**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
**KNOWN BG ISSUE**
We are aware of an issue with the seeding for the beginning of the BG season.
We are adding rewards to higher progression brackets to offset the additional grind.
More information here.
**Arcade is being extra tricky with his Murder Box...**
It appears Arcade has been non-cooperative in his approach to this month's side quest and presented his clues in a nonsensical order. Lucky you, Summoners, we have our best and brightest on the case and those clues should now be a lot more straightforward. While messing around in Arcade's files we came across a phrase, highlighted and bolded, with sparkles and pointy arrows: "the abode for the dead" ... Maybe that will help you along the way!
Options

Removal of Revive Farming and the Apothecary Discussion

1434446484956

Comments

  • Options
    legalactionlegalaction Posts: 182 ★★

    Stature said:

    Stature said:

    Stature said:

    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.
    I'll be curious how that holds come July 4th.
    Whats the point of this comment? That some ppl have integrity and won't spend? Or that some ppl just can't control their impulse buying and will buy these offers regardless of items or value to their account?

    With your logic, why even make a stand or try to voice your concern, it won't matter because whatever deals are coming up are gonna be so great that you cannot resist buying them
  • Options
    StatureStature Posts: 426 ★★★

    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.

    I have little doubt that the change is primarily to have fewer people complete the content, everything in the announcement says so. I think they assume that there will be some spending benefits, otherwise it wouldn't have been approved.

    There is close to zero chance that after this change the same number of people will complete the content. Conversion from F2P to paying players is usually 2-5%, and the impacted player base is the one which was going to great lengths to finish the content without spending (farming is a choice and most players will not do it). Any decent analytics or market research would suggest that the conversion rates here will not be very high, let alone close to 100%.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    No one is blaming anyone for anything. As I said, something is fine until it isn't. I've already said I have no judgment for people who were farming.
    When Kabam has to adjust that because the number of Revs being farmed is beyond what is reasonable, then the reaction to that is on those Players.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★

    Stature said:

    Stature said:

    Stature said:

    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.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    What is the design of the game you're referring to? Do you have the document you can link to with the clause that being able to farm resources breaches?

    Act 1 guaranteed revive farm years ago for 7 energy or whatever and is magnitudes away from the 3.2.6 farm - let's be realistic here guy. No way near the same cost per revive in energy and time! Planets apart and not comparable.

    You mentioned that when it becomes a problem it has to be changed - why has the 3.2.6 revive farm only now become a problem 18 months later? Didn't it become a problem in November 2021?
    It's another example of something that turned into an outlet for people it wasn't intended for and had to be changed.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★

    Stature said:

    Stature said:

    Stature said:

    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.
    Calm down there big dawg, if you're slinging words around like entitlement then be prepared to discuss why that is. Kabam folks are not stupid. They were aware when they designed the level that the rebs would spawn and would be farmable. They knew when they made autoplay and left it open on low end chapters that farming would happen. They have known for a long time that people are farming crazy revs, and even designed lots of content that took that into account. Now, they've decided they don't want that anymore, as is their right. But to place any blame on the player base for the utilization of that resource font is unfair (mind im not talking about the abusers).
    Kabams release should have said "we know we did it but we want to put out some stuff that you can't farm through, let's go ahead and fix it." Rather than act surprised and say all the extra fluff they threw out there (not to mention provided a better solution).
    See, I'm going to have to disagree there. I don't believe they designed the content to have the Revs there so that people could farm them. It's just like the Act 1 Rev, or any other thing that's taken advantage of. When it becomes a problem, it has to be changed.
    Also, yes. I used the word entitlement. If something is included for Players in Act 3 and it's being milked, that's one thing. Players will do what Players do. They look for advantages. If those Players are on a soap box about it being taken away, that's entitlement. No one is meant to farm that many Revs in the game. That goes against the actual design of the game.
    Do you know how I know that this isn't like the Act 1 revive? Because they ended that immediately and let this one go for almost 2 years.
    Sure, and something isn't a major issue until it is. A couple Players with extra Energy farming something isn't as much of an issue as regularly growing numbers, encouraged by content on YouTube, and justified by harder content being put out.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    No one is blaming anyone for anything. As I said, something is fine until it isn't. I've already said I have no judgment for people who were farming.
    When Kabam has to adjust that because the number of Revs being farmed is beyond what is reasonable, then the reaction to that is on those Players.

    The game team has a very clear option when putting out content: allow it to be replayed or allow it to be done one time.

    The team chose to allow previous acts to be replayed instead of locking paths that had already been done. And they allowed items to spawn on all paths, not just new ones.

    They knew full well 3.2.6 as well as other paths were spawning items. I find it laughable that there is a sudden outcry about “unreasonable” item farming in a game that openly allows item farming.



    Dr. Zola
    That's called circumstantial evidence.
  • Options
    Joker1976Joker1976 Posts: 505 ★★★
    Why do the mods continue to let this GW guy spam comments when he’s a idiot and annoying AF??
    No one agrees with him,..ever,..and he constantly tries to piss people off and derail threads. Is this another hypocritical Kabam double standard??
    …idk, i thought purposely trying to derail threads was against their TOS.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    DrZola said:

    No one is blaming anyone for anything. As I said, something is fine until it isn't. I've already said I have no judgment for people who were farming.
    When Kabam has to adjust that because the number of Revs being farmed is beyond what is reasonable, then the reaction to that is on those Players.

    The game team has a very clear option when putting out content: allow it to be replayed or allow it to be done one time.

    The team chose to allow previous acts to be replayed instead of locking paths that had already been done. And they allowed items to spawn on all paths, not just new ones.

    They knew full well 3.2.6 as well as other paths were spawning items. I find it laughable that there is a sudden outcry about “unreasonable” item farming in a game that openly allows item farming.



    Dr. Zola
    That's called circumstantial evidence.
    And that’s called trying to ignore the obvious. Do you now suggest the team doesn’t know what’s going on with their game?

    Dr. Zola
    Now you're making implications that aren't there based on my comments.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    DrZola said:

    DrZola said:

    No one is blaming anyone for anything. As I said, something is fine until it isn't. I've already said I have no judgment for people who were farming.
    When Kabam has to adjust that because the number of Revs being farmed is beyond what is reasonable, then the reaction to that is on those Players.

    The game team has a very clear option when putting out content: allow it to be replayed or allow it to be done one time.

    The team chose to allow previous acts to be replayed instead of locking paths that had already been done. And they allowed items to spawn on all paths, not just new ones.

    They knew full well 3.2.6 as well as other paths were spawning items. I find it laughable that there is a sudden outcry about “unreasonable” item farming in a game that openly allows item farming.



    Dr. Zola
    That's called circumstantial evidence.
    And that’s called trying to ignore the obvious. Do you now suggest the team doesn’t know what’s going on with their game?

    Dr. Zola
    Now you're making implications that aren't there based on my comments.
    Nope. Just demonstrating how weak arguments tend to avoid answering uncomfortable questions and fall back on strawmanning opposing points precisely because they are…weak.

    Dr. Zola
    You mean questions based on accusatory conjecture? Personally, I tend to read what's written as opposed to creating a narrative. As much as I can, anyway.
    You were the one that implied I said the team doesn't know what's going on with their own game. Not me. Clearly they do. That's why they're making adjustments to a growing problem.
    Which isn't all bad. It's opened a discussion about availability and content. That's good.
    If you were to ask me if it's reasonable for Players to expect to farm hundreds of Revs from Act 3, I'd say that's entitlement. Which I have said.
    The content wasn't designed for that, evident by their own comments and actions to change it. Pretty simple, really. If someone wants to convince themselves it was made for that because they "let it happen", that's pretty irreverent if you ask me.
  • Options
    StatureStature Posts: 426 ★★★

    Stature said:

    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 disagree with this take. The backlash is BECAUSE rewards will become lesser in the game. Every remotely serious player prioritizes deals currently. There won't be any massive difference in those numbers, just a reduction of players doing content, which, in the grand scheme of things, is kinda sad for a game company.

    I agree the revive farm is excessive. But the alternative is really extreme and not viable either.
    I meant that the rewards will be considered more valuable, since fewer people will get it from completing the content. The point of the change is that fewer people should complete the content, early and for free. Over time, it will be easier as stronger champs and more rank up material will be available elsewhere to be able to tackle it.

    It isn't necessarily sad that the developers want fewer people to complete content. If players clear content at a faster pace than it can be created, then that itself can lead to churn in the player base. There has to be some aspirational content for players to look forward and plan towards. It's a fine line to walk but it is required, maybe the balance has shifted a bit too much for now.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,360 ★★★★★
    Stature said:

    Personally, I tend to read what's written as opposed to creating a narrative.

    You are almost always creating narratives and derailing threads. In the few weeks I've been on the forums, you have almost always taken an oblique position which you never explain, deliberately misquote and obfuscate other peoples statements, create strawman arguments and avoid answering any direct questions in a straight forward manner. Of all the forum users, you are the last one to be able to claim to read what's written. I have never seen you engage with any discussion in good faith.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not the case. I address the actual issues being presented. I don't spend much time conflating.
This discussion has been closed.