Don't you agree? 👀

peixemacaco · March 11

We are modern Fight Gladiators without a peacefull moment.

Do you remember some months ago, even Kabam disabled Battlegrounds, so we could foccuse to do Sidequest/Objectives in game

And now we have near 10 different battles to enter.

I'm playing at most 2 hours per day (day/night), with my sacred sleep preserved.

But I think addicted ones may play a lot more. And their mental health?

What Kabam thinks about?🤔

Wicket329 · March 11

It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.

AcidBurn404 · March 11

Playing only 30 minutes max everyday

healthy life healthy game. Pulled my boy ibom and I'm retired.

Ruwqiersa · March 11

No. Please Kabam we need more!

We need more. More content = more rewards = more dopamine. Complaining about too much content is stupid because you can just not play. But you cant just pull a new content out of your ahh whenever you want. 😁

Rayven5220 · March 11

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.

That. ^^^

captain_rogers · March 11

I don't have life anymore...

I never had one to begin with.

Anyways you gotta make a choice, I'm planning to retire soon as well.

SagaChampion · March 11

Playing only 30 minutes max everyday

In my opinion, spending more time in our life is more important than this.......game. If you have free time & mood to play this.......game , you can play. No one pressure you to play this .....game. I play this.....game , only if I have free time & mood.

Emilia90 · March 11

It’s not Kabam’s job to ensure that we have self-control. If anyone is prioritizing a game over their real life obligations constantly, they need to figure that out for themselves

Sad thing is, I remember that a lot of people did actually do stuff like this. Content creators would go on dates and run to the bathroom to move in AW and stuff which is just sad.

I play MCOC only a little everyday except when they release big content and I’m happy. I’m fine with missing out on some of these modes, especially stuff like incursions and arena. Everything else that matters has a long timer or is permanent (or just takes 5 minutes like the magic thief arena).

Unknown · March 11

This content has been removed.

Pikolu · March 11

Redfire?

Ashacekar · March 11

Playing only 30 minutes max everyday

I m fine with current content, usually a lot comes at times but they get cleared soon. My current issue is managing my anger when playing bg, working on it.

BringPopcorn · March 11

Time and resource management ..
Putting things with a 2 week period to complete as too much things to do?

Glassback · March 11

Yeah! So many quests/objectives!s

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.

It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.

Wicket329 · March 11

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.

The question was whether there is too much content in the game. That’s all. We don’t need to get into a mental health conversation over this.

peixemacaco · March 11

Yeah! So many quests/objectives!s

Pikolu said:
Redfire?

I don't think you're Redfire, @Pikolu.

Such a good forum user.

Well, if you're trying to be fun as in your surprising clickbait topic you didn't achieve your goal.

Because, you may agree we do have a lot of game content these days.... I'm not complaining, just showing this. And think about some real addicts.

Peace 👍

DNA3000 · March 11

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.

It is exactly that simple.

Sure, there are people who have little or no self control, either because they have mental health issues, lack of self discipline, or addiction problems. But those people have problems that eliminate their ability to make rational decisions protecting their self interest. They don't have a choice. For those of us that do have a choice, it is simple: choose to play however much you want.

For those that have no choice, reducing the amount of content in the game would have the same effect as reducing the selection of booze at the grocery store would have on an alcoholic.

peixemacaco · March 13

Yeah! So many quests/objectives!s

So...option 1 won by miles away
😊👍 Thanks everyone

Rayven5220 · March 13

DNA3000 said:

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.
It is exactly that simple.

Sure, there are people who have little or no self control, either because they have mental health issues, lack of self discipline, or addiction problems. But those people have problems that eliminate their ability to make rational decisions protecting their self interest. They don't have a choice. For those of us that do have a choice, it is simple: choose to play however much you want.

For those that have no choice, reducing the amount of content in the game would have the same effect as reducing the selection of booze at the grocery store would have on an alcoholic.

Addicts have the choice to get help to manage their addiction/s, though.

Whether it be booze, drugs, gambling, porn, gaming, whatever it is, they can choose to get help.
Same with mental health.

I agree though with your end point. Reducing content is only a temporary solution to an addict.
They're still gonna play as much as they can, regardless of the reduction.

Just like reducing the alcohol at the grocery store to an alcoholic. They're still gonna buy it and drink it, even if it's not their preferred booze.

PT_99 · March 13

Playing only 30 minutes max everyday

Kabam game with bugs, messy AI, handful rewards or 3 year anniversary shaboinking? 😳

shield311 · March 13

No. Please Kabam we need more!

Im actually pretty invested into the game lately, I would love to play for hours straight only the energy requirement stops me, cannot get infinite energy soo, need to take breaks which is fair obviously but yeah

Pandingo · March 13

I don't have life anymore...

As a noted completionist I remember the day my brother showed me 9 years ago on a cold January day this 'new game' and if you spend 'only' 9.99 you get a 3 star deadpool. Little did I know my love of deadpool and compulsion to complete would lead to 9 years of an obsession with approximately 1 house worth of money spent. Over 9 years. And still here we sit. It's an addiction. I'm a counselor I recognize the signs. But I can't get into anything else mobile wise. And I struggle to play casually because if you aren't competitive in the game you're just wasting time nowadays. There is NO casual MCOC. I'd argue ftp is even worse because if you don't do everything free as ftp then you are left way behind.

Pandingo · March 13

I don't have life anymore...

And we don't OWN anything we give them money for. They do. We are borrowing it. We cannot sell it. We cannot get upset when they change it. It's like going to the grocer. Buying a head of broccoli. And coming home to cook with it only to have the grocer call, say it was too good of a deal. And now your head of broccoli is only a floret. And you aren't allowed to give it to your mom. You need to use that floret as is because they say so. Even though it was your money that bought it and an agreement was made with the financial transaction that gave your goods for theirs. We don't get these goods. It's literally insanity and some of us can't stop 😅😅

Pandingo · March 13

I don't have life anymore...

I'm some of us 🤣🤣🤣

DNA3000 · March 13

Pandingo said:
And we don't OWN anything we give them money for. They do. We are borrowing it. We cannot sell it. We cannot get upset when they change it. It's like going to the grocer. Buying a head of broccoli. And coming home to cook with it only to have the grocer call, say it was too good of a deal. And now your head of broccoli is only a floret. And you aren't allowed to give it to your mom. You need to use that floret as is because they say so. Even though it was your money that bought it and an agreement was made with the financial transaction that gave your goods for theirs. We don't get these goods. It's literally insanity and some of us can't stop 😅😅

The game is not like broccoli. The game is like a theme park. Once upon a time, theme parks charged per ride. I'm old enough to have had my parents buy A B C D E tickets for Disneyland. Spending money on those tickets did not buy me anything. The rides were not mine to do as I wished. We were paying for an experience, of which the park and all of its stuff were elements of that experience we could use, but not own.

Ironically, most theme parks moved to admission pricing, while most online games moved to microtransactions. But the principle is still the same. You are not buying the rides, nor do you own any part of the park. You pay for the experience, and when your experience is over you don't get to take any of it with you. You have no say on how long Space Mountain remains Space Mountain or what color the seats are in Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.

Why this seems to be such a mind blowing idea makes me wonder how much life experience the average online game player has. It is like they have never heard of rental homes, equipment rental companies, movie theaters, amusement parks. Makes me wonder how many people try to take the meter home with them the first time they pay for parking.

o_o · March 13

DNA3000 said:

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.
It is exactly that simple.

Sure, there are people who have little or no self control, either because they have mental health issues, lack of self discipline, or addiction problems. But those people have problems that eliminate their ability to make rational decisions protecting their self interest. They don't have a choice. For those of us that do have a choice, it is simple: choose to play however much you want.

For those that have no choice, reducing the amount of content in the game would have the same effect as reducing the selection of booze at the grocery store would have on an alcoholic.

Just popping in to say that the notion that people with addictions "don't have a choice," or are unable to make "good" choices, is contested. There's a theory of addiction positing that heavy substance use can be a rational response or coping mechanism to one's circumstances (think grinding poverty), and a related one suggesting that addiction is a disorder of choice, with people taking maladaptive and potentially self-destructive actions because of the short-term gratification they provide. In both cases the implication is that when people with addictions have different options, they may make different choices with respect to substance use or gambling. For people with an addiction to stimulants (notably meth), the most promising form of treatment is actually contingency management, which offers a person rewards (e.g. gift cards) in exchange for meeting their goal, which might be to use less, not use at all, etc.

[edited to acknowledge that this has nothing to do with MCoC... mods, feel free to delete

]

Wozzle007 · March 13

It’s nice having things to do in the game. If you don’t have the time, it’s ok. Just triage what in the games important to you and do that

DNA3000 · March 13

o_o said:

DNA3000 said:

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.
It is exactly that simple.

Sure, there are people who have little or no self control, either because they have mental health issues, lack of self discipline, or addiction problems. But those people have problems that eliminate their ability to make rational decisions protecting their self interest. They don't have a choice. For those of us that do have a choice, it is simple: choose to play however much you want.

For those that have no choice, reducing the amount of content in the game would have the same effect as reducing the selection of booze at the grocery store would have on an alcoholic.
Just popping in to say that the notion that people with addictions "don't have a choice," or are unable to make "good" choices, is contested. There's a theory of addiction positing that heavy substance use can be a rational response or coping mechanism to one's circumstances (think grinding poverty), and a related one suggesting that addiction is a disorder of choice, with people taking maladaptive and potentially self-destructive actions because of the short-term gratification they provide. In both cases the implication is that when people with addictions have different options, they may make different choices with respect to substance use or gambling. For people with an addiction to stimulants (notably meth), the most promising form of treatment is actually contingency management, which offers a person rewards (e.g. gift cards) in exchange for meeting their goal, which might be to use less, not use at all, etc.

[edited to acknowledge that this has nothing to do with MCoC... mods, feel free to delete ]

To be honest, I consider rational choice theory as applied to addiction to be, let's say dubious at best. But whether you agree with it or not, the notion behind rational choice theory as applied to addictive behaviors doesn't state that people choose addictive behaviors. Rather, the theory states that addictive behaviors can be modeled using a presumptive logical agent optimizing the overall reward of the behaviors themselves. It would be just as consistent with rational choice theory to state that, say, drug use reprograms the brain to focus on serotonin optimization above all else, which is by definition an impairment of self control.

Personally, I think rational choice as applied to addiction is one of those ideas that might have some interesting statistical applications but is complete nonsense when applied to individuals. I am neither an economist nor am I a psychologist or medical professional, but everything I've read about it raises serious red flags that I ordinarily associate with pseudo science.

o_o · March 13

DNA3000 said:

o_o said:

DNA3000 said:

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.
It is exactly that simple.

Sure, there are people who have little or no self control, either because they have mental health issues, lack of self discipline, or addiction problems. But those people have problems that eliminate their ability to make rational decisions protecting their self interest. They don't have a choice. For those of us that do have a choice, it is simple: choose to play however much you want.

For those that have no choice, reducing the amount of content in the game would have the same effect as reducing the selection of booze at the grocery store would have on an alcoholic.
Just popping in to say that the notion that people with addictions "don't have a choice," or are unable to make "good" choices, is contested. There's a theory of addiction positing that heavy substance use can be a rational response or coping mechanism to one's circumstances (think grinding poverty), and a related one suggesting that addiction is a disorder of choice, with people taking maladaptive and potentially self-destructive actions because of the short-term gratification they provide. In both cases the implication is that when people with addictions have different options, they may make different choices with respect to substance use or gambling. For people with an addiction to stimulants (notably meth), the most promising form of treatment is actually contingency management, which offers a person rewards (e.g. gift cards) in exchange for meeting their goal, which might be to use less, not use at all, etc.

[edited to acknowledge that this has nothing to do with MCoC... mods, feel free to delete ]
To be honest, I consider rational choice theory as applied to addiction to be, let's say dubious at best. But whether you agree with it or not, the notion behind rational choice theory as applied to addictive behaviors doesn't state that people choose addictive behaviors. Rather, the theory states that addictive behaviors can be modeled using a presumptive logical agent optimizing the overall reward of the behaviors themselves. It would be just as consistent with rational choice theory to state that, say, drug use reprograms the brain to focus on serotonin optimization above all else, which is by definition an impairment of self control.

Personally, I think rational choice as applied to addiction is one of those ideas that might have some interesting statistical applications but is complete nonsense when applied to individuals. I am neither an economist nor am I a psychologist or medical professional, but everything I've read about it raises serious red flags that I ordinarily associate with pseudo science.

Not rational choice models... those haven’t been taken seriously in a while, for good reason. I’m referring to theories of addiction that explain it as a disorder of choice or of learning. The brain disease model of addiction (which in North America at least is the dominant model) portrays substance use disorders as chronic relapsing diseases but can’t explain why most people who use highly addictive substances never develop a substance use disorders, that most people who develop one recover on their own, or that many people change their substance use patterns when presented with alternatives.

DNA3000 · March 13

o_o said:

DNA3000 said:

o_o said:

DNA3000 said:

Glassback said:

Wicket329 said:
It’s a game. Play as much or as little as you want.
It’s never as simple as that or there wouldn’t be entire industries like the gambling sector.

People might not experience addiction themselves, but we all know for well that there’s people in the game who literally can’t put it down due to their mental health or unhealthy habits formed.
It is exactly that simple.

Sure, there are people who have little or no self control, either because they have mental health issues, lack of self discipline, or addiction problems. But those people have problems that eliminate their ability to make rational decisions protecting their self interest. They don't have a choice. For those of us that do have a choice, it is simple: choose to play however much you want.

For those that have no choice, reducing the amount of content in the game would have the same effect as reducing the selection of booze at the grocery store would have on an alcoholic.
Just popping in to say that the notion that people with addictions "don't have a choice," or are unable to make "good" choices, is contested. There's a theory of addiction positing that heavy substance use can be a rational response or coping mechanism to one's circumstances (think grinding poverty), and a related one suggesting that addiction is a disorder of choice, with people taking maladaptive and potentially self-destructive actions because of the short-term gratification they provide. In both cases the implication is that when people with addictions have different options, they may make different choices with respect to substance use or gambling. For people with an addiction to stimulants (notably meth), the most promising form of treatment is actually contingency management, which offers a person rewards (e.g. gift cards) in exchange for meeting their goal, which might be to use less, not use at all, etc.

[edited to acknowledge that this has nothing to do with MCoC... mods, feel free to delete ]
To be honest, I consider rational choice theory as applied to addiction to be, let's say dubious at best. But whether you agree with it or not, the notion behind rational choice theory as applied to addictive behaviors doesn't state that people choose addictive behaviors. Rather, the theory states that addictive behaviors can be modeled using a presumptive logical agent optimizing the overall reward of the behaviors themselves. It would be just as consistent with rational choice theory to state that, say, drug use reprograms the brain to focus on serotonin optimization above all else, which is by definition an impairment of self control.

Personally, I think rational choice as applied to addiction is one of those ideas that might have some interesting statistical applications but is complete nonsense when applied to individuals. I am neither an economist nor am I a psychologist or medical professional, but everything I've read about it raises serious red flags that I ordinarily associate with pseudo science.
Not rational choice models... those haven’t been taken seriously in a while, for good reason. I’m referring to theories of addiction that explain it as a disorder of choice or of learning. The brain disease model of addiction (which in North America at least is the dominant model) portrays substance use disorders as chronic relapsing diseases but can’t explain why most people who use highly addictive substances never develop a substance use disorders, that most people who develop one recover on their own, or that many people change their substance use patterns when presented with alternatives.

This goes beyond my pay grade, and also well beyond what's being discussed here, interesting though it might be academically.

To wrap this up a bit, we often discuss player choice on the presumption that the player has the ultimate responsibility on choosing how they interact with the game in their own self-interest. And that's almost universally the case. However, it is important to acknowledge that not everyone is actually capable of managing that responsibility properly, due to very specific medical or psychological conditions.

However, I think the vast overwhelming majority of people referencing those things are not in that category of people. They speak as if this is not a tiny minority, but the majority of people. They are attempting to use real psychological problems to justify their own poor decision making processes. So I think it is important to specify who gets exempted from most discussions of player choice. It isn't just "everyone with bad judgment" and it isn't "everyone, because I read about psychological manipulation in a Google search once." If you're medically diagnosed with a problem impairing your decision making capabilities, my sympathies. If you're an addict, seek treatment. If you aren't, you're responsible for your own choices and I'm not buying the addict argument.

Don't you agree? 👀

Don't you agree? 👀 86 votes

Comments