Alliance Quest Season 5 - Kingpin's Conclave: Discussion Thread

123578

Comments

  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,218 ★★★★★
    Wait, does this mean we need donation costs for map 1-3?

    No unless you are going to run 4 or above.
  • nIHSEANnIHSEAN Posts: 60
    Can we have our prestige shown on our profile just like summoner rating?
    We constantly keep a track of prestige through other apps/sites/prestigebots.
    It will be a great relief
  • Dean9300450Dean9300450 Posts: 85
    Here is what I don't get, so 25-50-25,what if you run map 6 inbg1 and 3 and map 3 in bg2,so the cost will overall be quite low, is that working as intended?
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,218 ★★★★★
    edited August 2018
    Here is what I don't get, so 25-50-25,what if you run map 6 inbg1 and 3 and map 3 in bg2,so the cost will overall be quite low, is that working as intended?

    Yes it is. It's to promote progression. Weaker players do lower maps and stronger players do the harder maps.
    We had a very long conversation about it during Beta.
  • Demonzfyre wrote: »
    @Nick_Caine_32 also to make a point about mod comments on the thread, they have allowed those who participated in the beta feedback to announce that we participated. I was one of those. I can't/wont out anyone else unless ive seen 100% that they have announced themselves but we can help answer some questions as well. Keep in mind, we were not decision makers on the content but were allowed a early look at AQ5 and provided feedback that the devs took back to the team.

    Back for the evening to answer a few of the folks who responded to me earlier in the thread. As @Demonzfyre has said, we are allowed to out ourselves if we see fit, and I was also one of the folks given the opportunity to pass on some feedback. :)

    @BitterSteel To answer your question about what we were able to comment on, much of what you see here is a design that Kabam built, so it's safe to make the assumption that they have heard the community loud and clear on some of the pain points they are currently experiencing.

    With that being said, and to piggy back off what DNA3000 and Demonzfyre have both explained - Kabam encouraged us to constructively criticize and ask questions about everything that was outlined in the post, and didn't hesitate to respond to that dialogue (some of which was amongst ourselves, as we do have different opinions on things, and see them at very different angles), or ask more questions of their own. In many ways, it was a microcosm of what happens in the usual announcement response threads on a much smaller scale - and it was focused on being constructive, which allowed for much more discussion and back and forth. A lot of it focused on how the information was laid out and represented to the community to ensure clarity and that what they wanted to show off came across as intended!

    It was an awesome experience, for me, overall. Much of what we asked questions-wise made it into the FAQ that you see added to the post (as Miike mentioned), and there were a lot of ideas thrown out for future possibilities between the group of us!
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,723 ★★★★★
    Carmel1 wrote: »
    "


    Buff 1: Force of Will:The Defender's Ability Accuracy cannot be affected by the Attacker.

    another creative way to "nerf" Blade without nerfing him and deal with another wave of Rank Down Tickets requests.

    It's a Buff. Not a nerf. We can't expect the game to revolve around Blade and allow him to cut through anything.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,723 ★★★★★
    Reading over, it seems very interesting. Looking forward to testing it out.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 13,486 Guardian
    Here is what I don't get, so 25-50-25,what if you run map 6 inbg1 and 3 and map 3 in bg2,so the cost will overall be quite low, is that working as intended?

    No, that's not how it works. The cost breakdown is for one BG running the map, two BGs running the map, and three BGs running that map. It doesn't refer to which BG runs the map. If you run Map 6 in BG 1 and BG 3, you will be paying 75% of the current cost of Map 6, because you are running two groups in Map 6.
  • If they did move the timers down to 30 minutes, they'd also (likely) have to massively increase the size of the maps themselves.

    There is no reason to lower timers and then increase the size of the map. That would mean Kabam disagrees that it takes too long to complete AQ and thus they wouldn't make the change to begin with. Changing timers is one of many solutions they could use but to lower completion time it would of course have to be without an increase in the size of the map. The whole idea here is to change the mindset of how long should it take to complete AQ with the current evolved state of the game. If we can't get past this idea of Kabam being so rigid with it's designs then nothing will ever change.
    Right now, with 30 minute timers in an active alliance, it's possible to clear Map 5 in 11-13 hours, give or take. I've done it many times with my alliance when we have those timers. That's not the intent, or the design of the map.

    Which is why I'm arguing that their intent and design needs to shift. I think a lot of the time people get stuck on this idea that the rules of AQ are set in stone because of how long it's been a certain way. However they could achieve it, whether it's lower timers, an increased energy cap, less paths, or something else entirely, I think a 10-12 hour completion time is much more acceptable.

    You said all of this PERFECTLY and so much better than I could have. Everything else in the game has changed and they’re openly admitting to trying to balance timing issues, like someone else said with the dungeons coming in the last 2 weeks of the month to give time for event quest. AQ and war run constantly with a small window between cycles...if a group because of their build and time zones can’t fjnish it perfectly at 19 hours and have time to spare, their champs get no release time in between maps. If the AQ week ends and it’s hopefully on days or the weekend when they are free, they would then be able to use those champs for event quest content. Kabam has been adding content like gwenpool and boss rush and riffs and assassin assignments on top of normal event quests as well. The arguments for keeping the exact same map energy requirements with one hour timers and NO CHANGE POSSIBLE to either gets a bit more silly as the years go on. I’ve been here for over 3 years in this game and it’s growing at a content release and availability rate that doesn’t justify keeping AQ locked like that. Great arguments there.

    It's definitely a great argument, and while I like the idea, it doesn't necessarily fit with the design of a group event like AQ & AW are versus the single modes you are calling out above. In both modes, you're looking at approximately 20 hours spent moving together and working as a group to clear these modes, and the maps are designed the facilitate that length of time.

    While we could have shorter maps, or longer ones, or different timers, when it is a team design similar to this - I can see why there isn't a huge undertaking of change. They want it to be short enough that efficient moving rewards heroes being released earlier, but also give enough buffer time to allow for delays/timezones.

    For the alliances that have trouble completing it (it being AQ Map 5 in my example) because of multiple log ins - maybe they can benefit from a little better organization? After you've done it enough, you can usually estimate precisely when you need to log in and need to hop in to move 3, maybe 4 times in 24 hours. Often it's consistent times too. For example, I log in at 4:30pm EST to clear my lane in the first section (I fight through a noded fight, so I don't need to wait), then again at 9:30pm to clear my lane in the second section. Then, 8:30am the following morning, I move in and take a lane in the third section. Sometimes I hop back on at 10:30am to help do a boss kill. Often this very much coincides with other things I am logging in to do in game, including arena, AW, questing, etc.
  • VijayNemoVijayNemo Posts: 9
    Kabam,
    Can you please add an option to know the ally members energy level in AQ?
  • Nick_Caine_32Nick_Caine_32 Posts: 587 ★★★★
    edited August 2018
    If they did move the timers down to 30 minutes, they'd also (likely) have to massively increase the size of the maps themselves.

    There is no reason to lower timers and then increase the size of the map. That would mean Kabam disagrees that it takes too long to complete AQ and thus they wouldn't make the change to begin with. Changing timers is one of many solutions they could use but to lower completion time it would of course have to be without an increase in the size of the map. The whole idea here is to change the mindset of how long should it take to complete AQ with the current evolved state of the game. If we can't get past this idea of Kabam being so rigid with it's designs then nothing will ever change.
    Right now, with 30 minute timers in an active alliance, it's possible to clear Map 5 in 11-13 hours, give or take. I've done it many times with my alliance when we have those timers. That's not the intent, or the design of the map.

    Which is why I'm arguing that their intent and design needs to shift. I think a lot of the time people get stuck on this idea that the rules of AQ are set in stone because of how long it's been a certain way. However they could achieve it, whether it's lower timers, an increased energy cap, less paths, or something else entirely, I think a 10-12 hour completion time is much more acceptable.

    You said all of this PERFECTLY and so much better than I could have. Everything else in the game has changed and they’re openly admitting to trying to balance timing issues, like someone else said with the dungeons coming in the last 2 weeks of the month to give time for event quest. AQ and war run constantly with a small window between cycles...if a group because of their build and time zones can’t fjnish it perfectly at 19 hours and have time to spare, their champs get no release time in between maps. If the AQ week ends and it’s hopefully on days or the weekend when they are free, they would then be able to use those champs for event quest content. Kabam has been adding content like gwenpool and boss rush and riffs and assassin assignments on top of normal event quests as well. The arguments for keeping the exact same map energy requirements with one hour timers and NO CHANGE POSSIBLE to either gets a bit more silly as the years go on. I’ve been here for over 3 years in this game and it’s growing at a content release and availability rate that doesn’t justify keeping AQ locked like that. Great arguments there.

    It's definitely a great argument, and while I like the idea, it doesn't necessarily fit with the design of a group event like AQ & AW are versus the single modes you are calling out above. In both modes, you're looking at approximately 20 hours spent moving together and working as a group to clear these modes, and the maps are designed the facilitate that length of time.

    While we could have shorter maps, or longer ones, or different timers, when it is a team design similar to this - I can see why there isn't a huge undertaking of change. They want it to be short enough that efficient moving rewards heroes being released earlier, but also give enough buffer time to allow for delays/timezones.

    For the alliances that have trouble completing it (it being AQ Map 5 in my example) because of multiple log ins - maybe they can benefit from a little better organization? After you've done it enough, you can usually estimate precisely when you need to log in and need to hop in to move 3, maybe 4 times in 24 hours. Often it's consistent times too. For example, I log in at 4:30pm EST to clear my lane in the first section (I fight through a noded fight, so I don't need to wait), then again at 9:30pm to clear my lane in the second section. Then, 8:30am the following morning, I move in and take a lane in the third section. Sometimes I hop back on at 10:30am to help do a boss kill. Often this very much coincides with other things I am logging in to do in game, including arena, AW, questing, etc.

    I'm not sure if you're trying to infer that my group isn't organized enough, but that would make two responses you've done so far on this topic with condescending responses. Just because a group is having trouble on map 5 at ANY POINT in their history doesn't mean they are unorganized, and if having shorter timers didn't at least benefit someone or make this game mode go by faster and more efficiently, why does Kabam use it to "gift" players when they make errors or the servers go down? Why are there always threads about the possibility of changing it to 30 minutes? Why do people get excited when it happens? Did you miss the multiple long discussions even in recent months about this and the overwhelming response to change them? By your logic, if the game goes down for even an hour, there is no need for Kabam to ever reduce the timers - because technically the map was designed (how many years ago now) to be done in this long length and spread out to force people to do it that way. Why are they reducing it at all if groups are supposed to be perfect and even be able to finish if they're looking at a 19 hour window? You know it is possible to suggest changes on something your alliance isn't personally struggling with, or may have in the past but can feel bad for others dealing with it now?

    Some of us have what is called empathy. Some of us have been running map 5 for YEARS now and we are BORED. You can change the sentinels or you can change some of the nodes or you can change all this surface stuff - and yes, choosing different maps to run per battlegroup is a good change - but the rest of it hasn't really made it that much more exciting to keep running over and over for 5 days at a time! That's the whole point of asking about reduced timers or SOME kind of compromise. And I really wish, if you're gonna be the representative of either Kabam or the beta testers, that you would be a little more realistic and nuanced than "get good, get organized." My group was in expert tier all season, but even then if something comes up for more than one member in your group, you have VERY LITTLE wiggle room in each group and everyone MUST ALWAYS have their links down. You can only do so much on your end as an alliance leader or group leader, and to insinuate that those running map 5 ALL SEASON don't understand this, or need to take your advice on organizing better - and to use that as an excuse to brush of the conversation about shorter timers is just rude, to be honest. You also ignored every single one of the points I brought up and the person I responded to. It's an outdated game mode, even with the changes this is bringing. I hope in future changes Kabam can work on the balance between having a game mode where EVEN IF YOU PLAY PERFECT you have champs locked for five days in a row for 19 hours at a time or more, ON TOP of war, when you're worried about time balance in every other area of the game. This seems to be the common denominator, and if people want it and have been begging for it, and YOU REWARD THEM WHEN YOU MAKE ERRORS WITH IT, then maybe it deserves a look next time.

    Let me just say this too - I think those responding on here who did this beta need to ride a very fine line between answering questions, explaining your reasoning, and what happened in this beta - but you need to be respectful of others who are coming here and sharing THEIR experiences and what others they know who play this game for years are saying. Discounting or blowing off opinions because you personally don't agree or experience it on this thread makes me wonder just how much was actually accomplished in the beta itself, and makes me worried that any future content isn't going to ever have some of the long time asks from the community done, since it appears those running this program have already dismissed quite a few people on here simply stating their issues with this. Maybe think about that.
  • TriasEUTriasEU Posts: 73
    Idk how this whole alliance quest seasons works so my question is: " Do we get any rewards when the season ends?" I ask this question because I wanted to start a new alliance but don't want to mis out on rewards.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,218 ★★★★★
    edited August 2018
    TriasEU wrote: »
    Idk how this whole alliance quest seasons works so my question is: " Do we get any rewards when the season ends?" I ask this question because I wanted to start a new alliance but don't want to mis out on rewards.

    No, just the peak milestone rewards and the rank rewards at the end of each weekly AQ cycle.
  • TriasEUTriasEU Posts: 73
    Demonzfyre wrote: »
    TriasEU wrote: »
    Idk how this whole alliance quest seasons works so my question is: " Do we get any rewards when the season ends?" I ask this question because I wanted to start a new alliance but don't want to mis out on rewards.

    No, just the peak milestone rewards and the rank rewards at the end of each weekly AQ cycle.

    Thanks! I like forums :) so helpfull
  • Nick_Caine_32Nick_Caine_32 Posts: 587 ★★★★
    @Demonzfyre I actually listed a lot more reasons for them than boredom and if that's all you took from my posts then you missed something. And every thread including the large one on 30 minute timers brings up some very detailed and worthwhile reasons beyond just boredom. But if the intent is to change AQ aspects to encourage people to run higher maps or to try and address the boredom and monotony, as Kabam stated, this aspect of it and the time required is absolutely worth discussing.

    I really hope you in particular read what I said in that post and take it to heart. I often see you on here with a very combative tone and generally pretty dismissive of people's opinions. You admitted you were in the beta testing, and you seem to want to answer people's questions on this thread and their concerns - but you don't speak for Kabam, and I think you could do well to maybe try and listen and let people voice their concerns, issues and wishes for future changes instead of dismissing them because you personally don't like them, or they don't bother you individually. If the beta worked like that, and it was not a place where ideas were given thought and considered and able to be expressed, then I wonder how much of this was Kabam's original idea and how much you all influenced at all. Please try to understand what I'm saying and remember that just because something doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it's not valid (which I also pointed out to Aria as well on here), or that you can't try to understand and empathize with them. If boredom isn't a reason to look at reduced timers, why is it a valid reason to do these changes and why did Kabam say that in this post announcement? What other content in the game locks people's champions for 5 days in a row for up to 19+ hours? Even war requires less time and uses less energy on the maps. It's a valid discussion to have and if people aren't going to be allowed to bring their ideas and concerns up on here then i'm not sure why we're even having a discussion at all.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,218 ★★★★★
    @Demonzfyre I actually listed a lot more reasons for them than boredom and if that's all you took from my posts then you missed something. And every thread including the large one on 30 minute timers brings up some very detailed and worthwhile reasons beyond just boredom. But if the intent is to change AQ aspects to encourage people to run higher maps or to try and address the boredom and monotony, as Kabam stated, this aspect of it and the time required is absolutely worth discussing.

    I really hope you in particular read what I said in that post and take it to heart. I often see you on here with a very combative tone and generally pretty dismissive of people's opinions. You admitted you were in the beta testing, and you seem to want to answer people's questions on this thread and their concerns - but you don't speak for Kabam, and I think you could do well to maybe try and listen and let people voice their concerns, issues and wishes for future changes instead of dismissing them because you personally don't like them, or they don't bother you individually. If the beta worked like that, and it was not a place where ideas were given thought and considered and able to be expressed, then I wonder how much of this was Kabam's original idea and how much you all influenced at all. Please try to understand what I'm saying and remember that just because something doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it's not valid (which I also pointed out to Aria as well on here), or that you can't try to understand and empathize with them. If boredom isn't a reason to look at reduced timers, why is it a valid reason to do these changes and why did Kabam say that in this post announcement? What other content in the game locks people's champions for 5 days in a row for up to 19+ hours? Even war requires less time and uses less energy on the maps. It's a valid discussion to have and if people aren't going to be allowed to bring their ideas and concerns up on here then i'm not sure why we're even having a discussion at all.

    @Nick_Caine_32 we are going to have to agree to disagree. There is a counter to each argument presented and we can argue all day on who is right and who is wrong. I don't agree with 30 min timers because of the pressure it puts on players to finish faster and be logged in. Your counter is that the map is done quicker. Ok cool but I don't want to be under that pressure. Response to that would be- don't play aq. Which works against you as it does for you.
    As for real life, as I stated, I have a real life as much as anyone. I have 2 jobs and work 60+ hours a week. I have 2 kids as well who I am responsible for. I know about real life yet, with 1 hour timers I find it easier to have 5 energy, spend it in a few fights and them be done for 5 hours. Now I don't have to rush to make dinner or rush through their home work etc.. Where with 30 min timers there is pressure to move faster and get the map done and what not.

    So whos right in this situation? Am I right? Are you right? Yes there is support from it. Does Kabam know that some of the player base wants it, of course they do. Are they sticking with 1 hour timers just to make you mad? No, they aren't. The map design itself was made to be completed in 24 hours, every 24 hours for 5 days. It's not a race to finish first or anything like that. You want 30 min timers and that's cool. I'll respect that opinion but you don't seem to have much respect for people who don't see the merit in keep 1 hour timers.

    War doesn't require "less time". There are more shared paths that allow for less energy. There are tons of wars that go down to wire because they are waiting on people to move or other reasons. You get the same amount of energy to move in AW as AQ.

    As for the rest of your statement, what we were given was a "almost completed" version of AQ5. As the announcement stated, there were limitations since this was the very first time they have done it this way. We didn't get to test the AQ functions but were just able to offer feedback, ask for clarification and help organize the official announcement. But, because they are going to do more regular updates, this doesn't mean they can't use our feedback in a later iteration. One thing the community has asked for is being able to assign players to a BG so that no one messes up. Myself and another contributor both asked to see if this would be a possibility in this type of game mode. I can see that if a alliance does 3/5/5 that a player who is supposed to be in 3, may join 5 and mess up the balance. This forum is littered with posts about players joining the wrong BG.

    I won't address the somewhat personal attack in your last statement to say that I tried to take what the community seems important into this new thing they are doing because that is what I consider myself as. I'm not a youtuber like Brian Grant (he admitted in his video that he participated) or those types. I am not a wordsmith like some of the other big contributors either or have their expertise in a lot of things. I'm a regular guy who wants this game to succeed as much as anyone but I try and see issues from all sides and understand the root of the problem vs wanting to burn everything down because an issue comes up.

    If you want to continue the conversation you can PM and I'll give you my discord name or we can discuss through PM here. I do not want to derail this thread.

  • This is not the place for this conversation. This thread is for the discussion of Season 5 of Alliance Quests, and any further posts that are off topic or are deemed aggressive will be deleted, and infractions/warnings will be applied.
  • I can't remember in the short story that I read, but was KP going to have his sig ability?
  • V1PER1987V1PER1987 Posts: 3,474 ★★★★★
    Werewrym wrote: »
    I can't remember in the short story that I read, but was KP going to have his sig ability?

    Yes since it’s not as punishing as Dormammu’s.
  • V1PER1987 wrote: »
    Werewrym wrote: »
    I can't remember in the short story that I read, but was KP going to have his sig ability?

    Yes since it’s not as punishing as Dormammu’s.

    Meh... won't change much I suppose.
  • Al_AhadHKGNAl_AhadHKGN Posts: 126
    Where is IMIW is hiding ?
  • Nick_Caine_32Nick_Caine_32 Posts: 587 ★★★★
    This is not the place for this conversation. This thread is for the discussion of Season 5 of Alliance Quests, and any further posts that are off topic or are deemed aggressive will be deleted, and infractions/warnings will be applied.

    So is there another thread for discussion on things that weren't addressed in this update, that we can hope for in future updates of AQ? I thought timers was on topic and was upset they weren't changed in this, as well as map costs overall. Please let me know if there's somewhere else where this discussion is taking place as I would love to share my opinion.
  • becauseicantbecauseicant Posts: 392 ★★★
    edited August 2018
    @Demonzfyre I have no intentions of starting an argument here, but I'm curious to ask you about this topic in a different way. If you read some of my comments you'll see that I don't focus on 30 min timers as the ultimate solution but rather as one of the many things Kabam might look at to solve this issue that many players have (that AQ takes too long from start to finish and hasn't changed to mesh well with the new level of content present in the game). First, ignoring timers completely, would you agree that the issue exists? Maybe not for you as a primary concern but at least as something that affects some portion of the playerbase? Then to follow that, if there was some solution or change to AQ that could reduce the amount of time it takes to complete from start to finish that didn't also increase the pressure on you to play so much all at once would that interest you and/or be an acceptable change?

    I think a lot of the time people get stuck on 30 min timers as the only way to fix this problem since it's something that we've experienced and can point to and be like "this is much better! just do this!". Unfortunately this causes arguments because it might not be the best solution for everyone.

    Ultimately the goal is to communicate with Kabam that many of us have an issue with AQ's design and are disappointed that nothing related to that issue was discussed in the largest update to AQ that we've seen in a long time. This thread and this update is the perfect time to address this issue and hopefully @Kabam Miike or another member of the team can give us some insights into whether they agree with us or at least understand what we're having issue with. Once that's been established we can start looking at the plethora of ways that this issue could be solved. Whether it's energy timers, energy limits, ways to gain energy, linked node functionality, path length, mini boss design, or something entirely new there has to be a way to make AQ a better experience for everyone.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,218 ★★★★★
    @becauseicant I won't comment here on that. Its not part of the update and I dont want to dilute the thread further. If you want, please feel free to PM me.
  • LurkerLurker Posts: 196
    25-75-25 does increase the overall cost of AQ no matter how you calc the donation split (all 30 or just your bg) and worse, map 5 gold return doesn't return as much. The best example to highlight this is a group doing 5x5 currently but wanting to try 1 group of map6.

    The map 5 cost is 75% but returns 66% of what it used to and map 6 returns nothing.

    The cost is still prohibitive of trying map6.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,218 ★★★★★
    Lurker wrote: »
    25-75-25 does increase the overall cost of AQ no matter how you calc the donation split (all 30 or just your bg) and worse, map 5 gold return doesn't return as much. The best example to highlight this is a group doing 5x5 currently but wanting to try 1 group of map6.

    The map 5 cost is 75% but returns 66% of what it used to and map 6 returns nothing.

    The cost is still prohibitive of trying map6.

    Well it's 25/50/25. That might effect your calculations.
  • Spurgeon14Spurgeon14 Posts: 1,454 ★★★
    Shaun01 wrote: »
    Imo, if every member of the alliance receive the points, rewards, and crystals from every map played in AQ then the costs should be evenly shared as well.

    Yeah, but Kabam can't make every member in your alliance pay. They aren't the government. Lol

  • I have a question about how prestige rises and falls in this new system.

    Currently, we generally have only two battle groups fill up. Occasionally, a couple people will join BG3, but not always. Because that group doesn’t get cleared, we lose a little bit of prestige.

    In the new system, we have to decide from the get-go whether to open 2 or 3 groups, as a third can’t be opened later. Choosing two automatically excludes members, which isn’t super great for our style of alliance. Say we opened 3, to have the option just in case, but no one ends up joining the third one. Does it count as a lost group that causes a loss in prestige? Or will it only go down if someone joins it?

    I hope this makes sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.