Same here. And what's worse is that it takes bigger and bigger rewards for me to get the same dopamine fix I got previously with lesser rewards. After EoP even an R3 gem isn't really going to give me much of a high anymore.
This is the problem with cocaine. I mean, Kabam. This is the problem with Kabam.
And that’s exactly why we should remove all rewards from the contest so that we’re all on the same playing field and thus end game content can stay at a relevant difficulty forever. /s
If the correct answer was either "zero" or "all" then we wouldn't need designers. However, all of design is about balancing countervailing forces. Rewards in a progressional game are incentives. If they are too low, they lack incentivizing power. But if they are too high, they dilute their value away too quickly. The correct value is the amount of rewards that has sufficient measurable incentivizing effect, and no more.
I’d love to understand how alliance participation impacts this. Because I do feel that modes like AQ and BGs get complacent in design and rewards due to social group requirements for participation artificially pumping up those numbers higher than they would be without the peer pressure driving the mode.
I’m excluding AW from this as it’s my perception that this mode is favored by the internal game team (based on the level of upkeep this mode receives compared to others)
It actually is quite simple: 7* Champs came out almost 2 years ago, and there still is no EQ difficulty that rewards even a single 7' shard. That alone tells you how absurdely outdated EQ is, and even SQ on the highest difficulty almost never rewards enoug shards for even a single 7* crystal. Instead we still get Cavalier Crystals!
Nobody is saying they should hand out rewards like candy. But the fact that rewards for EQ and SQ, which should be the go-to pieces of content for most players, haven't gotten updates in well over a year while the game moved on to introduce 7* R4 champs now makes it plausible why many players are upset with the rewards.
It actually is quite simple: 7* Champs came out almost 2 years ago, and there still is no EQ difficulty that rewards even a single 7' shard. That alone tells you how absurdely outdated EQ is, and even SQ on the highest difficulty almost never rewards enoug shards for even a single 7* crystal. Instead we still get Cavalier Crystals!
Nobody is saying they should hand out rewards like candy. But the fact that rewards for EQ and SQ, which should be the go-to pieces of content for most players, haven't gotten updates in well over a year while the game moved on to introduce 7* R4 champs now makes it plausible why many players are upset with the rewards.
It is even simple. One day of DSE gives more rewards than a month full of EQ
Pfffft!! Who cares about the rewards? I was happy getting my 1 gold for doing the season of pain fights. I didn’t even claim the ‘rewards’ from the solo event milestones.
Pfffft!! Who cares about the rewards? I was happy getting my 1 gold for doing the season of pain fights. I didn’t even claim the ‘rewards’ from the solo event milestones.
Most players do care about the rewards, actually almost only about the rewards. Even my chill mediocre alliance has had several veterans quit recently because of it.
This is the problem: for players like us who play this game 24/7/365, and invest our identities and self-worth into our accomplishments in the game, there just isn't much reciprocation from Kabam.
We run through content and rewards faster than Kabam can dish it out to us.
And that’s exactly why we should remove all rewards from the contest so that we’re all on the same playing field and thus end game content can stay at a relevant difficulty forever. /s
If the correct answer was either "zero" or "all" then we wouldn't need designers. However, all of design is about balancing countervailing forces. Rewards in a progressional game are incentives. If they are too low, they lack incentivizing power. But if they are too high, they dilute their value away too quickly. The correct value is the amount of rewards that has sufficient measurable incentivizing effect, and no more.
I’d love to understand how alliance participation impacts this. Because I do feel that modes like AQ and BGs get complacent in design and rewards due to social group requirements for participation artificially pumping up those numbers higher than they would be without the peer pressure driving the mode.
I’m excluding AW from this as it’s my perception that this mode is favored by the internal game team (based on the level of upkeep this mode receives compared to others)
That’s actually a good question, and the answer is I don’t know. Obviously, we all vote with our feet when it comes to solo game modes. At the end of the day, we and we alone decide if we want to play them. But alliance modes aren’t as simple: we can in theory pick the alliance that just happens to have the requirements we ourselves want for alliance modes, but then that makes alliances less about the players and more about the modes, and most players probably don’t pick alliances that way (although it does have an impact to be sure). Most of us pick alliances we want to be a part of, and have requirements close enough to what we’re willing to do, but we probably aren’t always doing exactly what we want to do out of respect for the alliances.
You could argue that itself is a choice, but it isn’t the same kind of choice. How this affects how the devs see alliance modes participation is difficult to say, because that’s a matter of judgment more than anything else. So only they really know. But this was one of the foundational concepts behind my push for free alliance war revives: that it was unlikely everyone in an alliance would be equally engaged in war, and ironically the players least engaged were likely to be bearing the highest costs.
And that’s exactly why we should remove all rewards from the contest so that we’re all on the same playing field and thus end game content can stay at a relevant difficulty forever. /s
If the correct answer was either "zero" or "all" then we wouldn't need designers. However, all of design is about balancing countervailing forces. Rewards in a progressional game are incentives. If they are too low, they lack incentivizing power. But if they are too high, they dilute their value away too quickly. The correct value is the amount of rewards that has sufficient measurable incentivizing effect, and no more.
I’d love to understand how alliance participation impacts this. Because I do feel that modes like AQ and BGs get complacent in design and rewards due to social group requirements for participation artificially pumping up those numbers higher than they would be without the peer pressure driving the mode.
I’m excluding AW from this as it’s my perception that this mode is favored by the internal game team (based on the level of upkeep this mode receives compared to others)
That’s actually a good question, and the answer is I don’t know. Obviously, we all vote with our feet when it comes to solo game modes. At the end of the day, we and we alone decide if we want to play them. But alliance modes aren’t as simple: we can in theory pick the alliance that just happens to have the requirements we ourselves want for alliance modes, but then that makes alliances less about the players and more about the modes, and most players probably don’t pick alliances that way (although it does have an impact to be sure). Most of us pick alliances we want to be a part of, and have requirements close enough to what we’re willing to do, but we probably aren’t always doing exactly what we want to do out of respect for the alliances.
You could argue that itself is a choice, but it isn’t the same kind of choice. How this affects how the devs see alliance modes participation is difficult to say, because that’s a matter of judgment more than anything else. So only they really know. But this was one of the foundational concepts behind my push for free alliance war revives: that it was unlikely everyone in an alliance would be equally engaged in war, and ironically the players least engaged were likely to be bearing the highest costs.
Appreciate you taking the time. And thanks again for that AW push! Definitely made the mode better.
Comments
And what's worse is that it takes bigger and bigger rewards for me to get the same dopamine fix I got previously with lesser rewards.
After EoP even an R3 gem isn't really going to give me much of a high anymore.
This is the problem with cocaine.
I mean, Kabam. This is the problem with Kabam.
I’m excluding AW from this as it’s my perception that this mode is favored by the internal game team (based on the level of upkeep this mode receives compared to others)
Nobody is saying they should hand out rewards like candy. But the fact that rewards for EQ and SQ, which should be the go-to pieces of content for most players, haven't gotten updates in well over a year while the game moved on to introduce 7* R4 champs now makes it plausible why many players are upset with the rewards.
Even my chill mediocre alliance has had several veterans quit recently because of it.
This is the problem: for players like us who play this game 24/7/365, and invest our identities and self-worth into our accomplishments in the game, there just isn't much reciprocation from Kabam.
We run through content and rewards faster than Kabam can dish it out to us.
You could argue that itself is a choice, but it isn’t the same kind of choice. How this affects how the devs see alliance modes participation is difficult to say, because that’s a matter of judgment more than anything else. So only they really know. But this was one of the foundational concepts behind my push for free alliance war revives: that it was unlikely everyone in an alliance would be equally engaged in war, and ironically the players least engaged were likely to be bearing the highest costs.