Banquet Rewards

Just thought I’d share some of my thoughts on the Banquet. I think that 600-2600 should have received 2 T5A. Top 600 still getting the r5 crystal. 1% still getting 1 T5A. You have players that spent $3,000 US dollars in the 600-2600, 601 spent over $3,000 and 2600 spent a littler over $1,000. If you look at the difference in rewards from 301-600 and 600-2600 you see a huge drop off but the rewards for 601-2600 are barely better than the rewards for 1%. Do these rewards really look appropriate for individuals spending $2,000+ more than another? It’s difficult to know exactly where to set ranks but I think there should be a couple more ranks with a more gradual decrease in rewards as scores get lower. Ideally, in my opinion, it’d work out so those that spend $3,000+ stay about the same, players that spent ~$2,000–$3,000 should get less but still fairly significantly more than those that spent ~$1,000–$2,000 and then percentages staying about the same as they are. Perhaps 301-600, 601-2600, 2600-6200 or so. Maybe even another rank for 6200-12400. After that, get into percentages. I don’t know what the best ranges would be but that could easily be worked out. I think a more gradual decrease in rewards that directly correlates with how much your customers spent should be far better balanced.

I know I’ll get lots of hate for this but that’s fine.

Comments

Tx_Quack_Attack6589

it’s a blind auction this is how it works. Spending a certain amount doesn’t guarantee you anything.

Nøx

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2916784#Comment_2916784

Yes it is but simply adding more ranks wound directly correlate with units spent and reward those who spend more. The current system already does this as is but by staggering the rewards with more ranks it would more closely correlate to how much customers are willing to invest. Do you really believe someone that spends $3,000 should receive the same exact rewards as someone that spends $1,000? Or, would it make more sense for those that invested $3,000 to get some more rewards than those that spent $1,000? Isn’t rewarding consumers in accordance with their value standard practice for all free market capitalist entities?

What problem do you see with giving 600-2600 2 T5A and the top1% 1 T5A?

Tx_Quack_Attack6589

what if the person who spent 1k also spent all year grinding units to offset the dollar need to score high. You can’t make brackets based on dollar spend because many people spent different amounts in same brackets based on unit amounts going into event. I assume you were in 600-2600

willrun4adonut

And the person who spent $3000 also got all of the stuff from their various odins and other purchases as well. I think it's fair.

Nøx

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2916824#Comment_2916824

By this logic no rank rewards should be given at all. Whoever buys the most crystals gets the most. That’s perfectly even for everyone. Rank rewards cause unbalance with your rationale.

On average, those in 600-2600 spent twice as much as those in 1% and all I’m suggesting is that 600-2600 get twice as much T5A.

Nøx

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2916818#Comment_2916818

The only reason the game even exists is to make money. Units are commodified, so yes you can absolutely approximate brackets based on conversion and do so more precisely from the highest rank on down. By merely offering rank rewards you encourage spending. The more you put in the more you get out whether you’re pay to win, free to play, or both. The more you grind, the better you’re rewarded, correct? The more you spend the more you gain, correct? Rewards are offered to propagate spending of units regardless of how they’re acquired. Do you think Kabam has the Banquet for FTP people? Is that their motivation for designing and running the event? Or is it so they can make money, stay in business, and produce the game? Offering rank rewards encourages consumers to spend to get better rewards. Players are not all equal. Without players spending the game would never exist. The more one spends, the more value they have to Kabam. Welcome to capitalism.

It’s actually not about units spent, it’s about units bought. It’s just decorated to look otherwise.

Nøx

so first place is below 600. that’s 3 T5A.

Second place 600-2600. That’s 2 T5A

Third place is 1%. That’s 1 T5A..

How is that bot not what’s fair?

What’s wrong about thinking 2 T5A what’s most fair for those 600-2600 that finished in second place?

Shamir51

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2916797#Comment_2916797

I finished 876 and I only spent £250. Your argument is redundant.

The rank rewards were communicated in advance of the event commencing. If you didn't have a problem with them at that point, your issue is that you're not happy with where you placed relative to how much you spent driven by a significant improvement in total scoring year on year. If you thought spending a set amount, or scoring a certain score was going to safely place you where you wanted, that's a you problem.

As with most things in this game, you gambled. In this case you obviously think you "lost". I don't know what else to say than: put your big boy pants on and suck it up.

Nøx

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2917422#Comment_2917422

I did express my dissatisfaction with the rank rewards for the Banquet event before it started. With you being able to earn units FTP it does make it impossible disseminate rewards in perfect order by spending but I’m not calling for an exact correlation. Kabam knows exactly how many units they sell and exactly how units were spent that were earned and saved in-game. They should be able to easily calculate the percentage of each and apply a formula to extrapolate the average percentage for any player’s point total with the information available to them. Congrats your placement. It’s quite remarkable given your spending. I finished 4-5%. I’ve complained about the rewards for this event since before it started. And at times I didn’t feel rewards were appropriate in the past. To point into simplest terms I felt <600 should get the r5 gem, 601-2600 should get 2 T5A, and 1% should have gotten 1 T5A. It’s that simple. The gem is actually all the resources combined so 3 T5A, 4 T7B, 6 T4A, 7 T6CC.

So <600-r5 Gem worth all those resources…

601-2600-2 T5A

1%- 1 T5A

if you look at the scaling of rewards those all fall in the same categories for they respective totals. I don’t believe it should go from all the resources of a r5 gem down 1 T5A while 1% gets exactly the same

r5 Gem(3 T5A, 4 T7B, 6 T4A, 7 T6CC)

1 T5A

r5 gem+ all the resources it represents

2 T5A

1 T5A

my only point for this particular event is exactly that but I’d like to see all events with rank rewards progressions have a balanced trajectory and not a massively, unbalanced crescendo like we see right here and have seen in the past.