**UPDATES TO ENLISTMENT GIFTING EVENT:**
To prevent exploitation, we will prevent new Accounts from being able to Gift enlistment crystals. We will also be taking action on those who are using 3rd Party Sellers, Bots and other farms to gift themselves mass amounts of Enlistment Crystals. Lastly, we will be adding an expiration timer to Enlistment Crystals. All unopened Enlistment Crystals will expire on Oct 18 @ 17:00 UTC. For more information, please see this post: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/346104/updates-to-enlistment-gifting-event
To prevent exploitation, we will prevent new Accounts from being able to Gift enlistment crystals. We will also be taking action on those who are using 3rd Party Sellers, Bots and other farms to gift themselves mass amounts of Enlistment Crystals. Lastly, we will be adding an expiration timer to Enlistment Crystals. All unopened Enlistment Crystals will expire on Oct 18 @ 17:00 UTC. For more information, please see this post: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/346104/updates-to-enlistment-gifting-event
**KNOWN ISSUE**
We have adjusted the node placement of the new AW maps to better allow path traversal. As a result, defender placements have been reset. Please, take a moment to re-place your defender setup. We will be pushing out a message in-game shortly.
We have adjusted the node placement of the new AW maps to better allow path traversal. As a result, defender placements have been reset. Please, take a moment to re-place your defender setup. We will be pushing out a message in-game shortly.
Comments
Guess you haven’t been paying attention. The map costs have been the exact same for 2 years now while Kabam has repeatedly ignored it despite saying that they were only high because they didn’t expect anyone to actually play the map often. That’s a verbatim quote from them. Then they said they would look into it about a year ago and evaluate it.
So a year later...it’s the same exact rhetoric by Kabam. What happened this time? THEY INCREASED MAP 7 costs.
Battle chips required - 270+ arena fights per week
Loyalty cost - Can’t be accumulated in a week.
Gold cost - Pop an Odin of crystals and sell the iso.
People need to actually sit down and look at the cost required to open a map. Then add in the cost that map 7 will require in not only time and potions given what we saw from the Beta.
It’s not too much to ask for Kabam to actually care about it’s player base and reevaluate something that has been an issue for YEARS. The community has constantly been ignored about reducing the aq/aw timers.
Enough is enough.
Maybe Kabam should realize that there’s only a black market for resources because it has made this game unplayable otherwise.
Map 7 is being introduced, so you mean they increased AQ costs? If you mean AQ costs not really as costs were reduced, yea they increased those costs in one area but only under very specific circumstances. It is now more expensive to run the end game map 5 days a week. However it is less expensive to run 77666 which is more than the overwhelming majority with be running. Possibly even some of those thinking 77777.
Do you mean fights or rounds? Either way that’s not accurate. You can earn 84k BC a week playing in the 5* arena over 166 rounds using 5 stars when you include the milestones. ~19.5k from the milestones which leaves 64.5k which takes ~166 rounds (498 fights 130bc per fight).
The loyalty deficit only shows up with 77766 and beyond.
I find this to actually be accurate people need to sit down and look at the cost in light of the fact people are claiming AQ is more expensive.
They reduced the cost of AQ unless you want to run the extreme and even then only the very extreme 7777+. AW timers were reduced btw.
If you want better rewards, you must pay more. It's common sense
With all due respect, some of the Event Quest rewards are over 2 years old. In fact, the Solo Event rewards are also old. Do you have any plans to change these?
1- panda was never in fnx or any of the allis that fnx people went to.
2- that screenshot shows a player's alt acct, which was donating. Whether or not you think that's ok is up to you.. But it's not what people who post it are making it out to be. The funny part is they know that but they keep posting it because they know what people will think. Kind of a pathetic move imo, but stuff happens.
3- there's not THAT many honest players at the top. I'm not in that alli, but it does suck to see people trying to bash an honest guy that's done nothing wrong. Basically, you're being played w the pic. Congrats!
I believe it’s based on class relationships. For example, if the big boost is cosmic, the lesser boost will be mystic, and the decrement will be tech. The lesser boost seems to be the advantage to the class of the big boost and the decrement seems to be the disadvantage to the big boost. But mods can confirm.
I think with Map 7, the energy cap should increase to 10. AQ is supposed to be skill oriented but by increasing the cap it won't affect that aspect. It would likely reduce burnout by a lot of top alliance and reduce incentive for players to pilot.
@TyEdge ^^^ This is correct. It will always work along the Class wheel.
We definitely heard this feedback, and made some minor adjustments to him to double down on the "bring a heal block Champion" strategy without making him harder (see notes in the original post). When looking at the average fight times on Omega Red, we found that while some characters risk timing out against him, others perform very well, and can down him in under 2 minutes. Map 7 is focused on encouraging alternative strategies and underused or forgotten Champions. A great option for Omega, for example, is Proxima Midnight.
Long story short: we have maintained 3 minute timers in all but 4 fights in Map 7. Those 4 fights appear before the first Mini Boss and the FINAL Boss:
These fights are using 15 minute timers because of the Nodes on them. Having said all that, we'll be closely monitoring the time it takes people to complete different fights.
Small edit: those Nodes should NOT take you the full 15 minutes, but they will take longer than 3 minutes. The 15 minutes is just to make darn sure you have enough time.
@Kabam DK Very cool you guys were receptive to Map 7 Beta testing feedback. On Day 5 that 2nd Omega Miniboss had some intense regeneration, as much as 8K+ per tick. Like you said, Proxima Midnight did quite well against Map 7's Omega miniboss:
That would also stop people from using legitimate alternate accounts to donate. Honestly though the real problem isn't black market donations. The problem is milestones that clearly expect alliances to run 6x5 and now map 7 and prohibitive map costs with no way to farm loyalty.
I don't think it is impossible, it just might be a bit difficult. However, I thought about this more yesterday and I have the germ of an idea that probably doesn't work as stated, but might be able to be sledgehammered into working with modifications and it doesn't require building a lot of new systems.
Suppose that running Map 7 and completing it 100% earned an alliance a discount on Map 6. Say what? So here's how this would work. An alliance wants to start doing Map 7. The logical way to initially run Map 7 is on day one when it is the easiest. So you front the costs of Map 7 which are huge. But then if you complete it 100%, your next Map 6 costs way less. In that way, running 76666 means your first Map 6 will cost less, and the combination of running Map 7 and then Map 6 ends up costing less than it does now by some amount. It still costs more than running Map 6 twice, but not as much as it does now.
If you have more resources, you can try running 77666. You would get two discounts on your first two Map 6 runs, in effect costing you the total of 7+6 twice, and then one more Map 6. Eventually you could move up to 77766, whereupon you are shouldering the burden of two sets of 7+6, and then one full cost Map 7. *Or* you could try to do 67766 which costs the same amount as 77666 but earns more points. Eventually you could do 66677 which also costs the same amount but earns more points (assuming the Map 6 "discount token" carries over into future weeks).
Alliances could, depending on skill level, aim for later Map 7s (which are more difficult) or more Map 7s (which are more expensive). A high skill alliance might do 66677 while a lower skill alliance with more resources might do 77766. All of this is on the path to eventually doing 7x5, but in stages. And there's more than one linear path to get there.
Is something like this workable?
They are all already buying dumps getting ready for map 7
The question isn't whether the account is legitimate, it is whether the game considers it reasonable for accounts other than the ones that are actually running the maps to be funding the maps in the general case. No game attempts to address every little corner case: Kabam has stated in many places that they consider it entirely fair for players with multiple accounts to do things like gift each other stuff. That's probably considered reasonable not because they believe that behavior is intrinsically and automatically fair, but rather because they see no evidence that freedom is being abused in a way that would force them to take action. Like most things in most games, its fair until its a problem.
But it is never a valid thing to say that because a reward exists, the game encourages everyone to do everything possible to achieve it. My alliance is never going to finish Master 1 unless we cheat. Does that mean the game encourages us to cheat? Rhetorical question: it does not. You're supposed to accept that some costs aren't fundable and some rewards aren't achievable within reasonable play at a particular moment in time.
Any *reasonable* game designer always designs their reward tables to extend *beyond* what is likely to be achievable at the time, because if you don't then your players could run into the end of the table, which you don't always want them to do. You want to give them something to work towards, and by definition something to work towards is something not achievable today.
Obviously having someone else grind a second account for you is account sharing and against the rules. Maybe you can't stop donation dumps without also stopping legit alternate accounts from donating, but I don't see anything wrong with using an alt to donate to your main. You say that secondary accounts are not meant to feed a main account. According to what? That's not meant rhetorically and I'm not saying you are wrong, but simply saying that secondary accounts aren't meant to be used that way doesn't make it so. If I play two accounts and one is in an alliance that doesn't need donations, what's wrong with using that account to donate to my alliance that does need donations?
Donation dumping is not the same as gifting items from a second account which is a reasonable thing to do, because if you buy the badge its up to you who you gift to, but having the second account in the alliance for 5 minutes to dump all their resources (BC and Loyalty) is totally unfair play and even more unfair when its from the black market
Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way as it's always a little more difficult to sound respectful over text, but I think there may be a more elegant solution to the problem. I don't have the answer myself, but honestly I still don't think alliances running 7x5 is a problem. AQ is only one area of the game. I think it's fine to allow a group of dedicated individuals to conquer 7x5 just like it's fine for players to conquer any other area of the game. Beating 7x5 doesn't end the game for that group. But I want 7x5 conquered because players strategized together, honed their skills, sacrificed AW rank ups, and sacrificed bringing their A team to a season war because they needed it for Map 7. All of these things (and more) already have big costs associated with them. High time investment and important decision making are still very much so intact without making the donations as steep as they are.
The simplest solution to any problem is to decide there's no need to solve the problem. If Kabam decides to toss the progressional management handbook out the window, this becomes trivial to solve. Just make the costs smaller the end.
I'm unaware of any successful attempt by anyone to convince Kabam to do this, but I suppose there's always a first time.
Hell you only use 2 top attackers as it is for your path and could sometimes just use 1...
There are only a handful of alliances that could do it and yours is one of them.
Kabam are making it so a broader base can compete, they will just have to make a sacrifice for the time being.
Why is a prepared, organized alliance supposed to be penalized again? Just because your alliance doesn’t put in the same amount of time and prep?
That’s ridiculous.
If you want to compete, then compete.
In that end Kabam should reduce map costs completely, which puts everyone on equal footing. But they don’t, why? Maybe you should ask the mods for an actual answer vs. fighting among the rest of the community.
Again, the problem lies completely with Kabam and their unreasonable, unjustified amount of donations needed to run the upcoming map 7. They have continually skirted the question and fail to give concrete answers or reasons for the map costs. All that the community does is fight amongst themselves instead of looking at the real problem.
And you all accept it which is even worse.
The only time anything concrete has ever been resolved is when mass social media has put pressure on Kabam to solve an issue or not make a change.
AW has already broken many of the top alliances this week. Just wait till map 7 comes out with the associated increased cost and minimal increase in rewards.