, now they have to explicitly stock up AW-specific potions they could not possibly have had prior.

    Untrue, those resources have been available for loyalty for so long I would use the term forever. Average players simply paid them no mind prior but certainly had access to them and could stockpile them.
    I stand corrected. They could have them stockpiled if they were idiots or couldn’t do math to calculate the most economically efficient means of managing potions, or if they possessed a crystal ball that would tell them that the potions would be buffed in the future and alternatives would be simultaneously restricted. So people should restrict this discussion to only affecting the subset of players that are none of those, as I have not been able to discuss the potion economy with representatives of any of those groups.
    Again you’re accounting for things the developers specifically said they were not with these changes. Why?

    “but to ensure that we are accounting for the number of Potions and Revives that Summoners were using prior to the weekly compensation packages going live.”
    Because I think they are wrong? Is this a trick question?
    Why are higher level pots and revives relevant today and not yesterday? (Given Kabam has stated the intent of loyalty potion changes are to replace what players used to spend glory for whole accounting for higher ranked champions.)

    What would be a fair cost for a summoner to have every item available available to them at will? Why Should that be an option for an average player?
    I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps you should start a thread and ask those questions to see if there is anyone who can help you with those. They have no relevance to anything I’m discussing here, though.
    You’re thread title explicitly states Kabam has overlooked the argument within. that argument is that players should be able to have every item in the game available at all times. Perhaps you just do not understand yourself.
  • Monk1Monk1 Posts: 704 ★★★
    Personally everyone seems to overlook the fact that not many fights in war are even that hard if you have the right counter and boost right.

    Even at top end a huge % of players only take path fights 4/5 fights.. you should not be needing to use massive amounts of pots if fight correct, use grey boosts right. Yes if make mistake you get punished (fair enough).

    The main problem at minute is watching all the items go to waste as inventory is too small to hold everything
  • Colinwhitworth69Colinwhitworth69 Posts: 5,230 ★★★★★
    Maybe you can learn to do AW without so much boosting, reviving, and such.

    If everyone is playing by the same rules, then it should be fine.
  • Eb0ny-O-M4wEb0ny-O-M4w Posts: 12,651 ★★★★★

    Maybe you can learn to do AW without so much boosting, reviving, and such.

    Exactly. Clearly something is wrong if someone can only complete a AW fight with boosts and potions.

    If one isn't able to fight without any of that, then most likely is playing on higher levels of difficilty than it should be. Which then would be more on the player fault.

    Sure AW has many problems, and likely will need a overhaul since it only keeps getting worse every season, without addressing the problems. The potions changes were an "okay" concept, but looks like it was dropped mid process and the plan wasn't applied all the way to the end.
  • Qwerty12345Qwerty12345 Posts: 446 ★★★
    If we had another extended off season (and maybe fix a few things like timeouts)... and let people replenish coffers (or some huge "compensation")... it would go a long way.

    Also need more loyalty. we should be able to get enough loyalty to buy at least 35k of stuff every day or about 245k loyalty a week.

    One way to do this would be to add another 100K to the war objectives + fix the war victory/defeat crystals to give a big chunk out.

    Also, increasing the help quota from 50 -> 250/day would help many as well.
  • Eb0ny-O-M4wEb0ny-O-M4w Posts: 12,651 ★★★★★
    I'm not saying I'm in favor of this change. This change barely affects me nor the top alliances.

    All I'm saying is, there was a concept, and it stopped midway instead of going all the way. Leaving the bad part of it just a downgrade for the game mode.

    But the arguments provided here are just poor. People make it seem like they prefer to spend (resources and money) rather than not spend, which I can't think of any reason why besides getting the upper advantage more guaranteed. From the previous discussions on similar subjects, most people stated that they rather prefer to spend than not spend, and get the exact same results in the end.
  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 8,599 ★★★★★

    I'm not saying I'm in favor of this change. This change barely affects me nor the top alliances.

    Honestly, I'm just gonna point out how ridiculous this is - you're speaking for top tier players who have categorically stated many times that this change will affect the top alliances. @Worknprogress @Agent_X_zzz to name a couple. I've spoken to others, and they say the same.

    According to the players actually playing at the top, it was not P2W before the change, after the change it will be. If you don't know what's happening at the top, don't comment on it. If you somehow know something that the rest of us don't, please explain firstly why the change doesn't affect the top alliances, and secondly how you know this - who are you speaking to, what evidence or facts are you basing it on?
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 16,452 ★★★★★

    I'm not saying I'm in favor of this change. This change barely affects me nor the top alliances.

    All I'm saying is, there was a concept, and it stopped midway instead of going all the way. Leaving the bad part of it just a downgrade for the game mode.

    But the arguments provided here are just poor. People make it seem like they prefer to spend (resources and money) rather than not spend, which I can't think of any reason why besides getting the upper advantage more guaranteed. From the previous discussions on similar subjects, most people stated that they rather prefer to spend than not spend, and get the exact same results in the end.

    No one is saying that they'd rather spend than not spend. That's the whole reason people are upset because they are being forced to spend. You said it yourself, this barely affects you. You also have no clue what tier 1 AW is like. Wins/losses are 1 or 2 deaths apart so boosting and replenishing health is something that HAS to happen. Again, why do you have such strong opposing opinions when you have zero experience with what people are upset about?
  • Eb0ny-O-M4wEb0ny-O-M4w Posts: 12,651 ★★★★★

    I'm not saying I'm in favor of this change. This change barely affects me nor the top alliances.

    All I'm saying is, there was a concept, and it stopped midway instead of going all the way. Leaving the bad part of it just a downgrade for the game mode.

    But the arguments provided here are just poor. People make it seem like they prefer to spend (resources and money) rather than not spend, which I can't think of any reason why besides getting the upper advantage more guaranteed. From the previous discussions on similar subjects, most people stated that they rather prefer to spend than not spend, and get the exact same results in the end.

    No one is saying that they'd rather spend than not spend. That's the whole reason people are upset because they are being forced to spend. You said it yourself, this barely affects you. You also have no clue what tier 1 AW is like. Wins/losses are 1 or 2 deaths apart so boosting and replenishing health is something that HAS to happen. Again, why do you have such strong opposing opinions when you have zero experience with what people are upset about?
    I do play on high tiers of AW, and I do complete the paths barely with any item usage. Most wars completely itemless. So I'm sure I know what I talk about there.

    And yes, by presenting the same content with same rewards, some people will rather prefer to pay than not pay to reach the same goal. But this isn't limited to AW and has been discussed on plenty other threads about those specific subjects.

    All this change is doing, is limiting the "free" resources someone can obtain, while still setting no cap for those to decide to pay for it. If anything, it's more expensive for them, but not restricted.
  • pseudosanepseudosane Posts: 2,393 ★★★★★
    DNA. i'm in total approval of your post. On the previous threads, this is what i was so upset about. By making an economy based on non farmable, non grindable resource, kabam has basically throttled the war alliances. They give teaspoons of loyalty and we have to use bucketfuls to give the alliance a good chance to win. It is an absolutely rubbish concept, and the economy balance team has to have a hard look on their numbers, or admit they are totally out of their depth and redo the system.
  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Posts: 8,599 ★★★★★

    I'm not saying I'm in favor of this change. This change barely affects me nor the top alliances.

    All I'm saying is, there was a concept, and it stopped midway instead of going all the way. Leaving the bad part of it just a downgrade for the game mode.

    But the arguments provided here are just poor. People make it seem like they prefer to spend (resources and money) rather than not spend, which I can't think of any reason why besides getting the upper advantage more guaranteed. From the previous discussions on similar subjects, most people stated that they rather prefer to spend than not spend, and get the exact same results in the end.

    No one is saying that they'd rather spend than not spend. That's the whole reason people are upset because they are being forced to spend. You said it yourself, this barely affects you. You also have no clue what tier 1 AW is like. Wins/losses are 1 or 2 deaths apart so boosting and replenishing health is something that HAS to happen. Again, why do you have such strong opposing opinions when you have zero experience with what people are upset about?
    I do play on high tiers of AW, and I do complete the paths barely with any item usage. Most wars completely itemless. So I'm sure I know what I talk about there.

    What tier do you define as "high tier"?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,155 Guardian

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    But the devs changed inventories when they changed the nature of potions and split them off into the loyalty economy. People used to have dual use potions stocked up and purchasable with other currency, now they have to explicitly stock up AW-specific potions they could not possibly have had prior.

    Untrue, those resources have been available for loyalty for so long I would use the term forever. Average players simply paid them no mind prior but certainly had access to them and could stockpile them.
    I stand corrected. They could have them stockpiled if they were idiots or couldn’t do math to calculate the most economically efficient means of managing potions, or if they possessed a crystal ball that would tell them that the potions would be buffed in the future and alternatives would be simultaneously restricted. So people should restrict this discussion to only affecting the subset of players that are none of those, as I have not been able to discuss the potion economy with representatives of any of those groups.
    Again you’re accounting for things the developers specifically said they were not with these changes. Why?

    “but to ensure that we are accounting for the number of Potions and Revives that Summoners were using prior to the weekly compensation packages going live.”
    Because I think they are wrong? Is this a trick question?
    Why are higher level pots and revives relevant today and not yesterday? (Given Kabam has stated the intent of loyalty potion changes are to replace what players used to spend glory for whole accounting for higher ranked champions.)

    What would be a fair cost for a summoner to have every item available available to them at will? Why Should that be an option for an average player?
    I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps you should start a thread and ask those questions to see if there is anyone who can help you with those. They have no relevance to anything I’m discussing here, though.
    You’re thread title explicitly states Kabam has overlooked the argument within. that argument is that players should be able to have every item in the game available at all times. Perhaps you just do not understand yourself.
    I’m afraid that is not even remotely close to what the post says or presents an argument for. In particular, if a player were to use more potions on average than they can purchase, they would eventually exhaust their potions of they sustained that burn rate for a sufficiently long period of time, and nothing I’m suggesting in this thread would remedy that.

    The costs I mention, and this is clearly spelled out in the post, are the costs associated with employing a sustainable potion management strategy assuming such a strategy is even possible. The developers assume this is possible for at least some fraction of players, when they describe how things are intended to work. For those people, this cost is a cost Kabam has not factored into their decision to say that the loyalty earning changes they themselves explicitly put into the system to balance the cost of potions don’t need to be phased in until compensation potions are no longer being handed out.

    For everyone else, of course, as has been discussed elsewhere, they are just plain out of luck. This says even if Kabam thinks you’re one of the players who is perfectly fine, you’re still not fine.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,155 Guardian

    Waiting for @Eb0ny-O-M4w to explain why he knows what's going on in Master's AW when he's not in Master's AW. I don't know, but I've spoken to those there and they can't just "complete the paths barely with any item usage... Most wars completely itemless." because the stakes are higher than P3 like I am in.

    So, how do you know what's going on in Masters, who have you spoken to that has given you an insight into what goes on?

    And how do you know that these changes don't affect top alliances as you boldly claim?

    I'm not in a top tier war alliance, but I've talked to and participated in enough conversations in enough different separate conversation channels to know that there's no general opinion among tier 1 players that only the sucky ones spend units. There are players that spend potions rarely or at all, but that's either because they take fewer fights, they tend to have easier paths, they are extremely lucky, or maybe they are just one of the very, very few players even among the very few top tier players that just have optimized their war experience to the point where they always have the best counter and always take on fights they are highly familiar with and have perfect devices that never seem to be affected by game glitches.

    A *single* game glitch can wipe out half your potions in tier 1. Even among players who don't spend a lot on potions, the number of people I've heard express no sympathy or concern over the ones that do is very small at every tier.
  • PussaleyPussaley Posts: 54
    The price of AW is ridiculous right now. I know that below my posts about this loyalty issue people pressing a million of disagree buttons but i will keep say it anyway cause the price is really insane.

    9500 health potions cost 20k loyalty. It means that 1 hp = 2,1 loyalty.
    If you want wars not to be expensive - YOU MUST forget about boosts and etc.
    Why? Cause if you make mistakes - you spend millions of loyalty during season.
    Now the third war is running and me personally lost 157k health in 3 wars total (don’t worry, no deaths and yeah i heal to full every fight cause my alliance play wars for results). 157k health = 300k+ loyalty. And it’s just health. And what about boosts? With boosts it’s about 500k loyalty. In 3 wars. And in 12 it’s x4 and it is about 2 million loyalty.

    We need loyalty to be increased as soon as possible.

    Who says that he plays with no items used doing 7-10 fights - write your Tier and Alliance Tag or better show some videos of the whole war, I would like to see how great the forum players are doing their work in AW.

    I'm not saying I'm in favor of this change. This change barely affects me nor the top alliances.

    All I'm saying is, there was a concept, and it stopped midway instead of going all the way. Leaving the bad part of it just a downgrade for the game mode.

    But the arguments provided here are just poor. People make it seem like they prefer to spend (resources and money) rather than not spend, which I can't think of any reason why besides getting the upper advantage more guaranteed. From the previous discussions on similar subjects, most people stated that they rather prefer to spend than not spend, and get the exact same results in the end.

    No one is saying that they'd rather spend than not spend. That's the whole reason people are upset because they are being forced to spend. You said it yourself, this barely affects you. You also have no clue what tier 1 AW is like. Wins/losses are 1 or 2 deaths apart so boosting and replenishing health is something that HAS to happen. Again, why do you have such strong opposing opinions when you have zero experience with what people are upset about?
    I do play on high tiers of AW, and I do complete the paths barely with any item usage. Most wars completely itemless. So I'm sure I know what I talk about there.

    What tier do you define as "high tier"?
    He plays p3 lol, not even high. He speaks for allies he will never step foot in.
    He said it? Or it’s just your thoughts?
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,832 ★★★★★
    edited April 19
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    But the devs changed inventories when they changed the nature of potions and split them off into the loyalty economy. People used to have dual use potions stocked up and purchasable with other currency, now they have to explicitly stock up AW-specific potions they could not possibly have had prior.

    Untrue, those resources have been available for loyalty for so long I would use the term forever. Average players simply paid them no mind prior but certainly had access to them and could stockpile them.
    I stand corrected. They could have them stockpiled if they were idiots or couldn’t do math to calculate the most economically efficient means of managing potions, or if they possessed a crystal ball that would tell them that the potions would be buffed in the future and alternatives would be simultaneously restricted. So people should restrict this discussion to only affecting the subset of players that are none of those, as I have not been able to discuss the potion economy with representatives of any of those groups.
    Again you’re accounting for things the developers specifically said they were not with these changes. Why?

    “but to ensure that we are accounting for the number of Potions and Revives that Summoners were using prior to the weekly compensation packages going live.”
    Because I think they are wrong? Is this a trick question?
    Why are higher level pots and revives relevant today and not yesterday? (Given Kabam has stated the intent of loyalty potion changes are to replace what players used to spend glory for whole accounting for higher ranked champions.)

    What would be a fair cost for a summoner to have every item available available to them at will? Why Should that be an option for an average player?
    I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps you should start a thread and ask those questions to see if there is anyone who can help you with those. They have no relevance to anything I’m discussing here, though.
    You’re thread title explicitly states Kabam has overlooked the argument within. that argument is that players should be able to have every item in the game available at all times. Perhaps you just do not understand yourself.
    I’m afraid that is not even remotely close to what the post says or presents an argument for. In particular, if a player were to use more potions on average than they can purchase, they would eventually exhaust their potions of they sustained that burn rate for a sufficiently long period of time, and nothing I’m suggesting in this thread would remedy that.

    The costs I mention, and this is clearly spelled out in the post, are the costs associated with employing a sustainable potion management strategy assuming such a strategy is even possible. The developers assume this is possible for at least some fraction of players, when they describe how things are intended to work. For those people, this cost is a cost Kabam has not factored into their decision to say that the loyalty earning changes they themselves explicitly put into the system to balance the cost of potions don’t need to be phased in until compensation potions are no longer being handed out.

    For everyone else, of course, as has been discussed elsewhere, they are just plain out of luck. This says even if Kabam thinks you’re one of the players who is perfectly fine, you’re still not fine.
    Let me refer you to your own tl;dr

    “TL;DR: to use portions effectively and efficiently, you really need to stock up. And you're going to spend about three million loyalty to do that over some period of time. That's a lot of loyalty the players have to eventually put up to "prime the potion pump", and for all practical purposes will never get back. Where is it supposed to come from, when we aren't getting increased loyalty yet?”

    Your entire post is about players being able to access every single item in the loyalty store to have on hand and you sum that up in your tl;dr

    The devs accounted for replacing what was lost via the glory store which is a fraction of the 3m loyalty you believe players need in order to have every single item in hand at all times.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,832 ★★★★★
    edited April 19
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    But the devs changed inventories when they changed the nature of potions and split them off into the loyalty economy. People used to have dual use potions stocked up and purchasable with other currency, now they have to explicitly stock up AW-specific potions they could not possibly have had prior.

    Untrue, those resources have been available for loyalty for so long I would use the term forever. Average players simply paid them no mind prior but certainly had access to them and could stockpile them.
    I stand corrected. They could have them stockpiled if they were idiots or couldn’t do math to calculate the most economically efficient means of managing potions, or if they possessed a crystal ball that would tell them that the potions would be buffed in the future and alternatives would be simultaneously restricted. So people should restrict this discussion to only affecting the subset of players that are none of those, as I have not been able to discuss the potion economy with representatives of any of those groups.
    Again you’re accounting for things the developers specifically said they were not with these changes. Why?

    “but to ensure that we are accounting for the number of Potions and Revives that Summoners were using prior to the weekly compensation packages going live.”
    Because I think they are wrong? Is this a trick question?
    Why are higher level pots and revives relevant today and not yesterday? (Given Kabam has stated the intent of loyalty potion changes are to replace what players used to spend glory for whole accounting for higher ranked champions.)

    What would be a fair cost for a summoner to have every item available available to them at will? Why Should that be an option for an average player?
    I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps you should start a thread and ask those questions to see if there is anyone who can help you with those. They have no relevance to anything I’m discussing here, though.
    You’re thread title explicitly states Kabam has overlooked the argument within. that argument is that players should be able to have every item in the game available at all times. Perhaps you just do not understand yourself.
    I’m afraid that is not even remotely close to what the post says or presents an argument for. In particular, if a player were to use more potions on average than they can purchase, they would eventually exhaust their potions of they sustained that burn rate for a sufficiently long period of time, and nothing I’m suggesting in this thread would remedy that.

    The costs I mention, and this is clearly spelled out in the post, are the costs associated with employing a sustainable potion management strategy assuming such a strategy is even possible. The developers assume this is possible for at least some fraction of players, when they describe how things are intended to work. For those people, this cost is a cost Kabam has not factored into their decision to say that the loyalty earning changes they themselves explicitly put into the system to balance the cost of potions don’t need to be phased in until compensation potions are no longer being handed out.

    For everyone else, of course, as has been discussed elsewhere, they are just plain out of luck. This says even if Kabam thinks you’re one of the players who is perfectly fine, you’re still not fine.
    Let me refer you to your own tl;dr

    “TL;DR: to use portions effectively and efficiently, you really need to stock up. And you're going to spend about three million loyalty to do that over some period of time. That's a lot of loyalty the players have to eventually put up to "prime the potion pump", and for all practical purposes will never get back. Where is it supposed to come from, when we aren't getting increased loyalty yet?”

    Your entire post is about players being able to access every single item in the loyalty store to have on hand and you sum that up in your tl;dr

    The devs accounted for replacing what was lost via the glory store which is a fraction of the 3m loyalty you believe players need in order to have every single item in hand at all times.
    When my best reply to someone quoting me is to ask them to go back and read the very thing they quoted, one of us is probably irreparably confused. And since I'm having no difficulty having this specific conversation with other people without them succumbing to your particular point of problem, the safe bet is that it is not on my side.
    Keep lying to yourself. I just do not get it, you have to be trolling at this point.
Sign In or Register to comment.