Never ceases to amaze me how many people engage with a forum account with almost 100k disagrees. It’s best left ignored!
Statistically, around 80% of the population has average or bellow capacities/intelligence/IQ or whatever you wanna call it, so its senseless to state that fam, because its way more likely than most of the people are wrong than right, or they are more likely to be wrong than to be right.
He can be wrong, but your statement is absurd, just remember most of the people back then thought the Earth was flat, or that everything rotated around the Earth, and they would punish you if you said otherwise.
This is amazing. Literally everything you just said is factually incorrect.
No it is not lol, if you wanna see the data, between 70% to 80% of people, more roundly to 80% is on average or below, look for it, so It if only 20% to 30% is more capable to have the right answers, that means that the 80% to 70% is not likely to have the right answers, that means they either would be wrong or they wouldnt be able to even answer.
If you say I'm wrong then I assume you think Earth is flat.
You can look for the data fam, depending on the source, it is between those % I stated before.
So the fact that more people are agree into something it doesnt mean they are right about it, It happened with tons and tons of situations along the history of humanity, where tremendous groups of people would state something that was wrong but the quantity of people that are stating that is was wrong was lesser than the one stating it was right.
And If you want to say that something is wrong, you have to prove it, I didnt say anything wrong here.
I would urge you to go look up the definition of "average". And then when you're done, go look up the true history of flat earth theory. It wasn't so commonly believed as you might think
The average IQ of 10 people can be 20 if there is one person with 110 IQ and all the rest are at 10. Ideally you want to look at median values to see where the 50th percentile is.
I was wondering, and correct me if I m wrong, where do all these people that farm 30 revives/day (more or less) get their energy refills? Because, aside from buying them directly, or through finishing EQ offers and the Sigil, (all these are money or units so they don't count as "free" in kabam logic,) the game gives you max...5 refills/ week, and if you also open your 4hrs crystals, you could get another maybe 10 if you re lucky. That's 15 refills/week, that may end up in 20 additional runs through a path in 3.2.6. And these runs may give you approximately 16-18 lvl 1 revives, again, each, WEEK.
So, where all these astronomical numbers come from? Because kabam says this whole situation was monitored for more than a year, so they can distinguish someone who was hoarding refills and 4hrs crystals, from someone who uses what the game gives him. Right?
The Energy Refills can occasionally spawn on that same map.
Yes, but this is one time every 6-7 runs, it s nothing compared to the numbers we ve been told.
People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.
Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?
Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.
As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.
It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.
Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players. Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective. If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.
The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.
What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
Lol, I like that all the comments explaining the company's strategy (create outrage in order to come up with their initial solution that will feel as a compromise for the community) are mysteriously deleted. Meanwhile no word from the usual community managers. Great job!
This actually makes me so pissed. Let’s evaluate where we are right now:
- modders are destroying the competitive integrity of most modes in the game
- BG’s has some crippling design issues that leave a large chunk of of the player base frustrated and unable to progress
- persistent input issues for over a year make the game inconsistent, unreliable and sometimes unplayable
- almost all new content is released with multiple and major bugs
And what have Kabam done?
- given us ambiguous feedback on how they addressed modders whilst not giving anyone their rightful rewards and tried to sweep an entire season under the carpet.
- provided a huge post which can be basically summarised as ‘we know there’s problems, we’re 5 seasons in, but we have nothing for you yet’
- stopped the monthly compensation even though input issues have gotten to arguably their worst point ever
- they’ve now removed the one reliable source we had to farm revives we needed to combat the plethora of gameplay issues in the game
This is staggering, and motivated by greed. Shame on you Kabam
This! This! This! 1000 times over!!! It’s such a joke they just keep stringing us along!
Never ceases to amaze me how many people engage with a forum account with almost 100k disagrees. It’s best left ignored!
Statistically, around 80% of the population has average or bellow capacities/intelligence/IQ or whatever you wanna call it, so its senseless to state that fam, because its way more likely than most of the people are wrong than right, or they are more likely to be wrong than to be right.
He can be wrong, but your statement is absurd, just remember most of the people back then thought the Earth was flat, or that everything rotated around the Earth, and they would punish you if you said otherwise.
This is amazing. Literally everything you just said is factually incorrect.
No it is not lol, if you wanna see the data, between 70% to 80% of people, more roundly to 80% is on average or below, look for it, so It if only 20% to 30% is more capable to have the right answers, that means that the 80% to 70% is not likely to have the right answers, that means they either would be wrong or they wouldnt be able to even answer.
If you say I'm wrong then I assume you think Earth is flat.
You can look for the data fam, depending on the source, it is between those % I stated before.
So the fact that more people are agree into something it doesnt mean they are right about it, It happened with tons and tons of situations along the history of humanity, where tremendous groups of people would state something that was wrong but the quantity of people that are stating that is was wrong was lesser than the one stating it was right.
And If you want to say that something is wrong, you have to prove it, I didnt say anything wrong here.
I would urge you to go look up the definition of "average". And then when you're done, go look up the true history of flat earth theory. It wasn't so commonly believed as you might think
I know what is average, but the point is that is more likely that the ones that are above average get to conclussions that are right, so it could be possible that the ones below average dont get to that conclussions so they could be disagree, so the point is that the fact that there are more people on disagree that on agree doesnt mean that you are wrong, that was the fact that stated the other player, which is wrong.
Im obviously not saying that most of population is wrong on their statements, Im saying that you can have a lot of people against what you state, and they can be wrong even if they are more than you in quantity.
And I know that Ancient culture already stated that Earth wasnt flat, I just said that a big amount of people thought that it was flat and they were wrong even being that many people.
People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.
Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?
Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.
As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.
It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.
Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players. Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective. If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.
The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.
What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.
Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.
Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?
Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.
As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.
It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.
Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players. Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective. If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.
The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.
What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.
Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not. If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me. This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there. There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
Some people have already completed the current difficult content with revive farming available. This is the most garbage move by Kabam in a long time. Y'all make content that requires revive spamming to complete and then complain that we are spamming revives? LMAO.
Some people have already completed the current difficult content with revive farming available. This is the most garbage move by Kabam in a long time. Y'all make content that requires revive spamming to complete and then complain that we are spamming revives? LMAO.
It's not a single problem. If revive farming is an issue then stopping it has knock on implications. Not adopting a balanced approach looks bad.
Lets face it, having to revive spam content is not ideal but some content is designed to require it. Some content benefits from champions that benefit from revive spam. Grinding Arena for units to buy revives is boring and relying on continually purchases only works for a percentage of the player base and conveys an unhelpful message of pay-to-win.
All in all, that's not exactly an engaging design space to be in - or a fulfilling experience to play in.
Revive spam as a valid strategy for players and an enabler for completing content needs to be avoided. To do this, Kabam can help by no longer designing champions that benefit from revive spam. Difficulty and nodes in Everest content can and should be addressed, tweaked down as appropriate. Reward good play wherever possible for the benefit of the game
I don’t disagree with the concern from Kabam here but I do disagree with the first draft of their solution. They needed us to react this way to know it wasn’t a good first offer - its textbook negotiation. Now if we can all compromise, we can react to that.. so Kabam.. ball is in your court now.. come back to us with a better offer. We’re waiting.
He is just trolling. And the mods are doing nothing about it/protecting him because it suits them. Just stop responding to him he is only posting all that stuff to get a bad reaction from you,
This isn’t really true though, but this can get dangerously into “way off topic” area or “personal attacks” area.
Here's a question: Who is more likely to spend on revives a player that runs out of farmed revives at the end of a challenging run or a player who chooses not to do the content because they can't farm and know that they have to buy revives?
In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.
Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not. If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me. This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there. There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
You were the one who made the claim that this change had nothing to do with trying to get players to spend more. I only asked you, if you think the move will result in lesser spending?
None of my comments were anything close to what you have written above. I said, if the change was thought to result in a decline in revenue, it would not have been approved. Irrespective of how game breaking the availability of revives were.
Further, if there is a drop in revenue because of the change, I would expect the availability of revives to suddenly start increasing (or the content to start becoming easier). Even though the current stance is the revives trivialize content.
Here's a question: Who is more likely to spend on revives a player that runs out of farmed revives at the end of a challenging run or a player who chooses not to do the content because they can't farm and know that they have to buy revives?
It's definitely more nuanced than that. From the main post, they are implying that too many people are completing the content. The point of the move is for fewer people to attempt the content and for fewer people to compete it. Partly, this means that the content will remain fresh for longer since it will be completed at a slower pace than now. This is the game balancing part of the decision. You can only create content at a certain pace (takes time and money), if it gets completed quickly then there is an issue.
This also means that the endgame rewards become much more valuable, since fewer people can get them. This creates an opportunity to present some of these rewards in unit deals. People may not buy revives, but they might buy rank up materials which they would otherwise need revives for to get them as rewards. They might buy more crystals to get the right counter for some challenges, so that they need fewer revives. They might buy rank up materials for those champs. Jul 4th, CW etc. deals become more valuable. There are many avenues to monetise this.
Here's a question: Who is more likely to spend on revives a player that runs out of farmed revives at the end of a challenging run or a player who chooses not to do the content because they can't farm and know that they have to buy revives?
I'm curious, and im sure none of us have the answer, but what's the amount people spend on Revs and what's the amount people spend on crystals? I know for my part that I impulse buy crystals, but almost never buy resources like pots regardless of what content im doing. I'm still not convinced though that the change is predominantly money driven, I just don't see that much of a revenue stream popping up from it unless they're doing all this to see like a .05% increase for the quarter.
Crystals by far.
They're hoping to boost unit sales for items w/ this change. IMO that's pretty penny smart and pound foolish because happy players are more likely to drop Odins on crystals than those who are unhappy.
Here's a question: Who is more likely to spend on revives a player that runs out of farmed revives at the end of a challenging run or a player who chooses not to do the content because they can't farm and know that they have to buy revives?
It's definitely more nuanced than that. From the main post, they are implying that too many people are completing the content. The point of the move is for fewer people to attempt the content and for fewer people to compete it. Partly, this means that the content will remain fresh for longer since it will be completed at a slower pace than now. This is the game balancing part of the decision. You can only create content at a certain pace (takes time and money), if it gets completed quickly then there is an issue.
This also means that the endgame rewards become much more valuable, since fewer people can get them. This creates an opportunity to present some of these rewards in unit deals. People may not buy revives, but they might buy rank up materials which they would otherwise need revives for to get them as rewards. They might buy more crystals to get the right counter for some challenges, so that they need fewer revives. They might buy rank up materials for those champs. Jul 4th, CW etc. deals become more valuable. There are many avenues to monetise this.
I really don't think that their goal is to have fewer people complete content. IMO, they're banking on the same number of people completing content, only w/o the revive farm so they have to spend to get through it.
People keep saying that this is some great ploy to get people to spend on Revives, but the only evidence they have is that you can buy them with Units.
Unless there is a drastic change in content design, any new endgame content will need revives. All existing end game content also needs revives. Availability of revives has been reduced. What do you think happens?
Realistically players only have two choices - not to attempt endgame content or buy the revives needed to complete it. Some people will not attempt it, some others will buy revives with units. Of the ones who will buy revives with units, some will have units (or grind them in arenas) while some will buy them with money.
As a knock on effect, since fewer people will finish endgame content - including some increased spending on it - the seasonal unit deal (Jul 4th, CW, Banquet etc.) will be a bit more valuable (since endgame rewards are now available to fewer people). Again some people will grind units for this, some will buy.
It is naive to think that this decision was made with a view that it will have a negative revenue impact for the game. The hope clearly is that endgame players used to endgame rewards will still attempt endgame content even if it requires spending (units or money). There is no way this move would have been approved if the internal analysis implied that there would be actual revenue loss from this.
Either that or the data shows that it is a small number of players who are revive farming to that extent (5-15K players accounting for bulk of the 100-300K revives). Consequently, despite the forum noise, actual impact on playing experience of the majority of players is relatively small.
People do not have to spend to get Revives. They never have. Units are an accumulated Resource in the game. In fact, I've heard that accusation with just about every ill-received change I can think of. Apparently anything Players don't want is a coup to milk the Players. Would I say that a valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended? Absolutely. That undervalues it for sure. That's a bigger problem than the possibility that people might spend to get through content. That's not the sole objective. If they removed all Revs from the game and made them only acquirable through the Unit Store, that theory might be onto something. The reality is money only saves time in this game. People only spend when they don't want to wait.
I don't recall saying people have to spend on revives or anything else. A free source of revives is being removed - it will either lead to lower use of revives or increase the usage of other avenues of acquiring revives. One of those avenues is spending money. So it is possible that some people will spend money on revives due to this change. I am not even claiming this is the intent - all I am saying is that if the effect were reverse and the change would be considered to impact revenues negatively, it would never be approved.
The game wouldn't exist if it were not for people spending money on it. I cannot understand why it is a surprise to you that in a game whose entire reason for existence is the revenues it generates from selling items to players, the management team would consider that angle in any change it implements.
What do you think it means when you say "valuable Resource is being harvested at a much higher rate that's intended?" The idea is that the resource is available at a rate that a small % of the player base can use it to meet all objectives, remaining players can use it to meet some objectives but not all. The expectation is some of the players in the second set will spend money to bridge the gap in resources. Revenues may not be the major driver for changes in the game, but it is almost always a consideration in any major step taken.
In Layman's Terms? No one is meant to farm that many Revs from Act 3. I thought that much was clear by now.
For free. No one is meant to farm that many revives from Act 3 (or anywhere else in the game), for free.
Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
So....because people can't farm too many Revs from Act 3 "for free", there's going to be a decline in revenue? That doesn't make logical sense to me. If people are not willing to Grind Units or spend to get them, they're not likely going to be a loss in revenue because of this change. Regardless, people can assert that it's only about money all they like, but money isn't what it's about. So they're free to spend or not. If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me. This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there. There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
Yes, there will be less spending, I've already convinced my alliance to stop spending until this gets resolved or we get compensated. We are actively working on getting our alliance family to follows us.
Comments
Meanwhile no word from the usual community managers. Great job!
This! This! This! 1000 times over!!! It’s such a joke they just keep stringing us along!
Im obviously not saying that most of population is wrong on their statements, Im saying that you can have a lot of people against what you state, and they can be wrong even if they are more than you in quantity.
And I know that Ancient culture already stated that Earth wasnt flat, I just said that a big amount of people thought that it was flat and they were wrong even being that many people.
Since you think there were no revenue considerations - do you think this move will lead to lesser spending? What do you think will happen if there is a sustained decline in revenues directly as a consequence of this move? I think either content will become easier or revives will be available more abundantly.
If it's some type of protest, then that's called entitlement. People have become so accustomed to getting more than they're supposed to that they see themselves as entitled to them. Forgive me if that sounds judgmental or somehow disrespectful, but that's what it is to me.
This isn't a natural part of game play or progression that was put there to help Players with end-game content. That's not why they were put there.
There may very well be some changes moving forward, sure. I suspect they won't look like an unlimited supply like the open door did. The reactions also highlight how much worse it would have become had they decided to leave things as they were. When you leak a high-value Resource in the game like that, it affects many things. Money isn't the only thing.
Lets face it, having to revive spam content is not ideal but some content is designed to require it. Some content benefits from champions that benefit from revive spam. Grinding Arena for units to buy revives is boring and relying on continually purchases only works for a percentage of the player base and conveys an unhelpful message of pay-to-win.
All in all, that's not exactly an engaging design space to be in - or a fulfilling experience to play in.
Revive spam as a valid strategy for players and an enabler for completing content needs to be avoided. To do this, Kabam can help by no longer designing champions that benefit from revive spam. Difficulty and nodes in Everest content can and should be addressed, tweaked down as appropriate. Reward good play wherever possible for the benefit of the game
This is the way.
None of my comments were anything close to what you have written above. I said, if the change was thought to result in a decline in revenue, it would not have been approved. Irrespective of how game breaking the availability of revives were.
Further, if there is a drop in revenue because of the change, I would expect the availability of revives to suddenly start increasing (or the content to start becoming easier). Even though the current stance is the revives trivialize content.
This also means that the endgame rewards become much more valuable, since fewer people can get them. This creates an opportunity to present some of these rewards in unit deals. People may not buy revives, but they might buy rank up materials which they would otherwise need revives for to get them as rewards. They might buy more crystals to get the right counter for some challenges, so that they need fewer revives. They might buy rank up materials for those champs. Jul 4th, CW etc. deals become more valuable. There are many avenues to monetise this.
They're hoping to boost unit sales for items w/ this change. IMO that's pretty penny smart and pound foolish because happy players are more likely to drop Odins on crystals than those who are unhappy.