Loyalty Update

The new Loyalty Store update looks good regarding the rank up materials. I don't have any thoughts on the boosts, but I've heard that people aren't too fond of it. I just want to see views on it from other people.

Comments

redsoxpatsfan89

I will say, this honestly makes me want to go to a mid-low tier ally instead where there isnt as much competition. Then i wont feel the pressure and can save loyalty

Beewee

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?

So your logic is to stab the alliances that reach top ranks for the greater good of everyone else?

BitterSteel

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?
So you want a participation ticket that is more valuable than the winning ticket, is that right? Where is the GW that wants to "earn" rewards?

He’s waiting to use that argument when it backs Kabam up

Wozzle007

I think times like this is where it would be good to have a Q and A with Kabam like they tried with Guillotines kit change (it wasn’t buff!) but a proper Q and A, one where legitimate questions were ignored. Maybe there is some logic here that we’re missing. I doubt it. But maybe there is. I think Kabam has totally missed the point with this update.

GroundedWisdom

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?
So you want a participation ticket that is more valuable than the winning ticket, is that right? Where is the GW that wants to "earn" rewards?

More valuable? If you look at the value as the R4 Mats alone and not all the other Rewards that come with playing full out, then perhaps. You'd be missing out on the other large Rewards, and again, that is a choice.
The issue isn't that they're offering it. The issue is people want to be able to do it all. That's not always how it goes.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Treinin

It's farcical to call this a "rewards update". If you had done the bare minimum that this change required and added loyalty to the ranked rewards, then this might be palatable. The higher you rank, the more of these rewards you can buy. It's an obvious and simple solution. So obvious it's absolutely shocking this was not included as part of this update.

pseudosane

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?
So you want a participation ticket that is more valuable than the winning ticket, is that right? Where is the GW that wants to "earn" rewards?
More valuable? If you look at the value as the R4 Mats alone and not all the other Rewards that come with playing full out, then perhaps. You'd be missing out on the other large Rewards, and again, that is a choice.
The issue isn't that they're offering it. The issue is people want to be able to do it all. That's not always how it goes.

3 groots and 10k r4 mats for masters. compared to 28k and change from store. Is that a tough decision to make? Bruh, i dont expect much from you but you are basically advocating for doing no work for your rewards.

GroundedWisdom

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?
So you want a participation ticket that is more valuable than the winning ticket, is that right? Where is the GW that wants to "earn" rewards?
More valuable? If you look at the value as the R4 Mats alone and not all the other Rewards that come with playing full out, then perhaps. You'd be missing out on the other large Rewards, and again, that is a choice.
The issue isn't that they're offering it. The issue is people want to be able to do it all. That's not always how it goes.
3 groots and 10k r4 mats for masters. compared to 28k and change from store. Is that a tough decision to make? Bruh, i dont expect much from you but you are basically advocating for doing no work for your rewards.

How much changes at Masters? Really, though. Give or take an Alliance or two, it's the same ones that earn that Season after Season. They're not really hurting for the Mats. This is something that can help people on their way towards progressing. Where it's needed most.
Conversely, if people are spending that much Loyalty and ending up less than the top, that's something to consider on a personal level.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Run477

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?
So you want a participation ticket that is more valuable than the winning ticket, is that right? Where is the GW that wants to "earn" rewards?
More valuable? If you look at the value as the R4 Mats alone and not all the other Rewards that come with playing full out, then perhaps. You'd be missing out on the other large Rewards, and again, that is a choice.
The issue isn't that they're offering it. The issue is people want to be able to do it all. That's not always how it goes.
3 groots and 10k r4 mats for masters. compared to 28k and change from store. Is that a tough decision to make? Bruh, i dont expect much from you but you are basically advocating for doing no work for your rewards.

Exactly this. I was so confused when I read his post as to what “large” rewards he thought there were besides the r4 materials.

the only way to get those groots from masters will be to forgo the greater number of r4 materials you can get from using loyalty bc you had to spend all your loyalty on potions/boosts for war to get masters.

Andi_144

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...

Run477

Im not advocating that everyone “should” play high wars. Some people don’t want to and some people don’t have the skill level (again, won’t name names).

But the change makes no sense for purposes of competition. For instance a more logical change, would be to drastically reduce the cost of the boosts and make them more available. That allows the people who don’t want to/can’t compete in war the ability to buy their materials to rank up their collected champs they can’t use but still allows those who play competitively to do so and makes it worth their time bc they can get boosts and the r4 materials.

Or even better—let the glory store go back to being used to buy potions and add boosts to that store. Glory is now literally the most useless resource in the game.

VanillaCoke

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
the problem is its not really a choice, because you get more rewards for not doing war then you do for using your loyalty trying to compete.
Trying to be competitive in the competitive gamemode is quite literally DETRIMENTAL to you progressing your account. Do you see how that is a problem?
It IS a choice. You get Loyalty for doing War regardless of what Tier you're playing. This is a way for people who are trying to advance to have another avenue, who aren't getting the Master Rewards regardless. Don't see how people think it's a bad thing.
Of course you dont see why its a problem, you dont do high tier war. Talk to anyone doing high tier war and they will try to explain it to you

Saying you "Don't see how people think it's a bad thing" when this thread is filled with people explaining how its a bad thing is pretty funny tho
I don't do High Tier War....yes, that seems to be the default argument. Perhaps if people are spending every ounce of Loyalty they have on running War, they're playing above their own capabilities.
The point I'm making is it's about choices. We can choose to spend on War, or we can choose to save for the Mats. We don't always have the given right to choose to have it all.
but its not a choice. the rewards to not compete are quite literally better than the rewards you could get from war
Those Mats are not the only Rewards you get, and it's not the only reason people play to reach the top in War.
I’m sorry but for somebody who doesn’t play Top Tier war to make an assumption as to why other people play Top Tier seems ignorant of you to say.
Let's look at this logically. How many Alliances score high enough to earn R4 Mats? How many Players within that small number need those R4 Mats as much as TB Players trying to reach Paragon? Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that they predominantly have a number of R4s?

You wonder why nobody takes you seriously. People don’t want R4 materials because they “need” it less than Thronebreakers. R4 Materials allows you to have the strongest 6* Version of a character you’re willing to rank up. This isn’t a question whether who needs it “more”. If Thronebreakers were serious about becoming Paragon, they would clear Act 7, Carina’s challenges, and possibly purchase offers that would allow them to do so.

K00shMaan

This is an interesting change. It sounds like there will be future updates to the rewards so I don't want to make to rash of a judgement until the next season when we see the reward update.

For the moment though, It makes no sense to buy any potions/boosts from the Loyalty store. No ones account will benefit from doing so. If you want the honour of winning the AW Season, that's one thing, but there is no long term value to pushing this season. At any level, especially those who aren't P1 or higher.

One thing that I will mention though is Kabam has made it clear that they want defender kills in AW. They have said that. That is going to happen with thsese changes, at least for this season. No one considering their long term progression in this game can justify spending 500K on Potions/Boosts as the difference between spending 20 Loyalty per War and 100K+ just doesn't add up. So until the differences between brackets is substantial in terms of R4 Materials, enjoy going into fights at 40%.

Chatterofforums

Not really a problem. It's really about choices.
grounded wisdom moment
When we're talking about making choices between using all Loyalty to run Wars, or saving for Mats, that's a choice. Not everyone is going to run high Tier Wars.
I had to stop and re think this argument when I realized I'm in agreement with grounded wisdom, but facts are facts and an enormous part of this game is resource management and deciding where you want to use your resources.
Precisely. That's exactly my point. Which means we can't choose to buy them if we're choosing to dedicate those Resources to Wars. That's not a bad thing. That's choices.

I agree with you dude. And ironically, I'm seeing some people complaining about this loyalty issue who always bash on people who complain about lack of gold. Literally some same people who always bash on those low on gold and tell them to better manage their resources are upset about loyalty which again, is 100% about resource management.

People choose where they use loyalty, you do not have to use it on war, so it is 100% a choice and resource management issue.

DNA3000

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...

Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.

Noise72

I think this update was executed poorly. With zero warning and no increase in loyalty. Now I have to decide whether or not I want to be in a competitive alliance next season. I certainly don't want to waste a single loyalty on a pot ever again with this new store.

pseudosane

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.

So basically you are saying they are using this update to deincentivize pushing for the top? and reduce the competitive spirit of the gamemode? thats what i read in a nutshell.

BitterSteel

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.

The issue is, why is it any time Kabam makes a change we have to wait for you or someone to try and explain what the positive reasoning *might* be behind their choices. Where is the transparency or explanation? Why is it a theory posited by you, instead of an explanation by them?

If this is the case, (assuming you’re right) and Kabam said “here is what we are changing, we think it will be a net positive and over time war will be much less resource heavy, we will keep you updated on whether it’s working as we hope it will”, at least even if I disagree with it I can understand the reasoning.

But instead, it’s just a grenade thrown into the forum of “hey here’s this change lol”

And firstly, we don’t know that what you’ve suggested is their intention, and secondly we don’t know if it will work or how it will be judged whether to have worked. (Obviously if people are using less potions that’s how Kabam will know how it works, but they won’t tell us that).

BitterSteel

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.
So basically you are saying they are using this update to deincentivize pushing for the top? and reduce the competitive spirit of the gamemode? thats what i read in a nutshell.

I read it as it’s an attempt to reduce healing costs in high war, but in return the competitive aspect of war is toned down and the competitive nature is partially removed. Because some alliances will be disillusioned with pushing high, in general healing might go down on average.

To me, this seems philosophically a bit odd, to want to try and reduce healing is good, but to try and do that by disillusionment seems bad. In essence, the ends justifying the means.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mackey

I still can't work out why have they made changes to the loyalty store, it didn't really need anything doing to it considering loyalty is a scarce currency (I guess it's a currency now right?). Season rewards are what NEEDED to be changed, yes they've said as much but they should of been done first.

The actual stuff in there I think is rather expensive and odd, why no 6* sig stones for TB, do we not need them or something? I kinda understand the 6* AG and Paragon having a limit of 2 to the r4 materials but if TB are only limited to 1 anyway then why do we have to pay 50% extra for it 🤔

Wicket329

If I can try to wade into this a little bit, the existence of this new store is not the problem in and of itself. I actually like the idea of having some discretion with AW rewards and think that it’s a good idea long term. But in the short term? Not so much.

The rewards in the loyalty store are so good, and the resource is so scarce that it doesn’t make sense to use potions or boosts. So let’s say that due to decreased potion usage, an alliance misses out on advancing when they otherwise might have or they slip a bracket where they would have maintained under the previous season’s conditions. For most forum denizens, that’s probably a loss of about 5k 6* shards, maybe a bit of t5cc, nothing major. In exchange, I’m getting a 6* AG or some substantial amount of R4 materials. Obviously a trade worth making.

There’s no good reason not to coast on revives. Fine from a reward standpoint, you’re coming out ahead of where you would have been. But for people who enjoy the competition of the mode? Who enjoy pushing hard and seeing how they measure up? That’s gone. And that’s disappointing to see.

Going forward, either AW rewards need to be buffed to the point of being competitive with this store and worth investing the loyalty into, or loyalty has to become so ubiquitous that dropping 20k or more in potions and boosts doesn’t sting so much. Otherwise AW is just going to be a loyalty stipend towards the big rewards.

pseudosane

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.
So basically you are saying they are using this update to deincentivize pushing for the top? and reduce the competitive spirit of the gamemode? thats what i read in a nutshell.
I read it as it’s an attempt to reduce healing costs in high war, but in return the competitive aspect of war is toned down and the competitive nature is partially removed. Because some alliances will be disillusioned with pushing high, in general healing might go down on average.

To me, this seems philosophically a bit odd, to want to try and reduce healing is good, but to try and do that by disillusionment seems bad. In essence, the ends justifying the means.

yeah its just a theory and i dont agree with it regardless. If they wanted to help the gamemode, they would increase loyalty gain, increase potion levels and let the alliances duke it out.They seem to want to gut the only interesting gamemode.

Why not use these **** changes in aq instead. Thats a garbage mode that nobody really likes playing.

Andi_144

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.

Well i m a tier 1 player and top 10 master this season and i can tell u i m not happy xD

It's not about spending at all cost, but @ExHavok already did some math before...

If u play high rank war and you have tough fights against r4 opponents taking some dmg it just costs a ton to heal up a boosted r4 champ with over 80k health. And u have to heal up cause at the top every death matters...

I just think aw is a competitive mode and rewards for a strong season and finishing in high ranks should count more than just playing some war, collecting loyalty and spend it in the store...
Imo thats ok for aq as a pve mode where u play the same map every week and can buy rank up materials with your glory.

Aw rewards were already outdated before compared to everything u can buy with money or units on july 4th, the new daily deals and eop or aq rewards but without an Update on aw rewards this changes are just bad for this game mode or at least for players who like to play competitive

Wozzle007

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.
The issue is, why is it any time Kabam makes a change we have to wait for you or someone to try and explain what the positive reasoning *might* be behind their choices. Where is the transparency or explanation? Why is it a theory posited by you, instead of an explanation by them?

If this is the case, (assuming you’re right) and Kabam said “here is what we are changing, we think it will be a net positive and over time war will be much less resource heavy, we will keep you updated on whether it’s working as we hope it will”, at least even if I disagree with it I can understand the reasoning.

But instead, it’s just a grenade thrown into the forum of “hey here’s this change lol”

And firstly, we don’t know that what you’ve suggested is their intention, and secondly we don’t know if it will work or how it will be judged whether to have worked. (Obviously if people are using less potions that’s how Kabam will know how it works, but they won’t tell us that).

I think there intention is to push for people to save there loyalty to rank up resources, which then pushes units and real world money to be used for AW health pots and class boosts, to win AW and get those masters slots.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

Why should any alliance push for Masters with this changes and not even get updated AW Rewards?

I really don't get it...
Let me paraphrase this. The question is: why should any alliance spend all of their loyalty on potions to try to win wars when they are losing out on the rewards they could buy with that loyalty in the loyalty store.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* the question.

War is a competition. There's no minimum level of effort necessary to reach Master rewards, or Platinum, just like there is no minimum cut off for the featured champ in the arena. Sometimes it is 250 million, sometimes it is 50 million. What matters is relative effort.

War is not expensive because Kabam made it expensive. Kabam sets the prices, but the players choose to spend. And right now the problem with high tier war is that players feel they *must* spend whatever it takes to win wars. There's absolutely no options there. Which makes sense: the people at the top of any competition will be the people willing to do the most. But there's absolutely no counterbalance to that drive. If you're a top tier war competitor, why *not* spend every last bit of loyalty to win wars. That's what a top competitor does: whatever it takes. And loyalty just sitting there not being used to win wars is just wasting space.

Well, now it isn't. Loyalty isn't just for winning wars. It can be used to earn very high value materials. So now there's a choice. Spend to win wars, or spend to get those materials. Players now have an incentive to not go absolutely all out to win every single war, not even in tier 1. This doesn't mean competition ends. There will still be masters alliances, there will still be tier 1 alliances. Someone has to be at the top. But the alliances at the top will most likely be spending less to be there than before. They still won't be spending nothing, because if every tier 1 alliance spent nothing, then the tier 2 alliance willing to spend something will jump into tier 1. They will have to sacrifice some loyalty store rewards to do it, but they will do it.

I'm not a tier 1 player, so I cannot predict with certainty how this will alter the psychology of tier 1 players. But I can say with certainty it will shake up the meta for potion usage in war. It will act as a deescalating force on the use of potions as an all-out means to take as many kills as possible away from the enemy at all costs. And the more I think about it, the more I think that's the purpose of the changes. Whether that's a net positive or not, will take time to see.

In game design terms, the new loyalty store places a soft cap on potion use in war through opportunity cost in the loyalty store to reduce the overall expense of war at high tier. What happens next depends on the degree to which tier 1 war players can be modeled like rational actors in the economic sense of the term.
So basically you are saying they are using this update to deincentivize pushing for the top? and reduce the competitive spirit of the gamemode? thats what i read in a nutshell.

I suppose you could characterize it that way, but all competition must have limits. If I tried to in an alliance war by going to a competitor's house and ripping the internet out of the wall, I think most people (but not all people) would think that was a bridge too far. Every player has a line beyond which they won't cross.

Right now, however, there are few such lines in terms of in-game expense, mostly because there haven't been many viable alternatives. So the meta gets ingrained that going all-out on potions is just normal. Now that decision will have to be reevaluated by every player. The question of what is "reasonable competition" will have to be redefined. But I don't think this is the end of competition, and I don't think the game will lack for players with "competitive spirit." That competition will just have to exist within different boundaries.

I should say, I think it will. It doesn't have to. Tier 1 players could all decide en masse to ignore the loyalty store and continue to pursue masters rewards at all costs, regardless of the options available. It is their choice. I think they will choose to harness their competitive spirit in a more balanced way, but it is entirely their choice.

Vergeman78

Basically, people won’t spend their loyalty for pots. They’ll save it for rankup materials. And people with deep pockets will be able to spend units for pots and push to the top. Why not bring back MMXIV while we are at it, because clearly I feel like I literally went back in time.