DNA3000 wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out. Hypothetically speaking, Kabam could take the players' psychology out of the equation. Instead of using high costs to step progress they could put alliances on rails. They could limit alliances to no more than one Map 7 per week, no matter how much resources they have. Then six months later they could increase that limit to two. Then they could look at resource earning averages and if those supported it they could increase that limit to three. They could take the spending costs out of the player's hands and put everyone on a max budget. No one would be allowed to push harder for more resources to unlock more Map 7s than anyone else, so there's no more rat race to push for higher donation spending. That creates the stepped progress you generally want to have, while also eliminating the possibility for players to push past reasonable limits. It also takes control out of the players' hands. That's not a coincidence. Burnout is a function of players given the opportunity to push higher than healthy. You eliminate burnout in only one of two ways. You make it impossible to push that high, or you make it worthless to push that high. This makes it impossible. We could also cap Map 7 rewards with throttles which would make it worthless to push too high. There are games that exist that do one or both of these. But are either of these a good idea?
BrianGrant wrote: » Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out.
Mh6bucks wrote: » @Kabam Miike it’s good to hear you guys are addressing the purchasing of map cost resources from bots and the like. I gather from this release that 7x5 every week isn’t the intention for nearly any alliance, as legitimately farming those resources is almost impossible. But similar to AW, the significant increase in rewards for finishing at the top incentivizes some to break the rules. If any alliances are buying resources from bots, those playing fairly will never be able to compete. Have you given any thought to adjusting the rewards from arena grinding so the cost can be achieved by those willing to invest reasonable time? If the answer is “no”, then when can we expect Kabam to level the playing field by punishing those alliances who gain an unfair advantage?
Kabam Miike wrote: » PandamanPete wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » It is steep, but it is not a typo! Map 7 is meant to be High Risk, High Reward and a pretty big investment to run! That's the thing; it's not a big investment to alliances that buy "donation drops" from 3rd party players. If these "black market donations" aren't addressed then there will be no legitimate alliances placing highly in AQ anymore We are working to address this behaviour. I don't have any details right now, and can't share much on what we're doing anyways, but we haven't forgotten about that.
PandamanPete wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » It is steep, but it is not a typo! Map 7 is meant to be High Risk, High Reward and a pretty big investment to run! That's the thing; it's not a big investment to alliances that buy "donation drops" from 3rd party players. If these "black market donations" aren't addressed then there will be no legitimate alliances placing highly in AQ anymore
Kabam Miike wrote: » It is steep, but it is not a typo! Map 7 is meant to be High Risk, High Reward and a pretty big investment to run!
SummonerNR wrote: » For those only running MAP-5 and Below... Will anything be done to allow Leaders to refund Treasury Battlechips back to members since there is 0 cost to run Map-5 now ? Or possibly just make that a feature Leaders can do for any of the 3 Treasury accounts (if an alliance has built up an over abundance). Allow disbursement EVENLY to all members of XX amount of a category ? Or would this cause problems with higher alliances who have been getting “outside donations” from 5-minute members (“dark treasury”), and be an unintended way for them to skirt the spirit of fairplay ? Maybe if it were only applicable to Battlechips (the “free” category for 5 and below) it would avoid the higher problem (which seems limited more to Loyalty costs). ALSO, just to clarify.. Does the GLOBAL CLASS BUFF boost apply to our own attackers, or does that apply to the Map Defenders, or to EVERYONE (attackers and defenders alike) ?
Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » When map 6 was introduced it was repeatedly sold to us on the concept that it was not intended to be ran every day. However it did not provide a reason not to run it every day for those trying to get the highest rewards. Many alliances ran a day or two to allow them to get t4cc every other week. But a few, and even more now do 6x5. So if there isn't a difficulty barrier to 7x5 then it will be ran by the top alliances. Money gating the donations will force out free to play players. If that happens I expect you to no longer market this as a free game.
BrianGrant wrote: » Putting a hard limit taking control away from players is one option. Increasing the ramp up in difficulty is another.
It's impossible to completely get rid of the burnout while adding difficulty, but for example, lower the AQ entry cost, but sell items for players that need it. Sell AQ energy refills (without increasing the time needed to naturally get through the map). Sell an item that brings you back to the start of the map so that you can cover for someone who needs the night off of AQ or if you took the wrong path by accident. Sell AQ specific boosts. And if these items costs too much, then players need to work harder on their fighting skills, their organization skills, and time management.
BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout. Somewhat yeah. But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct. 77666 is less donos. 77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs. 77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold. And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold. Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced. I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts. At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion. While the loyalty costs to run 7x5 are beyond what an individual can earn in a week. I have to ask are you opening your war crystals? They contain a significant amount of loyalty which would make your loyalty rate artificially low. What are other loyalty expenditures you’ve had in the past? Should it be 7x5 and war boosts? Could it be 7x5 or war boosts? Or like all areas of the game (most games), if you want to do everything you’re going to need a lot of time or money. Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out.
CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout. Somewhat yeah. But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct. 77666 is less donos. 77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs. 77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold. And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold. Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced. I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts. At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion. While the loyalty costs to run 7x5 are beyond what an individual can earn in a week. I have to ask are you opening your war crystals? They contain a significant amount of loyalty which would make your loyalty rate artificially low. What are other loyalty expenditures you’ve had in the past? Should it be 7x5 and war boosts? Could it be 7x5 or war boosts? Or like all areas of the game (most games), if you want to do everything you’re going to need a lot of time or money.
BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout. Somewhat yeah. But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct. 77666 is less donos. 77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs. 77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold. And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold. Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced. I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts. At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion.
CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout. Somewhat yeah. But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct. 77666 is less donos. 77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs. 77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold. And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold. Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced.
BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout.
CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000.
BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double.
RagamugginGunner wrote: » They're pushing to get end game p2f players out. They want the rewards and costs high enough that people will pay to get them. Making the end game easy without having to spend doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint.
DNA3000 wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Putting a hard limit taking control away from players is one option. Increasing the ramp up in difficulty is another. Increasing the ramp up difficulty isn't a solution. It is converting the problem from one thing into another even more problematic thing. You can make content more or less difficult, but difficulty is extremely tricky to use as a progress gate all by itself. You generally find that you're surrounding difficulty with other resource-based gates, and then you're farming resources again. You mention this yourself: It's impossible to completely get rid of the burnout while adding difficulty, but for example, lower the AQ entry cost, but sell items for players that need it. Sell AQ energy refills (without increasing the time needed to naturally get through the map). Sell an item that brings you back to the start of the map so that you can cover for someone who needs the night off of AQ or if you took the wrong path by accident. Sell AQ specific boosts. And if these items costs too much, then players need to work harder on their fighting skills, their organization skills, and time management. This eliminates entry costs and replaces them with booster-like costs. And this presumes that the difficulty ramp up is high enough to actually make those boosts all but mandatory. If it isn't, then this sneakily replaces the gate with a turnstile that skilled enough players can simply pass through unimpeded. And then it is no longer gated progress. The ultimate problem with making difficulty a true progress gate is that all progress gates don't exist in isolation: they are paired with the means to eventually traverse them. If resource costs are the gate, then ways to earn the resource are the method of traversing them. If you try to eliminate excessive farming and replace that with difficulty then the question becomes how do you engineer difficulty so that it functions properly? Some people will just happen to be able to "skill" their way past that difficulty gate, while others might find it basically impossible. Some might say that's perfectly fine, but then all you're really saying is that the game developer shouldn't actually be trying to manage progress; just make an obstacle course and if the players shoot through it, whatever. But that's simply not how games like this are managed. You can suggest it, but no one will ever take the suggestion. As someone that I think has excellent meta-gaming resource management skills, can you think of a specific gating hurdle that 4Loki would be able to get past once, maybe twice a week, but would settle for that and wouldn't try to get past every single day, if not in week one than as quickly as possible? Because if you and your alliance would make every attempt to get past the gate as quickly as possible, and presumably so would all other top alliances, then the gate either becomes ineffective or just as much as source of burn out as anything else.
Kabam DK wrote: » We briefly mention it in the post, but Map 6 will now reward up to 7,000 Gold per Battlegroup completion. Map 5 will still award Battlechips but since it no longer costs any, you'll end up in a net positive amount of Battlechips by running Map 5
CoatHang3r wrote: » Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » When map 6 was introduced it was repeatedly sold to us on the concept that it was not intended to be ran every day. However it did not provide a reason not to run it every day for those trying to get the highest rewards. Many alliances ran a day or two to allow them to get t4cc every other week. But a few, and even more now do 6x5. So if there isn't a difficulty barrier to 7x5 then it will be ran by the top alliances. Money gating the donations will force out free to play players. If that happens I expect you to no longer market this as a free game. There are 52 weeks in a year and 46 AQ cycles in a year. Assuming tier 3 war (think it’s safe to say 7x5 will at least compete there) with a 50% win rate, 1000 loyalty per war crystal earned and other sources of loyalty like the help system and 1 day events. You’ll earn 2.09m loyalty a year and spend 2.3m loyalty on AQ. That’s a difference of 210k loyalty over the year or a 10% loyalty deficit. Is that deficit made up from sources unaccounted for (like free AQs) or larger than accounted for (like war down time)? Calling it a money gate is jumping the gun.
Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » When map 6 was introduced it was repeatedly sold to us on the concept that it was not intended to be ran every day. However it did not provide a reason not to run it every day for those trying to get the highest rewards. Many alliances ran a day or two to allow them to get t4cc every other week. But a few, and even more now do 6x5. So if there isn't a difficulty barrier to 7x5 then it will be ran by the top alliances. Money gating the donations will force out free to play players. If that happens I expect you to no longer market this as a free game. There are 52 weeks in a year and 46 AQ cycles in a year. Assuming tier 3 war (think it’s safe to say 7x5 will at least compete there) with a 50% win rate, 1000 loyalty per war crystal earned and other sources of loyalty like the help system and 1 day events. You’ll earn 2.09m loyalty a year and spend 2.3m loyalty on AQ. That’s a difference of 210k loyalty over the year or a 10% loyalty deficit. Is that deficit made up from sources unaccounted for (like free AQs) or larger than accounted for (like war down time)? Calling it a money gate is jumping the gun. You know as well as I do, that loyalty does not solely get used for AQ donations. Loyalty is also used for buying the class specific and alliance war specific boosts. For the players that are constantly taking the boss in order not to timeout they have to use every boost that they can. How is the free to play player expected to make their donations when they can't donate loyalty with units because the conversion badge is money gated?
CoatHang3r wrote: » Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » When map 6 was introduced it was repeatedly sold to us on the concept that it was not intended to be ran every day. However it did not provide a reason not to run it every day for those trying to get the highest rewards. Many alliances ran a day or two to allow them to get t4cc every other week. But a few, and even more now do 6x5. So if there isn't a difficulty barrier to 7x5 then it will be ran by the top alliances. Money gating the donations will force out free to play players. If that happens I expect you to no longer market this as a free game. There are 52 weeks in a year and 46 AQ cycles in a year. Assuming tier 3 war (think it’s safe to say 7x5 will at least compete there) with a 50% win rate, 1000 loyalty per war crystal earned and other sources of loyalty like the help system and 1 day events. You’ll earn 2.09m loyalty a year and spend 2.3m loyalty on AQ. That’s a difference of 210k loyalty over the year or a 10% loyalty deficit. Is that deficit made up from sources unaccounted for (like free AQs) or larger than accounted for (like war down time)? Calling it a money gate is jumping the gun. You know as well as I do, that loyalty does not solely get used for AQ donations. Loyalty is also used for buying the class specific and alliance war specific boosts. For the players that are constantly taking the boss in order not to timeout they have to use every boost that they can. How is the free to play player expected to make their donations when they can't donate loyalty with units because the conversion badge is money gated? You don’t need boosts to do those things, you choose to use boosts for those things so I cannot follow the argument that loyalty is required to do play AW. You haven’t shown 7x5 requires a conversion badge.
Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: » When map 6 was introduced it was repeatedly sold to us on the concept that it was not intended to be ran every day. However it did not provide a reason not to run it every day for those trying to get the highest rewards. Many alliances ran a day or two to allow them to get t4cc every other week. But a few, and even more now do 6x5. So if there isn't a difficulty barrier to 7x5 then it will be ran by the top alliances. Money gating the donations will force out free to play players. If that happens I expect you to no longer market this as a free game. There are 52 weeks in a year and 46 AQ cycles in a year. Assuming tier 3 war (think it’s safe to say 7x5 will at least compete there) with a 50% win rate, 1000 loyalty per war crystal earned and other sources of loyalty like the help system and 1 day events. You’ll earn 2.09m loyalty a year and spend 2.3m loyalty on AQ. That’s a difference of 210k loyalty over the year or a 10% loyalty deficit. Is that deficit made up from sources unaccounted for (like free AQs) or larger than accounted for (like war down time)? Calling it a money gate is jumping the gun. You know as well as I do, that loyalty does not solely get used for AQ donations. Loyalty is also used for buying the class specific and alliance war specific boosts. For the players that are constantly taking the boss in order not to timeout they have to use every boost that they can. How is the free to play player expected to make their donations when they can't donate loyalty with units because the conversion badge is money gated? You don’t need boosts to do those things, you choose to use boosts for those things so I cannot follow the argument that loyalty is required to do play AW. You haven’t shown 7x5 requires a conversion badge. The people not using those boosts do not stay in tier one alliance war, they are not in alliances competitive enough to attempt 7x5. Those boosts are required right now in alliance war at the highest end. The people who don't use them, don't stay in those alliances very long. Summoner's right now use the conversion badge just to be able to stay afloat with donation and boosts usage. Increasing that load is only going to make that more prevalent. There isn't a single person in tier one alliance war who isn't boosting.
Kabam Miike wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout. Somewhat yeah. But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct. 77666 is less donos. 77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs. 77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold. And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold. Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced. I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts. At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion. While the loyalty costs to run 7x5 are beyond what an individual can earn in a week. I have to ask are you opening your war crystals? They contain a significant amount of loyalty which would make your loyalty rate artificially low. What are other loyalty expenditures you’ve had in the past? Should it be 7x5 and war boosts? Could it be 7x5 or war boosts? Or like all areas of the game (most games), if you want to do everything you’re going to need a lot of time or money. Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out. You've brought up some really good points today, and I want to tell you that we've already started discussing your concerns here. I don't have any more to add than that right now, but just wanted you to know that we're not ignoring you or your concerns, and are going to discuss this more after we look into some stuff.
DocJC wrote: » Quite frankly why does it even cost anything to open maps? You are getting your money from pots regardless. You want to know why there’s a black market? Because Kabam made it that way. Kabam is the only one making the divide. Every single alliance should be able to play map 7 if they wanted. Map costs should never have been a deterring factor to begin with. Difficulty and organization to run the map should be the only factor to whether an alliance can complete a map. That Kabam has put in these ridiculous map costs to begin with is something I’m shocked more people don’t push back on. It’s ridiculous.
DocJC wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » CoatHang3r wrote: » BrianGrant wrote: » Is the loyalty cost a typo by any chance? It's not just a small increase from what alliances who are currently running 6x5 are paying, it's nearly double. Current 6x5 is 34,000 and 7x5 is 50,000. That’s about 50% though. Dunno if ya’ll dip from extras or account for the 8day cycle and 7day week of donations to Reduce the cost to 28,000. Yeah I was doing the math in my head instead of looking at the charts which is why I said nearly double. But a 50% increase is still too much for a resource that isn't farmable. This is just leading to less fun and more burnout. Somewhat yeah. But here is something else to think about when comparing to 6x5. *Assuming the numbers and sheets i have are correct. 77666 is less donos. 77766 is +5k loyalty, less BCs. 77776 is +10k loyalty, less BCs, +100k gold. And 77777 is +16k loyalty, same BCs and +166k gold. Looking at it from there the increased costs are mostly in running 7 on the final 2 days which would be going harder on map 7 than almost all allies did when map 6 was introduced. I understand what you are saying. I'm sure Kabam thought the same thing with these changes. But at the end of the day, it's way more efficient to farm up resources on an alt to cover the costs and just run 77777 than sacrifice map 7 days. Running all map 6 has been fine without making an alt, but my loyalty is at a stand still. It doesn't go up, doesn't go down, and that's with occasionally skipping out on the 3 minute boosts. At the end of the day it will all be possible to do, and do legitimately, but is it healthy for the game? Not in my opinion. While the loyalty costs to run 7x5 are beyond what an individual can earn in a week. I have to ask are you opening your war crystals? They contain a significant amount of loyalty which would make your loyalty rate artificially low. What are other loyalty expenditures you’ve had in the past? Should it be 7x5 and war boosts? Could it be 7x5 or war boosts? Or like all areas of the game (most games), if you want to do everything you’re going to need a lot of time or money. Well my loyalty is going down really. I counted the loyalty from the unopened crystals in the equation of loyalty evening out. But the updated costs don't lead me to make interesting choices between AW and AQ, it leads me to just make an alt so I can do both. And with the biggest source of loyalty coming from War, it hurts alliances who would prefer to just focus on AQ. Conceptually I understand the changes and why they were made, but it pushes burnout more than it pushes fun in my opinion. I think Kabam can do a better job at moving the game forward in a way that doesn't burn players out. You've brought up some really good points today, and I want to tell you that we've already started discussing your concerns here. I don't have any more to add than that right now, but just wanted you to know that we're not ignoring you or your concerns, and are going to discuss this more after we look into some stuff. @Kabam Miike You guys said the same thing last time map costs were brought up. You still haven’t addressed the original reason why Map 6 costs were so high (which has since been eliminated). There is no reason Map 7 costs should be this exhorbitant. Like I pointed out earlier, if the Kabam team actually takes the time to see how much the cost per map translates to time, you will realize it is not close to reasonable. It’s about time Kabam actually does something that’s for the player base. You won’t reduce energy timers for whatever reason. You keep ramping up the difficulty for AW. Now you are raising map costs again with no discernible reasoning. If you want us all to just quit the game, you are doing a fantastic job of it because that’s where all these changes are leading to. This is not ok. Brian Grant May be way more diplomatic, but where has that gotten anyone in the community? After speaking with quite a few of the other leaders of the top 10-15 alliances, this is pretty much a common sentiment. Player burnout is at an all time high. Just today 3 alliances have broken up including the one that got #1 in gifting. If you continue to go down this path, you will reap what you sow. Sincerely, Doc JC Leader ISO8A PS - Pay attention to your player base before it’s too late.
